Marinas in the dock.

[bdh198]

Is a marina a "dock"?

The Court of Appeal has clarified the issue and with potential consequences for boats kept in a marina that suffer catastrophic damage as the result of a single occurance where the design, construction and maintenance of the Marina were said to be defective. However, the consequences of the judgement are likely to be far more widely reaching. Basically, the court agreed with the decision at first instance, that a marina was a dock and could therefore limit its liability in those circumstances.

This case arose out of the damage to vessels moored in Holyhead Marina as a result of Storm Emma in 2018.

The High Court decision from last year (described on appeal as "an excellent judgement" by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls): Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer & Ors (Emma) [2020] EWHC 1750 (Admlty) (07 July 2020)

The decision of the Court of Appeal handed-down today: Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer (Storm Emma) [2021] EWCA Civ 1585 (03 November 2021)

And if you find reading a legal judgement an unbeatable cure for insomnia, then this article helps to show the consequences for small boat owners: 'We stood there in utter disbelief' - boat owners relive marina disaster

It'll be interesting to see if this has any implications for small boat insurance with increased premiums or restrictions on the kind of damage you'll be covered for in a marina.

 

[Kukri]

Thanks for posting that.

Far from sending me to sleep, I really enjoyed it.

I should declare an interest; as a young man I sometimes instructed the equally young, but far more distinguished, Nigel Teare.

Opportunities to add to the stock of important judgments of the Admiralty Court are rare.

 

[KompetentKrew]

This decision is the British judiciary in a nutshell.

Quite frequently they will make judgements along the lines of "that is quite obviously the ordinary meaning of the word, indeed my Oxford English Dictionary says…" I'm sure I've read judges state that they must not allow themselves to get hung up on technicalities, pedantic diatribes on the exact meaning of a word, and should stick to commonsense definitions. I find a wikipedia page discussing this and numerous scholarly treaties [example].

In this case, on the other hand, the judges are adamant that a marina is not a dock "in the ordinary meaning of the word", despite the Oxford English Dictionary saying it is, and despite the previous ruling in The Environment Agency v. Barras that "a marina fits comfortably within the concept of a 'dock' in section 4 of the [Thames Conservancy Act 1932]".

A dock, it is revealed, is distinct from a landing place, and is, in fact, "an enclosed space with gates to allow the admission and retention of water". The judges spend paragraphs discussing the definitions of dock, landing place, jetty and so on, before finally concluding that the Merchant Shipping Act refers to “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” and thus the presence of pontoons means that marina qualifies (for the liability limitations), anyway.

What a palaver! They could just have decided, in the first place, that a marina was a dock, and the outcome would have been no different. Except that would have been so much quicker and more concise, and saved no doubt hundreds of thousands in lawyer's fees.

 

[Skylark]

It'll be interesting to see if this has any implications for small boat insurance with increased premiums or restrictions on the kind of damage you'll be covered for in a marina.

Seems a pertinent comment.

What a palaver!……..
……..would have been so much quicker and more concise, and saved no doubt hundreds of thousands in lawyer's fees.

Who is likely to have footed the bill?

Interesting that albeit 89 boats were lost only a couple of named parties brought the claim against the marina. One was an uninsured live aboard. Living aboard and not having insurance both appear to contravene the berthing license.


The ruling also seems to seal the fate that the marina will never be rebuilt. A real shame as Holyhead was/is a great location for some wonderful cruising grounds.

 

[Seven Spades]

I am sure the judgment is correct interpretation of the law. However I think there is a strong argument that the law needs to be changed. The original law was for the mutual benefit of both shipping owners and the owners of “docks”. The application of this legislation to marinas is one sided it does not grant mutual protection it gives a licence to owners to fail to properly maintain there installation.

I would like to see the RYA get involved in lobbying for a change, perhaps we can prompt them into action by mentioning that marinas are sea horse habitat.

 

[Kukri]

The judgement cuts both ways: if your boat damages a marina you can limit to the tonnage of your boat.

I’m pretty sure that yacht insurers assumed that the law was as the Judge has found it to be.

 

[Seven Spades]

When a small sailing boat t-bones a pontoon the resulting damage is likely to be in the hundreds of pounds. when a sinking pontoon drags down a £500,000 yacht it is something else altogether. I cannot see that this is a mutual benefit, it is very one sided.

 

[savageseadog]

The public at large are mere playthings for the legal system. I dread to think what the costs might be.

Surely the original judgement related to a commercial dispute between two commercial entities. By and large however the losses were borne by private individuals, consumers, who might have expected to be protected by consumer law. In this way the old judgement should not have supplied.


It would have been obvious to anyyone who stayed in that marina for any length of time that Holyhead marina was on borrowed time. There was frequent damage in only gale force winds, the project was unviable. It does emphasise the importance of assessing the viability of anywhere you choose to moor your craft.

 

[lustyd]

It would have been obvious to anyyone who stayed in that marina for any length of time

That's interesting, I stayed there in a F10 once and felt extremely protected. The direction was from SW so exactly what the wall was designed to protect from, but then that's the prevailing direction. I can imagine how a slightly different situation might have caused the disaster, but more wall could fix that. The location of the marina there was incredibly convenient for passages north and south so I'd be surprised if it doesn't get rebuilt. That having been said, it's one of the more dull places to be once ashore so it would certainly never be a destination marina.

 

[Skylark]

I should declare an interest; as a young man I sometimes instructed the equally young, but far more distinguished, Nigel Teare.

To help me decide just how impressed I should be, is “instructed” used as “taught” or “asked to do something legal on my behalf”?

It’s easy to see how interpretation and definition can cause misunderstanding ??

 

[Kukri]

To help me decide just how impressed I should be, is “instructed” used as “taught” or “asked to do something legal on my behalf”?

It’s easy to see how interpretation and definition can cause misunderstanding ??

Oh, you should not be impressed at all; to instruct junior Counsel, as Sir Nigel Teare then was, simply means to engage him to act on behalf of a client, via his Clerk, to write his “Instructions” (the “Brief”) - preferably not in the form “Counsel will read the papers, decide which side we are on and act accordingly!” - and to turn up to the hearing.

These were mostly Lloyds Form salvage arbitrations with the occasional collision, suspected scuttling, fire, etc.

 

[Skylark]

That's interesting, I stayed there in a F10 once and felt extremely protected. The direction was from SW so exactly what the wall was designed to protect from, but then that's the prevailing direction. I can imagine how a slightly different situation might have caused the disaster, but more wall could fix that. The location of the marina there was incredibly convenient for passages north and south so I'd be surprised if it doesn't get rebuilt. That having been said, it's one of the more dull places to be once ashore so it would certainly never be a destination marina.

As a berth holder of many years, I’ll stand-up for Holyhead. I would also add “west” to your list of incredibly convenient destinations. Around the island and it’s many interesting and varied bays and anchorages are also good for the adventurous yachtsmen.

The town is far from being the “most dull” marina town of the UK. I spent long enough there to find many things to do / places to visit and so on. Open your eyes.

Easterly winds were well known to give rough conditions inside the harbour but the ferocity of Emma was unprecedented.

As with all tragedies, we hope that lessons will be learned and something good will result. Sadly, I can’t see a new marina being built in my lifetime.

As a result of Emma, I moved to the Clyde. As stunning a cruising ground that it is, I would go back to North Wales in a heart beat if a tenable and available marina was available.

 

[mjcoon]

Oh, you should not be impressed at all; to instruct junior Counsel, as Sir Nigel Teare then was, simply means to engage him to act on behalf of a client, via his Clerk, to write his “Instructions” (the “Brief”) - preferably not in the form “Counsel will read the papers, decide which side we are on and act accordingly!” - and to turn up to the hearing.

These were mostly Lloyds Form salvage arbitrations with the occasional collision, suspected scuttling, fire, etc.

Sounds familiar to an avid reader of AP Herbert's 'Misleading Cases' and Rumpole stories...

 

[[3889]]

The location of the marina there was incredibly convenient for passages north and south so I'd be surprised if it doesn't get rebuilt.

Detailed plans of £100m Holyhead waterfront redevelopment with 250 berth marina revealed

 

[penberth3]

I am sure the judgment is correct interpretation of the law. However I think there is a strong argument that the law needs to be changed. The original law was for the mutual benefit of both shipping owners and the owners of “docks”. The application of this legislation to marinas is one sided it does not grant mutual protection it gives a licence to owners to fail to properly maintain there installation.

....

Nonsense. It does nothing of the sort.

 

[savageseadog]

That's interesting, I stayed there in a F10 once and felt extremely protected. The direction was from SW so exactly what the wall was designed to protect from, but then that's the prevailing direction. I can imagine how a slightly different situation might have caused the disaster, but more wall could fix that. The location of the marina there was incredibly convenient for passages north and south so I'd be surprised if it doesn't get rebuilt. That having been said, it's one of the more dull places to be once ashore so it would certainly never be a destination marina.

We have a lot more experience of Holyhead Marina than you and I will assert that damage was regular, especially to boats further from the shore. Storm Emma was not unprecedented, events like it have occurred in relatively recent times, it was bound to happen some time.

Fit for purpose it wasn't, consumer law should have applied.

 

[Osmosis]

Having read I am of the view that whilst two names on the papers with a high number of craft damaged if not destroyed then a number of insurance companies and Lloyds of London may have been involved.
I wonder who insured the marina and does the insurer also insure yachts as well?
Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
If any one knows perhaps they will post for information purposes.

 

[Kukri]

I’m not involved and have no knowledge but most High Court cases of this type are fought between insurers.

 

[Tranona]

Interesting that albeit 89 boats were lost only a couple of named parties brought the claim against the marina. One was an uninsured live aboard. Living aboard and not having insurance both appear to contravene the berthing license.

The requirement is usually only for third party, which he may well have. This does not pay out for damage to his own boat - for that he has to try and claim from the marina and its insurers. Most of the other boats will have been insured, therefore as noted by others it will be their insurers fighting to recover their losses from the third party. The boat owners will already have received settlement from their insurers according to their contract.

 

[Kukri]

…Interesting that albeit 89 boats were lost only a couple of named parties brought the claim against the marina…

Nominee plaintiffs. No point in replicating the pleadings umpteen times and wasting money; all are bound by the decision. SOP.