Held, claim dismissed. The owner’s claim against the charterer in respect of damage to the ship was not subject to tonnage limitation under article 2.1 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. There was a Court of Appeal authority to the effect that article 2.1(a) of the Convention covered only claims in respect of loss of, or damage to, property other than the ship, and consequential loss resulting from the loss of or damage to such property, and so an owner’s claim for compensation for damage to the ship, including repair costs and the owner’s liability for salvage services rendered to the ship and for contribution to general average, was not limitable, but the claim for compensation or indemnity for a liability to cargo owners for the loss of or damage to their cargo was. That authority could not be distinguished on the facts of the instant case. As the rules of precedent precluded the charterer from contending that that authority was wrongly decided, its argument had to fail. In any event, construction of article 2.1 and consideration of the travaux préparatoires led to the same conclusion that where loss of or damage to cargo caused damage to the ship, a claim by the owner for compensation for the damage to the ship and consequential loss was not limitable. Causal contribution of cargo damage in the ship to a ship did not turn a claim for damaging the ship into a cargo claim. Further, on the ordinary meaning of article 2.1(a) and consideration of the Convention and the travaux préparatoires, the tonnage limitation under article 2.1 of the Convention could apply as between owners and charterers, even though both owners and charterers were “shipowners” as defined by article 1.2. Finally, it was not appropriate in the present case to regard the owner as having made a series of claims and to assess each of them under the various sub-paragraphs of article 2.1 of the Convention, since the owner had made good in the arbitration a claim (singular) in respect of damage to the ship and been awarded an overall sum in damages assessed by reference to invoices of actual costs incurred. The owner’s claim, as pursued and made good in the arbitration, was a claim in respect of damage to the ship (including consequential loss resulting therefrom) and, on the language of article 2.1, such a claim was not subject to tonnage limitation (paras 53, 55, 68, 72, 78, 80, 86, 90–99, 101–103, 115, 162–163, 165–166).

Per curiam. (i) A claim as between an owner and a time charterer for reimbursement of or damages in respect of the cost of cargo handling during the course of a time charter incurred by one of them but said by them to have been the responsibility or liability of the other, pursuant to or by reason of a breach of the time charter between them, is not a claim in respect of the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of cargo within the purview of article 2.1(e) of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (paras 135, 164).

(ii) Article 2.1(f) of the Convention requires a measure the sole purpose of which was the mitigation of loss, a claim in respect of which would have been limitable (paras 150, 160, 164).