Interclub Agreement Apportionment

It may be, as the charterers have said, that determining the actual cause of a claim can raise difficult questions that are not always easy to resolve. However, the introduction of a guilt requirement would certainly have served only to add an additional layer of complexity, which would be more difficult and no less, than the sharing of claims that the ICA Framer intended to resolve in the “mechanistic” base and on the basis of “Knock for Knock”. On the other hand, the owners stated that the ICA was concerned about determining the cause of the underlying right and that no part of section 8 addressed debt or fault as a test of division. Therefore, the word “act” in the phrase “act or negligence” in point 8 (d) meant any act at the origin, whether guilty or not. The objective of the ICA is to avoid lengthy and costly litigation on liability and distribution issues and instead to ensure a “gross and finite” distribution of liability between the parties. Clubs recommend that their members accept the agreement for the allocation of liability for cargo claims that arise in the context, initially or in connection with all parties to the charter on Form NYPE 1946 or asbatime Form 1981, whether or not that agreement was included in these charter parties. Unless the ICA is expressly included in the charter part, it cannot be applicable. Yes, another dispute over the wording of the Inter-Club agreement, which, of course, serves to reduce disputes! This time, it was the meaning of the words “similar change” in section 8, point b), which, of course, makes charterers 100% responsible for cargo requests resulting from cargo handling, unless the words “responsibility” are added to section 8 of the NYPE form or there has been a “similar amendment” that makes the captain responsible for handling the cargo. If such a change has been made, we will return to a 50/50 prima facie division, unless the charterer can prove a cause inability to return 100% to the owners.

The court agreed with the charterers that the chartering party included, strictly constructed, only the parts of the 2011 ICA regarding the allocation and processing of freight rights. The wording of section 35 was clearly restrictive and did not provide security for claims.