This article examines breach of the safe port warranty as one of the principal risks covered by charterers’ liability insurance. It analyses the safe port criteria developed under English case law, and their impact on a charterer’s liability in damages. Attention is paid to the handling of insurance claims arising from breach of the safe port warranty, and to the steps to be taken by charterers and their insurers upon receipt of a claim from the shipowner.

Issues of causation, within the framework of civil liability in contract and tort law, have been sufficiently developed. At the same time, not all of these concepts can be used for the purposes of marine insurance. Nevertheless, the issue of causation has not been thoroughly addressed in Russian scholarship. In connection with the above, this paper attempts to provide an overview of existing Russian and foreign sources on the determination of causality in marine insurance. In addition, an analysis of domestic judicial practice will be provided.

In early August, the Maritime Law Association hosted a seminar at which experts examined when a shipowner can be deprived of the right to limit their liability. The discussion was led by Anna Arkhipova, Vice-President of the MAC under the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, alongside RUMLA President Konstantin Krasnokutskiy and his deputy, Konstantin Putrya, PhD (Law).

The article is devoted to establishing the legal nature of the freight forwarding contract. For this purpose, the author analyses the economic nature of the said contract, its subject matter and liability for its breach. In addition, the article provides foreign experience of regulation of the said institute in the legal orders of England, Germany and France. The author compares some aspects of the legal concept of the freight forwarding in Russia and in the legal orders mentioned above. The conclusion of the study is that the freight forwarding contract in the Russian law is formulated not based on the subject matter of the contract but based on its object. The result of this approach is that a rather large number of binding relations may be covered by the definition of the freight forwarding. This, in turn, may lead to adverse consequences for the legal order and civil turnover since, under Russian law, the freight forwarder’s liability is limited.

The commercial court concluded that the risk of loss of the cargo sealed was borne by the carrier and not by the shipowner. Unless the property insurance contract provides otherwise, the insurer who paid the indemnity shall be entitled to claim the damages by way of subrogation.

In this article, the author continues the study of the allocation of tortious liability between the shipowner and software developer in the case of harm to third parties due to an error of the artificial intelligence of an autonomous vessel. Now the focus of attention shifts to the second of the two previously formulated model situations, namely the infliction of harm due to a ship collision (on the basis of Russian law). This analysis provides a new perspective on the standard of shipowner’s liability in a collision. Where harm is caused by a software error of an autonomous vessel, it is more equitable to impose the burden of strict liability on the shipowner for program errors. This approach should be pursued explicitly to avoid a mixture of de jure strict liability and de facto strict liability imputed under the guise of a fault-based breach of a duty to make a ship seaworthy. This does not exclude further recourse by the shipowner against the software developer. On the contrary, as regards the liability of the software developer towards third parties, the conclusions of the first part of the study remain valid: the software developer may bear the liability for fault-based violations committed while creating the IT product. At the same time, the question as to how far such a link between the software and its creator can be established remains open.

In December 2021 a bill on autonomous shipping has been introduced into the Russian State Duma. The article analyzes whether it is time to adopt legislation on this subject. The author describes international experience in the field of autonomous shipping and sets out various scenarios according to which Russian legislation on this matter can be developed. Some concerns are raised in relation to the Bill’s terminology, its provisions on classification of autonomous vessels, status of remote crew, and performance of shipping contracts. The article points out that adoption of the Bill in its current wording, especially without detailed provisions on autonomous vessels’ liability and its insurance, may result in serious problems.

Commentary to case No. A40-33406/2021 (DHL Global Forwarding LLC v ATP No. 99-SPb LLC)

Commentary to case No. A70-14648/2021 (FSUE “Atomflot” v. Zapsibgazprom-Gasification Ltd.)

The article analyses the legal nature of “dead freight” as losses caused by the failure default to execute the obligation of the charterer to provide the volume of cargo agreed under the contract of carriage of goods by sea. The author gives examples of approaches to the qualification of “dead freight” in Russian and foreign judicial practice, emphasizes the practical relevance of the correct legal qualification of “dead freight”, and also highlights the features of the “dead freight” institute.

Case No. A05-3827/2021 (PJSC “Rosgosstrakh” v JSC “Northern River Shipping”)

Commentary to the Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 3, 2021, No. 307-ЭС21-1344 in case No. А21-4281/2018 (Rosprirodnadzor v “Global-Flot”)

The problem of the allocation of liability between the shipowner and the software developer in case of harm to third parties due to an error of the artificial intelligence of an autonomous vessel presents a serious challenge for private maritime law. There are mainly two possible situations here: 1) infliction of loss without a ship collision; 2) infliction of loss due to a ship collision. This article, being based on Russian law, is concerned with the first case. The author comes to the conclusion that the shipowner bears under all circumstances the non-contractual liability as the possessor of a source of increased danger (autonomous vessel). Further allocation of losses is most likely to be provided for in the contract between the shipowner and the software developer. At the same time, the injured party is entitled to bring a claim directly against the software developer if the latter committed faulty actions when creating an IT product. Moreover, de lege lata such a developer is not entitled to limitations of liability under the maritime law in force. The results of this article will be useful primarily for shipowners, IT companies and other leading market players – pioneers of autonomous shipping.

Commentary to the Case No. А51-10555/2016 (“SL Marine Co., Ltd.” v LLC “Ostrov”)

Case No. А73-7921/2020 (LLC “Alliance-DV Kamchatka” v LLC “Ventura”)

Noble Chartering Inc v Priminds Shipping Hong Kong Co Ltd (“Tai Prize”) [2021] EWCA Civ 87 (28 January 2021)

Resolution of the 13th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 18, 2021 No. 13AP-33576/2020 in case No. A56-11369/2020 (LLC Mortrans v LLC Detotex)

Judgement of the Commercial Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated November 20, 2020 in case No. А32-22897/2020 (PJSC IC Ukrainian Insurance Group v Post Holding Assets Ltd.)

Judgement of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region dated October 24, 2020 in case No. А56-53602/2020 (Marshell Oil LLP v Federal Bailiff Service)