Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
CHARTERERS’ LIMITATIONS
F D Rose
The Flaminia
Ships and maritime law have their peculiarities. One is immediately apparent in that, for convenience, cases tend to be referred to by the name of the ship involved rather than
the parties, though, as is the case with the decision with which this comment is concerned, The Flaminia,1 further simplification may be convenient.2
1. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Stolt Tank Containers BV (The MSC Flaminia) (No 2) [2023] EWCA Civ 1007; [2024] Bus LR 311; [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 535; digested R Morley [2024] IMCLY 38, §81 (the Court of Appeal’s judgment was delivered by Males LJ); affg [2022] EWHC 2746 (Admlty); [2023] Bus LR 686; [2023] Lloyd’s Rep Plus 40 (Andrew Baker J). The two judgments will be cited respectively as “The Flaminia CA” and “The Flaminia HC”.
2. The practice is neither universal nor consistent, certainly amongst different series of law reports, which may be confusing. It appears to have originated in cases where an action in rem was brought against the eponymous vessel, but nowadays is generally and simply used as a convenient shorthand. That aim is undermined by a tendency of shipowners (understandably) to include their company identity in the names of their ships, eg, in Alize 1954 v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The CMA CGM Libra) [2021] UKSC 51; [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 613; [2021] Bus LR 1678. In a recent lecture/article (Sir N Teare, “Seaworthiness, negligent navigation and safer ships” [2023] LMCLQ 566), the former Admiralty Judge shortened that simply to “The Libra”. It is a precedent worth following, especially given the now greater ease of searching digitally, and is adopted in this Comment.
392