Included were 941 registered voters in Florida, of which 510 were deemed likely to vote 1,026 registered voters in Ohio, of which 585 were likely to vote and 927 registered voters in Pennsylvania, of which 568 were likely voters. The Times Poll contacted 3.301 adults in the three battleground states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Numbers may not add up to 100% where some answer categories are not shown. Do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?Īll results are among likely voters in the states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Those who merely provide assistance to a vessel (such as Stema UK in this instance), will be unable to limit their liability.Q. It is now clear that while there may be more than one owner, charterer, manager or operator, only those who are involved in the management and control of the vessel will be entitled to limit their liability under the Limitation Convention 1976. This decision provides helpful clarification of the meaning of ‘operator’ for the purposes of the Limitation Convention 1976. The court should be astute to check that an alleged second operator is not in reality providing assistance to the undoubted operator.Īccordingly, the appeal was allowed and Stema UK was not entitled to limit its liability under the Limitation Convention 1976. Accordingly, Stema UK was not an ‘operator’ for the purposes of the Limitation Convention 1976.Īlthough there can be more than one operator, that is not to say that a court should readily find that there is more than one operator. ![]() Stema UK was, at most, assisting Stema A/S in the operation of the Barge. To the extent that any of them amounted to operating the Barge, those actions were by way of assistance to Stema A/S in its role as operator, not by way of becoming a second or alternative operator or manager. Stema UK’s actions were for, on behalf of and supervised by Splitt Chartering APS and Stema A/S. The mere provision of the crew for a vessel does not mean that the vessel is operated by the provider. It must be considered at a higher level of abstraction, involving management or control of the vessel. In giving judgment, the Court of Appeal provided useful guidance as to the meaning of ‘operator’ for the purposes of the Limitation Convention 1976:īeing an ‘operator’ entails more than the mere operation of the machinery of the vessel (or providing personnel to operate that machinery). RTE appealed the Admiralty Court decision on the grounds that the Admiralty Judge (a) had wrongly construed the term ‘operator’ of a ship under the Limitation Convention 1976 (b) was wrong in his application of the law to the facts in ruling that, despite its functionally and temporally limited activities on the Barge, Stema UK was it operator and (c) had erred as a matter of construction in ruling that there could be more than one operator of a ship. The judge considered that the ordinary meaning of ‘the operator of a ship’ includes the entity which, with the permission of the owner, directs its employees to board the ship and operate her in the ordinary course of business. Admiralty Court DecisionĪt first instance, the Admiralty Judge held that Stema UK was an ‘operator’ of the Barge while it was off Dover and therefore it was entitled to limit its liability. RTE contended that Stema UK’s involvement while the Barge was off Dover did not constitute that of an ‘operator’ and denied that Stema UK should be permitted to limit its liability under Article 1(2). Splitt Chartering APS, Stema A/S and Stema UK all sought to limit their liability under Article 1(2) of the Limitation Convention 1976 as the owner, operator/manager and operator of the Barge respectively. ![]() Stema UK were involved in monitoring the weather and had decided to leave the Barge at anchor during the storm. During this period Stema UK personnel were involved in transporting the rock armour to Shakespeare Beach.ĭuring a storm on 20 November 2016 the Barge dragged her anchor and damaged an undersea cable supplying electricity from France to England that belonged to Réseau de Transport d’Électricité SA (RTE). While Stema UK did not have any formal role in respect of the Barge’s management or operation, its personnel did operate the machinery of the Barge while off Dover. On 7 November 2015 the Barge arrived off Dover under towage where it anchored. The rock armour was transported from Norway to Dover on a dumb barge: the “STEMA BARGE II” (the Barge), which was owned by Splitt Chartering APS. Stema UK was contracted to provide the rock armour, which it purchased it from its associated company, Stema A/S. The necessary repairs required the provision of rock armour to support the line. Restructuring and insolvency law servicesĪround Christmas time 2015, severe weather had caused the railway line on the seafront above Shakespeare Beach between Dover and Folkestone to become weakened.Real estate and construction law services.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |