Stean Shaw LLP
Stean Shaw LLP
 

Collisions of
USD 1,000,000 or Over


The following are examples of cases that have recently been handled by Stean Shaw LLP where recoveries of USD 1,000,000 or above were obtained for the client.
  • We were instructed to act on behalf of a number of insurers of a variety of consignments carried on a vessel that grounded next to a lighthouse off Singapore at around midday in good weather conditions whilst on a voyage from Malaysia to Thailand. This caused a substantial ingress of water into the holds of the vessel, some oil pollution and damage to a significant amount of cargo. Salvage assistance was provided to re-float the vessel and salvage security had to be provided by cargo interests. GA was declared by the shipowners and GA security also had to be provided by cargo interests. Security was obtained from the shipowners in the form of a P&I Club Guarantee.

    A fundamental issue in this case was that of limitation of liability on the part of the shipowners. Other cargo interests obtained security that provided for the claim to be subject to English law and jurisdiction. English law and jurisdiction enabled the vessel to rely upon limitation as per the 1976 Limitation Convention, which does not enable limitation to be broken. Importantly we recommended to our clients that they agree to Singapore law and jurisdiction. Singapore applied the 1957 Limitation Convention, which have lower limits than the 1976 Convention, but enable this limitation to be broken in certain circumstances. Carriers attempted to defend liability on the basis of an “error in navigation” defence. However, our investigations revealed that, at the time of the grounding, the bridge was being manned by crew who were unqualified and actually had false qualifications. This provided a very real possibility of being able to break limitation in Singapore. The case was the subject of legal proceedings in Singapore when we were able to conclude an amicable settlement at USD 4,500,000 that was considerably in excess of the Singapore limitation and also considerably in excess of the level of recovery that would have been viable under English law and jurisdiction.

  • We were instructed by the Nigerian Receivers of a bulk consignment of bagged rice shipped on a vessel from Thailand to Nigeria. When the vessel arrived at Nigeria, her holds were found to be flooded, with considerable damage to cargo. The loss fell outside the terms of the client’s insurance cover. We recommended to our clients that an expert be sent from London to Nigeria to attend on the vessel, investigate and assist in minimising the losses. We liased with the vessel P&I insurers and their legal representatives to ensure that this inspection was performed on a joint basis with the UK expert attending on their behalf. We tried to obtain security, but this was not volunteered and we had to liase with Nigerian lawyers to arrest the vessel. We remained in close contact with the vessels representatives. Matters came to a head when the remaining sound cargo had been discharged and the vessel was then in a position to sail with the damaged cargo, which could not be discharged in Nigeria due to very significant duties that would arise. The evidence from our expert indicated that the vessel was un-seaworthy and that opponents would face significant difficulties in defending liability. We managed to get a dialogue directly with the owner of the vessel and, following negotiations, a settlement was agreed at USD 1,750,000. The case was finalised within 6 weeks of the incident occurring.

  • We were instructed to act by a U.S insurer of a bulk consignment of cement that was a total loss when the vessel sank of Namibia whilst on a voyage from Thailand to the United States. The vessel’s crew were picked up by another vessel and taken to South Africa. We liased with lawyers in South Africa to get a court order to enable immediate access to the crew and witness statements to be taken, as well as the evidence that they had saved from the vessel. The vessel was owned by a one-ship company and had sunk. Therefore, there were no immediate assets against which to enforce any recovery claim. However, our enquiries revealed other assets that were associated with the vessel that sank. Enquiries into the ownership structure of these other vessels revealed that they were in the same ownership structure of the vessel that sank. We tracked these vessels and arrested one when it called in South Africa. This enabled us to obtain security for the claim in the form of a Club Letter of Undertaking. This security provided for competent court to keep the issue of jurisdiction open.

    Opponents defended liability on the basis that the loss was attributable to a “peril of the sea” due to the weather conditions experienced by the vessel and also that the vessel had sunk due to “latent defects”. Our enquiries revealed that the weather conditions experienced, although severe, were forecasted and not exceptional or unforeseeable for the location and time of year. They also revealed that the vessel, which was over 20 years old, had previously had a number of port state detentions due to deficiencies with her condition. Opponents refused to grant a further time extension on the case and it was decided to implement legal proceedings in the United States. Negotiations continued with opponents and before the legal proceedings escalated, it was possible to agree an amicable settlement at USD 1,300,000.
  If you have any enquiries about Stean Shaw LLP, our services and fees, or questions on claims, our team would be happy to hear from you through our listed contact details. Alternatively, to e-mail us, please click here.