Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 JUNE 2018

Who bears the burden of proof in a General Average dispute?

The case considers the meaning and effect of Rule D of the York-Antwerp Rules, and burden of proof in general average.

AustraliaTransport

In brief - UK court considers meaning and effect of Rule D of the York-Antwerp Rules

Mr Justice Teare's decision in MT "Cape Bonny" Tankschiffahrts GmbH & Co KG v Ping An Property and Casualty Insurance Company of China Limited, Beijing Branch [2017] EWHC 3036 has clarified some long unresolved questions of burden of proof in general average.

Insurer denies liability to pay contribution to general average alleging vessel owners failed to exercise due diligence

The oil tanker "Cape Bonny" suffered an engine breakdown in July 2011 whilst undertaking a voyage from Argentina to China. At the time, making matters more difficult, she was attempting to avoid the effect of a typhoon. Towage was arranged and as she was not permitted to enter a Japanese port of refuge, she was towed to South Korea where cargo was transferred to another vessel. She was then towed to sea again to avoid another typhoon before returning to South Korea for repairs.

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.

See more popular content from