MMLA Admin, Author at Malta Maritime Law Association

Digitalisation and automation in transport: a necessity unfolding into new opportunities

August 3, 2020 Leave a Comment

In a world where human interaction and socialisation constituted the epicentre of our day-to-day lives, few could have predicted the day when human connections and globalisation could end up posing the largest risk to our own health and well-being.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse those areas of digitalisation, which have allowed shipping and aviation to innovate and succeed over the last few decades. This will enable us to better define the direction in which such sectors should be heading in the coming years, taking into due consideration the latest hazards posed by the pandemic.

Although shipping and aviation share the same goals (transport of persons and goods), they are based on different models.

i) Aviation is a predominantly passenger-oriented industry, while shipping is primarily focused on the carriage of goods. Although during the last few months airlines have shifted their operations onto cargo, this was limited to a few aircraft per company and to the carriage of medical equipment and supplies. Such conversion was dictated by necessity, rather than by a particular business target. On the contrary, although cruise liners had to interrupt their passenger transportation activities, the shipping bulk cargo segment proceeded at a normal pace.

ii) In the aviation industry, demand is generally stable and based on seasonal travel and macro-events (ie sporting events such as the Olympic Games and World Expos). On the other hand, shipping is largely dependent on economic and geopolitical variables, or fluctuations on the prices of commodities.

iii) Efficiency and environmental goals were introduced and pursued in the aviation agenda much earlier than in the shipping sector.

iv) Public opinion tends to perceive the economic impact of shipping in a different manner to aviation, with the consequent effect that relevant authorities tend to distinguish and prioritise their objectives in the two respective sectors accordingly. In practical terms, the fact that shipping is not under the constant spotlight brings with it a more lax approach in terms of adoption of new objectives and policies.

While for the majority of businesses Covid-19 represented a major showstopper, many have also considered the pandemic as an eye-opener as to the untapped potential offered by particular business segments, such as door-to-door food deliveries. In aviation, some of those involved in the aircraft business also opted to explore new opportunities by channelling their business, with some adjustments and notwithstanding the multiple obstacles, into the cargo segment. Only time will tell whether these attempts might represent a new stable stream of revenue for airlines. In the meantime, recent estimates indicate that airlines will still be forced to ground parts of their fleet during the coming years and therefore the possibility of such aircraft being relocated to the cargo segment is not unrealistic.^[1] Aircraft manufacturer Airbus recently launched its ‘e-delivery process’, a system that ensures ‘continuation of Airbus’ delivery stream, while integrating the required health and safety requirements during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic’.^[2] Airbus disrupted its ordinary aircraft delivery procedures through an electronic Transfer-of-Title based on the ‘e-SalesContracts’ platform that enables the parties involved to complete the transaction entirely through digital means and in paperless format, without the need for any individuals to be physically present.^[3]

Another area where technology has, out of necessity, required resilience from its operators, is that of data collection in the context of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (‘CORSIA’). CORSIA requires airlines to:

(i) monitor emissions on all international routes; and

(ii) offset emissions by purchasing emission units.

The aim is to halt net carbon emission growth at 2020 levels.^[4]

CORSIA has opened up the market for emission tracking tools, which track CO² consumption, as well as encourage efficiencies. Although Covid-19 might impact the definition of the baseline mechanism, digital solutions will play a key role in ensuring that information is accurately collected in a timely and efficient manner.

Disruptive events like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the terrorist attacks in Europe and the 2008 Crisis, have all shaped the world we are living in and so will Covid-19. Survival is certainly in the hands of those who are ready to adapt and therefore innovate to new realities. Client expectations have changed considerably during the course of the last few years and notwithstanding recent events, these remain of fundamental guidance. Something that the pandemic brought to the surface, with the inevitable delays in services, is how the ‘insta-generation’ significantly impacted changes to client expectations in recent years. Goods are expected to be delivered within a couple of days, no matter which part of the world they come from. Final destination flights should not include more than one stop, no matter if the point of departure is located in a remote region of the world. This has obviously increased pressure among producers, shippers and passenger transport operators. Although we do not know if such client expectations will be realistically satisfied in the near future, the recent events have clearly highlighted the importance of technology and digitalisation in the sustainability of the demand/supply mechanism.

Aviation and shipping embraced technology at a different pace and extent, starting off in entirely different decades. Aviation companies are highly dependent on the human capital workforce (crew members and large maintenance teams) and oil price fluctuations. Technology was a means to streamline and render more efficient aspects concerning aircraft maintenance, passenger reservations, boarding procedures, claim handling and customer care protection, as well as the tracking of goods carried on a particular aircraft. While in aviation, innovation was led mainly by customer-oriented necessities and was introduced gradually throughout the last two decades, hand-in-hand with software development, often interacting with airport infrastructures; shipping converted its approach towards technology only during the last few years, with serious inconsistencies and deficiencies among the various port hubs across the world. Although distributed ledger technology could have rendered the shipping industry paperless years back, the transitioning phase started only in the last few weeks due to the medical emergency led by Covid-19, which prompted shipping and customs operators to do away with unnecessary paperwork.

Cyberattacks on worldwide major transport and logistics operators a couple of years ago led to a standstill of operations, shutting of IT systems across multiple sites and stranding of ships all over the world, with serious revenue impacts, brought under the spotlight the necessity of having sound cyber-attack mechanisms, aimed at reducing external attacks. This prompted IMO to amend the International Safety Management Code, in order to cater for such events and also for operators to understand the need to consistently invest in digitalisation and not to carelessly outsource this to third parties.

Another sector within the aviation sphere that has encountered a rapid spike over the past decade, is related to the use of drones, which have become operational on a vast scale and widely within the European Union territory. Predictions show that the European drone sector will eventually employ more than 100,000 people and have an economic impact exceeding €10bn yearly over the next two decades.^[5]

The versatility of drones within the military sector is recognised, however the uses of drones during the Covid-19 pandemic has been novel, and in some cases, crucial to continued operation with companies like Zipline offering the delivery of vital medical supplies via drones for remote areas since 2014.^[6] Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, Zipline has upped its efforts. The use of drone operations minimises human contact by firstly removing the human element from the delivery service and secondly by assisting people to stay safely indoors and allowing the supplies to reach them. The use of technology in support of drones is a truly remarkable progress that has been leveraged by a number of similar drone companies and has borne fruit at a time when the world needed it most.

The potential of technology in this age is vast, from robotic process automation to data analytics. Driverless means of transport are now being used among various sectors of European public transportation and private transportation by car. Even shipping is not immune to such novelties with different grades of automation, which go from semi to complete automated vessels. Furthermore, the benefits arising out of technology and digitalisation are not limited to ship operators and airlines themselves but also extend respectively to ports, airports and subsidiary service providers, such as air traffic control, ship and port operators.

However, while automation could represent an opportunity to increase cost efficiencies, reduce costs on workforce and enhance opportunities for companies involved in the IT and cybersecurity arena, it also comes with multiple challenges. While start-ups with sufficient will and capital to invest might make the most of the competitive advantage offered by the newest technologies, older companies might see this as an unnecessary burden. Automation requires individuals having a strong IT and technical background, as well as substantial adaptation planning from an internal organisational point of view, which not every shipping company may wish to pursue. This is somewhat similar to what was required by the banking sector in embracing the Fintech revolution.

Conclusion

In light of the above observations, it is evident that the world of technology and transport must work in tandem, in order to facilitate and help one another. The cooperation of these industries could result in significant benefits for all involved. Although innovation most certainly comes at an initial cost, it is vital that the transport industry remains progressive, modern and current. Development and innovation has most often been a matter of necessity and urgency. Success, in particular during such hard times, lies in the ability to predict, intercept and safely anticipate – where possible – such necessities. It is our opinion that the digital world provides and will keep on providing the perfect platform for an improved service. Harmony between technology and transport has the potential for unlocking great opportunities and we look forward to this future with great enthusiasm.

by Stephan Piazza and Francesca Ferrando, KPMG Malta

This article first appeared on the website of the Maritime and Transport Law Committee of the Legal Practice Division of the International Bar Association, and is reproduced by kind permission of the International Bar Association, London, UK. © International Bar Association.

[1] Centre for aviation, ‘Lufthansa Europe’s first fleet cut; will go deeper, others to follow’ (CAPA – Centre for Aviation, 10 April 2020) https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/lufthansa-europes-first-fleet-cut-will-go-deeper-others-to-follow-520959 [Accessed 22 May 2020].

[2] Martin Fendt, ‘New aircraft “e-Delivery” process assures health & safety for customers and Airbus employees, and enables business continuity’ (Airbus, 21 April 2020) www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/04/quick-news–april-2020.html [Accessed 15 May 2020].

[3] Ibid.

[4] ICAO, ‘2 What is CORSIA and how does it work? ‘ (ICAO Environment, n/a) www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/A39_CORSIA_FAQ2.aspxaccessed 22 May 2020

[5] European Commission – Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. (2018). Unmanned aircrafts – Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs – European Commission.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/aeronautics/rpas_en [Accessed 15 May 2020].

[6] Zipline, ‘Zipline’s COVID-19 Response’ (Fly Zipline, n/a) https://flyzipline.com/covid-19 [Accessed 18 May 2020].

Dispute resolution regulations for bunkering operations

July 1, 2020 Leave a Comment

Introduction

Transport Malta’s Ports and Yachting Directorate recently issued Port Notice Number 07/20 entitled “Dispute Resolution and Procedures in Connection with Bunkering Operations” to remind recipients about the Dispute Resolution (Procedures) Regulation under Subsidiary Legislation 545.30 of the Laws of Malta.

The port notice highlighted that authorised providers and customers can make complaints to the regulator to settle any disputes between them.

In accordance with the port notice, the regulation applies to bunkering operations where a dispute has arisen between the bunkering fuel operator and provider and the receiving vessel. The procedure provides for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism that aims to be swift, economical, transparent and simple.

Much of the port notice’s attraction lies in the fact that disputes between authorised providers must be settled within four months, while disputes between an authorised provider and a consumer must be settled within 90 days, with extensions allowed only in exceptional circumstances.

Complaints and supporting documentation may be filed with the regulator online and, subject to certain conditions, the regulator’s decisions are binding on the parties to the dispute with administrative fines imposed for non-compliance. However, this procedure is entirely voluntary and does not affect the parties’ rights to proceed to arbitration or court should they prefer.

Dispute Resolution (Procedures) Regulation

The relevant parties under the Dispute Resolution (Procedures) Regulation are as follows.

Authorised providers
The regulation is not limited to bunkering operations and defines an ‘authorised provider’ as any natural or legal person, whether privately or publicly owned, which is authorised to operate, provide or carry out any activity or operation or provide any service relating to energy and water services.

Consumer
A ‘consumer’ means any person who uses or requests a service or product, the provision of which is regulated by the act, for purposes outside of their trade, business, craft or profession. This definition raises the question as to who can qualify as a consumer; however, the port notice explains that it applies to “bunker operations where a dispute arises between the bunkering fuel operator and provider and the receiving vessel”.

Regulator
The regulator, established under the Regulator for Energy and Water Services Act, is composed of a chair and no fewer than four and no more than six members. Members are appointed by the minister for five or seven-year terms and may be reappointed only once.

Proceedings before regulator
The Dispute Resolution (Procedures) Regulation provides for two scenarios: dispute resolution where the parties are both authorised providers and dispute resolution where the parties are an authorised provider and a customer. The regulation seeks to provide authorised providers and consumers with an ADR mechanism that aims to be simple and transparent, offering binding decisions in a swift and economical manner.

Where a dispute arises between authorised providers, the regulator must initiate an investigation into the dispute as soon as possible and seek to resolve the dispute within four months from the date on which it was notified. This timeframe may be extended by a further two months where additional information is sought and the parties agree to such an extension.

Under the regulation, the regulator has the power to initiate an investigation on its own initiative. However, the regulator’s jurisdiction is not automatic and they may refuse to initiate an investigation where they are satisfied that other means of resolving the dispute in a timely manner are available to the parties.

The regulator may also refuse to initiate an investigation where the dispute is already subject to legal proceedings. Where a decision has been taken to refuse to initiate an investigation, the regulator must inform the parties as soon as possible. However, where the dispute has not been resolved or the party seeking redress has not initiated legal proceedings within four months from such a decision, the regulator may, at the request of a party, initiate an investigation.

Subject to possible appeal, the regulator’s decision will be binding on the parties and failure to abide by the decision will be considered an infringement of the regulation, subject to an administrative fine.

Under the regulation, the regulator will also have jurisdiction in cases where a consumer alleges that an authorised provider has infringed the Regulator for Energy and Water Services Act or subsidiary legislation made thereunder. When referring a dispute, a consumer must show on a prima facie basis that it has been affected by an act or omission of the authorised provider. In resolving the dispute, the regulator may, among other directives, order the authorised provider to effect reimbursement of payments received or to make compensation payments. Such payments may include the whole or part of the costs relating to the engagement of a lawyer or technical adviser engaged in submitting the dispute. Should a party fail to abide by an order given, the regulator may impose an administrative fine of not more than €600 for each day of non-compliance.

Notably, the regulator is not a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism for disputes arising between authorised providers and consumers. In fact, the regulation makes clear that “the provisions of this Regulation shall be without prejudice to the right of a consumer to have recourse to any other body in resolving any such dispute”.

As many other ADR mechanisms, the regulator aims to be expeditious in its investigations, with the regulation setting out a 90-day period within which disputes must be resolved. This timeframe may be extended only in exceptional circumstances. The regulator aims to increase efficiency by allowing complaints and supporting documentation to be submitted online. Official communication may also be made electronically or if applicable, by post.

When faced with a consumer complaint against an authorised provider, the regulator may refuse to deal with complaint in the following circumstances:

Where the consumer did not first attempt to contact the authorised provider in order to discuss their complaint and seek to resolve the matter with the authorised provider directly.
Where the dispute is frivolous or vexatious.
Where the dispute is or has been considered by another dispute resolution entity or a court.
Where the consumer did not submit the complaint to the regulator within one year from the date on which the consumer submitted the complaint to the authorised provider.
Where dealing with the dispute would seriously impair the regulator’s effective operation.
Where the consumer did not submit the complaint to the regulator within two years from the date on which the facts constituting the substance of the complaint first arose.

According to the regulation, decisions are binding on the parties to the dispute. However, where the dispute is between an authorised provider and a consumer, it is only binding on the consumer if they have been informed of the binding nature in advance and have specifically accepted this.

Although decisions are binding, they are not final and decisions taken by the regulator are subject to appeal before the Administrative Review Tribunal within 20 days of the decision. Appeals may be filed on the following grounds:

a material error as to the facts has been made;
there was a material procedural error;
an error of law has been made; or
there was some material illegality, including unreasonableness or lack of proportionality.

Comment

The Dispute Resolution (Procedures) Regulation aims to provide for an ADR mechanism that seeks to increase consumer protection in a timely and cost-effective manner. In times where courts have been forced to close due to COVID-19 containment measures and where there may be significant backlogs as they slowly open up again, authorised providers or consumers looking to settle disputes quickly may consider this mechanism as a valid alternative. Nonetheless, it is advised that disputes involving complex legal issues, including bunkering operations, should continue to be referred before a court so that the parties can make full use of all of the legal mechanisms available therein.

by Dr Martina Farrugia, Fenech & Fenech Advocates

Source: ILO

COVID-19 temporary precautionary measures – Framework of protocol for conducting maritime support services

May 28, 2020 Leave a Comment

On the 23rd May 2020, the Ports and Yachting Directorate within the Authority for Transport in Malta (the Maltese Port Authorities) published Port Notice 09/2020 entitled COVID-19 Temporary Precautionary Measures – Framework of Protocol for Conducting Maritime Support Services. This Notice is further to Port Notice 06/2020, which was previously issued by the Authorities on the 26th March 2020.

Port Notice 09/2020 was issued by the Maltese Port Authorities following consultation with the Port Health Office. It creates a framework of protocols that must be respected when maritime services providers in Malta are engaged to conduct various maritime support services.

Ships, yachts and all other vessels intending to obtain services in Maltese waters or within ports and harbours must seek prior port clearance. If cleared, vessels will be required to follow the protocols established in the said Port Notice.

Interestingly, the previous blanket ban on all yachts from entering Malta has been lifted. Yachts requesting permission to enter Maltese waters for services and ships requesting to enter Malta to carry out maintenance will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If and when approved, protocols and other conditions that must be followed by the vessels will then be communicated to the local agents by the Port Health Office.

The Notice also provides for an exemption to the otherwise applicable travel ban in cases of crew repatriation and likewise in cases of “ship operations”. Requests will be referred to the Superintendent of Public Health for consideration and will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If approved, protocols and other conditions that must be followed will be communicated by the Port Health Office.

by Dr Jotham Scerri Diacono and Dr Jan Rossi, Ganado Advocates

Source: Lexology

Port notice 8/20 – Sulpher Content in Marine Fuels

May 28, 2020 Leave a Comment

The Ports and Yachting Directorate issued Port Notice Number 08/20 of 2020 entitled ‘Sulphur Content in Marine Fuels’, whereby attention was drawn to the provisions of the Quality of Fuels Regulations (S.L. 545.18). These regulations transposed the requirements of various EU directives regulating the quality of marine fuels that must be abided by all ships when calling in Maltese Ports and when traversing within Maltese internal and territorial waters.

The Port notice laid out a number of exemptions to the maximum sulphur (SOx) content to be used in marine fuels, noting that, amongst others, these limits were not applicable to fuels used by: war ships, ships in the process of securing the safety of a ship or saving lives at sea, ships that have been damaged where the owners or master have not acted with intent or recklessly, ships at berth for less than two hours using shore side electricity or ships using approved emission abatement methods. Exempted ships are to notify the Authority and REWS before entering Maltese territorial waters.

By means of the Port Notice, the Authority and REWS also notify its recipients that the trials of ship emission abatement methods may be approved. During these trials the use of marine fuels meeting the maximum SOx content shall not be mandatory subject to a number of conditions, including notifying the European Commission, the Authority and REWS in writing 6 months before the trial begins, having a maximum trial period of 18 months, having a proper waste management systems in place and conducting continuous environmental impact assessments in enclosed ports and harbours . Non-compliance with the conditions can result in enforcement action being taken against the vessel, including detention until such time as any non-compliance has been rectified or resolved.

The full port notice can accessed by clicking here.

by Dr Martina Farrugia, Fenech & Fenech Advocates

Source: Lexology

Port notice 7/20 – Dispute Resolution and Procedures under S.L 545.30

May 22, 2020 Leave a Comment

The Ports and Yachting Directorate within Transport Malta has issued Port Notice Number 07/20 entitled ‘Dispute resolution and procedures in connection with bunkering operations’ in order to remind its recipients about the provisions of the Dispute Resolution (Procedures) Regulation under subsidiary legislation 545.30 of the laws of Malta.

The port notice highlighted the availability of an authorised provider and a customer to bring forth a complaint to the Regulator in order to settle a dispute between them. This comes as a timely reminder in a period where local Courts have been closed due to Covid-19 measures.

In accordance with the Port Notice, the regulation is applicable to bunkering operations where a dispute has arisen between the bunkering fuel operator and provider and the receiving vessel. The procedure provides for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism (ADR) that is intended to be swift, economical, transparent and simple. Much of its attraction lies in the fact that disputes between authorised providers are to be settled within 4 months while disputes between an authorised provider and a consumer must be settled within 90 days, with extensions are only allowed in exceptional circumstances. Complaints and supporting documentation may be filed with the Regulator online and subject to certain conditions, the decisions taken by the Regulator are binding on the parties to the dispute, with administrative fines imposed for non-compliance. This procedure is however entirely voluntary and is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism which does not affect the parties’ rights to proceed to arbitration or to court should they prefer.

More details are available below.

SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION 545.30 – DISPUTE RESOLUTION (PROCEDURES) REGULATION

THE INVOLVED PARTIES:

Taking a closer look at the Regulation, the involved parties are as follows:

The Authorised Provider:

The Dispute Resolution (Procedures) Regulation is not limited to bunkering operations and defines an authorised provider as any natural or legal person whether privately or publicly owned, who has a valid authorisation to operate, provide or carry out any activity or operation or to provide any service relating to energy and energy and water services.

The Consumer:

The consumer means any person who uses or requests a service or product the provision of which is regulated by the Act who is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession. This definition raises questions as to who can qualify as a consumer, however the Port Notice explains that this shall be applicable ‘for bunker operations where a dispute arises between the bunkering fuel operator and provider and the receiving vessel’.

The Regulator:

The Regulator, established under the Regulator For Energy and Water Services Act, is composed of a Chairman and not less than four and not more than six members. Members are appointed by the Minister for a term of 5-7 years and may be re-appointed only once.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGULATOR

The Regulation provides for two scenarios, dispute resolution where the parties are both authorised providers and dispute resolution where the parties are an authorised provider and a customer. The Regulation seeks to provide authorised providers and consumers with an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that is intended to be simple and transparent, offering binding decisions delivered in a swift and economical manner.

Where a dispute arises between authorised providers, The Regulator must initiate an investigation into the dispute as soon as possible and must seek to resolve the dispute within 4 months from the date when the dispute was notified to it. This time frame may be extended by a further two months where additional information is sought and the parties agree to such an extension.

Under the Regulation, the Regulator has the power to initiate an investigation of its own initiative. The jurisdiction of the Regulator is however, not automatic, and the Regulator may refuse to initiate an investigation where it is satisfied that other means of resolving the dispute in a timely manner are available to the parties. It may also refuse to initiate an investigation where the dispute is already subject to legal proceedings. Where a decision has been taken to refuse to initiate an investigation the Regulator must inform the parties as soon as possible. However, if within 4 months from such a decision, the dispute has not been resolved or the party seeking redress has not initiated legal proceedings, the Regulator may, at the request of a party, initiate an investigation.

Subject to possible appeal, the Regulator’s decision shall be binding on the parties and failure to abide by the decision shall be considered an infringement of the Regulation, subject to an administrative fine.

Under the Regulation, the Regulator shall also have jurisdiction in cases where a consumer alleges that an authorised provider has made an infringement of the Regulator for Energy and Water Services Act or subsidiary legislation made thereunder. When referring a dispute, a consumer must show on a prima facie basis that it has been affected by an act or omission of the authorised provider. In resolving the dispute, the Regulator may amongst other directives, order the authorised provider to effect reimbursement of payments received or to make compensation payments. Such payments may include the whole or part of the costs relating to the engagement of a lawyer or technical adviser engaged in submitting the dispute. Should a party fail to abide by an order given, the Regulator may impose an administrative fine of not more than €600 for each day of non-compliance.

Interestingly, the Regulator is not a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism for disputes arising between authorised providers and consumers. In fact the provisions of the Regulation make clear that ‘the provisions of this Regulation shall be without prejudice to the right of a consumer to have recourse to any other body in resolving any such dispute’.

As many other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the Regulator aims to be expeditious in its investigations, with the Regulation setting out a 90 day period within which disputes must be resolved. This time frame may only be extended in exceptional circumstances. The Regulator aims to increase efficiency by allowing complaints and supporting documentation to be submitted online. Official communication may also be made by electronic means or if applicable, by post.

When faced with a consumer complaint against an authorised provider, the Regulator may refuse to deal with complaint in the following circumstances:

Where consumer did not first attempt to contact the authorised provider in order to discuss his complaint and seek to resolve the matter with the authorised provider directly.
Where the dispute is frivolous or vexatious.
Where the dispute is being or has been considered by another dispute resolution entity or by a Court.
Where the Consumer did not submit the complaint to the Regulator within one year from the date upon which the consumer submitted the complaint to the authorised provider
Where dealing with the dispute would serious impair the effective operation of the Regulator.
Where the consumer has not submitted the complaint to the Regulator within 2 years from the date upon which the facts constituting the substance of the complaint have first arisen.

According to the Regulation, decisions are binding on the parties to the dispute. However, where the dispute is between an authorised provider and a consumer, it is only binding on consumer if has been informed of binding nature in advance and has specifically accepted this.

It is to be noted that though decisions are binding, they are not final and decisions taken by the Regulator are subject to appeal before the Administrative Review Tribunal within 20 days of the decision. Appeals may be filed on the following grounds:

(a) that a material error as to the facts has been made;

(b) that there was a material procedural error;

(d) that there was some material illegality, including unreasonableness or lack of proportionality

CONCLUSION:

The Regulation aims to provide for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that seeks to increase consumer protection, in a timely and cost effective manner. In times where Courts are closed due to COVID-19 containment measures, authorised providers and/or consumers looking for quick settlement of a dispute may consider this mechanism as a valid alternative. Nonetheless, it is advised that disputes involving complex legal issues should continue to be referred before a Court so that one may make full use of all the legal mechanisms available therein.

The full port notice can be accessed here.

By Dr Martina Farrugia, Fenech & Fenech Advocates

Source: Lexology

Member of the Comité Maritime International

Digitalisation and automation in transport: a necessity unfolding into new opportunities

Dispute resolution regulations for bunkering operations

COVID-19 temporary precautionary measures – Framework of protocol for conducting maritime support services

Port notice 8/20 – Sulpher Content in Marine Fuels

Port notice 7/20 – Dispute Resolution and Procedures under S.L 545.30

Contact Us

Join Us

International Events