Lawrence v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd

Under the Athens Convention, responsibility during carriage does not depend on a passenger and cabin luggage being transported together. The reference to both secures responsibility for each during the identified periods of carriage, including water transport between a cruise ship and shore at an intermediate port.

A contractual carrier remains responsible where part of the carriage is entrusted to a performing carrier, including for that carrier’s acts or omissions. Whether there was fault or neglect, and whether a hazard was adequately marked, are questions of fact and degree. An appeal court will not interfere where there is no real prospect of success.

The claimant was injured when he tripped over a step while leaving a cruise ship by tender boat at Santorini. The tender was owned and operated by the Union Boatmen of Santorini. He claimed that the defendant was the contractual carrier under the Athens Convention, that the accident occurred during carriage, and that the defendant was liable for fault or neglect.

The Admiralty Registrar awarded the claimant £5,197 on 16 May 2016. A single judge refused permission to appeal on paper on 20 February 2017. The claimant renewed the application before the Court of Appeal, challenging the findings that the defendant was the carrier, that the incident occurred during carriage, and that there had been fault or neglect.

1. Application refused. None of the three grounds had a real prospect of success.
2. Contractual carrier. The contractual documentation showed that Flights and Packages acted as travel agent. The defendant’s booking confirmations and conditions stated that a binding contract arose when the defendant confirmed the booking to the agent and that the defendant was the carrier for the purposes of the Athens Convention. The inclusion of other holiday elements and payment to the agent did not alter that conclusion.
3. Course of carriage. Article 1.8(a) was to be construed purposively. The reference to the passenger and cabin luggage secured responsibility for both during the relevant periods. It did not make responsibility depend on their being transported together. Water transport from the ship to shore at Santorini therefore fell within carriage.
4. Fault or neglect. The trial judge was entitled to find that the step was a potential hazard and insufficiently marked. Carriers and performing carriers had to take reasonable care of passengers, having regard to the characteristics of cruise passengers, including their age. The defendant was answerable for the performing carrier’s fault or neglect and could have required a warning or arranged for crew to warn passengers.
5. The remaining challenges concerned findings of primary fact and fact and degree. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with those findings where there was no real prospect of success.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 27 November 2017, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
• Admiralty Court, Queen’s Bench Division: The Admiralty Registrar, Jervis Kay QC, awarded the claimant £5,197 on 16 May 2016.
• Permission stage: A single judge refused permission on paper on 20 February 2017.