national

Japan shipowner asks cargo owners to share Suez damage cost

16 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

Shipowners asking cargo owners to share costs incurred in refloating the vessel and cost of damages to canal, is a standard practice in maritime trade, known as General Average. In any case, all costs/damages/expenses (including legal expenses), will ultimately be picked up by insurers of Ship and Cargo. Current stalemate is with regard to quantum of damage/losses suffered by canal authority, exact quantum of which has not been established. That is why providing a bank guarantee, pending working out exact amount for which shipowners are liable, is a sensible way out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why can't shipowners provide a bank guarantee for the amount claimed by canal authority as a security for release of ship, until court decides the exact amount of damages to be paid by shipowners? The ship can't be detained indefinitely until court takes a final call. This is a standard practice in financial disputes pending in courts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would have thought that it was the other way around, the Egyptian "Authorities" are the ones being lazy not dredging the canal, not maintaining it properly, not having the proper safeguards in place to avoid such an incident. They're conducting what would be considered as holding to ransom another persons goods.... despicable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ship's 25 Indian crewmembers who are still on board are all in good health, the company said."

Of course they are since they are not in India.

North South East West, home is best

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Can other ship operators send an invoice to the Evergreen ship owners for there wasted time/lost revenue after being held up due to there ships accident?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why did this ship nose dive into the embankment in the first place? if it was down to the pilot, and it was his down to his poor judgment, it the ports problem, but like wise if it was souley the captain's poor judgement the ship owner pay, but if it was a combanation of bad calls, likewise it should be proportioned persentage blame and the cost should be propotional, and how much is it costing the ship owners for this ship to be at anchor whilst the port authorities hold it to ransom untill the invoice is payed?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Since owner has nothing to do with accident, even if freight owners pay, owner should not pay, that German operator and Evergreen should pay. Also Suez canal should pay itself for giving useless captain.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

PaulToday  09:46 am JST

No! the shipowner should pay the whole cost, it is their responsibility and they have already been paid for transportation. If they are incapable of doing their job, I do not see why cargo owners should pay additional fees for shipowners incompetence!

Spoken like a person completely ignorant of how Marine Insurance works. Well done.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It is a Japanese owned ship so now it is all about putting the blame with others.

asking freight owners to pay is like asking airplane pax to pay after a plane crash. Ridiculous. And even with a pilot on board the responsibility rests always with the captain who remains on the bridge.

the pilot takes over from the steering man, not as captain.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Oh, I’m sure they’ll voluntarily pay the owners for their poor management.

or maybe not. It’s not in Japan, after all, so they can’t force everyone to pay and “share the suffering”.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

AviBajajToday  10:16 am JST

Exactly in fact suez canal should pay as if the ship would not fit in there why did they allow it in the canal by false information as it was too shallow for the ship

Do some checking before posting.

wind n strom might be excuse from the greedy suez canal authorities bt in reality the ship might have performed the marine doughnut just like cars do in tarmac by braking the front wheels n letting the force from the rear wheel to make it turn sideways

As for this, there are words to describe your writings but they would not be permitted here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Exactly in fact suez canal should pay as if the ship would not fit in there why did they allow it in the canal by false information as it was too shallow for the ship wind n strom might be excuse from the greedy suez canal authorities bt in reality the ship might have performed the marine doughnut just like cars do in tarmac by braking the front wheels n letting the force from the rear wheel to make it turn sideways

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So, if a car rental company hires out a car to someone and it has an accident, the rental company should pay ?

The pilots that are put aboard a ship to navigate it through the canal should be responsible, not the owners of the ship.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

what is the point of local pilots directing the passage if the owners of the ship still have to pay for any problem?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

No! the shipowner should pay the whole cost, it is their responsibility and they have already been paid for transportation. If they are incapable of doing their job, I do not see why cargo owners should pay additional fees for shipowners incompetence!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

"The ship's 25 Indian crewmembers who are still on board are all in good health, the company said."

Of course they are since they are not in India.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites