Onder 2.36 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 29 september 2017

“It may be said that there is something incongruous about ship B being able to limit in respect of costs of repairs to ship A but not for the cost of wreck removal. Similarly, although direct claims for salvage contribution and general average are specifically excluded from limitation by Article 3, nevertheless claims for reimbursement of salvage and general average have been held to be subject to the right to limit. Against this, it would be strange if a claim which is specifically described in a sub-paragraph of Article 2(1) and specifically excluded by parliament, should find its way back in through more general wording in another subparagraph. Further, it is the subject matter of the particular claim which is relevant when determining whether or not it falls within Article 2, not the way it is pleaded or advanced. Yet further, the opening words of Article 2(2) emphasise that Article 2(1)(d) is normally (if included) to be treated as including recourse or indemnity claims for wreck removal costs. The position remains unclear, with meritorious arguments both in favour and against limitation in respect of recourse claims for wreck removal expenses.”

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/62f4e80eadc87a9b063b9700fdb1019fcdb19bafda2858f010a6a28930ea0f67 | shasum -a 256