Ever Given the Legal Battle

[Pelagic]

This will be interesting to follow


Stranded container ship Ever Given, one of the world's largest container ships, after it ran aground, March 26. SCA/via REUTERS/File Photo

The owner of a container ship that blocked the Suez Canal in March says the canal authority was at fault over its grounding as it disputes the vessel's detention and a compensation claim, a lawyer representing the owner said on Saturday.
The Ever Given, one of the world's largest container ships, became jammed across the canal in high winds on March 23, and remained grounded for six days, blocking traffic in both directions and disrupting global trade.
The vessel has since been held in a lake between two stretches of the canal as the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) pursues a $916.5 million claim against Japanese owner Shoei Kisen.
An appeals chamber at Ismailia Economic Court held hearings on Saturday over the ship's detention, which the SCA is seeking to uphold following an appeal by the owner, as well as the SCA's financial claim.

Lawyers representing Shoei Kisen argued that the SCA had been at fault for allowing the ship to enter the waterway amid bad weather, Ahmed Abu Ali, a member of the legal team, told Reuters, adding that the authority failed to prove any fault by the ship.
Recordings from the ship that were presented to the court showed disagreements between SCA pilots and its control centre over whether it should enter the canal, Abu Ali said.
Lawyers for Shoei Kisen said the ship should have been accompanied by at least two tug boats suitable for the ship's size "but this didn't happen", he added.
The SCA did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but it has publicly denied being at fault.

Lawyers for Shoei Kisen also argued that the Ever Given's detention was legally flawed and that the work to release the ship was not "a salvage (operation) in the proper legal sense", meaning the SCA could not seek compensation for such an operation, Abu Ali said.
"This was one of the duties of the authority according to the traffic contract," he said.
Shoei Kisen is claiming $100,000 in initial compensation for losses related to its detention, he said.
The court was expected to issue a decision on the case on Sunday, lawyers and witnesses said.

Lawyers for Shoei Kisen also argued that the Ever Given's detention was legally flawed and that the work to release the ship was not "a salvage (operation) in the proper legal sense", meaning the SCA could not seek compensation for such an operation, Abu Ali said.
"This was one of the duties of the authority according to the traffic contract," he said.
Shoei Kisen is claiming $100,000 in initial compensation for losses related to its detention, he said.
The court was expected to issue a decision on the case on Sunday, lawyers and witnesses said.
Our Standards:*The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[JPA Cate]

Recordings from the ship that were presented to the court showed disagreements between SCA pilots and its control centre over whether it should enter the canal, Abu Ali said.

It may well come down to the exact words used....especially if the control center stated that they would need tugs under the prevailing conditions.

Ann

[RaymondR]

Many strange things happen in courts in that part of the world.

[Pelagic]

The pressure will be dramatically increased on SCA and Egypt to release the ship.

The total value of the cargo aboard Ever Given may be as much $1bn, according to industry estimates, so you will see a class action suit against Egypt for NOT allowing ship to sail if insururers were to post a reasonable bond under international standards and jurisdiction .

What Egypt is doing is basically piracy as the ship was on an international transit, no lives were lost and SCA was managing the transit.
They cannot hold the ship nor can their Egyptian Courts claim sole jurisdiction .

This will soon become political with sanctions against Egypt .

[LittleWing77]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The pressure will be dramatically increased on SCA and Egypt to release the ship.

The total value of the cargo aboard Ever Given may be as much $1bn, according to industry estimates, so you will see a class action suit against Egypt for NOT allowing ship to sail if insururers were to post a reasonable bond under international standards and jurisdiction.

What Egypt is doing is basically piracy as the ship was on an international transit, no lives were lost and SCA was managing the transit.

They cannot hold the ship nor can their Egyptian Courts claim sole jurisdiction.

This will soon become political with sanctions against Egypt.

Well, all your predictions during the EverGiven/ Suez Canal debacle were spot-on, so my money's on you again, Pelagic, for the escalations of the current fiasco...!

LittleWing77

[bobnlesley]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

...SCA was managing the transit...

This what I've been confused by all along. I'd assumed that the ship would've been under the 'command' of a Suez Canal Pilot and that getting it stuck was therefore their cock-up and liability; surely it is the Suez Canal Authority and/or Egyptian Government who owe the Ever Given's owners compensation, not the other way around? This smacks of a mechanic at the local garage crashing my car through their showroom window whilst driving it from the forecourt into their workshop and then claiming it's all my fault.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by bobnlesley

This smacks of a mechanic at the local garage crashing my car through their showroom window whilst driving it from the forecourt into their workshop and then claiming it's all my fault.

If your car hadn't been parked on the garage premises, then the damage wouldn't have occurred. The defence rests its case M'lud.

Meanwhile a little country called Belarus has just forced an international flight to land and surrender one of the passengers who is now on his way to the Gulag.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57239162

This is all getting a bit much, how is one supposed to travel around the world when even canals are blocked because people can't drive in a straight line and having been through it, you can't get much straighter than that canal.

[fschaefer4]

This reminds me of something from the Max Hardberger book "Seized".

Except it isn't some backwater banana republic...

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by bobnlesley

This what I've been confused by all along. I'd assumed that the ship would've been under the 'command' of a Suez Canal Pilot and that getting it stuck was therefore their cock-up and liability; surely it is the Suez Canal Authority and/or Egyptian Government who owe the Ever Given's owners compensation, not the other way around? This smacks of a mechanic at the local garage crashing my car through their showroom window whilst driving it from the forecourt into their workshop and then claiming it's all my fault.

I don't know how it works in the Suez Canal (but I'll bet it's the same as here). On Canada's west coast pilots advise, masters command. (my brother just retired after 30 years as a west coast pilot) In fact, the Pacific Pilotage Authority has produced a video for public consumption entitled "Master's Orders. Pilot's Advice":

https://www.marine-pilots.com/videos...on-from-canada

The pilot agreement with the ship is very clear: the master (captain) remains in command and has responsibility for the ship at all times. The pilot only "advises" the master and his crew as to what to do at any point in time. If you watch the video you will see the pilot issuing orders directly to the ship's crew. This is necessary in order to ensure timely responses to necessary navigational commands. You would think the pilot was assuming responsibility for the ship and its safe passage but he is not. The Master remains nominally and LEGALLY in command. Presumably he can overrule the pilot if he wishes. However, it rarely, if ever, happens.

The system is not fair. But if you wish to bring a ship into Canadian waters on the Pacific Coast, you sign the agreement. It reminds me of my experience at the Panama Canal. When you sign up for a passage you have to sign an agreement that states that your vessel is totally inadequate for the passage and that you assume ALL risks. Included in the agreement is a statement that your cleats and chocks are inadequate for the loads that may be placed upon them. Scorpius is a steel boat with welded in samson posts for cleats. You could pick her up with a crane hooked to any one of them. When I protested to the guy across the counter from me at the Panama Canal Authority he looked me in the eye and said "If you want to go through the canal, you sign. Otherwise you are welcome to go around". I signed. It's the same with the pilotage agreement.

If you want to see how it's done and see some spectacular footage of the BC coast, watch the video. There's some great footage of bringing a US aircraft carrier out of Vancouver to the open Pacific. The "Ever Glamour", a sister ship of the "Ever Given", is also featured - as are some pretty big cruise ships travelling up and down the Inside Passage to/from Alaska (a current topic on another thread).

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Pete7

If your car hadn't been parked on the garage premises, then the damage wouldn't have occurred. The defence rests its case M'lud.

An all too common attitude in parts of the world when an expat and a local are involved in a traffic accident

[billgewater]

And the lawyers win again.

[Pelagic]

Yes Scorpius is spot on
Pilots Advice, Captain's Orders

However a narrow transit is under the control of the Port Authority or Department of Transport, so they decide if it is safe for a ship.to make the transit in chalenging conditions.

Same happened after Norewgian Cruise Ship missed the turn in Seymour Narrows at night in strong ebb and sunk or hitting 2nd Narrows bridge in heavy fog.
The DOT were blamed for not having better safety rules in place

On Ever Given, if Tugs were requested and not provided, then this is where the commercial pressures of costly delays, weigh heavy on the Captain and his career .

As Ann pointed out, it will all depend on the Captain/Pilots language of the conversation with SCA as to percentage of blame on both sides

Yes the lawyers will win, so they can buy expensive race boats and bang into each other ! [emoji5]

[JPA Cate]

Yes, where the pilots are well trained, assertive people, they know what they need to get recorded. We may find out what was actually said. Interesting.

Ann

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Yes Scorpius is spot on
Pilots Advice, Captain's Orders

However a narrow transit is under the control of the Port Authority or Department of Transport, so they decide if it is safe for a ship.to make the transit in chalenging conditions.

Same happened after Norewgian Cruise Ship missed the turn in Seymour Narrows at night in strong ebb and sunk or hitting 2nd Narrows bridge in heavy fog.
The DOT were blamed for not having better safety rules in place

On Ever Given, if Tugs were requested and not provided, then this is where the commercial pressures of costly delays, weigh heavy on the Captain and his career .

As Ann pointed out, it will all depend on the Captain/Pilots language of the conversation with SCA as to percentage of blame on both sides

Yes the lawyers will win, so they can buy expensive race boats and bang into each other ! [emoji5]

I think you'll find that the DOT and/or the port authorities consult extensively with the pilots when making those rules - and many are initiated by the pilots.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

I think you'll find that the DOT and/or the port authorities consult extensively with the pilots when making those rules - and many are initiated by the pilots.

Yes, I believe now that most of the Pilot Associations have become private companies they are far more safety and liability conscious .
In the 80's when I was driving pilot boats in Vancouver, it was public company and a few of them were real cowboys .

Disdained the use of tugs when docking
Ship was already underway from English Bay before I had got the pilot onboard.

The majority were good, but came from the towing industry, so little deep sea experience .

But they really knew the coast, the currents and backeddies