This case arose from an incident that occurred during a pleasure cruise. The claimant was disembarking from the vessel, had passed through the 'port' or door in the ship's side and had crossed to the lateral fixed walkway, had then entered the walkway leading to the terminal and had reached the corner where there was a right-angle turn to the right into the part of the walkway which ran down to the terminal building. When he was at the corner he slipped on a wet surface, fell over and suffered injury. He brought a claim pursuant to the Athens Convention on Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974 (Athens Convention 1974), or alternatively under the Package Travel Regulations 1992 (PTR 1992).

The Athens Convention 1974 is incorporated into English law by s 183 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (UK). Article 3.1 of the Athens Convention provides: 'The carrier shall be liable for the damage suffered as a result of death or personal injury to a passenger … if the incident which caused the damage so suffered occurred in the course of the carriage and was due to the fault or neglect of the carrier or of his servants or agents acting within the scope of their employment'.

The claimant argued that the incident occurred during the course of the carriage as defined by art 1 of the Convention, upon the premise that art 1.8 of the Convention provides that injury caused during the carriage includes what happens while the passenger is in the course of embarkation or disembarkation. The claimant contended that disembarkation is not completed until the passenger is safely established ashore (Collins v Lawrence [2017] 1 Lloyd's Rep 13 (CMI167)).

The defendant drew attention to the full wording of art 1.8 of the Convention which provides that carriage covers 'with regard to the passenger and his cabin luggage, the period during which the passenger and/or his cabin luggage are on board the ship or in the course of embarkation or disembarkation, and the period during which the passenger and his cabin luggage are transported by water from land to the ship or vice-versa, if the cost of such transport is included in the fare or if the vessel used for this purpose of auxiliary transport has been put at the disposal of the passenger by the carrier. However, with regard to the passenger, carriage does not include the period during which he is in a marine terminal or station or on a quay or in or on any other port installation.' Because of the exception provided by art 1.8.a, carriage does not include a period during which claimant was in the marine terminal or in/on any other port installation. Although 'port installation' is not defined in the Athens Convention, the meaning of a phrase in a statute is to be given its natural or ordinary meaning in its context in the statute. In this regard 'installation' is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed) as 'an apparatus, system etc that has been installed for service or use', and therefore the relevant walkway falls within this definition. The walkways are installed in the port and are not part of the ship and the claimant's fall did not occur during 'carriage' within the meaning of the Athens Convention. Therefore, the Athens Convention does not apply and the claim under it should be dismissed.

Held: The provisions of the Athens Convention do not apply to this case and the claimant has failed to establish liability under the PTR 1992.

It is clear that the scope and context of the Athens Convention and the wording of art 1.8 indicate that, while it is generally intended to include disembarkation, this does not include spaces or equipment which are clearly not under the control of the ship. In many cases passengers may disembark down gangways or companion ways which are part of the ship's equipment or apparel or may disembark using ship's boats or, as in Lawrence v NCL [2016] EWHC (Admlty) (see CMI120 for the EWCA appeal), by way of boats which are put at the disposal of the passengers by the shipowner. In all such cases the disembarkation takes place within the period of carriage as understood by the Convention. However, the Convention also makes it clear that once the passenger is in a position where he or she has reached the port terminal or is on the quay or in or on any other port installation the period of carriage will have ceased.

In this case, once the claimant had passed through the port in the ship's side and stepped onto the walkway leading to the terminal the period of carriage was over and the Athens Convention no longer applied. That is clearly demonstrated by the photographs of the various parts of the walkway. The first part was a moving walkway situated on and over the quay itself. The later parts of the walkway and particularly the area where the claimant fell were fixed on pillars rising out of the quay. They were all structures on the quay. There can be no doubt that, at the time of the incident, the claimant was on a quay or in or on a port installation as referred to as part of the exception in art 1.8. In the circumstances, the incident occurred at a time which was not included within the period of 'carriage' with which the Athens Convention is concerned.

In so far as the claimant relied upon the decision in Collins v Lawrence it can be distinguished on the facts as the incident in that case occurred while the claimant was still on or in the area of disembarkation equipment provided by the vessel. Clearly there was no question of the claimant being in or on a 'port installation', nor can the word 'quay' cover disembarkation onto a shingle beach as occurred in that case. Insofar as the claimant sought to rely upon the judgment in Collins v Lawrence as supporting the proposition that the period of disembarkation, and therefore the carriage, is extended in all cases until the passenger has reached a place of safety, that proposition cannot be accepted. There is no suggestion in art 1.8 of the Convention that such a conclusion can be drawn and the wording of the Convention does not support the importation of such a concept. On the contrary, the Convention clearly envisages the period of carriage as coming to an end the moment the passenger has passed onto the quay or into or onto a port installation. The distinction is quite clear and needs no embellishment as suggested.

As the injury did not occur during the course of the carriage of the claimant, a claim under the Athens Convention cannot be entertained. Thus, the issue of whether the injury occurred as a result of the fault or neglect of the defendant is irrelevant. However, it should be noted that the claimant failed to establish that the water came into the area where the claimant slipped as a result of any fault of the defendant. It was suggested by the claimant that the defendant should have taken steps to warn the claimant of the hazard formed by the water, in reliance on the decision in Lawrence v NCL. That decision is of no assistance to the claimant. The circumstances of that case were different from the present case because the passenger was boarding a tender which had been 'provided' by the shipowners for the purpose of disembarking its passengers at Santorini. It clearly related to a period when the Athens Convention applied because it was held that the disembarkation was by way of tenders placed at the disposal of the passenger by the carrier as provided by the penultimate sentence in art 1.8.a. In those circumstances the Athens Convention was held to apply and it was in those circumstances that it was considered the shipowners had a responsibility to inspect the boats and provide warnings where necessary.

However, the facts of the present case clearly fall within the exception set out in the last sentence of art 1.8.a and where the Athens Convention does not apply it is clear that the legislature does not consider that is necessary for the shipowner to have responsibility for the safety of the passenger. It is clear that the Convention applies responsibility for the safety of passengers only while they are being carried. Once that period of carriage has passed there is no basis for the ship to be held liable unless liability can be established under the PTR 1992.