MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. (Appellant) v Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS “MSC Flaminia” (Respondent)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2023/0131

Parties

Appellant(s)

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

Respondent(s)

Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG MS “MSC Flaminia”

Issue

(1) On its true construction, does the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (‘1976 Convention’) permit a charterer to limit its liability to an owner for a claim concerning loss originally suffered by the owner, itself? (2) On their true construction, what is the scope of Article 2.1(a) and (f), 1976 Convention?

Facts

In 2009, the Respondent time chartered the MSC Flaminia (the ‘Vessel’) to the Appellant. Subsequently, in 2012, during a US-Europe voyage whilst time chartered, an explosion was caused by cargo containing the dangerous chemical DVB, a liquid form of vinyl. This, and resulting fire, killed several crew members and caused substantial damage to the Vessel and cargo. In saving the Vessel and cargo, the Respondent incurred various expenses in extinguishing the fire, discharging and destroying (as appropriate) the cargo and firefighting water and repairing the Vessel. These expenses compose four relevant categories of loss: (1) payments to public authorities for transiting the Vessel to Wilhelmshaven, Germany, through the English Channel (approx. €2 million); (2) cargo-handling costs (approx. €28 million); (3) costs for disposal of firefighting water (approx. €7 million); and (4) costs of removing and destroying remaining waste (approx. €24 million). In arbitration, the Respondent successfully alleged that the Appellant had, in breach of charterparty, shipped dangerous cargo, being awarded US $200 million in a 2021 Award. In October 2021, the Appellant established a limitation fund. In 2020, preceding the Award, the Appellant commenced limitation proceedings, seeking an order that its liability to the Respondent was limited to approximately £28,200,000. The High Court held that the Appellant could not limit its liability to the Respondent. The Court of Appeal, for different reasons, upheld this decision. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.