header-logo header-logo

03 February 2011
Issue: 7451 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Shipping

Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 24, [2011] All ER (D) 201 (Jan)

There was no rule of law that piratical seizure of a vessel was automatically an actual total loss (ATL). The correct approach was to “wait and see”.  Piratical seizure where there was not only a chance, but a strong likelihood that payment of a comparatively small sum relative to the value of the vessel and her cargo as ransom, would secure its recovery, was not an ATL. It was not an irretrievable deprivation of property. It was a typical “wait and see” situation. The facts would not have supported a claim for ATL, for the test was unlikelihood of recovery. Further, there was no general rule that capture of seizure was an ATL. It might, in the absence of a policy of ransom amount to an ATL, where the pirates escaped with their prize and there was no prospect whatever of finding or recovering vessel or cargo, but where a chance of recapture remains even such a seizure would not give rise

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll