Regrettably, the standard of the examination papers received was very low this year, although there was one outstanding paper. It appears that the students may not have sufficient knowledge of wide ranging syllabus and did not provide sufficient detail in their answers. It is necessary to have a thorough understanding of the subjects and to apply such knowledge when practical questions arise, which reflect the problems encountered in shipping law.
Question
1
The main element of a satisfactory answer was to discuss the three major purposes of the bills of lading, namely (a) receipt for the goods (b) good evidence of a contract of carriage and (c) a document of title in the sense that it passes from holder to holder and right to obtain delivery up of the cargo from the ship at the port of delivery of the cargo. However, the students generally did not give any case law, which was specifically requested in the question. In general, however, the majority of the students gave a well-reasoned essay expanding on the above points.
Question
2
This practical question tested the students’ knowledge and their ability to apply their knowledge to the practical scenario. The students were asked to consider whether the vessel was un-seaworthy by reason of the engine breakdown. Alternatively, whether the Charters could place the vessel off-hire under Clause 15 of the NYPE Charter. One aspect was whether the engine breakdown or the attack by the pirates caused the loss of time and what was the actual loss of time. Another aspect was general average. Students should not shy away from practical questions as if they understand the subject then good marks can be obtained.
Question
3
This question was aimed at the consideration as to whether the berth at Buenos Aires was safe or not and consideration of case law would give good marks. The students were also asked to consider the question of salvage, the amount of salvage and the possibility of general average. This was straight-forward salvage and it was not necessary to give an discussion as to Article 14. A couple of students seemed to confuse the regime under a Time Charter as opposed to a Voyage Charter, which is a fundamental mistake.
Question
4
This question was in several parts. One aspect was whether the Charterers could deduct sums from freight pursuant to the cargo retention clause, alternatively if they have title to sue to bring a shortage claim. As the Charterers ordered the vessel to wait outside the port, the Owners could have brought a claim for damages for detention if the vessel was not an arrived ship, alternatively demurrage. As there was a breach of the pumping warranty, the Charterers could deduct sums from demurrage, provided the shore facilities permitted discharge within 24 hours. Following disconnection of hoses the vessel was delayed due to various surveyors attending the vessel and again the Owners could have claimed damages for detention if they were not at fault. If the students addressed the various points then good marks were obtained.
Question
5
This was a classic essay question, which addressed three points, namely the advantages/disadvantages of mediation, arbitration with a sole arbitrator and High Court proceedings. This involved questions of costs, expertise the difficulty in agreeing a sole arbitrator, the private and confidential nature of arbitration and the difference with High Court proceedings, which are more formal. Generally this question was answered well.
Question 6
This question involved the difference between limitation of liability under the 1957 Limitation Convention and the 1976 London Convention. It involved the difference in the scheme of limitation namely actual fault or privity in the 1957 Convention, compared to personal act or omission committed with the intent to cause such loss or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss could probably result under the 1976 Convention. The party that can limit their liability are also different. It was necessary to digress into other aspects.
Question 7
This classical question tested the students’ knowledge as to demurrage, particularly by reference to case law, such as the Mexico 1 and Petr Schmidt and the Kyzikos. It is necessary to consider whether it was a port or berth charter and whether the Notice of Readiness was valid being tendered outside of the hours stated in the Charterparty and whether it was valid because the holds were unclean at the load port. At the discharge port the cargo was over stowed and it was necessary to consider again whether Notice of Readiness was valid.
Question 8
In this question it was necessary to only address maritime liens, namely when they arise and how they are preferred over other types of lien. It was not necessary to waffle about how contractual, statutory or equitable lien arises. Any student must clearly address the actual question.
CONCLUSION
The marks of the students this year were disappointing.
