Suez Canal blocked by grounded megaship

[Barrister]

Suing who for what?

Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.

[Malthus]

Suing who for what?

Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.

Unless the pilot happens to have a few spare billion dollars lying around ...

[Berkut]

Suing who for what?

Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.

Unless the pilot happens to have a few spare billion dollars lying around ...

Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?

And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?

[Sheilbh]

Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?

And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?

Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.

[Admiral Yi]

Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.

I never pay any attention to the style of cause anyway.

[Barrister]

Suing who for what?

Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.

Unless the pilot happens to have a few spare billion dollars lying around ...

Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?

And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?

I believe the pilot was employed by the Suez Canal Authority, which is a state-owned company.

Now there can presumably be a lawsuit involving the Ever Given itself which won't be cheap.  But I wonder what the contracts for using the Suez Canal itself are like, so whether or not all the ships that are backed up waiting to go through can have a cause of action or not.

[Barrister]

Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?

And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?

Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.

Okay, so I'm admitting I haven't even so much as glanced at the cover of a book on maritime law.  But is that correct in the context of the canal?  My understanding is ships going through the canal have to use a pilot from the canal itself - presumably to avoid just this kind of incident.

[Sheilbh]

Okay, so I'm admitting I haven't even so much as glanced at the cover of a book on maritime law.  But is that correct in the context of the canal?  My understanding is ships going through the canal have to use a pilot from the canal itself - presumably to avoid just this kind of incident.

Yes - I think it's part of the terms of passage for the canal.

And I can see the Egyption argument for that - they're providing access to the canal at a fixed fee and normally this doesn't happen.

It's got strong Day Today pool nightwatchman vibes: "Ive been working here for 18 years. In 1975, no one died. In 1976, no one died. In 1977, no one died. In 1978, no one died. In 1979, no one died. In 1980, someone died. In 1981, no one died. In 1982, there was the incident with a pigeon. In 1983, no one died. In 1984, no one died. In 1985, no one died. In 1986... I mean, I could go on."

[Barrister]

Although it won't show up in the style of cause, it'll mostly boil down to different insurance companies suing each other.

I never pay any attention to the style of cause anyway.

The style of cause is just the name of the case, like R v Gladue or Donohue v Stevenson.

[Malthus]

Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?

And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?

Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.

I suspect it is gonna be complicated!

- there may be contractual language between the owner of the ship and the canal authority over liability for accidents, jurisdiction, choice of law, etc. Is such a dispute subject to courts or to some sort of international arbitration?

- is there a treaty that affects how this type of accident is litigated?

- the canal is run by a state-owned company, which may or may not be immune from liability under either local Egyptian law

- some weird twists thrown in by maritime laws ...

[Sheilbh]

Absolutely it'll be very fun for some shipping lawyers living their dream

[Barrister]

Aren't the pilots employed by the Egyption state?

And doesn't Egyptian law require that ships hire THEIR pilots?

Yes - but all responsibility etc is with the ship and their crew.

I suspect it is gonna be complicated!

- there may be contractual language between the owner of the ship and the canal authority over liability for accidents, jurisdiction, choice of law, etc. Is such a dispute subject to courts or to some sort of international arbitration?

- is there a treaty that affects how this type of accident is litigated?

- the canal is run by a state-owned company, which may or may not be immune from liability under either local Egyptian law

- some weird twists thrown in by maritime laws ...

This.

Plus I suspect a lot of lawsuits won't involve the Ever Given or the Canal Authority at all, but rather between insureds and insurers as to whether the delay caused is covered by insurance.

[Jacob]

Suing who for what?

Evergreen Shipping for negligence causing loss due to delayed shipping, I imagine. As well as insurance companies whose policies may or may not cover any business losses for the involved companies and may or may not be entitled to recover the payouts of their policies from other companies involved (and their insurance companies).

[Barrister]

Suing who for what?

Evergreen Shipping for negligence causing loss due to delayed shipping, I imagine.

Does Evergreen Shipping owe a duty of care to other ships in the sea to not block the Suez Canal?

I honestly have no idea - maritime law is it's own very weird thing (down to the fact that a lot of actions are in rem where you sue the boat itself, rather than the owner).

[Jacob]

Does Evergreen Shipping owe a duty of care to other ships in the sea to not block the Suez Canal?

I honestly have no idea - maritime law is it's own very weird thing (down to the fact that a lot of actions are in rem where you sue the boat itself, rather than the owner).

I'm sure we'll find out.

I'm also sure that if I could make the case that my company lost $50 million due to interrupted supplies because off this incident, I'd look at who I could sue to recover damages from and/ or look to have my loss covered by insurance (and then the insurance company would look to see who they could recover that money from).

And I think it's well established that there were significant economic impacts from the disruption to shipping. And I'm quite certain that people and companies are unlikely to just eat the loses and leave it at that. Therefore, I expect, law suits will follow. It's the way of the world.