Newsfront – Greek Shipping Intelligence Vol.15 / No.32
Shipowner, exploiter and mere owner
Where a vessel is exploited by a party that does not own the ship, for claims against the exploiter (efoplistis) of the vessel, the latter functions as security and the relevant claim can be filed against the
owner of the ship.
This does not suggest the owner is fully liable, as his liability is in rem, and is confined solely to the vessel. So, we have a concurrent liability of exploiter and owner of the vessel, the latter being liable
only through the vessel. Exploiter is fully and entirely liable.
One member Piraeus Court of Appeal, Judgment no 228/ 2013, Judge: G. Kokkaris, Attorneys at law: I. Athanasoulias, Chr. Sevastopoulou, Maritime Law Review vol. 42, p. 46.
NOTE: One should distinguish between shipowner, exploiter and mere owner of a vessel. The former exploits his own vessel himself, the exploiter exploits a vessel belonging to a third party, with such
third party being a mere owner, who has no involvement with the use of the vessel.
The mere owner can find himself in a position to see his vessel arrested for claims he has no involvement with, being liable through the vessel for claims arising from her use by the exploiter.
It is obvious that where we have a shipowner, no exploiter and mere owner can exist on the vessel, as the shipowner’s activity encompasses both and does not leave margin for the existence of separate activities on the same vessel.
The legal column was written by Manolis Eglezos, Attorney at law, Manolis Eglezos & Associates Law Firm, Attorneys at Law and Consultants