Suez Canal blocked by grounded megaship

[grumbler]

Unless Maritime law has changed since I was ship's crew, that's not true with respect to a pilot.  When the pilot takes the conn, he takes on responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship.  It's the one time the captain isn't responsible.

Yeah my understanding is it's something the shipping companies agree with the Suez canal authority, so I think it's contractual rather than under maritime law.

I suppose it is possible that, like there is in air traffic control, there is some kind of "advisory" piloting (ship-type, not air-type) that doesn't take the conn of the ship and therefor doesn't take responsibility for the safe navigation of the ship.  If the Egyptian piloting requirement is, as some have suggested, just a lucrative employment opportunity fo friends and relatives of the regime, this type of piloting would make sense.  I've never encountered it, but, then, haven't transited the Suez Canal.

[Sheilbh]

That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.

Egypt is a sovereign country and can have the legal structure it wants.

But I don't even know if it would be an Egypt thing. In English law you can't exclude liability for death or injury to people, but you can contract out of most other types of liabilities including negligence (assuming you're not dealing with small businesses or consumers). In this case I'd even go further and guess that the canal operator not only excludes liability for negligence but is indeminfied for the cost of any accident in the canal. Because that makes commercial sense - the canal just get a flat fee per ship (based on weight) it's the shipping companies who'll get the upside or the benefit of not going round the Cape of Good Hope.

If the Suez canal have decent (which I'd guess they do) legal responsibility will mirror the business alternative.

[The Larch]

The first salvoes of the legal battle have been shot.

Ever Given impounded as Suez Canal Authority pursues salvage costs
Megaship that ran aground now caught in legal row between owners and Egyptian authorities reportedly seeking $900m

Two weeks after it was freed from the Suez Canal, the giant container ship Ever Given is once again stuck.

This time however, the 220,000-ton megaship is not caught in the sand, but snared in a legal row between Egyptian authorities and the ship's owners over the financial impact of the accident.

The massive ship has been impounded by a court in Ismailia, as the Suez Canal Authority pursues its Japanese owners for the cost of the salvage operation and lost transit fees for the week that the canal was blocked.

About 50 ships a day pass through the canal, and more than 442 vessels were held up by the blockage.

"The vessel is now officially impounded," Lt Gen Osama Rabie told Egypt's state-run television. "They do not want to pay anything."

There was no immediate comment from the vessel's owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha Ltd.

Rabie did not say how much money the canal authority was seeking, but the figure was reportedly $900m (£650m). Meanwhile, prosecutors in Ismailia also opened a separate investigation into what caused the Ever Given to run aground, a judicial official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to brief media.

Rabie said negotiations were still ongoing to reach a settlement on compensation.

Litigation could be complex, since the vessel is owned by a Japanese firm, operated by a Taiwanese shipper, and flagged in Panama.

The Ever Given ran aground in a single-lane stretch of the canal about 6 km (3.7 miles) north of the southern entrance, near the city of Suez on 23 March.

On 29 March, salvage teams freed the Ever Given, ending a crisis that had clogged one of the world's most vital waterways and halted billions of dollars a day in maritime commerce. The vessel has since idled in Egypt's Great Bitter Lake, just north of the site where it previously blocked the canal.

The unprecedented six-day shutdown, which raised fears of extended delays, goods shortages and rising costs for consumers, added to strain on the shipping industry already under pressure from the coronavirus pandemic.

Rabie, the canal chief, told state-run television there was no wrongdoing by the canal authority. He declined to discuss possible causes, including the ship's speed and the high winds that buffeted it during a sandstorm.

When asked whether the ship's owner was at fault, he said: "Of course, yes."
Rabie said the conclusion of the authority's investigation was expected Thursday.

[crazy canuck]

That is the business alternative - we are talking about actual legal responsibility. You can SAY "You are responsible if Berkut beats his kids!" and maybe even get talked into signing something to that effect if the alternative sucks, but that doesn't actually make you responsible.

Egypt is a sovereign country and can have the legal structure it wants.

But I don't even know if it would be an Egypt thing. In English law you can't exclude liability for death or injury to people, but you can contract out of most other types of liabilities including negligence (assuming you're not dealing with small businesses or consumers). In this case I'd even go further and guess that the canal operator not only excludes liability for negligence but is indeminfied for the cost of any accident in the canal. Because that makes commercial sense - the canal just get a flat fee per ship (based on weight) it's the shipping companies who'll get the upside or the benefit of not going round the Cape of Good Hope.

If the Suez canal have decent (which I'd guess they do) legal responsibility will mirror the business alternative.

The more direct response to AR is that much of this is governed by the international conventions on Maritime law.  Sure a country could go its own way - but that would be foolish.

[Jacob]

An Egyptian investigation finds that the Suez Canal Autority (and thus the Egyptian state and Egyptian treasury) is without fault, and that damages should be recovered from the owner of the ship? What a surprising turn of events.

[grumbler]

An Egyptian investigation finds that the Suez Canal Autority (and thus the Egyptian state and Egyptian treasury) is without fault, and that damages should be recovered from the owner of the ship? What a surprising turn of events.

Ad to that the fact that the Canal Authority assigns the ships a pilot, but having a pilot that is sent by the Canal Authority doesn't change responsibilities at all.  It looks like a jobs program for the nephews of the Justice Minister et al.

[crazy canuck]

An Egyptian investigation finds that the Suez Canal Autority (and thus the Egyptian state and Egyptian treasury) is without fault, and that damages should be recovered from the owner of the ship? What a surprising turn of events.

Not exactly determinative of the issue 

[Jacob]

Not exactly determinative of the issue 

According to whom? 

It seems the Egyptians find it determinative enough that they're holding on to the ship until they're paid $900 million - at least according to what I read last.

[Malthus]

Not exactly determinative of the issue 

According to whom? 

It seems the Egyptians find it determinative enough that they're holding on to the ship until they're paid $900 million - at least according to what I read last.

It depends on whether the ship owners can convince a court outside of Egypt that there has been a shakedown, contrary to maritime laws and treaty obligations ... and if so, can that court attach Egyptian state commercial assets outside of Egypt, to the tune of the 900 million or whatever the Egyptians are able to extort from the ship owners to let the ship go.

No doubt the whole situation will keep teams of lawyers in various nations gainfully employed for some time to come ...

[chipwich]

I bet Egypt is going to back off after getting phone calls from the financial institutions that back maritime insurers.

[merithyn]

Are they still blaming the only female Egyptian captain that was hundreds of miles away at the time?

[Sheilbh]

Another example of the impact on global trade/need for more resilience in supply chains:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/apr/16/garden-gnomes-running-out-in-uk-as-garden-centres-business-booms