Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
LIMITABLE CLAIMS AND THE VIENNA CONVENTION: “IT IS WHAT IT IS”
Claudio Bozzi*
The Flaminia
Limitation of liability is a unique “convenience”1 which makes the risk of maritime ventures insurable at a reasonable cost, and encourages investment in them,2 by controversially shielding guilty parties from consequences of liability despite their being at fault.3 The powerful benefits of limitation require courts to balance the availability and scope of the shield with awarding compensation otherwise due to injured parties. The balancing act had to be performed once more in The Flaminia.4
Facts, proceedings and issues
The appellant (MSC) was the charterer and the respondent (Conti) the owner of MSC Flaminia (the vessel), carrying cargo including containers of 80 per cent divinylbenzene (DVB80) from Charleston to Antwerp, the combustion of which resulted in a fire which took the lives of three crew, injured others, damaged and destroyed cargo, and damaged the vessel.
Conti incurred significant costs and expenses for salvage and towage of the vessel to Wilhelmshaven, Germany, payments to national authorities, discharge and disposal of cargo, removal and disposal of firefighting water and contaminated waste material,
* Lecturer, Deakin Law School; Barrister, Victorian Bar.
1. The Bramley Moore
[1962] 2 Lloyd's Rep 429, 437; [1964] P 200, 220 (Lord Denning MR).
2. See Lord Mustill, “Ships are Different—or are they?” [1993] LMCLQ 490.
3. C Gilmore and G Black, The Law of Admiralty, 2nd edn (Mineola, NY, 1975), 822 [10.4(a)].
4. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Conti 11 Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co KG MS (The MSC Flaminia) [2025] UKSC 14; [2025] 2 Lloyd's Rep 150; [2025] Bus LR 774; [2025] 1 WLR 1835 (hereafter “The Flaminia SC”).
Case and comment
579