Marinas Can Limit Their Liability Under The MSA 1995: Holyhead Marina V. Farrer

• Published date: 08 November 2021
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Marine/ Shipping, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Quadrant Chambers
• Author: Mr Nigel Cooper, Robert Thomas QC and Benjamin Coffer

OVERVIEW

The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in Holyhead Marina v Farrer [2021] EWCA Civ 1585, upholding the decision of Mr Justice Teare that a marina counts as a "dock" for the purposes of section 191 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and is therefore entitled to limit its liability under that section. Nigel Cooper QC appeared for the Appellants leading James Watthey instructed by Daniel Crockford at Ince; Robert Thomas QC and Benjamin Coffer appeared for the Respondent instructed by Emma Rice at Clyde & Co.

On 1 and 2 March 2018, a severe storm known as 'Storm Emma' caused very substantial damage to Holyhead Marina, including the break-up and detachment of the floating elements of the Marina itself. The storm, and the resulting break-up of the Marina, caused loss and damage to yachts and other ships which were present in and around the Marina at the time.

The owners of the Marina sought a general decree that they were entitled to limit their liability under section 191 of the 1995 Act, which grants "the owners of any dock or canal" a right to limit their liability similar to the right of a shipowner under the 1976 Limitation Convention. The liability of the dock or canal owner is limited by reference to the tonnage of the largest UK ship which has been within "the area over which the authority or person discharges any functions" at any time within the last five years. "Dock" is given a wide meaning by section 191(9) to include "wet docks and basins, tidal docks and basins, locks, cuts, entrances, dry docks, graving docks, gridirons, slips, quays, wharves, piers, stages, landing places and jetties."

The owners of yachts which were damaged by Storm Emma resisted the right to limit, arguing that the Marina was not a "dock" for the purposes of section 191 and that the Claimant was therefore not entitled to the benefit of the section. At first instance, Mr Justice Teare accepted that although the Marina was not a "dock" on the natural meaning of that word, the floating pontoons which comprised the Marina could properly be described as a landing place, jetty or stage (but not a "pier"). Lord Justice Flaux granted the yacht owners permission to appeal.

On appeal, the yacht owners argued that while the individual elements of the Marina might constitute landing places, jetties or stages the Marina as whole could not be described as...