Egypt's Suez Canal blocked by large container ship

The_Traveller

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
3,273
end of the day, the carrier will just recoup all losses from freight forwarders and the importer/exporter eventually lose out.

shipping lines are another kind of mafia.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
17,356
The Egyptian authorities continue to hold the ship and crew hostage, while persisting with extortionate compensation demands:

 

airborne

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
12,270
The Egyptian authorities continue to hold the ship and crew hostage, while persisting with extortionate compensation demands:

Are they allowed to hold all the crew indefinitely in terms of international maritime law?
 

schumi

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
24,360
Ship owner says Suez Canal was at fault over Ever Given grounding- lawyer

The owner of a container ship that blocked the Suez Canal in March says the canal authority was at fault over its grounding as it disputes the vessel's detention and a compensation claim, a lawyer representing the owner said on Saturday.

The Ever Given, one of the world's largest container ships, became jammed across the canal in high winds on March 23, and remained grounded for six days, blocking traffic in both directions and disrupting global trade.

The vessel has since been held in a lake between two stretches of the canal as the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) pursues a $916.5 million claim against Japanese owner Shoei Kisen.

An appeals chamber at Ismailia Economic Court held hearings on Saturday over the ship's detention, which the SCA is seeking to uphold following an appeal by the owner, as well as the SCA's financial claim.

Lawyers representing Shoei Kisen argued that the SCA had been at fault for allowing the ship to enter the waterway amid bad weather, Ahmed Abu Ali, a member of the legal team, told Reuters, adding that the authority failed to prove any fault by the ship.

Recordings from the ship that were presented to the court showed disagreements between SCA pilots and its control centre over whether it should enter the canal, Abu Ali said.

Lawyers for Shoei Kisen said the ship should have been accompanied by at least two tug boats suitable for the ship's size "but this didn't happen", he added.

More at:
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
22,043

D tj

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
1,605
Seems that this lawyer may well be correct.
However being correct and what the court rules..............
 

WollieVerstege

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
602
Ultimately the captain is still in command. If he felt that it was unsafe to enter the channel due to bad weather or that 2 tugs should accompany the ship, then he should have stayed out of the channel until those conditions were met.
The only question now is whether the captain was aware of the inclement weather conditions, or should reasonably have been.
 

LaraC

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
41,164
Ultimately the captain is still in command. If he felt that it was unsafe to enter the channel due to bad weather or that 2 tugs should accompany the ship, then he should have stayed out of the channel until those conditions were met.
The only question now is whether the captain was aware of the inclement weather conditions, or should reasonably have been.
In some cases, courts will base their decision on the testimony of experts. Is the captain not allowed the same courtesy?
e.g. Handing control of the ship over to a canal pilot.
 
Last edited:

WollieVerstege

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
602
In some cases, courts will base their decision on the testimony of experts. Is the captain not allowed the same courtesy?
e.g. Handing control of the ship over to a channel pilot.
The captain never hands control over to anyone. This is a general misconception. The point is however irrelevant.
The captain is the expert on his ship, while the pilot is the expert on the canal.
Before getting to the canal the captain would have been aware of the strong cross winds in the canal. The captain would know that his ship is susceptible to cross winds. So before he arrived at the canal he had 3 options.
1. Ask for tugs to assist.
2. Anchor and wait out the wind.
3. Sail around Cape Town
When he arrived and was refused the assistance of tugs, he still had options 2 and 3.
So the questions becomes, why did the captain still make the decision to enter the canal when he knew, or should have reasonably known, that it was unsave for him to do so? If this was due to internal pressures from his employer, then they must pick up the tab.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
17,356
The captain never hands control over to anyone. This is a general misconception. The point is however irrelevant.
The captain is the expert on his ship, while the pilot is the expert on the canal.
Before getting to the canal the captain would have been aware of the strong cross winds in the canal. The captain would know that his ship is susceptible to cross winds. So before he arrived at the canal he had 3 options.
1. Ask for tugs to assist.
2. Anchor and wait out the wind.
3. Sail around Cape Town
When he arrived and was refused the assistance of tugs, he still had options 2 and 3.
So the questions becomes, why did the captain still make the decision to enter the canal when he knew, or should have reasonably known, that it was unsave for him to do so? If this was due to internal pressures from his employer, then they must pick up the tab.

Your comment applies to damage to the ship, which is not the topic of discussion. The Egyptian authorities are trying to turn this into damage to the canal. In this case they have a vested interest in providing tugs, and can't just wash their hands of the responsibility.
 

LaraC

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
41,164
The captain never hands control over to anyone. This is a general misconception. The point is however irrelevant.
The captain is the expert on his ship, while the pilot is the expert on the canal.
Before getting to the canal the captain would have been aware of the strong cross winds in the canal. The captain would know that his ship is susceptible to cross winds. So before he arrived at the canal he had 3 options.
1. Ask for tugs to assist.
2. Anchor and wait out the wind.
3. Sail around Cape Town
When he arrived and was refused the assistance of tugs, he still had options 2 and 3.
So the questions becomes, why did the captain still make the decision to enter the canal when he knew, or should have reasonably known, that it was unsave for him to do so? If this was due to internal pressures from his employer, then they must pick up the tab.
Apologies for going off topic.
What is the purpose of a canal pilot? Aren't there a responsibility on them to inform the captain of what can and what can't be done?
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
55,608
The captain never hands control over to anyone. This is a general misconception. The point is however irrelevant.
The captain is the expert on his ship, while the pilot is the expert on the canal.

It might not be as clear cut as you are making it, this might be written from an American perspective but it shows that an Admiralty court can find the pilot responsible.


The legal rights and responsibilities of the harbor pilot's action in navigating vessels are well settled. The pilot has primary control of the navigation of the vessel, and the crew must obey any pilot order. The pilot is empowered to issue steering directions and to set the course and speed of the ship and the time, place, and manner of anchoring it. The captain is in command of the ship except for navigation purposes. The captain can properly assume command over the ship when the pilot is obviously incompetent or intoxicated.

The pilot must possess and exercise the ordinary skill and care of one who is an expert in a profession. A pilot can be held personally liable to the owners of the vessel and to other injured parties for damages resulting from NEGLIGENCE that causes a collision. The pilot will be responsible for damages if his or her handling of the ship was unreasonable, according to persons of nautical experience and good seamanship, at the time of the accident.

The negligence of a pilot in the performance of duty is a maritime TORT within the jurisdiction of a court of ADMIRALTY, which deals only with maritime actions.

Read more: Pilot - Ship, Harbor, Port, and Maritime - JRank Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/9210/Pilot.html#ixzz6vh5GPp7p
 

WollieVerstege

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
602
Your comment applies to damage to the ship, which is not the topic of discussion. The Egyptian authorities are trying to turn this into damage to the canal. In this case they have a vested interest in providing tugs, and can't just wash their hands of the responsibility.
But the captain still decided to enter the canal when it was clearly unsafe to do so. This is the decusion we need to understand. If no tugs were available or were not provided then the captain could have anchored and waited for conditions to improve. He chose not to.
As far as I know the SCA has no legal obligation to provide tugs when they are requested and the captain must still make his decisions based on that.
 

WollieVerstege

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
602
Apologies for going off topic.
What is the purpose of a canal pilot? Aren't there a responsibility on them to inform the captain of what can and what can't be done?
The canal pilot is there to provide details on the canal, its status and local weather conditions. The captain is resposible to ensure he understands how his ship will respond to those conditions, as in reality in that moment he is the only one that realistically knows how his ship will respond. He must then make the decision based on that.
 

WollieVerstege

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
602
It might not be as clear cut as you are making it, this might be written from an American perspective but it shows that an Admiralty court can find the pilot responsible.


The legal rights and responsibilities of the harbor pilot's action in navigating vessels are well settled. The pilot has primary control of the navigation of the vessel, and the crew must obey any pilot order. The pilot is empowered to issue steering directions and to set the course and speed of the ship and the time, place, and manner of anchoring it. The captain is in command of the ship except for navigation purposes. The captain can properly assume command over the ship when the pilot is obviously incompetent or intoxicated.

The pilot must possess and exercise the ordinary skill and care of one who is an expert in a profession. A pilot can be held personally liable to the owners of the vessel and to other injured parties for damages resulting from NEGLIGENCE that causes a collision. The pilot will be responsible for damages if his or her handling of the ship was unreasonable, according to persons of nautical experience and good seamanship, at the time of the accident.

The negligence of a pilot in the performance of duty is a maritime TORT within the jurisdiction of a court of ADMIRALTY, which deals only with maritime actions.

Read more: Pilot - Ship, Harbor, Port, and Maritime - JRank Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/9210/Pilot.html#ixzz6vh5GPp7p
Yes, but the pilot does not make the decision to enter the canal or not. The captain does.
If the captain believed it was unsafe to enter the canal without tugs, then he should have dropped anchor and waited for conditions to improve. The pilot only takes over once the transit begins.
 
Top