The article deals with the sue & labour clause in marine insurance contracts. With reference to historical development and modern judicial practice, the author analyses the balance of interests between the parties. The author undertakes a comparative legal analysis and demonstrates the variety of approaches to compensation of damages under the sue & labour clause.

The article examines the institution of general average, focusing on the development of the concept and its key characteristics. The author explores the historical stages of the institution’s formation and the modern approach to its application.

The article studies the real effect of the abandonment in Russian maritime insurance. On the one hand, the author examines the reasons why the institution of the abandonment arose in English maritime insurance and the goals which it was intended to fulfil. On the other hand, she analyses the mechanism for the emergence of title (ownership) under the Russian Civil Code. As a result, the author concludes that the need to preserve the real effect of the declaration of abandonment in Russian maritime law is highly questionable.

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.

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.

According to the current legislation of the Russian Federation, if signs of violation of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are established on a ship that is on a coastal or foreign voyage, the master of a ship assumes the functions of an inquiry body. The actions of the master of a ship as an inquiry body are regulated by the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as the Code of Merchant Shipping. This article analyzes the problem of the subtleties and nuances of the captain’s performance of the inquiry body functions: what laws and regulations they rely on, as well as how the process of inquiry goes on. The analysis is carried out based on the current laws of the Russian Federation. The author comes to the conclusion that the status of the master of a ship as an inquiry body in criminal proceedings needs to be changed for greater efficiency of the inquiry process on ships that are at sea.

Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd [2021] UKSC 6 (19 February 2021)

Judgement of the Commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of the North-Western District dated 3 March 2021 in case No. A21-1117/2020 (Fishing collective farm “Worker of the Sea” v FSUE “National Fish Resources”, FSBI “Administration of Seaports of the Baltic Sea”, LLC “Northern Marine Technologies”)[1]

Ruling of the Commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of the Krasnodarskyi Region dated 12 March 2021 in case No. А32-9548/2021 (FGBI “Morspassluzjba” v “April Shipping Company”)

Herculito Maritime Ltd. and others v Gunvor International BV and others (m/v “Polar”), [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm)

Argentum Exploration Ltd. v The Silver and all persons claiming to be interested in and/or to have rights in respect of the silver, [2020] EWHC 3434 (Admty)

Judgement of the 5th Commercial Court of Appeal dated January 20, 2021 No. 05AP-7848/2020 in case No. A59-1512/2020 (FGUP Rosmorport v LLC Sakhmorflot)

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.)

Ruling of the Commercial Court of the Primorsky Territory dated November 25, 2020 in case No. A51-18495/2020 (FSUE Morspasluzhba v OJSC Concern ASPOL-BALTIC / NWS5 Balt Shipping Co. Ltd.)