Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 MARCH 2026

Sunk by the small print: onerous clauses in marine insurance

This article explains the decision and reasoning in King Trader and then examine how it could be relevant to contractual interpretation in Australia.

AustraliaInsurance

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales' decision in MS Amlin Marine NV v King Trader Ltd 1 (King Trader) provides useful guidance on the interpretation of marine liability insurance policies and enforceability of standard "pay-to-be-paid" terms (PTBP Term), commonly found in P&I Rules and other marine liability insurance contracts which require an insured to first discharge its liability to (i.e. pay) a third party before being entitled to indemnity from insurers.

Whilst our Kennedys colleagues in London reported on King Trader , this article explores the exent to which that decision offers guidance around policy interpretation and the incorporation of onerous or unusual terms in marine insurance policies in Australia.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from