{"id":96772,"date":"2025-01-31T10:54:43","date_gmt":"2025-01-31T10:54:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=96772"},"modified":"2025-09-02T08:17:39","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T08:17:39","slug":"new-zealand-shipping","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/new-zealand-shipping\/","title":{"rendered":"New Zealand: Shipping"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-96772","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-shipping","jurisdictions-new-zealand"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Fee Langstone<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2025\/01\/FL_Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Fee Langstone<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2025\/01\/FL_Logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Shipping laws and regulations applicable in New Zealand<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What system of port state control applies in your jurisdiction? What are their powers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Port state control in New Zealand (<strong>PSC<\/strong>) is governed by the Marine Transport Act 1994 and carried out in accordance with the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region 1994 (<strong>Tokyo MOU<\/strong>).<\/p>\n<p>From 1 January 2014, New Zealand began implementing the New Inspection Regime for PSC set by the Tokyo MOU. \u00a0Under the New Inspection Regime, higher-risk ships are targeted for inspection. \u00a0This helps avoid unnecessarily frequent inspection of low-risk vessels, which have already been inspected and found to be well run. \u00a0Vessels have a risk-based profile based on various factors such as type of vessel, age, flag and history of the vessel and owner. There are three risk categories: high-risk ship, standard-risk ship, and low-risk ship. \u00a0High-risk ships are inspected every two to four months. \u00a0Members of the Tokyo MOU share a database which monitors vessels and records every inspection.<\/p>\n<p>The regulatory body, Maritime New Zealand, inspects vessels in New Zealand that are due or overdue for inspection (as flagged by the Tokyo MOU database). \u00a0Maritime Officers are guided in their inspection by a checklist based on international convention requirements and resolutions of the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation \u2013 an approach agreed upon by the Tokyo MOU members. \u00a0In cases where there are clear grounds, a Maritime Officer may conduct a more detailed inspection, such as if an issue is identified with a particular aspect of the ship or equipment.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the Tokyo MOU, inspection of foreign ships by Maritime NZ is provided under Sections 54 and 396 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994. \u00a0If a ship is substandard, Maritime NZ inspectors have the power to detain it until it is brought up to standard or to impose conditions on its operation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any applicable international conventions covering wreck removal or pollution? If not what laws apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Pollution regulation for New Zealand\u2019s marine environment is comprised of various legislation, regulations, rules, standards, guidelines, and conventions. The major international conventions implemented in New Zealand include:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li>The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 (the Intervention Convention) and the Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil\u00a01973 (the Intervention Protocol);<\/li>\n<li>The CLC Convention;<\/li>\n<li>The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 (the Oil Pollution Fund Convention);<\/li>\n<li>MARPOL (73\/78);<\/li>\n<li>The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS);<\/li>\n<li>The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990 (the OPRC Convention);<\/li>\n<li>The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (the London Convention) and the 1996 Protocol.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><em>Regulatory framework<\/em><\/p>\n<p>New Zealand\u2019s marine environment protection legislation is provided by the Resource Management Act 1991, the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. Many of the international conventions listed above are given the force of law (or restated) by the legislation (or the associated regulations, rules, and standards).<\/p>\n<p>The Resource Management Act prohibits:<sup>1<\/sup><\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>dumping or incineration of any waste or other matter in the coastal marine area unless expressly allowed by a resource consent;<\/li>\n<li>discharging any harmful substance or contaminant unless permitted and controlled by the Act, or unless after reasonable mixing the harmful substance or contaminant will not have adverse effects; and<\/li>\n<li>dumping or storing any radioactive waste or matter in any land or water.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Maritime Transport Act provides that harmful substances must not be discharged from a ship into the sea within the exclusive economic zone or into the seabed below the sea. A ship owner will be liable in damages to the Crown for all costs associated with cleaning up the harmful substance and any preventative steps taken by the Crown (or marine agency).<sup>2<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 governs exploratory and development activities within New Zealand&#8217;s EEZ and continental shelf. Enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Act prohibits the harmful discharge and dumping of waste from structures, submarine pipelines, and ships, particularly when associated with mining discharges.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the primary pollution regulations, the Biosecurity Act 1993 enables the Ministry of Primary Industries to create standards that are generally applicable to vessels entering New Zealand waters. The standards include requirements for the discharge of ships\u2019 ballast water, and biofouling requirements. \u00a0Vessels must arrive in New Zealand with a \u2018clean hull\u2019.<sup>3<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>The importation and management of hazardous waste and products is governed by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.<\/p>\n<p><em>Penalties <\/em><\/p>\n<p>Under both the Resource Management Act and Maritime Transport Act, when an offence is committed, both the master and the owner (including the beneficial owner or charterer) commit a \u2018strict liability\u2019 offence. Therefore, those parties may be found guilty even if they had no intention to commit the offence \u2013 it will be enough that the offence was committed.<\/p>\n<p><u>Footnote(s):<\/u><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">1<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> Resource Management Act 1991, s15A-15C.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">2<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> Maritime Transport Act 1994, s345.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">3<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> As defined in schedule 4 of the Craft Risk Management Standard dated 13 October 2023.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the limit on sulphur content of fuel oil used in your territorial waters? Is there a MARPOL Emission Control Area in force?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The International Maritime Organisation adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (<strong>MARPOL<\/strong>) in 1973. MARPOL aims to prevent and minimise ship pollution in the marine environment and is the primary international regulation for addressing the impacts of climate change on shipping.<\/p>\n<p>There are six annexes categorised by pollution type. Annex 6 seeks to limit air pollution from ships around ports and harbours and came into force in 2005.\u00a0 If a country becomes party to MARPOL, then MARPOL applies to ships registered to that state, wherever they operate. \u00a0New Zealand joined MARPOL in 1998 and is party to four of the six annexes. \u00a0After consultation in 2018\u201319, the Government announced that New Zealand would sign up to Annex 6 from late 2021, considering the time required to align domestic legislation with obligations under Annex 6.<\/p>\n<p>Under MARPOL Annex 6, the current sulphur limit for marine fuels is 0.5% by mass. Ships coming into New Zealand may be selected for routine random sampling and testing of on-board and in-use marine fuel in line with the Part 199 Rules and MARPOL Annex 6 regulations.<\/p>\n<p>There are currently no MARPOL Emission Control Areas in New Zealand waters.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any applicable international conventions covering collision and salvage? If not what laws apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Convention on the International Regulation for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (<strong>COLREGs<\/strong>) has been incorporated into New Zealand under Part 22 of the Maritime Rules. In line with international practice, liability for collisions is determined in accordance with normal tort law principles. \u00a0Negligence will generally be established when the COLREGs have been contravened.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Admiralty Act 1973, no claim shall lie <em>in personam<\/em> in respect of damage, loss of life, or personal injury arising out of:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>a collision between ships; or<\/li>\n<li>a manoeuvre or omission to carry out a manoeuvre by any ship to avoid a collision; or<\/li>\n<li>non-compliance with the Collision Regulations, \u2014<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>unless\u2014<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>the defendant ordinarily resides in New Zealand or has a place of business within New Zealand; or<\/li>\n<li>the cause of action arose within New Zealand territorial waters; or<\/li>\n<li>an action arising out of the same incident or series of incidents is proceeding in or has been heard and determined in the court; or<\/li>\n<li>the defendant has submitted to a New Zealand court\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The 1989 Salvage Convention is given effect in New Zealand by section 216 of the Marine Transport Act, incorporated as schedule 6.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims? If not, is there equivalent domestic legislation that applies? Who can rely on such limitation of liability provisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The 1976 International Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (<strong>LLMC<\/strong>)\u00a0was given effect in New Zealand through part 7 of the Marine Transport Act, incorporated through schedule 8.<\/p>\n<p>The LLMC allows shipowners, charterers, managers, and operators of vessels to limit their liability for claims arising from the following incidents:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li><strong>Loss of life or personal injury<\/strong>: Claims for death or injury to passengers, crew, and other individuals caused by incidents involving the ship;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Loss or damage to property:<\/strong> Damage to cargo, other vessels, and infrastructure such as harbour facilities, docks, and navigation aids caused by the ship;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Delay in the carriage of goods or passengers<\/strong>: Claims arising from delays in the delivery of cargo or passengers due to the ship\u2019s actions or omissions;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Environmental damage (non-excluded): <\/strong>Damage caused by environmental pollution, except where other conventions (e.g., the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage) specifically apply;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Wreck removal:<\/strong> Costs associated with the removal, destruction, or marking of a sunken or stranded vessel, unless excluded by national legislation or other conventions;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Cost of preventative: <\/strong>Costs incurred to prevent or minimise the effects of incidents, including salvage operations; and<\/li>\n<li><strong>Other incidents: <\/strong>Any other incidents arising during the operation or management of the ship where claims relate to maritime operations.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The ability to limit liability applies unless the party seeking limitation is shown to have acted recklessly or with intent to cause harm, with knowledge that harm would probably result.<\/p>\n<p>Liability limits are calculated based on the ship\u2019s tonnage. The convention specifies the limits for personal injury or death claims and other types of claims (e.g., property damage or pollution).\u00a0 The 1996 Protocol (as amended) to the LLMC significantly increased the limits of liability.<sup>4<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>In respect of claims for loss of life or personal injury, the limit is 2 million \u2018Units of Account\u2019 for a ship with a tonnage not exceeding 2,000 tons. For a ship with a tonnage in excess of 2,000 tons, the following limits apply:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li>for each ton from 2,001 to 30,000 tons, 800 Units of Account;<\/li>\n<li>for each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, 600 Units of Account; and<\/li>\n<li>for each ton in excess of 70,000 tons, 400 Units of Account.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>For any other claim, the limit is 1 million Units of Account for a ship with a tonnage not exceeding 2,000 tons, for a ship with a tonnage in excess\u00a0of 2,000 tons, the following amounts apply:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li>for each ton from 2,001 to 30,000 tons, 400 Units of Account;<\/li>\n<li>for each ton from 30,001 to 70,000 tons, 300 Units of Account; and<\/li>\n<li>for each ton in excess of 70,000 tons, 200 Units of Account.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The Unit of Account referred to is the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary Fund.<\/p>\n<p>In relation to carriers\u2019 liability, both the Hague-Visby Rules and the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 (<strong>CCLA<\/strong>) limit a carrier\u2019s liability for loss or damage that was not caused intentionally or recklessly. Under the Hague-Visby Rules, liability is limited in accordance with Article 4. \u00a0Under the CCLA, liability is capped at NZ$2,000 for each unit of goods lost or damaged.<\/p>\n<p><u>Footnote(s):<\/u><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">4<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> The Protocol of 1996 to Amend the Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (1976) is incorporated into schedule 9 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If cargo arrives delayed, lost or damaged, what can the receiver do to secure their claim? Is your country party to the 1952 Arrest Convention? If your country has ratified the 1999 Convention, will that be applied, or does that depend upon the 1999 Convention coming into force? If your country does not apply any Convention, (and\/or if your country allows ships to be detained other than by formal arrest) what rules apply to permit the detention of a ship, and what limits are there on the right to arrest or detain (for example, must there be a \u201cmaritime claim\u201d, and, if so, how is that defined)? Is it possible to arrest in order to obtain security for a claim to be pursued in another jurisdiction or in arbitration?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>New Zealand is not a signatory to any of the international conventions regarding ship arrest. Ship arrests are provided for and governed by the Admiralty Act 1973, the New Zealand High Court Rules 2016, and the common law.<\/p>\n<p>At common law, claims which can support what is known as a maritime lien automatically give a right to claim against the vessel. Maritime liens are generally limited to claims for salvage, costs of damage done by a vessel, employees\u2019 wages, and master\u2019s wages and disbursements.<\/p>\n<p>Section 4 of the Admiralty Act sets out 19 categories under which a ship can be arrested.<sup>5<\/sup>\u00a0A claim based on a maritime lien can generally be brought regardless of who owns the vessel, but the other statutory claims referred to in the Admiralty Act can only be brought if the person or company who owes the debt <em>in personam<\/em> also owns the ship at the time that the action is brought.<sup>6<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>In relation to arresting a ship for security, the party seeking the arrest would file substantive proceedings in New Zealand, arrest the vessel, and then pursue those proceedings in New Zealand.\u00a0 There is no legal restriction preventing a foreign entity from tracking a vessel to New Zealand, arresting it, staying the New Zealand proceedings, and pursuing its claim in a different jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p><u>Footnote(s):<\/u><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">5<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> Ownership claims, co-owner disputes, ship mortgages, damage caused by ship, damage to ship, personal injury or loss of life, cargo damage, carriage agreements, salvage claims, towage claims, pilotage claims, supply claims, construction\/maintenance claims, crew wages, disbursement claims, general average, bottomry, seizure and forfeiture, admiralty rights.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">6<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> Admiralty Act 1973, s 5(1) &amp; 5(2).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">For an arrest, are there any special or notable procedural requirements, such as the provision of a PDF or original power of attorney to authorise you to act?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Before attempting to arrest a ship, the applicant should search the Admiralty Register to check that there is no current caveat against arrest. The applicant must have legitimate grounds for arrest. \u00a0If an applicant has acted in bad faith or has been grossly negligent, it may be liable for damages for wrongful arrest. \u00a0Bad faith may be found where on a subjective assessment, the arresting party has no honest belief in its entitlement to arrest the ship. \u00a0Liability may be founded on gross negligence where, on an objective assessment, the basis for arrest is so inadequate that it may be inferred that the arresting party did not believe in its entitlement to arrest \u2013 or acted without any serious regard as to whether it had adequate grounds to arrest the ship.<sup>7<\/sup><\/p>\n<p>Under the High Court Rules 2016, the applicant must first issue a notice of proceeding <em>in rem <\/em>before making an application for warrant of arrest against a vessel.<sup>8<\/sup>\u00a0However, in practice, the applicant usually files the notice of proceeding <em>in rem <\/em>and the application for warrant of arrest simultaneously.<\/p>\n<p>To apply for a warrant of arrest, an application needs to be accompanied by a supporting affidavit which provides:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li>the name and description of the applicant;<\/li>\n<li>the nature of the claim;<\/li>\n<li>the name or nature of the property to be arrested;<\/li>\n<li>the extent to which the claim has been satisfied, or security for payment of the claim given to the Registrar;<\/li>\n<li>whether any caveat against the issue of a warrant of arrest has been filed and, if so, whether a copy of the notice of proceeding or a notice requiring payment or security has been served on the caveator; and<\/li>\n<li>any other relevant information known to the applicant.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>In addition, the applicant needs to provide a warrant of arrest, a notice by the Registrar of the arrest (which both the Registrar and the applicant will sign if the application is accepted), and an indemnity to the Admiralty Registrar with security. The security will usually be relatively significant as it needs to cover the cost of maintaining custody of the ship.<\/p>\n<p>The filing fee is currently NZ$1,755 for initiating the <em>in rem<\/em> proceeding and NZ$1,950 for filing an application for the issue of a warrant of arrest.<sup>9<\/sup><\/p>\n<p><u>Footnote(s):<\/u><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">7<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> <em>Centro Latino Americano de Commercio Exterior SA v. Owners of the Ship \u2018Kommunar\u2019 (The \u2018Kommunar\u2019) (No. 3) <\/em>[1997] 1 Lloyds Law Reports 22<em>; Nalder &amp; Biddle (Nelson) Ltd v. C &amp; F Fishing Ltd <\/em>[2005] 3\u00a0NZLR 698 (HC).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">8<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> High Court Rules 2016, r25.34.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">9<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> High Court Fees Regulations 2013.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What maritime liens \/ maritime privileges are recognised in your jurisdiction? Is recognition a matter for the law of the forum, the law of the place where the obligation was incurred, the law of the flag of the vessel, or another system of law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As explained earlier, maritime liens are recognised in New Zealand for certain types of claims. This includes claims for salvage, costs of damage done by a vessel, employees\u2019 wages, and master\u2019s wages and disbursements.\u00a0 Maritime liens are recognised under the Admiralty Act rather than by an international convention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement that the owner or demise charterer of the vessel be liable in personam? Or can a vessel be arrested in respect of debts incurred by, say, a charterer who has bought but not paid for bunkers or other necessaries?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Section 5 of the Admiralty Act provides that a claim under the 19 categories in section 4 can only be brought if the person who owes the debt <em>in personam<\/em> also owns the ship at the time the claim is brought. However, this requirement does not apply when the basis for the ship arrest is a maritime lien.<\/p>\n<p>In relation to bunkers, the High Court has previously suggested that the ship comprises of permanent structures, components and accessories but not her bunkers.<sup>10<\/sup>\u00a0Therefore, it is unlikely that bunkers may be arrested separately, as distinct from the ship itself.\u00a0 As an alternative, a party may be able to apply for a freezing order in relation to the bunkers, which would restrain the respondent from removing the bunkers (or disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of them).<\/p>\n<p><u>Footnote(s):<\/u><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">10<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> <em>Mobil Oil NZ Ltd v The Ship \u2018Rangiora\u2019,<\/em> HC Auckland AD 877, 10 August 1999.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are sister ship or associated ship arrests possible?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, but under section 5(1) of the Admiralty Act there is limited scope to arrest a sister ship or associated ship. If the claim relates to ownership claims, co-owner disputes, ship mortgages, or a claim for seizure and forfeiture, or admiralty, then only the ship in question can be arrested.<\/p>\n<p>If the claim relates to damage caused by a ship, damage to a ship, personal injury or loss of life, cargo damage, carriage agreements, salvage claims, towage claims, pilotage claims, supply claims, construction or maintenance claims, crew wages, disbursement claims, general average, or bottomry, then a sister or associated ship may be arrested if the particular subject ship, at the time the action was brought, is beneficially owned in relation to all the shares therein, or is on charter to the person who would have liability <em>in personam<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the arresting party need to put up counter-security as the price of an arrest? In what circumstances will the arrestor be liable for damages if the arrest is set aside?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The arresting party is not required to provide counter-security.\u00a0 However, the arresting party must give the Registrar an indemnity and security for the Registrar\u2019s costs associated with the care of the arrested vessel as part of the arrest application.\u00a0 Usually, this involves a payment up front to cover initial costs and then further payments to cover subsequent costs.<\/p>\n<p>If a ship has been arrested and other parties have claims against it, one of those parties may prevent its release by filing a request for a caveat against release or against the payment out of court of any money held that represents the proceeds of the ship&#8217;s sale. The caveat remains valid for six months.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How can an owner secure the release of the vessel? For example, is a Club LOU acceptable security for the claim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Following an arrest and where a claim is disputed, an interested party can seek the release of an arrested vessel by paying security to the Court following which the funds will be held pending a determination of the matter.<\/p>\n<p>A letter of undertaking from an owner\u2019s Club is preferable before an arrest is undertaken, but following an arrest it may be possible to negotiate a commercial resolution, based on a Club LOU, between the involved parties.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Describe the procedure for the judicial sale of arrested ships. What is the priority ranking of claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Any party to the proceeding (including interveners) may request a commission for the appraisement and sale either before or after the judgment. The order of priority is not immutable but, subject to any discretionary element taking into account the circumstances of the case, the customary priority order is as follows:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li>costs and expenses of the Registrar;<\/li>\n<li>costs and expenses of the producer of the fund (generally the arresting party);<\/li>\n<li>maritime liens;<\/li>\n<li>possessory liens;<\/li>\n<li>mortgages; and<\/li>\n<li>statutory claims under section 4(1) of the Admiralty Act 1973.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who is liable under a bill of lading? How is \u201cthe carrier\u201d identified? Or is that not a relevant question?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The contracting shipowner or the carrier is usually liable to the contacting party for any loss or damage which occurs to the goods under the contracting carrier\u2019s responsibility. However, both the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and the Hague\/Hague-Visby Rules (incorporated into New Zealand law by the Maritime Transport Act 1994) limit the carrier\u2019s liability.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the carrier does not have the benefit of the limitation clauses if the carrier has intentionally or recklessly caused the damage or loss.<\/p>\n<p>The identity of the carrier is one of the key considerations. The details of the shipowner or the \u201ccarrier\u201d will usually be set out or defined in the bill of the lading.\u00a0 It can usually also be ascertained from the company name on the bill or from the person\/company who has signed the bill.\u00a0 Some bills of lading may also expressly include the identity of the carrier through an identity of carrier clause, and this will be recognised and binding on the parties if it is clearly set out in the bill of lading.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the proper law of the bill of lading relevant? If so, how is it determined?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, the proper law of the bill of lading is relevant and this will usually be set out in the terms of the bill of lading. Where there is a dispute between the parties over the proper law of the bill of lading, the Court will look to the general rules of contract interpretation including the facts, context and object of the contract, the plain and ordinary meaning of the words, and the intention of the parties in determining the proper law of the bill of lading.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are jurisdiction clauses recognised and enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, valid, clearly set out and incorporated jurisdiction clauses in a bill of lading are recognised and enforceable. However, section 210 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 provides that any agreement\/clause, whether made in New Zealand or elsewhere has no effect to the extent it purports to preclude or limit the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts in respect of a bill of lading or similar document of title relating to the carriage of goods from or to any place in New Zealand.\u00a0 Nevertheless, section 210 does not limit or affect any provision or agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration in New Zealand or any other country.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the attitude of your courts to the incorporation of a charterparty, specifically: is an arbitration clause in the charter given effect in the bill of lading context?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The provisions of a charterparty, including an arbitration clause will be given effect to in a bill of lading if the provisions\/clauses are validly incorporated, either directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly and referred to in a bill of lading.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to any of the international conventions concerning bills of lading (the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules etc)? If so, which one, and how has it been adopted \u2013 by ratification, accession, or in some other manner? If not, how are such issues covered in your legal system?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, New Zealand has ratified the Hague\/Hague-Visby Rules through the Maritime Transport Act 1994. Section 209(1) of this Act provides that the Rules shall have the force of law in New Zealand, and the Rules are set out in Schedule 5 of the Act.<\/p>\n<p>New Zealand is not currently a party to the Rotterdam Rules.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards? If not, what rules apply? What are the available grounds to resist enforcement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, New Zealand is a contracting state to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please summarise the relevant time limits for commencing suit in your jurisdiction (e.g. claims in contract or in tort, personal injury and other passenger claims, cargo claims, salvage and collision claims, product liability claims).<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is a limitation period of six years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based which generally applies to all money claims in accordance with section 11(a) of the Limitation Act 2010. However, there is an exception to this general rule if the claim has a late knowledge date in accordance with section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.\u00a0 The late knowledge date is the date the claimant gained knowledge of all the relevant facts on which the claim is based has occurred.<\/p>\n<p>The other exceptions to the general limitation period include:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li>The Hague-Visby Rules provides for a time limit of one year for loss or damage to goods under a contract of carriage governed by the Rules;<\/li>\n<li>Section 97(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (MTA) provides a two-year limit to enforce any claim or lien against a ship (the defendant ship) or the owners of the ship, if the action concerns:\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 5\" type=\"i\">\n<li>(a) any damage or loss to another ship, or to cargo or freight of another ship, or to any other property on board another ship, that was caused wholly or partly by the fault of the defendant ship; or<\/li>\n<li>(b) damages for loss of life or personal injuries suffered by any person on board another ship, that were caused wholly or partly by the fault of the defendant ship.<\/li>\n<li>However, the Court can extend the two-year time period on the plaintiff\u2019s application or to the extent and on conditions the Court thinks fit.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<li>Section 361 of the MTA provides that no action in respect of the discharge or escape of oil from a Civil Liability Convention (International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and replaced by the 1992 Protocol) ship or in respect of the discharge or escape of bunker oil from a Bunker Oil Convention (International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001) ship, shall be brought in any court, unless the proceedings are commenced not later than 3 years after the date on which the claim arose, nor later than 6 years after the event, or, as the case may be, the first of the events, by reason of which liability was incurred;<\/li>\n<li>A one-year time limit applies for bringing claims against domestic carriers for loss of goods under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. The contracting carrier must be given written notice of the claim for damage to or partial loss of the goods within 30 days;<\/li>\n<li>A two-year time limit applies to salvage claims in accordance with Article 23 of the International Convention of Salvage 1989; and<\/li>\n<li>Admiralty proceedings are subject to the time periods set out in the Limitation Act 2010.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your system of law recognize force majeure, or grant relief from undue hardship?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, force majeure is a recognised concept in New Zealand.\u00a0 Usually, a force majeure clause is incorporated into a contract between parties to manage the risk of unforeseeable events and to protect them from liability for non-performance or delay in the case of such event.\u00a0 In New Zealand, the concept is a creature of contract \u2013 there is no similar common law or statutory concept.\u00a0 Similarly, there is no statutory framework or common law principles specifically addressing the issue of undue hardship.\u00a0 However, some statutory provisions and common law doctrines provide relief if a party to a contract has been induced or wronged.\u00a0 \u00a0For example, section 7 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 provides relief to a party from contractual obligations if the other party has engaged in unconscionable conduct.<sup>11<\/sup> Furthermore, vitiating factors of contract law such as misrepresentation, undue influence, economic duress, and unconscionable bargains are all recognised under the common law in New Zealand.<\/p>\n<p><u>Footnote(s):<\/u><\/p>\n<p><sup style=\"font-size: 9px\">11<\/sup> <span style=\"font-size: 12px\"> The Court in granting relief may consider factors such as: Bargaining power, good faith, a party\u2019s ability to protect interests, a party\u2019s ability to understanding documents, unfair pressure, contract inducement, post-contract conduct.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">5243<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/96772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}