Statistics
Statistics and General Overview 2nd, 3rd, 4th Q 2024
2.1. Statistics and Overview 2nd, 3rd, 4th Q 2024*
The following statistics cover the period from April to December 2024. Traditionally, we publish statistics on maritime disputes handled by commercial courts.
The Centre for Maritime Law at the National University of Singapore, in collaboration with the Comité Maritime International, maintains a database of court cases from various jurisdictions involving the interpretation of international maritime conventions. Recently, Russian cases have been added to this database. The database is available exclusively in English. Summaries of Russian case can be accessed at: https://cmlcmidatabase.org/browse-by-jurisdiction. To view these cases, select “Russia” from the jurisdiction list.
For the period under review, summaries of judgments in cases Nos. А51-7593/2023, А32-54717/2022, А40-211678/2023, А43-3510/2023, А51-1300/2024, А56-33233/2024, А32-25918/2024, А32-35114/2024, А51-7593/2023, А56-13164/2024, А51-1870/2023 have been entered into the database. Most of these cases address the interpretation of the Hague-Visby Rules and issues related to the arrest of ships.
Cases before District Commercial Courts (Cassation Instance)
During the period under review, the District Commercial Courts considered a total of 93 maritime cases, of which 23 involved public law matters and 70 concerned private law disputes. Most public law cases related to administrative liability for violations of border crossing regulations. In the private law sphere, the majority of disputes involved typical maritime remedies, such as demurrage, claims for payment under maritime agency agreements, time charters, and contracts for the carriage of goods. Several cases also involved claims for insurance compensation under both Hull and Machinery (H&M) and Protection and Indemnity (P&I) policies.
One of the more notable cases is No. A32-54717/2022, which concerned damage to cargo during carriage. The Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District examined several key issues: the determination of the cause of damage, the sufficiency of evidence to establish that the damage occurred during transportation, and the role of surveyors in identifying the cause. The central question in the case was whether the cargo was damaged during the period of carriage as defined by the Hague-Visby Rules.
Case No. A32–51201/2023 is particularly noteworthy. The Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District considered whether state authorities are obliged to remove a wreck when there is a risk of pollution and no other responsible party, such as the property owner, can be identified. The vessel had remained in the waters of the Port of Novorossiysk since 2013. The court ultimately ordered the state authorities of Krasnodar Region to remove the wreck in 2025.
In case No. A56-26924/2023, the Commercial Court of the North-Western District examined the definition of the term “tug” and the distinguishing features of a towing agreement as opposed to vessel charter. This distinction is crucial for determining which legal rules apply to the relevant contractual relationship.
| District Commercial Court | Case Categories |
|---|---|
| Commercial Court of the Volga-Vyatsky District | Total: 3 cases – Recovery of insurance compensation under a liability insurance policy – Recovery of demurrage – Recovery under a contract of carriage of goods by sea |
| Commercial Court of the Urals District | Total: 1 case – Recovery under a freight forwarding contract |
| Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District | Total: 28 cases – Recovery under time charter agreements (2) – Recovery under contracts of carriage of goods by sea (3) – Challenges to administrative liability for violation of border crossing rules (15) – Challenge to a transaction involving the transfer of ships for lease (insolvency dispute) – Recovery of insurance compensation under ship insurance contracts (2) – Recovery of demurrage – Recovery of expenses related to vessel lease termination – Recovery under maritime agency agreements (2) – Recovery for damage caused to a water body |
| Commercial Court of the Moscow District | Total: 23 cases – Recovery under freight forwarding contracts (6) – Recovery of demurrage (3) – Recovery under contracts of carriage of goods by sea (7) – Recovery under a shipbuilding contract – Recovery under a time charter – Recovery under a bareboat charter – Compensation for collision damage – Recovery of insurance compensation (2) – Recovery for damage caused to a water body |
| Commercial Court of the North-Western District | Total: 18 cases – Recovery of losses related to vessel purchase and storage – Challenge to the Rosprirodnadzor’s order – Recovery under freight forwarding contract (2) – Recovery of demurrage (4) – Recovery of insurance compensation under a hull and machinery (H&M) insurance contract – Ship arrest (2) – Recovery under a bareboat charter – Challenge to the harbour master’s order refusing to register the transfer of vessel ownership – Recovery under maritime agency agreements (2) – Challenge to Rostransnadzor’s sea accident investigation report – Recovery under a contract of carriage of goods by sea – Challenge to the refusal to issue a ship’s sanitary cargo certificate |
| Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District | Total: 13 cases – Recovery under a small vessel lease agreement – Declaration of a charter as void – Recovery under a time charter – Recovery under a freight forwarding contract – Challenge to administrative liability for violation of technical regulations – Recovery for damage caused to a water body by a wreck – Challenge to administrative liability for violation of border crossing rules – Recovery of demurrage (3) – Challenge to the transfer of a ship – Recovery under a hydrographic survey contract – Recovery for damage caused to cargo |
| Commercial Court of the Volga District | Total: 4 cases – Recovery for damage caused to a water body by a wreck – Recovery under contracts of carriage of goods by sea (2) – Recovery under a freight forwarding contract |
| Commercial Court of the Central District | Total: 3 cases – Recovery for damage caused by unlawful actions related to the disposal of the shipowner’s property – Recovery under a time charter – Claim to compel the conclusion of a ship sale agreement |
In case No. A05-1843/2023, the Commercial Court of the North-Western District held that sanctions imposed on a party, which prevent payment to or receipt of funds from a counterparty, cannot be considered a valid reason for non-fulfilment of a monetary obligation. The court emphasized that such circumstances are not unavoidable and do not exempt the debtor from liability.
In case No. A37-3040/2022, the Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District awarded future damages in a claim brought by a carrier against a terminal. The cargo had been damaged during unloading at the destination port, and the court found the terminal responsible for the damage. The case involved a complex chain of contracts, beginning with a claim by the cargo insurer against the initial freight forwarder. The third freight forwarder subsequently brought a claim against the actual carrier, seeking compensation for losses arising from a breach of the carriage contract, corresponding to the amount of the forwarder’s liability to its counterparty. The carrier then filed a claim against the terminal for the amount of its anticipated liability to the freight forwarder. Courts at all three instances upheld the claim.
Cases before the Commercial Courts of Appeal
During the period under review, the commercial courts of appeal considered a total of 148 cases, of which 38 involved public law issues and 110 related to private law. As in previous periods, most public law cases concerned liability for violations of border crossing regulations. Additionally, there were disputes over recovery of damages caused to water bodies by pollution from sunken property, as well as challenges to the refusal to register changes in ship ownership. In the private law sphere, the majority of cases traditionally involved remedies under various contracts, such as time and bareboat charters, and contracts for the carriage of goods by sea. A significant number of disputes also concerned the recovery of demurrage.
| Court of Appeal (CCA) | Case Categories |
|---|---|
| 1st Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 4 cases – Recovery under a sub-charter – Recovery under a freight forwarding contract – Recovery of demurrage (2) |
| 3rd Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 2 cases – Recovery under a maritime agency agreement – Recovery under a time charter |
| 5th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 54 cases – Recovery under time charter agreements (4) – Recovery under contracts for the carriage of cargo by sea (4) – Recovery under a contract for the supply and installation of equipment on a ship – Recovery under a maritime agency (intermediary) agreement – Challenges to administrative liability for violation of border crossing rules (26) – Recovery of demurrage(2) – Challenge to administrative liability for illegal transportation of goods through the customs border – Penalty for unauthorized parking of a ship at the berth – Payment for cargo storage (2) – Recovery under freight forwarding contracts (2) – Recovery under a bareboat charter – Recovery for damage caused to a water body (2) – Recovery of insurance compensation under a ship insurance policy (2) – Recovery for damage caused to aquatic biological resources – Obligation to remove a ship from the berth – Obligation to conduct an investigation into a maritime accident – Recovery under a maritime agency agreement – Recovery under an icebreaking contract |
| 6th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 3 cases – Recovery for damage caused to a water body – Recovery of demurrage – Recovery under a freight forwarding contract |
| 7th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 1 case – Establishing the fact of vessel ownership |
| 9th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 23 cases – Recovery under contracts for the carriage of cargo by sea (6) – Recovery of insurance compensation under a ship insurance policy (3) – Recovery under time charters (2) – Recovery under a multimodal (mixed) transportation contract – Recovery under an icebreaking contract – Compensation for collision damage – Recovery under a towing agreement – Recovery under freight forwarding contracts (6) – Recovery of damages for berth damage – Recovery of demurrage |
| 10th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 1 case – Recovery for damage caused to a water body by a sunken vessel |
| 11th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 2 cases – Recovery under a time charter – Recovery under a contract for the carriage of goods by sea |
| 12th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 2 cases – Recovery under a freight forwarding contract – Recovery for damage caused to a water body by a sunken vessel |
| 13th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 23 cases – Recovery under time charters (5) – Recovery under a contract for the carriage of cargo by sea – Recovery under freight forwarding contracts (4) – Recovery of demurrage (2) – Recovery under a maritime agency agreement – Claim for salvage reward – Recovery of insurance compensation under a ship insurance policy – Recovery under a ship sale agreement – Challenge to Rostechnadzor’s order – Challenge to the harbour master’s order refusing to register the transfer of vessel ownership – Recovery of disbursement expenses |
| 14th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 8 cases – Recovery under a contract for the carriage of goods by sea – Recovery under a time charter – Compensation for collision damage – Recovery under a towing agreement – Recovery on demurrage – Recovery of insurance compensation under a cargo insurance policy – Challenges to administrative liability for violation of border crossing rules (2) |
| 15th Commercial Court of Appeal (CCA) | Total: 22 cases – Recovery under a contract for the carriage of goods by sea – Recovery of demurrage (4) – Recovery of disbursement expenses (3) – Recovery under time charters (7) – Compensation for collision damage – Recovery under freight forwarding contracts (4) – Recovery under a supply contract – Recognition of ship ownership |
One noteworthy decision is the judgment of the Fifth Commercial Court of Appeal in case No. A51-5355/2019, dated 13 June 2024. The court recognized that the arrest of the vessel was the cause of the claimant’s losses. While these losses were linked not only to the shipowner’s violations but also to the actions of the creditor who had applied for the vessel’s arrest, the court reasonably assigned all adverse consequences arising from the arrest to the defendant, rather than to the party who had exercised a legitimate legal remedy.
In case No. A56-53018/2023, the Thirteenth Commercial Court of Appeal held that a voyage charter may include provisions for additional remuneration to the ship’s crew for proper loading and unloading of cargo, referred to as a “bonus”. The specified amounts were awarded for recovery from the shipper.
In case No. A05-6837/2023, the Fourteenth Commercial Court of Appeal considered whether a deck cargo clause in a contract of carriage remains relevant if it is not included in the bill of lading. The court correctly held that, in the absence of a corresponding clause in the bill of lading, the parties cannot rely on the provisions applicable to deck cargo. Under the Hague-Visby Rules, for cargo to be classified as deck cargo, it must not only be physically carried on deck but also explicitly stated as such in the bill of lading. Otherwise, the cargo is treated as under-deck cargo and subject to the full protections of the Hague-Visby Rules.
Cases before the Commercial Courts of First Instance
During the period under consideration, the commercial courts of first instance heard 265 maritime cases. Of these, 199 concerned private law issues. The most common categories involved claims for recovery under contracts for the carriage of goods and for demurrage. There was also a significant number of disputes arising from collisions and ship arrests. The remaining 66 cases involved public law matters. The most frequent categories remained consistent with previous periods — violations related to illegal border crossings and claims for damages caused to water bodies.
Case No. A51-2306/2024 is a particularly interesting one, in which the Commercial Court of Primorskiy Krai considered what qualifies as a “wreck” and who bears responsibility for its removal and for compensating any resulting damage — especially when the vessel was purchased after it had run aground. In this instance, the court found that the vessel had been refloated and towed to the port, and that no damage had been caused to water bodies. As a result, the claim against the new owner was dismissed. The claimant appealed the decision, but the appeal was also dismissed.
Conclusions
From April to December 2024, the commercial courts considered a total of 506 maritime cases, 379 of which concerned private law disputes, and 127 involved public law matters. The distribution of cases by category remained broadly consistent with previous periods. Most private law cases dealt with liability arising under various maritime contracts. In the public law domain, the predominant categories were violations related to illegal border crossings and claim for damages caused to water bodies.