Article contents
Liability for the Removal of Wrecks: A Dutch and an English Perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
A decision of the Dutch Supreme Court delivered on 26th May 1978 continues to provoke a good deal of discussion in the Netherlands and, if reflected in the judicial decisions of other countries, could prove to be of very great significance. The question at issue was who should be liable to pay the often enormous costs of removing shipwrecks from the seabed outside territorial waters. The facts of the Dutch case were as follows.
- Type
- Notes and Shorter Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1982
References
1. The State of the Netherlands ν.(i) Holland-Amerika Lijn, and (ii) the Rederij Motorschip “Zuidpool”, Supreme Court, 26th May 1978, NJ 1978,615;S&S 1978,63;WPNR 1980,738. English language summaries of the various judgments in this case can be found in 5 NILR (1974) pp. 326–32, 8 NYIL (1977) pp. 289–93, 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 507–10, and 28 NILR (1981) pp. 66–67.
2. Leaving aside collisions in connection with exploration or exploitation of the conti-nental shelf, which are covered by the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1965, S.I. 1965 No. 1881.
3. See, for example, Cheshire, and North's Private International Law, 10th ed., (London, 1979) pp. 290–2Google Scholar.
4. See, Chartered Mercantile Bank of India ν. Netherlands Steam Navigation Co. (1883) 10 QBD521.
5. Trinity House is the general lighthouse authority for England. According to Vol. XI of Temperley's Merchant Shipping Acts, 7th ed., (London, 1976)Google Scholar: “The meaning of ‘adjacent’ is not clear. It seems doubtful that it is restricted to seas or islands within the territorial sea”.
6. “1946” P. 135.
7. “1977” 2 Lloyd's Rep. 98, CA.
- 1
- Cited by