The English courts are again strict on the issue of timebars

5 Фев

Английский суд сформулировал позицию относительно срока давности по требованиям из столкновения судов. Решение суда по конкретному спору представляется чрезвычайно интересным (STOLT KESTREL c/w NIYAZI S).

Во-первых, суд решил, что не бывает споров комбинированного (гибридного) характера, которые бы совмещали признаки требований in rem/ in personam.

Во-вторых, тот факт, что требование in rem все еще может быть предъявлено к столкнувшемуся судну, не имеет отношения к требованию in personam.

В-третьих, ст. 190 (6) британского Закона о торговом мореплавании 1995 года применима только к требованиям in rem.

В-четвертых, двухступенчатый тест, примененный судом в деле The Al Tabith [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 336, вполне пригоден для определения, можно ли применить исключение, содержащееся в ст. 190 (5) Закона о торговом мореплавании 1995 года, и в данном деле.

Таким образом, Апелляционный суд обнаружил существенную процессуальную ошибку в последнем деле о столкновении Stolt Kestrel BV v Sener Petrol Denizcilik Ticaret AS (The «Stolt Kestrel» and The «Niyazi S»), рассмотренном и разрешенном Адмиралтейским судом.

The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed their strict approach to time bars in the recent collision case of STOLT KESTREL c/w NIYAZI S.

Where English law applies, the statutory limitation period provided at section 190(3) Merchant Shipping Act 1995 imposes a two year time bar for the commencement of collision claims, starting from the date of the damage or loss so caused. This period can be extended pursuant to sections 190(5) and (6), which provides that the court can extend the period for bringing proceedings “as it thinks fit” or, if there was no “reasonable opportunity” to arrest the other ship.


On 10 October 2010 a collision occurred between the STOLT KESTRAL and the NIYAZI S at Stanlow, England.

On 9 October 2012, owners of the STOLT KESTRAL issued an in rem claim form, identifying the defendant as “The Owners and/or Bareboat Charterers of the Vessel ‘Niyazi S’”. The claim form also gave the name and address of Sener Petrol Denizcilik Ticaret AS who, incidentally, were no longer the owners of the ship.

The issue in court was regarding whether the in personam claim form had been brought in time and, if not, whether the statutory exceptions of sections 190(5) and (6) could apply. Teh claimant argued that they had issued a ‘hybrid’ claim form which included an in personam claim because Sener was named in the claim form.


The court considered Admiralty procedure in depth and decided the following:

  • There is no such thing as a hybrid or combined in rem/in personam claim form
  • The fact that the claim in rem may still be pursued against the colliding vessel, now in different ownership, is of no relevance to the failure to issue an in personam claim form against Sener in time
  • Section 190(6) of the MSA 1995 is applicable only to in rem proceedings. In rem claim forms cannot be served out of the jurisdiction, since is it the presence of the res (the ship) within the jurisdiction that renders it amenable to the exercise of that jurisdiction
  • The two-stage test set out in the The Al Tabith [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 336 was the correct test the court should apply under the discretionary exception of section 190(5)


The court has again taken a strict approach to procedural error. See the earlier web alert of 19 May 2015, also on the strict application of time bars by the English courts.

In the context of collision claims, in personam and in rem claim forms are distinct from one another in procedure and in form. Care should always be taken to ensure that claims are properly commenced within the applicable time limits.
Source: The Standard Club


Технологии Переводчик