(5 minutes read)
· An Egyptian appeals court said recently it lacked jurisdiction to look into the Suez Canal Authority’s demands to uphold financial claims that led to the seizure of the cargo ship
· Initially, the Suez Canal Authority demanded US$916 million as compensation, which was later reduced to US$ 550 million
· Lawyers representing the ship’s owners put the blame on the Authority for the mishap; they argued that the canal authorities did not provide evidence faulting the ship’s crew.
An Egyptian appeals court said recently it lacked jurisdiction to look into the Suez Canal Authority’s demands to uphold financial claims that led to the seizure of the cargo ship. The ill-fated cargo ship blocked the waterway in March causing large-scale disruptions in the movement of goods . The court was to decide the authority’s petition to find who was at fault when the Ever Given ran aground and how much compensation should be paid.
The appeal’s chamber of the Ismailia Economic Court referred the case to a lower court to decide on the legality of the seizure of the ship until the settlement of compensation claim between the Suez Canal Authority and Shoei Kisen Kaisha Ltd., the ship’s Japanese owner. The Ever Given was on its way to the Dutch port of Rotterdam on March 23, when the incident took place. The blockade was finally removed after a massive effort by tugboats and helped by the tides. The skyscraper-sized ship blockaded the entire cargo passing through the channel for six days . Close to 10% of the world’s trade passes through the Canal. The Suez Canal Authority recently revealed, for the first , hat a salvage boat capsized during the operation, leaving one worker dead. The immediate reason for hiding that information is not known. The owners of cargo ship in their deposition before the Court argued that there was heavy storm when the ship hit aground, pleading that the incident was due to force majeure (Act of God).
The Panama-flagged vessel, which carries cargo between Asia and Europe, has been ordered by authorities to remain in a holding lake mid-canal as its owner and the canal authority try to settle the compensation dispute. Initially, the Suez Canal Authority demanded US$916 million as compensation, which was later reduced to US$ 550 million. The compensation was calculated to defray the salvage operation, costs of stalled canal traffic and lost transit fees for the week the Ever Given blocked the canal. The Canal Authorities did not give a break-up of the compensation. .
Lawyers representing the ship’s owners put the blame on the Authority for the mishap. They argued that the canal authorities did not provide evidence faulting the ship’s crew. They further pointed out that the authority should not have allowed the vessel to sail in the waterway amid bad weather. The ship, they said, had been overcome by strong winds as it entered the canal from the Red Sea. To substantiate their argument, they said the Voyage Data Recorder, also known as a vessel’s black box, had recorded a debate between canal pilots and its control center over whether it should be allowed to transit the canal. Two pilots from the canal authority were aboard the vessel to guide it when the grounding happened.
The vessel’s owners had, on their part, demanded US$100,000 in initial compensation for losses related to its seizure. The canal authorities maintained that though their pilots t boarded ships to guide them through the waterway, the ship’s captain retains ultimate authority over the vessel and that the pilots’ role is an advisory one.
