Page 38 - The Insurance Times August 2024
P. 38

Westminster NV v Mountain, that the payment of a ransom  Thus, the “Bunga Melati Dua” is an example of a marine
         can be recovered as a sue and labour expense pursuant to  insurance contract that did not clearly define when losses
         section 78(4) of the MIA. It logically followed that the  due to piracy could be claimed. Following this decision, it is
         payment of a ransom could not be against public policy.  important for contracts of insurance to deal with all
                                                              eventualities in the event of pirate attack in order to avoid
         The Claimant also submitted that it could not or should not  any uncertainty in their interpretation.
         be under a duty of sue and labour to make a ransom
         payment meaning that capture, which could only be    In the absence of express agreement, where the recovery
         resolved by way of a ransom payment, fulfilled the test of  of a ship’s cargo remains a possibility, no claims for the total
         an ATL. This argument was dismissed by the Court. The  loss of the cargo can be made against the cargo insurer. It
         Court's decision as to whether seizure by pirates amounted  is up to the parties in insurance contracts to clearly define
         to an actual total loss was based on a factual analysis of the  the point at which a claim for the full insured value of the
         likelihood that the vessel and her cargo would be recovered.  cargo will be possible. In a case of refusing the ransom may
                                                              jeopardize the crew’s lives that such a risk cannot be taken.
         The Court observed that the motive of pirates in seizing  Although these payments would seem as an incentive for
         vessels is generally to obtain the ransom payment, upon  pirates, yet the solution is not refusing the payment and
         receipt of which a vessel, its crew and cargo are released.  jeopardize the lives and goods.
         In light of this, in similar circumstances, it appears unlikely
         that seizure by pirates could ever amount to an actual total  With the scourge of piracy expanding deeper into the Indian
         loss. However, the position may differ if the ransom demand  Ocean, the Court of Appeal’s confirmation that a ransom
         is a much greater proportion of the value of the ship and  paid to a pirate is a timely decision and leaves in place one
         cargo, or if there is any other reason to believe that a  of the few options an owner has to secure the release of his
         ransom will not be paid or, if paid, would not secure the  vessel, cargo, and most importantly, his crew, in a safe and
         release of the vessel.                               timely manner. To this extent the Court’s decision can only
                                                              be welcomed in these morally opaque times.
         It is also interesting to note that an analogy was drawn by
         the claimant between the payment of a ransom and the
         payment of a bribe, in the context of its argument that the
         payment of a ransom is an "illegitimate and unreasonable
         means of recovery". Although the Court did not consider this
         to be a sound analogy, the potential comparison could give
         rise to a question of whether, once the Bribery Act 2010
         (the "Act") comes into force, ransom payments are illegal
         under this Act.


         The Court was not directly concerned with the application
         of the Act. However, the Court observed that there is no
         legislation expressly precluding the payment of a ransom
         and to do so is, therefore, not illegal, although "bribery or  *I am thankful to Dr.S.Mukherjee, a Maritime Legal Expert
         constructive bribery may well be". It commented that the  and International Investigator for Maritime Fraud for his
         payment of a ransom in these circumstances is prima facie  advice
         not a bribe, "done for the purpose of obtaining an improper
         advantage". This draws a direct comparison with the Act,  Dr.Soumi Mukherjee completed her Graduation in Mass
         which defines as an offence a situation where financial  Media and Masters in Mass Media from University of
         advantage is offered or given to induce or reward the  Mumbai, later completed her Ph.d. She is interested in
         improper performance of a function or activity, or where  Investigative Journalism related with History, Geography,
         the acceptance of the advantage itself constitutes improper  Zoology etc. She is currently serving in Media Officer
         performance.                                          with International Police Organization.


                                                                           The Insurance Times  August 2024   35
   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43