The Shipping Law Blog
A Useful Guide to the World of Maritime Law

Q: What is the Biggest Ship in the World?

This question is one of the most frequently asked to anyone who works in the world of shipping, and unfortunately there is no easy answer. It really depends on what you mean by biggest.


THE LONGEST
Name: “Knock Nevis”*
Type: Supertanker
Length: 458 metres

THE WIDEST
Name: “USS Nimitz”
Type: Aircraft Carrier
Width (Beam): 77 metres

THE HIGHEST GROSS TONNAGE (GT)
Name: “Batillus”
Type: Supertanker
GT: 275,276 tons



THE MOST PEOPLE ONBOARD
Name: “Oasis of the Seas”
Type: Cruise Ship
Capacity: 6,296 people (passengers and crew)

– o –

* The “Knock Nevis” has now reached the end of its useful life and has been sold to a firm of Indian shipbreakers. People often wonder why, in an industry of economies of scale, more supertankers of this size and larger have not been built. Well we have to remember that the Knock Nevis’ size also caused its owners a lot of logistical problems; its huge size required a draft (a water depth) of over 80 feet, meaning some of the world’s main shipping routes, like the Suez and Panama Canals and the English Channel, were no-go areas for the ship.

GUIDE: Towage Claims / Law

When we consider towage, we generally think of one vessel pulling another at sea. However, technically towage is merely any operation where one vessel is assisting another (helping to berth, ating as pusher tug, providing an escort, etc.

The vast majority of towage claims are claims in contract.[1] Routine towage operations under contract are referred to in law as “ordinary towage”, and are contrasted with the sort of ‘emergency’ towage which takes place during a salvage operation. In the vast majority of ordinary towage situations a tug will be providing services on a standard form of contract wording, which both parties will be familiar with.

“Knock-for-Knock” Terms (kfk / k4k)


It is important that our Members enter towage contracts which are on what is known as “knock-for-knock” terms, or terms more favourable. Knock-for-knock terms are essentially an agreement whereby each party takes responsibility for damage to their own property or injury to their own employees, regardless of how caused (i.e. who was negligent). Accordingly, the parties also agree to indemnify each other against claims brought by third parties against the wrong side. The most common standard form towage contracts all include such terms, or terms more favourable still.  

Standard Form Contracts


The main standard form towage contracts used are as follows: 

“UK Standard”[2] – These are the main terms used by harbour authorities in the UK and are used for all general day-to-day towage operations undertaken by their tugs. They are found throughout the common law world and are considered exclusionary, in that they generally exclude the liability of the tug, for damage to the tow and even for damage to the tug (which must be paid for by the tow). For this reason they are considered more favourable, for the tug, than basic “knock-for-knock” terms.


“Towcon” 2008
[3]Towcon contains a basic form of knock-for-knock terms, where the tow and tug agree to meet their own liabilities. Where the tug collides with another vessel or property it accepts liability for the damage and where the tow collides it does the same. The contract is designed for use in the ocean towage of a vessel from one place to another at a fixed rate.

“Towhire” 2008[4]Towhire contains the same basic form of knock-for-knock terms as Towcon, but the contract is designed for the hire of a tug for a period of time, rather than for one specific job.

“Supplytime” 1989 or 2005[5] – Supplytime is not technically a towage contract but a charterparty for the hire of a vessel. However, it is often used in the offshore industry as a contract under which to hire a tug, which will then provide towage services. The contract contains knock-for-knock terms but there is a risk if the tug, once hired, is used for towage operations involving third party vessels. They may then bring claims directly against the tugowner, who would be unable to rely on contractual defences or limits.

Contracts at Common Law 
Sometimes terms are not agreed in advance of the towage operation, or the terms used by the tug are not properly incorporated into the contract of towage. In these circumstances the courts will apply what they call an ‘ordinary contract of towage’. This is a contract with only basic terms, under which the owner of the tug is required to provide a seaworthy tug, which is properly manned and equipped and they must be competent and use skill in carrying out the operation.

A common law towage contract, such as this, is not desirable for a tugowner because although it still absolves them of liability for accidents beyond their control, it does not provide the necessary defences, limitations of liability and safeguards that the normal standard form conditions provide.

The often cited general principle of towage that “tug is servant of tow”, in other words the tug is (generally) the smaller vessel and is only acting under the instructions of the larger vessel. The principler comes from The Niobe (1888).   


[1] There are some notable exceptions. In salvage claims where there is no contract claims arising are based on equitable rights at common law. In so-called ‘gratuitous’ towage situations, where no charge is made for the towage service, claims are based in tort. And where the tow is capable of being considered ‘property’ (say a dumb barge incapable of independent navigation and with no crew) then a claim in bailment is also possible.

[2] UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services (Revised 1986) – Issued by the British Tug Owners Association.
[3] BIMCO’s Towcon 2008 – International Ocean Towage Agreement (Lump Sum).
[4] BIMCO’s Towhire 2008  – International Ocean Towage Agreement (Daily Hire).
[5] BIMCO’s Supplytime ’89 / Supplytime 2005 – Time Charter Party for Offshore Service Vessels.

GUIDE: Salvage Claims

‘Salvage’ is the term used in maritime law to refer to the process whereby a third party rescues a vessel from a danger which would have likely destroyed it by sinking, breaking it up or otherwise. 

The third party is generally entitled to a financial reward for such an action as their assistance can often lead to a saving of several thousands or millions of dollars for the vessel’s owner (the vessel may be worth a considerable amount, its cargo may be worth a considerable amount and the consequences of its loss being avoided – i.e. no fine for oil pollution – may also be worth a considerable amount to the owner.

A salvage operation is generally distinguished from ‘wreck removal’ as its purpose is usually to save a vessel as a going concern, whereas a wreck removal generally concerns a vessel which is already agreed to be a total loss. Consequently salvage operations usually try to cause minimal damage to the concerned vessel whereas wreck removal operations often involve intentionally breaking the vessel involved into pieces.

There are myriad laws around the world concerning salvage and each situation will turn on the particular laws and contracts that apply, as well as the court which has jurisdiction, but there are some general principles which are useful to know as a base knowledge.


GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Normal contractual assistance will not generally constitute a salvage operation. For example, if your vessel is in distress and you decide you need the services of a tug to tow you to a safe port. If you radio a local port and agree basic contractual terms for a towage operation with a set fee then the tug owner could not take your vessel back to port and claim salvage.

2. It is generally accepted that the salvor has a right to a reward for saving the vessel because as we have seen above his service in this regard can be priceless but clearly he cannot merely decide the ship is his own property. Therefore the courts’ view is that an amount of reward should be given to the salvor by the distressed vessel, which is appropriate to the value of the vessel saved, the level of distress it was in and the level of risk which the salvor(s) had to take to salve the vessel.

3. As time is of the essence when a vessel is in distress it is understood that neither the salvor nor the captain / owner of the distressed vessel will generally have time to take lengthy legal advice and negotiate contractual terms for the salvage operation. For this reason procedures such as LOF (Lloyds Open Form), have evolved,  which allow the parties to essentially agree that the operation will go ahead and if they are unable to agree on the appropriate amount of salvage reward afterwards then a specialist arbitrator appointed by Lloyds of London shall make the decision. This option is popular with salvors and distressed vessels as in the heat of the moment it allows decisions to be made quickly without the risk of any gross injustice resulting to either side.

4. In some countries certain vessels in distress may be able to benefit from the assistance of a charitable organisation, such as the RNLI in Britain and Ireland. They respond rapidly to emergencies at sea and whilst the crewmembers waive their right to claim maritime salvage, it is widely accepted that a suitable donation should be made to the service in lieu of them claiming any salvage.

OTHER TYPE OF MARINE SALVAGE

A. FLOTSAM / JETSAM
These terms refer to parts of a ship or its equipment or cargo which wash up ashore. Flotsam refers to things which are accidentally lost at sea (say cargo which is washed overboard in a storm) and Jetsam refers to things which are intentionally put overboard (usually to lighten the ship in heavy weather or in the event of engine problems). When either washes up on the shore they are sometimes referred to as salvage, mainly because in principle those finding them are rescuing them on the shipowners behalf (they should be reported to the receiver of wrecks but sadly this does not frequently happen).

B. DAMAGED / UNWANTED CARGO
Often cargo which is not paid for or accepted by the consignee (say rolls of paper which have got wet during transit and the buyer rejects them or shop fittings for a shop which has gone bankrupt) will be sold as, or for, salvage. Often such goods only achieve a fraction of their original value, which is referred to as their salvage value.

Q: What is the Difference Between an Ocean Liner and a Cruise Ship?

You will often hear people claim that their voyage onbaord the Cunard ship “QE2” (below) was one onboard the world’s largest ‘Ocean Liner’. This is correct, as the “QE2″(recently replaced by the “Queen Mary 2”) was the world’s largest Ocean Liner.

It was, however, nowhere near as big as, for instance, the “Oasis of the Seas” (below) or similar cruise ships; so what was the distinction?
The “Oasis of the Seas” and other such vessels are categorised as ‘Cruise Ships’; large vessels used for the accommodation and entertainment of guests during a sea voyage for pleasure. An ‘Ocean Liner’, on the other hand, is a large ship which transports people from one designated port to another.

If you like, an ‘Ocean Liner’ is a form of sea transport which involves a luxury holiday, whereas a ‘Cruise Ship’ is a form of luxury holiday which involves sea transport.

The “Oasis of the Seas” goes on various different ‘cruises’ throughout the year, with different itineraries, starting and ending in the same port (usually Ft. Lauderdale, USA). The “QE2” on the other hand transported people across the Atlantic, between the ports of Southampton and New York and fed and entertained them on the way.

The Shipping Law Blog

For ten years the Shipping Law Blog has aimed to provide a simple, down-to-earth guide to the world of international shipping and maritime law.

If you have any questions or suggestions please get in touch at editor@theshippinglawblog.com .

Most Popular Posts

A Beginners’ Guide to Sailing

Learning to sail is one of the best ways to familiarise yourself with the basics of operating a vessel on water. Many of the terms draw across to the shipping

A Brief Guide to Liquidated Damages

We often receive queries from readers at the Shipping Law Blog, and today we received one from a non-lawyer, who had been asked to confirm whether one of their contracts

Search The Shipping Law Blog
Questions & Answers
Maritime Disasters
MARITIME STYLE GUIDE
Maritime Law Links
Visitor Loaction Map
Archives
Copyright & Legal

1. All content reserved copyright of theshippinglawblog.com 2015, unless stated otherwise. 2. Header image credit: Paul Gorbould, ‘Leader on Ice’ (Flickr). 3. This website is not intended to provide legal advice and is for interest only. The author does not guarantee the accuracy of any content and, as always, recommends that appropriate professional legal advice is sought by anyone requiring assistance with a shipping law problem. 4. If you have any ideas, recommendations or other queries in relation to the blog please e-mail me at webmaster@theshippinglawblog.com.