Admiralty & casualty lawyers Richard Gunn (partner) and James Scott (counsel) discuss developments in relation to the 1976 Convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims. Richard provides analysis on the application of Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention and James talks on limitation of liability for indemnity claims for wreck removal costs.    ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Trading Straights brings legal and business insights at the intersection of the shipping and energy sectors. This podcast series offers trends, developments, challenges and topics of interest from Reed Smith, litigation, regulatory and finance lawyers across our network of global offices. If you have any questions about the topics discussed on this podcast, please do contact our speakers.  James: Welcome to the Trading Straights podcast on Global Limitation Developments with your host, Reed Smith Casualty lawyers, Richard Gunn and James Scott. This podcast is a continuation of the presentations given recently by Richard and James in Japan Tokyo at the shipping seminar to the local market. I'm James Scott and my section of the podcast is on the Hong Kong final court of appeal judgment number 20 of 2003 on limitation of liability for indemnity claims for wreck removal. Richard will give a talk on his views on other matters in relation to article 12 of the Limitation Convention, but I'll get started on my bit now. So in January 2019, Antea collided with another vessel called the Star Centurion whilst the latter was anchored in Indonesian waters, Star Centurion became a total loss. The Indonesian Ministry of Transportation issued a wreck removal order to the owners of Star Centurion requiring them to raise and remove the vessel and render her harmless. It was not disputed in this action that the collision was entirely the fault of the Antea. The owners of the Star Centurion commenced proceedings in Hong Kong seeking an indemnity for the costs of complying with the Indonesian order. The owners of Antea commenced their own action in Hong Kong seeking to establish a limitation fund under the 1976 convention. Contrary to their presumptive position in England, the Hong Kong CFA concluded that the owners of Antea could not limit their liability. And before we turn to the reasons for that decision, let's cap the relevant articles of the convention and there's four of them as follows. Article 2.1.A provides for limitation for losses consequential to the direct operation of the ship. Article 2.1.D provides expressly that wreck removal expenses are limitable. Article 2.2 provides that indemnity claims for wreck removal expenses are limitable except for expenses arising from contracts. And fourthly article 18.1 provides that contracting states may reserve the right to exclude article 2.1.D. The effect of exercising that right is that wreck removal expenses cannot be limited under article 2.1.D. So with these articles in mind, let's talk now on how the courts in England and Hong Kong are likely to apply them. The first thing to say is that article 2.1.D does not apply in either England or in Hong Kong. This suggests that the courts in these two countries apply the 1976 convention differently in relation to indemnity claims for wreck removal. Indeed, following the Hong Kong CFA judgment in the Star Centurion, this appears to be the case. So let's take a look at the position in England first. There is yet to be a directly applicable precedent in England. But many believe that the English courts would find that interparty wreck removal claims fall within article 2.1.A that is that they are consequential on the operation of a ship and therefore limitable. It's clear as a matter of English law that consistent construction must be given to international conventions. In the Aegean Sea, Thomas J referred to precedent whereby the limitation convention is to apply to all cases which can reasonably be bought within its language. And it's been suggested t