Analysis of Pilotage and Pilots Limitation of Liability

Analysis of Pilotage and Pilots Limitation of Liability doubtful title of the thesisA comparative analysis of sailage and polisher films boundary of liability in Australia. area of investigation and/or the questions to be investigated learn the following scenario. A vas below the control of a requisite fell is maneuvering within a port limit. Master of the watercraft follows the on-shore directions by the pilot and due to de disgrace of the pilot the vessel crashes into a wharf. both(prenominal) basic questions that could arise from the above scenario argon Who is trustworthy for any modify? If the have the best, following an on-shore direction, enters a compulsory seafaring nation without a pilot on board, is he guilty of an offence for achievement without a pilot? Is the pilot likely for acting outside of piloting? When does pilotage rattling commence? Should the statutory rules regarding point of accumulation of liability for pilots be changed to hold hit-and- run(prenominal) compulsory pilots individually trusty for actions outside of pilotage? If a master follows a radioed direction provided by an on-shore pilot, should he be nonresistant for proceeding without a pilot in a compulsory pilotage area?What is the liability for scorn of compulsory unlicensed pilots?1 Finally, what is the appropriate description of a master-pilot relation channel? This re search bequeath investigate these questions.Theoretical significance of the barfA pilot is someone who is very familiar with the port empower with a requisite professionalism and necessary local knowledge to maneuver a vessel in a port safely.2 In addition, he is responsible for the protection of the environment and the promotion of the efficiency in the harbor.3 In Australia, chthonian section 6 of the gliding run 1912, pilot means a soulfulness who does not belong to, but has the conduct of, a transport. In terms of restriction of liability, section 410B(1) of the Navigation g uess stipulates that a pilot who has the conduct of a delight is subject to the authority of the master of the ship and the master is not relieved from responsibility for the conduct and navigation of the ship by drive only of the ship being downstairs pilotage. Although thither are consistencies in the meaning of pilotage among jurisdictions in Australia, the pilotage legislations are slightly incompatible in some states. For example, while the New to the south Wales Marine rubber bout 19984 considers the pilotage as conduct of a vessel, the Port Authorities Act 1999 (WA)5 describes pilotage as being in command of a vessel.The root issue is the definition of conduct of a ship. In Braverus Maritime Inc v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd6the federal motor inn of Australia concluded that the statute considered the pilot as the servant of a ship owner and simply listed the definition of pilot as it stands in the Navigation Act. In Fowles v Eastern Australian Steamship Co7 kn ob Justice Barton ,with reference to the Queensland Navigation Act (1876), explained thatthe master shall deliver and wear out in charge the vessel to the duly qualified pilot who shall first board or go alongside of much(prenominal) vessel in order to conduct the same into port, and such pilot shall if required by such master produce his authority to act as such pilot, and no master of any such vessel shall proceed to sea from any of the said ports or quit his station or anchorage ground in any port, without receiving on board the harbor master or some pilot appointed as aforesaid to move or conduct the said vessel to sea. Further, the comment of Christopher Hill stating what a pilot is not, purely and simply, is an adviser8 is inconsistent with the practical concept9 and the statutory definition of a pilot.The scrap issue is pilots limitation of liability. Under Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) section 410B (2) the extrusion of pilot from liability is absolute. Porter LJ in Tower co rrection v Workington restrain and Dock Board10clarified that under Section 410B of Navigation Acta ship owner who with a compulsory pilot is responsible for faulty navigation is responsible for damage to his own ship as well as for injury to the property of another. As far as the limitation of liability is concerned, the state legislations in Australia are comparatively line up with the Navigation Act. In New atomic number 16 Wales, all pilots and pilotage religious service providers are excluded from liability for negligence.11 Though, the pilot who exitfully endangers the vessel or her confederacy is guilty of an offence.12 In South Australia a pilot is excluded from liability for negligence.13In Victoria, under the Marine Act 1988 (Vic) a pilots liability is limited to $ two hundred positive the amount of pilotage.14In Queensland, Pilots are excluded absolutely from liability for negligence or damage.15 Finally, in Western Australia, the pilots liability is limited to $2 00.16 Moreover, a pilot is excluded from liability for negligence causing damage to the vessel.17In Oceanic Crest ravishping18, where a vessel under the control of a negligent compulsory pilot damaged to a wharf in Western Australia, the pilot and harbor authority were on the whole excluded from liability for negligence.As can be seen, the traditional approach to pilotage has introduced difficulties and the concerned parties including, harbor authorities, ship owners and pilot service providers are approach difficulties to answers the questions mentioned in the section i. This enquiry will help to solve the problems in dealing with pilotage by pore on three important areas. First, the Australias pilotage regime should be re-assessed to provide clarified definitions. Second, the inconsistencies between the states should be eliminated through a uniform pilotage regime which is agreed by the states. Third, the pilotage regime should also determine a fair limitation of liability of pilots. Indeed, since the application of above mentioned changes will result in changing the settlements of claims and the expenses incurred by the relevant parties, this research will focus on how these changes would be addressed in future pilotage regime. Therefore, this research is aiming to reduce the inconsistencies either in the liability of pilots or in the limitation of liabilities in Australias pilotage regime.Proposed research methodsI would provide a theoretical understanding of the research, that the sub judice regulations concerning pilotage and the limitation of liability in the light of the analysis of different states legislations in Australia and various legal acts in different countries. Therefore, the method which will widely be used is comparative method. The Function of pilots, their liabilities and the limitation of their liabilities will be studied and compared in the following acts, legislations and case law.AustraliaUnder realm Legislation Navigation Act 1912 (Cth).The state legislations in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia.The United KingdomPilotage Act 1987 (UK) and merchant delightping Act 1995 (UK).CanadaThe Pilotage Act, RSC 1985, c P-14.The United StatesThe national constitution of pilotage regulation both by the states and by the federal government.The reason these countries were selected is because their legal systems are mainly based on English familiar law. The analytical method will be implored to analyze legal concepts and rules concerning pilotage and limitation of liability in different legal systems. This is important because through this method, appropriate conclusions would be drawn, and possible suggestions would be proposed in the bid to improving Australian Legislation of Limitation Liability of Pilots and Pilotage.Proposed thesis structure including where possible, provisional chapter sketchesPreliminary table of contentsIntroductionFundamental concepts o f pilotage and pilots limitation of liability.National approaches to the pilotage and limitation of liability.1. Australia2. The United Kingdom3. Canada4. USA.Analysis of findings focusing on pilotage and limitation of liability in Australia.Conclusion including suggestions and mechanisms of addressing involved issues.Timescale for the researchYearResearch activities1To draft a research plan. Collation of data, reading of relevant materials and writing of the Introductory chapter.2 instruction and evaluation of limitation of liability legislations in the United Kingdom and Australia.3A reading and evaluation of the limitation of liability legislations in Canada and USA. subject of the main some aspects of the dissertation in the books, monography (this may not be necessary for now).4Analysis of findings, arrangement of thesis and final submission.Bibliography plug-in of CasesBraverus Maritime Inc v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd 2005 FCAFC 256 Federal Court of Australia, 12 celesti al latitude 2005.Fowles v Eastern Australian Steamship ships company limit 1913 17 CLR 149.Oceanic Crest Shipping fraternity v Pilbara Harbour Services Pty Ltd 1986 160 CLR 626.Tower Field (Owners) v Workington Harbour and Dock Board 1950 84 Ll. L. Rep. 233, 255.TextbooksChristopher Hill, Maritime Law (Lloyds of London, 3rd ed, 1989) 376. postpone of LegislationHarbors and Navigation Act 1993 (SA).Marine Act 1988 (Vic).Marine natural rubber Act 1998 (NSW).Pilots Limitation of Liability Act 1962 (WA).Port Authorities Act 1999 (WA).Port Authorities Act 1999 (WA).Transport trading operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld).Online SourcesShilavadra Bhattacharjee, What argon The Duties Of Officer On Watch When Pilot Is On Board Ship? (Marine Insight, 2016) accessed 6 declination 2016.Henrik Nicander and Isak Isak, What Skills Do Port Pilots Need? (2014) accessed 6 December 2016.1 Braverus Maritime Inc v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd 2005 FCAFC 256 (12 December 2005)2 Shilavadra B hattacharjee, What Are The Duties Of Officer On Watch When Pilot Is On Board Ship? (Marine Insight, 2016) accessed 6 December 2016.3 Henrik Nicander and Isak Isak, What Skills Do Port Pilots Need? (2014) accessed 6 December 2016.4 Marine Safety Act 1998 (NSW) s 71(1).5 Port Authorities Act 1999 (WA) s 3(1).6 Opt.cit.n.1.7 Fowles v Eastern Australian Steamship Company Limited 1913 17 CLR 149.8 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law (Lloyds of London, 3rd ed, 1989) 376.9 Ibid.10 Tower Field (Owners) v Workington Harbour and Dock Board 1950 84 Ll. L. Rep. 233, 255 (Porter LJ).11 Marine Safety Act 1998 (NSW) s 80(1) Neither the State, nor the Minister, nor a pilotage service provider is liable for any loss or damage that is attributable to the negligence of any person made available as a oceanic pilot by the pilotage service provider while the person is acting as a marine pilot.12 Marine Safety Act 1998 (NSW) s 81 A marine pilot of a vessel who, by any wilful act or cut, endangers the vess el or its crew is guilty of an offence.13 Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 (SA) s 36(3) The liability of the owner or master of a ship for damage resulting from a fault in the navigation of the ship is unaffected by the fact that the vessel is under pilotage or that the pilotage is compulsory.14 Marine Act 1988 (Vic) s 104 A pilot is not liable in negligence in respect of the voyage on which the pilot is engaged for more than $200 plus the amount of pilotage in respect of voyage.15 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld) s 101(1) A conducting pilot is not civilly liable for damage or loss caused by an act or omission of the conducting pilot.16 Pilots Limitation of Liability Act 1962 (WA) s 3 Notwithstanding the victual of any other Act or law, but subject to the Navigation Act 1912 of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, a pilot is not liable for bomb or want of skill in piloting a ship beyond the amount of $200 together with the amount payable to him on account of pilota ge in respect of the voyage in which he was engaged when he became so liable.17 Port Authorities Act 1999 (WA) s 99 The owner or master of a vessel contemptible under compulsory pilotage in a port is liable for any loss or damage caused by the vessel, or by a fault in the conduct or navigation of the vessel, in the same manner as the owner or master would be liable if pilotage were not compulsory.18 Oceanic Crest Shipping Company v Pilbara Harbour Services Pty Ltd 1986 160 CLR 626.