All the world's major yacht and superyacht shows, conferences, races and rendezvous - listed in one place. A comprehensive guide to all the world's leading yacht and superyacht shows, races, conferences and related events. Such events are a must for those looking to buy or charter a yacht, or looking to source services such as yacht builders, naval architects or interior designers. Home Insights Events / / events Calendar This page aims to list all yacht-related events which may be of interest to our Members and their representatives. Click on any listing to go straight to the organiser's website. You can also see a map here . The Club has no commercial relationships with any organisers. Listings are not endorsements. Events can be subject to change or cancellation without notice, and may not take place every year. Please check with the organisers directly before making any arrangements. Have we missed an event? Please tell us . Cyclades Cup Antiparos to 13 June 2026 10 June 2026 MTB Superyachts 2026 Lake Maggiore to 13 June 2026 10 June 2026 Loro Piana Giraglia Saint Tropez to 20 June 2026 12 June 2026 Newport Charter Yacht Show Rhode Island to 25 June 2026 22 June 2026 The Superyacht Cup Palma to 27 June 2026 24 June 2026 Cowes Week Isle of Wight to 7 August 2026 1 August 2026 Safe Harbor Race Weekend Rhode Island to 9 August 2026 7 August 2026 Cannes Yachting Festival Cannes to 13 September 2026 8 September 2026 Maxi Yacht Rolex Cup Porto Cervo to 14 September 2026 8 September 2026 World Yachts Trophies Cannes 12 September 2026 Ibiza JoySail Ibiza to 20 September 2026 17 September 2026 Southampton International Boat Show Southampton to 27 September 2026 18 September 2025 Monaco Yacht Show Monaco to 26 September 2026 23 September 2026 Les Voiles de Saint-Tropez Saint-Tropez to 4 October 2026 26 September 2026 Genoa Boat Show Genoa to 6 October 2026 1 October 2026 Global Superyacht Forum São Paulo 9 October 2026 Salon Nautico Internacional de Barcelona Barcelona to 18 October 2026 14 October 2026 Understanding Superyachts & Business Aviation Tax Barcelona 15 October 2026 Olympic Yacht Show Lavrion to 18 October 2026 15 October 2026 Rolex Middle Sea Race Valletta to 24 October 2026 17 October 2026 Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show Fort Lauderdale to 1 November 2026 28 October 2026 Malta Boat Show Valetta to 1 November 2026 29 October 2026 Superyacht Summit Türkiye Istanbul to 5 November 2026 4 November 2026 International Charter Expo Amsterdam to 13 November 2026 11 November 2026 Superyacht Investor Miami Miami 16 November 2026 METSTRADE Amsterdam to 19 November 2026 17 November 2026 Abu Dhabi International Boat Show Abu Dhabi to 22 November 2026 19 November 2026 Dubai International Boat Show Dubai to 29 November 2026 25 November 2026 Antigua Charter Yacht Show English Harbour to 9 December 2026 4 December 2026 Kata Rocks Superyacht Rendezvous Phuket December 2026 Thailand International Boat Show Phuket to 17 January 2026 14 January 2027 boot Düsseldorf Düsseldorf to 31 January 2027 23 January 2027 New Zealand Millennium Cup Auckland to 31 January 2027 29 January 2027 Seattle Boat Show Seattle to 13 February 2027 5 February 2027 Discover Boating Miami International Boat Show Miami to 14 February 2027 10 February 2027 Yachting Aftersales & Refit Experience Viareggio to 12 March 2027 10 March 2027 Palm Beach International Boat Show West Palm Beach to 21 March 2027 17 March 2027 St Barths Bucket St Barths to 21 March 2027 17 March 2027 China (Shanghai) International Boat Show Shanghai to 30 March 2027 28 March 2027 Auckland Boat Show Auckland to 4 April 2027 1 April 2027 Mediterranean Superyacht Forum Palma de Mallorca April 2027 British Motor Yacht Show Southampton to 23 May 2027 20 May 2027 BI World Superyacht Awards Rome May 2027 Superyacht Design Festival Kitzbühel TBC Sydney Charter Show Sydney TBC East Med Multihull & Yacht Charter Show Poros TBC Les Voiles de St Barth St Barths TBC PalmaVela Palma TBC Palma Superyacht Village Palma TBC Venice Boat Show Venice TBC 4th Super Yacht Türkiye 2026 Istanbul TBC The Turkey Superyacht Forum Istanbul TBC TYBA Yacht Charter Show Göcek TBC Sanctuary Cove International Boat Show Gold Coast TBC Singapore Yachting Festival Singapore TBC Giorgio Armani Superyacht Regatta Porto Cervo TBC Blue Design Summit La Spezia TBC Limassol Boat Show Limassol TBC Asia-Pacific Superyacht Summit Kobe TBC Mediterranean Yacht Show Nafplion TBC Improving Yacht Crew Retention Nice TBC Superyacht Challenge Antigua Antigua TBC MYBA Charter Show Sanremo TBC Superyacht Technology Show Barcelona TBC Superyacht UK Technical Seminar London TBC International Yacht & Aviation Awards Cannes TBC World Yachting Summit Monaco TBC Bahamas Charter Yacht Show Nassau TBC The South Pacific Superyacht Rendezvous Fiji TBC SeaYou Yacht Sales & Charter Days Genoa TBC Explorer Yachts Summit Monaco TBC Improving Yacht Crew Retention & Welfare US Fort Lauderdale TBC Managing Tomorrow’s Superyacht Monaco TBC Opportunities in Superyachts Valletta TBC Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race Programme Sydney & Hobart TBC Gulf Superyacht Summit Abu Dhabi TBC Balearic Superyacht Forum Palma TBC South Coast Powerhouse Summit Southampton TBC Croatia Yacht Show Zadar TBC Superyacht Investor London London TBC Superyacht Summit Adria Porto Montenegro TBC 7th Super Yacht Americas 2026 Fort Lauderdale TBC Lantau Yacht Club Boat Show Hong Kong TBC Hong Kong International Boat Show Hong Kong TBC

A map of all the world's major yacht and superyacht shows, conferences, races and rendezvous. A comprehensive guide to all the world's leading yacht and superyacht shows, races, conferences and related events. Such events are a must for those looking to buy or charter a yacht, or looking to source services such as yacht builders, naval architects or interior designers. Home Insights Events / / Events Map This page aims to map all yacht-related events which may be of interest to our Members and their representatives. You can also see a list of events, in date order, here . The Club has no commercial relationships with any organisers. Listings are not endorsements. Events can be subject to change or cancellation without notice, and may not take place every year. Please check with the organisers directly before making any arrangements. Map locations are approximate. Have we missed an event? Please tell us .

Crew romances on superyachts are inevitable, but banning them is often unlawful and impractical. Instead, owners should regulate relationships through clear written policies that respect crew privacy rights while managing operational, legal and reputational risks. Particular caution is needed where power imbalances exist, such as captain-subordinate relationships. Policies should require disclosure, prohibit favouritism, maintain professionalism and confidentiality, address post-breakup issues, and integrate with harassment procedures. Properly drafted and consistently enforced policies help reduce employment, discrimination and harassment claims while protecting yacht operations. Home Handbook Employing / / Crew Romance 4 May 2026 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time Crew romances on superyachts are inevitable, but banning them is often unlawful and impractical. Instead, owners should regulate relationships through clear written policies that respect crew privacy rights while managing operational, legal and reputational risks. Particular caution is needed where power imbalances exist, such as captain-subordinate relationships. Policies should require disclosure, prohibit favouritism, maintain professionalism and confidentiality, address post-breakup issues, and integrate with harassment procedures. Properly drafted and consistently enforced policies help reduce employment, discrimination and harassment claims while protecting yacht operations. minutes 4 Reading time 4 May 2026 Last revised Crew romances on superyachts are inevitable, but banning them is often unlawful and impractical. Instead, owners should regulate relationships through clear written policies that respect crew privacy rights while managing operational, legal and reputational risks. Particular caution is needed where power imbalances exist, such as captain-subordinate relationships. Policies should require disclosure, prohibit favouritism, maintain professionalism and confidentiality, address post-breakup issues, and integrate with harassment procedures. Properly drafted and consistently enforced policies help reduce employment, discrimination and harassment claims while protecting yacht operations. Blanket bans on crew relationships being often unenforceable and counterproductive, regulation is the only viable approach. Relationships involving a power imbalance, such as captain and subordinate, carry the greatest legal and operational risk. Even equal-level relationships require mandatory disclosure, as undisclosed romances create greater danger than transparent ones. Human rights and employment laws place real obligations on employers around privacy rights and harassment prevention. A written Relationships Policy, signed before boarding, is essential: without one, dismissals related to workplace romance are likely to be ruled unfair. Consistency in enforcing the policy is critical, as any variation can suggest bias and undermine an employer's position at tribunal. Human rights and employment laws place real obligations on employers around privacy rights and harassment prevention. A written Relationships Policy, signed before boarding, is essential: without one, dismissals related to workplace romance are likely to be ruled unfair. Consistency in enforcing the policy is critical, as any variation can suggest bias and undermine an employer's position at tribunal. Blanket bans on crew relationships being often unenforceable and counterproductive, regulation is the only viable approach. Relationships involving a power imbalance, such as captain and subordinate, carry the greatest legal and operational risk. Even equal-level relationships require mandatory disclosure, as undisclosed romances create greater danger than transparent ones. Superyachts are not just floating palaces. They are floating pressure cookers. Put young, adventurous people in close quarters, throw in long hours and a few sunsets, and the result is as predictable as the ebb and flow of the tide. The question for an owner is not whether relationships will occur. It’s how to manage them lawfully, sensibly and commercially. Some owners instinctively try to prohibit them. Simple. Except it isn't. Crewmembers retain rights to privacy and family life, particularly where employment arrangements involve living on board for extended periods. Blanket bans on consensual relationships can be difficult to justify and may create enforcement problems. More importantly, they rarely work in practice. And hidden relationships are potentially more dangerous than disclosed ones. The focus should be on regulation. If you don't have a proper written policy governing this entirely predictable behaviour, you could find yourself on the wrong end of an employment claim – or even a PR catastrophe. POWER IMBALANCES Let’s start with the stereotypical relationship which has the potential for causing the most problems: the captain-stewardess relationship. On a vessel, where the captain has ultimate authority over schedules, duties, references, and the welfare of everyone aboard, any romantic relationship between the captain and an inferior carries inherent power imbalance concerns that cannot simply be waved away by mutual consent. The greatest legal and operational risks arise when one party has authority over another. Research consistently identifies perceptions of favouritism as the principal organisational harm arising from workplace romances. Indeed, an allegation of bias (whether based in truth or not) can lead to claims of unfair treatment by other crewmembers. In any event, morale and retention can suffer. The safest approach is not to tolerate romantic relationships between two crew where one supervises another, perhaps by moving one party to a shoreside role. If this isn’t a viable option (and it normally isn’t) then this situation requires careful management through policies. And those policies need to have been in place at the outset. NO IMBALANCE Even where there’s no imbalance, couples may collude, cover for each other, or simply distract each other from their duties. Unintended flows of information can also be established, regarding guest information, security arrangements, or commercially sensitive matters. There’s no malicious intent. Just pillow-talk. This is not just a practical headache; it’s a legal one if it leads to negligence, accidents, or breaches of duty. There must still be mandatory disclosure, so such relationships and corresponding risks can be assessed and managed. A failure to disclose must be a serious disciplinary matter. APPLICABLE LAWS The employment law of the crewmember’s home country often applies. As well as that of the employment contract. And the vessel’s port of registry. And the local port law. So let’s just look at UK law, given the large numbers of British captains and crew and the ubiquity of the Red Ensign. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives employees the right to respect for private and family life. This means that employees have the right to have consensual relationships with people they meet at work. An outright ban on would almost certainly constitute an unlawful interference with those rights, and would invite an unfair dismissal claim if enforced by dismissal alone. So regulating relationships is the only way forward. If a romance turns sour, one party could allege harassment where unwanted conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. The Equality Act 2010 obliges employers to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent sexual harassment of employees in the course of their employment. And the normal burden of proof is reversed: if an allegation is made, then you must demonstrate that you, as employer, took those steps. Without a written policy and documented training, you’re already losing. And this is soon to change from ‘reasonable steps’ to ‘all reasonable steps’. RELATIONSHIPS POLICY Having a Relationships Policy in place, and expressly including it within the written employment agreement, is vital. It must be signed before the crewmember even comes on board. Without a policy in place, the employer’s expectations remain a known unknown. And the caselaw is clear: if a crewmember is dismissed in the context of a workplace romance, and there’s no policy, this is likely to have been an unfair dismissal. The best policies are surprisingly short, and should encompass the following key elements: Relationships are not prohibited Consensual sexual relationships between adult crewmembers are not forbidden. This encourages disclosure, keeping in mind that hidden relationships create greater risk than visible ones. Relationships must be disclosed Non-disclosure will lead to formal disciplinary action. All disclosures are confidential. No preferential treatment Preferential treatment of an inferior involved party is prohibited – whether the reporting lines are direct or indirect. This includes but is not limited to watchkeeping patterns, leave allocations, accommodation, promotions and rotations. Professional conduct remains mandatory Crewmembers must continue to maintain professional standards regardless of the relationship. There can be no public arguments nor public displays of affection on board, or any distracting behaviour while performing duties. Confidentiality obligations continue Relationships must never compromise owner or guest confidentiality, security procedures or commercial information. Post-breakup procedures Involved crewmembers must accept the imposition of new or different watch patterns, duties, or accommodation arrangements, in order to eliminate post-breakup fallout. Complaints procedure If an involved or uninvolved crewmember complains about any aspect of the relationship, you must investigate this immediately. Disciplinary procedures The consequences flowing from a breach of the policy must be made clear. Your Relationships Policy must run seamlessly alongside your existing Harassment Policy: crew must be in no doubt that unwanted advances will constitute harassment and are strictly forbidden. For yacht owners, the risk of a harassment claim are amplified because the workplace is also the employee's home. There is nowhere to escape. And be consistent with the handling of all relationship matters. Any variation in management can undermine credibility and suggest bias to an employment tribunal. CONCLUSION Crew live in extraordinary proximity, in a high-pressure environment. Crew romance is inevitable. The answer is not prudishness. It is not a ban. Be prepared - legally and practically. Have a policy, enforce it, treat everyone fairly, and don’t let your yacht become a floating soap opera. Love may be blind, but the law certainly isn’t. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Harassment Prevention Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Harassment Prevention

AIS was created as a safety tool. But somewhere along the line, something changed. Today, an industry exists to collect, archive and monetise vessel location data. For commercial shipping, that raises few eyebrows. But large yachts are part-time floating homes often associated with identifiable individuals, families and children. Drawing on legislation, human rights judgments, and celebrity privacy cases, this article examines where maritime safety ends and perpetual surveillance begins. Home Handbook Managing / / The Right to Vanish 19 May 2026 Last revised minutes 9 Reading time AIS was created as a safety tool. But somewhere along the line, something changed. Today, an industry exists to collect, archive and monetise vessel location data. For commercial shipping, that raises few eyebrows. But large yachts are part-time floating homes often associated with identifiable individuals, families and children. Drawing on legislation, human rights judgments, and celebrity privacy cases, this article examines where maritime safety ends and perpetual surveillance begins. minutes 9 Reading time 19 May 2026 Last revised AIS was created as a safety tool. But somewhere along the line, something changed. Today, an industry exists to collect, archive and monetise vessel location data. For commercial shipping, that raises few eyebrows. But large yachts are part-time floating homes often associated with identifiable individuals, families and children. Drawing on legislation, human rights judgments, and celebrity privacy cases, this article examines where maritime safety ends and perpetual surveillance begins. AIS was created for navigation safety, not global public tracking. Yacht location data may qualify as personal data under UK GDPR where a yacht is closely associated with an identifiable owner, family or crew. Publishing real-time yacht locations may lack a lawful GDPR basis. Human rights and privacy law increasingly protect individuals against location surveillance. Public figures retain privacy rights despite wealth, fame or media attention. Courts may eventually decide when maritime transparency becomes unlawful surveillance. Human rights and privacy law increasingly protect individuals against location surveillance. Public figures retain privacy rights despite wealth, fame or media attention. Courts may eventually decide when maritime transparency becomes unlawful surveillance. AIS was created for navigation safety, not global public tracking. Yacht location data may qualify as personal data under UK GDPR where a yacht is closely associated with an identifiable owner, family or crew. Publishing real-time yacht locations may lack a lawful GDPR basis. It’s said that while money shouts, wealth whispers. And there was a time when you could sail quietly away to enjoy secluded adventure. No online tracking. No voyeurs or bad actors following your movements in real time. That’s all gone. Today, modern superyachts glide across the oceans leaving an invisible digital trail like a tin can tied to a wedding car. Every movement, every anchorage, every discreet arrival is vacuumed up, republished and monetised by online AIS tracking platforms. You could, of course, pull the plug. Some do. But that’s not lawful and there may be insurance repercussions if switching off were to be a contributory factor in a collision. So, that aside, what rights do owners have to vanish? USEFUL KIT AIS was not designed as a global voyeurism product. It’s a navigational tool. All yachts of 300 gross tonnage or more and engaged on international voyages must be fitted with Class A AIS equipment (per Regulation 19 of Chapter V of SOLAS). It enhances safety and security. By broadcasting key information through short-range radio signals to nearby vessels, it supplements the picture produced by radar, so enhancing traffic awareness. Many of the problems common to radar, such as clutter, do not affect AIS. So it’s also used in search and rescue operations. So far, so sensible. A HARMLESS HOBBY? There’s a comforting assumption that if something is broadcast, it’s public and you’re entitled to hoover this information up, monetise it if you want, then post it online with complete moral serenity. After all, tracking aircraft, like trainspotting, is harmless enough. But AIS’s core purpose is nearby safety, not global stalking. Commercial ships exist to trade. Ferries exist to transport passengers. Tugs, dredgers and offshore support vessels exist to work. Superyachts, by contrast, exist for one purpose only: private leisure. They are not mere transport assets. They are floating private residences, often carrying owners, families, children, guests and crew in circumstances that are deeply personal and deliberately secluded. Where a vessel is commonly associated with an individual, then it becomes a proxy for that person. The location data is thereby also – crucially – personal data. ENTER GDPR The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a comprehensive data protection law enacted by the European Union (EU) to safeguard the personal data within the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA). The UK’s own version of GDPR was retained in domestic law post-Brexit by virtue of the Data Protection Act 2018 . And data in respect of an individual’s location is undoubtedly ‘personal data’. Article 4(1) of UK GDPR defines personal data as “ any information relating to … an identifiable natural person … who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as … location data ”. So AIS data can become personal data when there’s a sufficient link to a habitual individual user, or even a crewmember, because of, for example, credible media reports. It becomes pattern-of-life information which can be used to map the movements of individuals. LAWFUL BASIS Under Article 6 of UK GDPR, every single act of processing personal data (such as posting online) must have a lawful basis. You cannot simply decide that because information is technically available, you can do whatever you like with it. There are six lawful bases under Article 6(1): Consent : has the owner consented to having their real-time location posted and published? Obviously not. They have not been asked. They have not consented. Contract : is there a contract? Of course not. Legal Obligation : is there a law requiring the publishing of a private individual's real-time location? Nope. Vital Interests : is publication necessary to save a life? Another no. Public Task : is the person posting this data a public authority exercising a public function? Unless the poster is, say, the coastguard, then this basis doesn't apply. Legitimate Interest : is publication necessary for legitimate interests of the publisher or a third party? This is the publisher’s last chance saloon. What legitimate interest could be invoked for posting someone's real-time location? Maritime safety? The vessel is already broadcasting AIS for that purpose. Reposting online adds nothing. Curiosity? Entertainment? These are not ‘legitimate interests’ in the legal sense. And crucially, even where there is a legitimate interest, the balancing test must be passed. The data subject's rights are weighed in the scales. Real-time, continuous disclosure of a specific person's location is a highly significant privacy intrusion. The scales would need something very substantial on the other side to tip them the other way. FURTHER HURDLES Even if a lawful basis were somehow established, the processing would still need to comply with the data protection principles in Article 5 of UK GDPR. These include: Lawfulness, Fairness & Transparency : publishing someone's location without their knowledge is not transparent. Whether it is fair is highly context-dependent, but continuous real-time location disclosure is unlikely to pass muster. Purpose Limitation : data must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, and not further processed in a manner incompatible with those purposes. AIS data is broadcast for maritime safety. Republishing it to reveal an individual's location for non-safety purposes is incompatible with that original purpose. The vessel owner did not switch on their AIS transponder so that strangers on the internet could track their movements. Storage Limitation : data should not be kept longer than necessary. If an archive of a person's historical movements is being maintained, this requires separate justification. Data Minimisation : only data adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary may be processed. Real-time, continuous, geographically precise location tracking of a specific individual is the opposite of minimisation. HUMAN RIGHTS The European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR ) is an overriding international treaty, protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. All member states of the Council of Europe, including the UK and EU countries, are bound by the ECHR. Under Article 8 of the ECHR, everyone’s private and family life must be respected. The European Court of Human Rights, which oversees compliance with the ECHR, has stated in Uzun v Germany that GPS surveillance would via GPS would amounted to an interference with someone’s private life, as protected by Article 8, unless safeguards were put in place and the surveillance was targeted, proportionate and justified by strong public interests (such as a serious criminal investigation in that case). In the subsequent Shimovolos v Russia judgment the Court confirmed that, “ Collection, through a GPS device attached to a person’s car, and storage of data concerning that person’s whereabouts and movements in the public sphere was also found to constitute an interference with private life ”. Admittedly, these cases concerned state surveillance rather than yacht websites. But the principle is unmistakable: location data is intrinsically sensitive. MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION The misuse of private information is also a distinct civil wrong, according to Google v Vidal-Hall , liability for which is determined on the basis of whether the claimant has an objective, reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the data. Clearly, any yacht owner has just such an expectation. The victim doesn't have to rely on data protection law at all: they can go straight to court on the grounds that their reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated, with claimants receiving damages for the loss or diminution of the right to control their private information, independently of any distress caused. CELEBRITY PRIVACY But to what extent does placing oneself in the public spotlight erode the right to privacy? In Campbell v MGN supermodel Naomi Campbell successfully sued the Daily Mirror for publishing details of her treatment at a narcotics clinic. The court established that being a public figure means you must tolerate some additional scrutiny but that does not extend to unlimited surveillance of your private movements and personal life. The Campbell test is: Does the individual have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If he or she does, is that privacy interest outweighed by a competing interest, such as freedom of expression or public accountability? A famous superyacht owner, sailing on their own vessel, clearly expects privacy, it’s very hard to see how this could be outweighed by any competing interest. In the subsequent case of Murray v Big Pictures author JK Rowling was out walking with her infant son, when they were photographed and those images were published in the Sunday Express. The court held that the son had a reasonable expectation of privacy even when out and about in a public place. Here, the targeted surveillance of the son beforehand mattered enormously. AIS data which can be used to track an individual's real-time location is precisely this sort of targeted surveillance. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION Finally, there is also an overlooked technical issue lurking beneath the surface: interception law. In the United Kingdom, it is an imprisonable criminal offence, under section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, to intercept without lawful authority a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a public telecommunication system - including VHF radio signals produced by AIS equipment. CONCLUSION So where does this leave us? AIS itself is not the villain. It is a sensible, important safety system:. The problem begins when information emitted for collision avoidance is scooped up, archived, enriched, monetised and republished to a global audience, transforming a navigational aid into a perpetual surveillance mechanism. The law distinguishes between availability and permissibility. Merely because data can be obtained does not mean it may lawfully be gathered and posted online. The courts have been consistent and clear: precise location data attached to identifiable individuals is inherently sensitive and deserving of protection. The argument that the information is already pubic doesn’t wash. By that logic, one might argue that because someone drives on public roads, their every journey may be catalogued indefinitely and provided to strangers. Courts have shown little enthusiasm for such reasoning. The seas remain vast. Solitude remains valuable. The question the courts may yet have to answer is surprisingly simple: when does maritime transparency stop being safety, and start becoming surveillance? Please contact us if you have any privacy concerns. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Going Dark Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Going Dark

As Members know, yachts aren’t run on shoestring budgets. And most of the money is spent not by them in person, but by their captains and other trusted third parties. In highly competitive marketplaces, there is an incentive to buy business with formal ‘commissions’, extravagant ‘thank you’s – or perhaps just a good old brown envelope. Home Handbook Employing / / Commission or Kickback? 2 November 2013 Last revised minutes 3 Reading time As Members know, yachts aren’t run on shoestring budgets. And most of the money is spent not by them in person, but by their captains and other trusted third parties. In highly competitive marketplaces, there is an incentive to buy business with formal ‘commissions’, extravagant ‘thank you’s – or perhaps just a good old brown envelope. minutes 3 Reading time 2 November 2013 Last revised As Members know, yachts aren’t run on shoestring budgets. And most of the money is spent not by them in person, but by their captains and other trusted third parties. In highly competitive marketplaces, there is an incentive to buy business with formal ‘commissions’, extravagant ‘thank you’s – or perhaps just a good old brown envelope. T he Bribery Act 2010 in th e UK is considered one of the toughest anti-bribery laws globally, with similar principles found in the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Act applies extraterritorially, meaning that a crime can be committed even if the transaction occurs outside of the UK. There are four key offences under the Act: bribing, receiving a bribe, bribing a foreign public official, and failing to prevent bribery. Bribing involves offering or promising a financial or other advantage in exchange for improper performance of a function or activity, while receiving a bribe includes requesting or accepting such an advantage. Local practices should be disregarded when determining improperness, unless they are part of the written local law. Hospitality can be considered bribery if it is disproportionately generous, especially in industries focused on luxury. The offence of failing to prevent bribery applies to all commercial organizations, including companies and partnerships operating in the UK. Bribery crimes committed outside the UK can be investigated and prosecuted if there is a "close connection" to the UK, such as being a UK passport holder or ordinarily resident. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the UK handles corruption allegations involving UK nationals or incorporated bodies overseas, and there is international cooperation in investigating and prosecuting bribery and corruption. The United States' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act allows payments to foreign public officials to expedite their duties, even if it violates local laws. Civil actions can also be taken against individuals involved in bribery, and a criminal conviction serves as proof of civil liability. The offence of failing to prevent bribery applies to all commercial organizations, including companies and partnerships operating in the UK. Bribery crimes committed outside the UK can be investigated and prosecuted if there is a "close connection" to the UK, such as being a UK passport holder or ordinarily resident. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the UK handles corruption allegations involving UK nationals or incorporated bodies overseas, and there is international cooperation in investigating and prosecuting bribery and corruption. The United States' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act allows payments to foreign public officials to expedite their duties, even if it violates local laws. Civil actions can also be taken against individuals involved in bribery, and a criminal conviction serves as proof of civil liability. T he Bribery Act 2010 in th e UK is considered one of the toughest anti-bribery laws globally, with similar principles found in the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Act applies extraterritorially, meaning that a crime can be committed even if the transaction occurs outside of the UK. There are four key offences under the Act: bribing, receiving a bribe, bribing a foreign public official, and failing to prevent bribery. Bribing involves offering or promising a financial or other advantage in exchange for improper performance of a function or activity, while receiving a bribe includes requesting or accepting such an advantage. Local practices should be disregarded when determining improperness, unless they are part of the written local law. Hospitality can be considered bribery if it is disproportionately generous, especially in industries focused on luxury. In the United Kingdom, giving incentives and rewards may be a criminal offence – or not – according to whether it falls foul of the Bribery Act 2010 . This law is widely recognised as the toughest of its kind in the world, but its principles are much the same in the rest of the world, including the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Significantly, under the Bribery Act, a crime may be committed even if the transaction takes place outside of the UK. This was already the effect of a small and little-known piece of anti-terror legislation introduced in 2001, but the globe-trotting aspects of the 2010 Act are clearer and more coherent. COMMISSIONS To be clear, a lot of commission arrangements are perfectly legal – but it’s easy to overstep the mark, and there can be a false assumption that formality means legality. The penalties for getting it wrong include an unusually long prison sentence and unlimited fines. OFFENCES There are four key offences: Bribing Receiving a bribe Bribing a foreign public official, and Failing to prevent bribery Bribing occurs when a person offers, gives, or promises to give, a financial or other advantage to someone else in exchange for ‘improperly’ performing a function or activity. Receiving a bribe is defined as requesting, accepting or agreeing to accept such an advantage. An activity will be ‘improperly’ performed when any expectation of good faith or impartiality has been breached, or when the function has been performed in a way not expected of a person in a position of trust. Helpful, this now clarifies what is expected when a commission is an overt element of any business model – even where this may lead to a reduced commission. GREASING PALMS So what about those instances where greasing palms to get things to happen is just the way things work? The Act states that local practises should be disregarded when deciding on improperness – unless they form part of the written local law. While the UK authorities are alive to the necessity of ‘facilitation payments’, official tolerance relates only to small payments, made by companies with the right bribery policies and procedures in place. HOSPITALITY Hospitality can constitute bribery if it is disproportionately generous. In an industry devoted to luxury, it can be easy for crewmembers to confuse the lifestyle of their wealthy employers with their own – and not think twice about receiving hospitality which, seen from afar, is completely over the top. PREVENTION The offence of failing to prevent bribery applies only to ‘commercial organisations’, but this includes any company or partnership carrying on any business in the UK. Conceivably, this could yacht owning companies managed from the UK. With regard to the first three offences, while crimes committed outside the UK (except on board UK-flagged vessels) are normally beyond the jurisdiction of the courts, this is not the case with bribery. Given its seriousness, it’s one of a unique group of crimes (along with terrorism and war crimes) that the authorities can and will investigate worldwide. All that’s needed is a ‘close connection’ with the UK – including just being a passport-holder or ordinarily resident. INVESTIGATION The UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acts as the focal point for any allegations of corruption by UK nationals or incorporated bodies overseas, while the City of London Police has an Overseas Anti-Corruption Unit with the specific function of supporting overseas corruption investigations undertaken by the SFO. The idea that prosecuting authorities have tentacles that can reach worldwide is not limited to the UK. As with many areas of the criminal law, most countries’ laws are broadly similar, and both European Union and United Nations conventions provide for international co-operation with regard to both the investigation and prosecution of bribery and corruption. UNITED STATES While the reach of law enforcers in the United States is equally global in nature, however, a slight difference can be seen in their approach, as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 allows payments to be made to foreign public officials to facilitate or expedite their performance of the duties they’re already bound to perform, even if this still violates local laws. So making a payment to an official to speed up a visa application, for example, would be acceptable. CIVIL ACTION In addition to the threat of prosecution, an owner may sue an employee or other agent for any loss – and, while a criminal conviction is not necessary for a civil action, it would be undeniable proof of civil liability. The owner may also be able to withdraw from the contract agreed to by the agent, whether or not he or she brings an action against the agent, and this option may be useful if, for example, the owner has managed to find a better deal elsewhere. CONCLUSION While it might seem that the authorities are coming down rather hard on corruption, it’s not because they are trying to spearhead some kind of moral crusade but simply because corruption distorts rational product and service choices, which can ultimately prevent the cream of the industry from rising to the top, distort markets and threaten economic growth. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Crew Romance Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Crew Romance

So you have your team in place. In the case of a full custom yacht, you'll now have your design and specification to hand. And if it’s a semi-custom or series production yacht you’re going for, your team understands your vision and is ready to review, negotiate and modify the builders’ pre-existing designs and specifications. It’s time to shortlist the builders. Home Handbook Building / / Engage a Builder 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 3 Reading time So you have your team in place. In the case of a full custom yacht, you have your design and specification to hand. And if it’s a semi-custom or series production yacht you’re going for, your team understands your vision and is ready to review, negotiate and modify the builders’ pre-existing designs and specifications. It’s time to shortlist the builders. minutes 3 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised So you have your team in place. In the case of a full custom yacht, you have your design and specification to hand. And if it’s a semi-custom or series production yacht you’re going for, your team understands your vision and is ready to review, negotiate and modify the builders’ pre-existing designs and specifications. It’s time to shortlist the builders. The asking prices of yachts depend on builder pedigree and size, with Northern Europe, France, Italy, and Turkey being viewed as having higher pedigree. Builders often subcontract parts of builds to suppliers, so effective build agreements and project management are crucial. Whittle down the short-list of builders by checking their available build slots and assessing their insurances and financial stability. Visit the builder's facilities to evaluate their cleanliness, safety, and organization, as well as the quality of their craftsmen and office facilities. Assess the builder's management team for communication and receptiveness to new concepts, as well as their flexibility in equipment suppliers and subcontractors. Consider the builder's financial security and willingness to have the build agreement subject to English law and jurisdiction. Choose a builder based on factors beyond the lowest bid, such as personal impression and team performance. Builders often request a Letter of Intent (LOI) before reserving a build slot, which outlines the price, payment terms, design, specification, and delivery timeframe. Clarify which parts of the LOI are binding and split it into a binding and non-binding section if necessary. Negotiate the build agreement after securing the LOI, taking legal advice before agreeing to any terms. Consider the builder's financial security and willingness to have the build agreement subject to English law and jurisdiction. Choose a builder based on factors beyond the lowest bid, such as personal impression and team performance. Builders often request a Letter of Intent (LOI) before reserving a build slot, which outlines the price, payment terms, design, specification, and delivery timeframe. Clarify which parts of the LOI are binding and split it into a binding and non-binding section if necessary. Negotiate the build agreement after securing the LOI, taking legal advice before agreeing to any terms. The asking prices of yachts depend on builder pedigree and size, with Northern Europe, France, Italy, and Turkey being viewed as having higher pedigree. Builders often subcontract parts of builds to suppliers, so effective build agreements and project management are crucial. Whittle down the short-list of builders by checking their available build slots and assessing their insurances and financial stability. Visit the builder's facilities to evaluate their cleanliness, safety, and organization, as well as the quality of their craftsmen and office facilities. Assess the builder's management team for communication and receptiveness to new concepts, as well as their flexibility in equipment suppliers and subcontractors. As your broker will have told you – or as you’ll have worked out by browsing online listings – the asking prices of yachts are dependent on builder pedigree as well as size. Broadly, builders in Northern Europe tend to be viewed as having the highest pedigree, followed by France and Italy and then Turkey. But this is much about perception than anything else. The reality is that many parts of the builds are subcontracted to suppliers who can place teams into any yard you wish. What’s key is an effective build agreement and project management. The use of well-known exterior and interior designers can add kudos and value. You’ll soon establish where your project can be built. ASSESS THE CANDIDATES The short-list can be whittled down by making inquiries and establishing at the outset which of these builders have build slots available which suit your time horizon. The next task is to establish that the builder has the correct insurances and place and a strong balance sheet. A build taken on which was too ambitious or priced too keenly can quickly turn a prestigious name into a financial basket case. Some information will be publicly available, or an NDA can be put in place to allow you to examine more sensitive details. You should obtain a credit reference if possible. Then you should visit the builder in person. Modern yacht-building facilities are clean, safe, well-lit and orderly. Owners’ teams should have excellent office facilities, and there should be secure areas where owner-supplied items are clearly marked and stored. The workers are well-paid and highly-skilled craftsmen and women. It is (or should be) a far cry from many commercial and military shipyards. By meeting the builder’s management team, you can get a feel for their communicativeness, and their receptiveness to any new concepts you have in mind. You also need to assess the degree to which they are wedded to certain equipment suppliers and subcontractors in case you're considering alternatives. The builder will need to provide the right financial security and be open to having the build agreement subject to English law and jurisdiction: if it came to it, would you really receive justice in the builder’s local courts? You may well choose the builder you liked the look of, or whose team impressed you, over the one which came in with the lowest bid. RESERVE A SLOT It’s common practice for builders to request a Letter of Intent (LOI) from a prospective buyer before they’ll reserve a build slot. This stage is half-way between an informal expression of interest and a build agreement. The term is often used, but parties can be at odds about what the LOI means in practice and, in particular, the extent to which it’s going to bind the parties. As with many contracts in the international maritime sphere, the uncontroversial default choice of law for LOIs is that of England. Insistence on local laws should ring alarm bells. Under English law, contracts must be certain. Agreements to agree, and to negotiate in good faith, are unenforceable as they’re uncertain. The LOI can, and should, set out the price and payment terms, the design and specification, and the delivery timeframe. You may also want the right of first refusal for any earlier slots which become available. Depending on how these are drafted, each of these elements may or may not be binding. Different builders may have different expectations, but there is no overall consensus on this. The parties need to be clear on which parts are binding, and may be helpful to split the LOI into a binding and non-binding section. The degree to which you obtain certainty, while still retaining the flexibility to change or cancel the slot, is a matter of negotiation. Money may or may not change hands. If you haven’t had the owning company incorporated, the builder may want the LOI to be in your name personally. Whether you accede to such request is, of course, up to you, but the LOI must then contain a right for you to assign your interest over to the company upon incorporation. Never agree to an LOI before taking legal advice. With the LOI in place, it’s time to negotiate the build agreement . Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about The Build Agreement Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about The Build Agreement

Unavailable at present Latest Position Superyachts'R'Us Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 62 m Length Italia srl Builder 2002 Build year 612 Gross tonnage British Virgin Islands Registry Particulars Sample

Yacht brokers play an essential role in the sale and purchase market. Reputable brokers know the current market, how to market the vessel, how much for and to whom. While they can also be engaged to represent buyers, this article looks at their role as the seller’s representative. Home Handbook Buying / / The Brokers' Role 2 September 2020 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time Yacht brokers play an essential role in the sale and purchase market. Reputable brokers know the current market, how to market the vessel, how much for and to whom. While they can also be engaged to represent buyers, this article looks at their role as the seller’s representative. minutes 5 Reading time 2 September 2020 Last revised Yacht brokers play an essential role in the sale and purchase market. Reputable brokers know the current market, how to market the vessel, how much for and to whom. While they can also be engaged to represent buyers, this article looks at their role as the seller’s representative. Yacht brokers are generally unregulated in most parts of the world, allowing anyone to become a broker without barriers to entry. Due diligence is essential for prospective yacht buyers to assess the credibility and ethics of brokerages and individual brokers. Brokers often prefer to work under a Central Agency Agreement, granting them exclusive rights to market the yacht and ensuring a return on their investment. It is important for buyers to verify if the broker they are dealing with is the Central Agent to avoid complex communication chains. The exclusivity term in the Central Agency Agreement can be negotiated, but sufficient time should be given to the broker for marketing and selling the vessel. Even if a sale is not directly related to the broker's efforts, they may still be entitled to a commission during the agreement period. Joint Central Agency Agreements may involve multiple agents deciding on marketing and commission splits, requiring careful consideration. Disputes between sellers and brokers often arise due to vague or ambiguous broker instructions. Standard terms and conditions provided by brokers should be examined carefully to understand the scope of services and any limitations or exclusions. Yacht brokers have fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of their principals, exercise reasonable care and skill, and avoid conflicts of interest. Even if a sale is not directly related to the broker's efforts, they may still be entitled to a commission during the agreement period. Joint Central Agency Agreements may involve multiple agents deciding on marketing and commission splits, requiring careful consideration. Disputes between sellers and brokers often arise due to vague or ambiguous broker instructions. Standard terms and conditions provided by brokers should be examined carefully to understand the scope of services and any limitations or exclusions. Yacht brokers have fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of their principals, exercise reasonable care and skill, and avoid conflicts of interest. Yacht brokers are generally unregulated in most parts of the world, allowing anyone to become a broker without barriers to entry. Due diligence is essential for prospective yacht buyers to assess the credibility and ethics of brokerages and individual brokers. Brokers often prefer to work under a Central Agency Agreement, granting them exclusive rights to market the yacht and ensuring a return on their investment. It is important for buyers to verify if the broker they are dealing with is the Central Agent to avoid complex communication chains. The exclusivity term in the Central Agency Agreement can be negotiated, but sufficient time should be given to the broker for marketing and selling the vessel. In most parts of the world, yacht brokers aren’t regulated in law. There are no barriers to entry. Anyone can set themselves up as one – and many frequently do. Some brokers are not averse to offering insurance, for example, without the necessary regulatory permits to do so – which often paints an accurate picture of their approach to professional ethics and legal niceties. Recommendations are useful, but prospective buyers need to conduct due diligence on both brokerages and individual brokers. CENTRAL AGENTS As well as working under their own terms and conditions, brokers usually prefer to work under a Central Agency Agreement – under which they have the exclusive right to market the yacht. This gives them peace of mind and will encourage them to do their best to sell the vessel, safe in knowledge that – unless the vessel fails to sell at all – they will see a return on their investment. As a prospective buyer, you should ensure that the broker you are dealing with is indeed the Central Agent: otherwise an unnecessary and inefficient chain of communications can be set up which makes negotiating that much more complex, lengthy and uncertain. MYBA, for example, produces its own approved, standard Central Agency Agreement which is reasonably fair if somewhat simplistic. The exclusivity term of the Central Agency Agreement is a matter of negotiation, but the broker should be afforded a sufficient chance to market and sell the vessel – keeping in mind the yacht show calendar, the vessel’s usual mooring location and the time needed to produce promotional materials, videos, etc. Crucially, under such agreement the broker is usually entitled to commission where the yacht is sold during the period of its currency – even if the sale had nothing to do with the broker’s efforts. Perhaps the seller has a business associate looking to buy her – or a regular charterer is looking to make her his own: if these are realistic possibilities, the agreement will need amending. Alternatively, the seller may prefer to appoint more than one central agent under a Joint Central Agency Agreement, with multiple agents deciding between themselves how the vessel is to be marketed and the commission split. Attention must still be paid to what is to happen where a sale occurs regardless of the joint central agents’ efforts. Disputes between sellers and brokers most often occur because of the vagueness of, or ambiguities contained in, the broker's instructions. Brokers may also seek to regulate the relationship between them and their clients with ‘standard’ terms and conditions. Any prospective client would be urged to examine these carefully, and take advice, to ensure that there are no misunderstandings about the scope of the services being supplied – and the limitation and exclusions which may apply. Any clauses seeking to exclude or limit liability will be subject to laws governing unfair contract terms – and so cannot necessarily be taken at face value. Further, in the unlikely event that the seller is an individual, rather than a company, the terms must usually comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which seeks to ensure that contracts within its remit are, broadly, as fair as possible. In providing brokerage services, a legal agent/principal relationship is established. This means that the relationship between seller and broker is governed not only by the written arrangements made in the brokerage agreement, but by the unwritten (as far as the parties are concerned) law of agency. Well understood by lawyers, but not necessarily by the parties, there can be obligations owed by broker to the seller, and vice versa, of which one or neither is completely unaware. INTERMEDIARY BROKERS Sometimes, central agents just don’t have sufficient market penetration. Perhaps they just don’t have the necessary geographic or cultural reach, or it’s just that their little black book doesn’t have the right numbers in it. They may use other brokers (known as intermediary or sub brokers) and/or other parties to reach the ear of the prospective client. While this should be avoided, for the reasons touched on above, sometimes it’s unavoidable if an opportunity isn’t to be lost. While intermediary brokers have no contractual connection with the seller, they nevertheless have certain rights and obligations. The law recognises the intermediary broker’s right (unless other arrangements have been agreed between them and the Central Agent) to be paid a commission – but only where such broker introduces the buyer to the purchase opportunity, and – crucially – was thereby the, or an, “effective cause” of the sale. In determining where an intermediary broker’s’ actions formed an effective cause rather than simply a cause, the question is whether the party actually brought about the relationship between the buyer and seller. There is no clear set of principles which can be distilled from the many legal cases on this subject. Whether such broker is the effective cause simply depends on the facts of each case – but such an effective cause will be very readily implied by the courts. The intermediary broker does not have to complete or even take part in the negotiations which do take place, nor arrange any meeting, nor persuade either party to enter into the contract. Commission will still be due where the price agreed is lower than that originally put forward. REASONABLE CARE & SKILL Under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982, the broker will have an automatic legal duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing its services - subject to any express terms of the brokerage agreement. What constitutes reasonable care and skill is what one would expect of a competent yacht broker. In court, independent and authoritative expert testimony would likely be sought to establish what such expectations are and whether these have been met. Intermediary brokers also owe sellers a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill – even in the absence of a direct contractual link. FIDUCIARY DUTIES As agents, brokers owe their principals other particular legal duties, including acting in good faith, and not acting in its own interest (or that of a third party) without the principal's consent. It’s no excuse that the principal would have consented had he or she been asked. COMMISSION There can be confusion regarding the extent to which broker must disclose third party commissions paid, by the broker, in connection with each sale. The courts have accepted that – in the commercial shipping world at least – market practice encompasses the paying of commission, by brokers, to intermediary brokers and other third parties, as part of the broker’s own outgoings. The broker is not required to disclose such costs to his principal unless specifically requested. But (and it’s a big but!) brokers must ensure that their actions do not lead to anyone breaching the provisions of the Bribery Act. It is easy to foresee circumstances under which a captain of the yacht for sale receives a commission without the consent of his employer – thereby committing a criminal offence to which the broker is then an accessory. BROKER AS STAKEHOLDER Under the MYBA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), the seller’s broker normally acts as ‘stakeholder’ – holding the deposit. This is typical of many such standard sale agreements. The broker must distribute the funds upon the occurrence of certain events listed in the agreement – and must not follow the instructions of other parties including the broker’s own client. Surprisingly, there’s nothing in the MYBA MOA obliging the broker to keep funds in a separate client account, nor pay interest on the cash it holds. PAYING THE BROKER Under the MYBA sale form, the seller must pay the commission directly to the broker(s) identified in the MOA, on successful completion of the sale, or where the sale is not finalised but the seller and the buyer agree a sale within two years of the sale agreement. The broker is made a party to the agreement for certain purposes – giving it the right to enforce those clauses relating to commission. Where the broker isn’t party to the sale agreement, a right of enforcement may be provided by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act of 1999, which grants a third party the right to enforce a contract under certain circumstances. What practical use this would be where the seller is an owning company which has just sold its only asset and distributed the resulting funds is another matter. COMPLAINTS Where owners are dissatisfied with a broker’s behaviour, it is often worth seeing if matters can be brought to satisfactory conclusion without the need for litigation. Brokers are often members of associations which may have their own codes of conduct, and may have a complaints mechanism. Professional indemnity insurance may be required, and a conversation with underwriters may focus minds especially where there is a substantial policy excess. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about MYBA MOA Clause by Clause Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about MYBA MOA Clause by Clause

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 52 m Length Finest Craft Builder 2018 Build year 470 Gross tonnage Marshall Islands Registry Particulars Emblem

The media is full of data about the carbon footprint of large yachts. This data is taken as gospel by campaign groups. After all, the journalists refer to published, peer-reviewed academic papers. And these are clever people, right? Well it appears not. Or least their political jaundice means that they’re not fussed about fact-checking. If we’re not careful, policy makers may regard such research as correct and unchallengeable. Home Handbook White Papers / / Damn Lies & Statistics Imagine the scene. It’s November 2022. You’re a high-ranking governmental delegate at the 27th United Nations Climate Change conference in Sharm el-Sheikh. You represent a Mediterranean nation, and answer directly to the Minister of State. Within broad pre-set limits, you have free reign to negotiate and agree to tabled proposals. Over your morning cappuccino at a harbourside café, you peruse a report prepared by a diligent civil servant. Incredibly, it seems as if ‘superyachts’ are responsible for more greenhouse gases even than private jets. Who knew? And there are tens of thousands of such jets around the world. Something must be done. The civil servant points to a report by Oxfam, a highly respect international NGO, entitled Carbon billionaires The investment emissions of the world’s richest people . It states: “ Another study drew on public records to estimate that in 2018 emissions from the private yachts, planes, helicopters and mansions of 20 billionaires generated on average about 8,194 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2e). ” FURTHER REINFORCEMENT Oxfam’s report credits an academic paper as its source: “ B. Barros and R. Wilk. (2021). The outsized carbon footprints of the super-rich ”. Ever diligent, your civil servant has already found this paper online. It’s by Professor Richard Wilk and PhD candidate Beatriz Barros, no less. They claim “ Among the many possessions of billionaires, large “superyachts” are by far the largest producers of greenhouse gases. Three-quarters of the billionaires in our sample owned a yacht with an average length of 276 feet (84 meters), and their average carbon equivalent emissions were 7,018 tons per year. ” Wow – these superyachts are huge, with a carbon footprint to match. You ask the civil servant how many billionaires there are in the world. She taps away on her laptop and replies that Forbes’ 36th Annual World’s Billionaires List: Facts And Figures 2022 states that there are now 2,668 billionaires in the world. Oh my goodness – if that’s the output from just 20, how much CO2 are 2,668 yachts going to produce? I mean, they must nearly all have one – right? But how respected is Barros & Wilk’s paper? The civil servant Googles. She finds a Financial Times article entitled Superyachts aim to go green – but at what cost? in which it’s says “ Research by anthropologists Beatriz Barros and Richard Wilk of Indiana University into the carbon footprints of the super-rich found that yachts contributed an outsized share of the carbon emissions of the billionaires who own them — far more than their private jets or mansions .” The FT. Well that’s that then. As politicians, we must act – and fast. We must tax these superyachts out of existence. You finish your cappuccino and head over to the conference venue with a purposeful stride. REALITY CHECK But dig a little deeper, and you’ll also find that Wilk & Barros’s sample comprised just twenty billionaires. That’s right. Twenty. They even admit that, “ This is not in any way a representative sample of billionaires. ” Indeed not. Moreover, their “average” yacht with a length of 84 metres is likely to have a gross tonnage of, say 2,500. In fact, the actual average gross tonnage of all 30+ metres yachts sold in 2021 was just 440 (source: SuperYacht Times, The State of Yachting 2022 ). As it was outside the scope of their studies, Wilk & Barros calculated fuel consumption using a 2018 paper by Luisa Menano de Figueiredo, The Yacht of 2030 – which looked, according to Wilk & Barros, at the cruising records of just ten yachts. Wilk & Barros do not explain their methodology. Had they looked more closely at de Figueiredo’s paper, in fact just eight yachts (not ten) were tracked, for a 90-day period, while in the Caribbean – as this was all the AIS data available. And de Figueiredo’s paper only concerned motor vessels – not sailing yachts. MORE NONSENSE Indeed, a misleading body of academic literature is starting to build. Respected academics Lynch, Long, Stretesky & Barrett, from the University of South Florida, Oklahoma State University, Northumbria University and Eastern Michigan University respectively stated in their 2019 academic paper Measuring the Ecological Impact of the Wealthy: Excessive Consumption, Ecological Disorganization, Green Crime, and Justice that “ Specifically, we draw attention to assessing aspects of ecological footprints of super yachts, super homes, luxury vehicles, and private jets. Taken together, the construction and use of these items in the United States alone is likely to create a CO2 footprint that exceeds those from entire nations. These results are not necessarily surprising but suggest that excessive consumption practices of the wealthy may need to be reinterpreted as criminal when they disrupt the normal regeneration and reproduction of ecosystems by generating excessive ecological disorganization. ” Strong stuff. Specifically, this paper states “ From available data, we estimated that an average (71 meter) SY uses about 107,000 gallons gasoline/year and produces 2.1 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions annually .” As set out above, 71 metres is, of course, way above average. And specific data sources aren’t given – as one might expect. Instead, there’s a list of references at the end. The only one relating to yachts is given as “ Mathew, Jerin. 2015. “True Cost of Owning a Super Yacht.” International Business Times, May 15. Retrieved April 19, 2019 (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/true-cost-owning-super-yacht-1498302). ” This is a short report publicising a fun, marketing infographic produced by an insurance company. That infographic states that a 71-metre yacht will consume (exactly) 500 litres of diesel per hour, and the owner will spend precisely $400,000 on fuel. Not a cent more and not a cent less. Etc. General sources are listed at the bottom of the infographic, including Wikipedia and superyachtfan.com. A fun piece of marketing, but hardly data to form a foundation for erudite scholarship. More recently, a paper by Wang, Maidment, Boccolini and Wright, of Solent University in the UK, stated in their paper Life cycle assessment of alternative marine fuels for super yacht that, " There is little argument that, with an estimated average cost of US$275 million only the wealthiest individuals in the world can afford to purchase and operate a superyacht (Alicia, 2015). " An estimate which is inaccurate by a factor of, say, ten - at least - by which has been recycled without question or fact-checking. CONCLUSION It’s easy to dismiss such works as politically motivated tirades by joyless, virtue-signalling lecturers, with a jaundiced worldview. Yet the figures generated are taken at face-value not only by climate activists but by respected journalists. As owners, we need to collect accurate data, and present it clearly, alongside information about our many and various yacht-based climate research and conservation initiatives. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who provided perspectives for this white paper. The media is full of data about the carbon footprint of large yachts. This data is taken as gospel by campaign groups. After all, the journalists refer to published, peer-reviewed academic papers. And these are clever people, right? Well it appears not. Or least their political jaundice means that they’re not fussed about fact-checking. If we’re not careful, policy makers may regard such research as correct and unchallengeable. 23 November 2022 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time minutes 5 Reading time 23 November 2022 Last revised The media is full of data about the carbon footprint of large yachts. This data is taken as gospel by campaign groups. After all, the journalists refer to published, peer-reviewed academic papers. And these are clever people, right? Well it appears not. Or least their political jaundice means that they’re not fussed about fact-checking. If we’re not careful, policy makers may regard such research as correct and unchallengeable. There is a growing body of misleading academic literature on the ecological impact of luxury items. Yet the figures generated by such studies are taken at face value by climate activists and journalists. A recent academic report suggests that 'superyachts' emit more greenhouse gases than private jets, concluding with a call for action. The report, in turn, refers to a study by academics Barros and Wilk, claiming that superyachts owned by billionaires have significant carbon footprints. However, the sample size of the study is small and not representative, and the average yacht size mentioned is much larger than reality, and fuel consumption calculations are based on limited data. We, as onwers, need to be collecting accurate data and provide clear information about yacht-based climate impact. You can also read about Speaking Volumes Questions or comments? Please contact us Join the discussion over in the Club's group You can also read about Speaking Volumes Questions or comments? Please contact us

Selling a yacht should be relatively easy. Assuming the price is realistic, there'll be a buyer out there. Connecting with that buyer, however, can be unnecessarily complex. Current business models mean that otherwise viable deals can sometimes fall though. This white paper considers the pitfalls in greater detail, and proposes a solution. Home Handbook White Papers / / Cut to the Chase A RISKY BUSINESS With assets of this size and nature, people buy from people – not companies. Yachts may be advertised by brokerages, but they aren’t sold by them. It’s the individual brokers who do the selling. They often work extremely hard – especially during shows – with an uncertain outcome. They’re patient and diligent, and their commissions are well-earned. They perform a crucial role . THE CENTRAL AGENCY When instructing your broker to sell your yacht, a Central Agency (CA) agreement is imperative. The agreement makes it clear that your broker is in charge of the sale, and will be rewarded no matter who actually sells the vessel (including you – so make sure you have explored your own network first). Your CA can provide a valuation, a marketing plan and produce marketing materials (at their or your expense depending on what you negotiate). At a stroke, scope for argument as to which party was the effective cause of the sale – and so owed commission – is eliminated. Understandably, without a CA agreement in place, most brokers are unlikely to go all-in to prepare the yacht for sale and make every effort to sell: it’s just too easy for third parties to argue that the broker claiming commission wasn’t in fact the (or an) effective cause. Standard form agreements are available, but many of these are poorly drafted, so contact us to have this checked and amended. A pre-determined sales price is often the default setting, but some brokers may prefer a net-to-seller figure, which they can adjust up or down as they see fit. MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICES A Multiple Listing Service (MLS) is a database used by brokers (whether CAs or not) to share their listings, in order to reach a wider audience. MLSs usually have their own public online marketplace, and may supply listings automatically to subscribing brokers’ websites, through an application programming interface (API). The use of MLSs (and certain brokers’ associations require their use) can lead to very broad market penetration for the seller, potentially leading to a quicker sale, but there are drawbacks. Use Google Lens and you’ll find identical images posted by numerous brokers. It's not clear which broker has a direct line of communication with the seller. Where a yacht is listed on a marketplace website (and it’s these which tend to come up first when searching online) it is easy to assume – wrongly – that the broker named in the listing is the CA. The use of API-powered automatic listings may mean that the listing broker knows nothing about the vessel, and may be unaware of the listing itself until an inquiry comes in. The CA’s own website listing, meanwhile, will be languishing well behind on Google simply because the CA’s website’s SEO can’t compete with that of the MLS. The potential buyer is none the wiser. Also, by having the vessel listed everywhere, it's possible that the seller can look somewhat desperate. Nevertheless, once a second so-called ‘buyer-broker’ is involved (i.e. a broker acting for the buyer) they will be entitled to a share (a half or thereabouts) of the commission. Their brokers’ association rules may require it. With chains of communication also stretched, negotiations can become protracted while passions cool and interest fades. CLASS ACTIONS Various class actions have been brought in respect of MLSs. In Ya Mon Expeditions LLC v International Yacht Brokers Association Inc et al , the plaintiff brought an action, in February 2024, against 16 defendants, claiming, in essence, that (in violation of US federal antitrust law) brokers’ associations are requiring members (i) to list all their vessels on an MLS (which may also be owned by that association), and (ii) to follow non-negotiable commission-splitting rules. Ya Mon claimed that “ most buyer-brokers will not show vessels to their clients if a seller is offering a lower buyer-broker commission, or will show vessels with higher commission offers first ” meaning that “ sellers are incentivized when making the required non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer-brokers’ cooperation by offering a high commission ”. Ya Mon also claimed that the defendants’ business practices are anti-competitive, with buyer-broker commissions being about 4% to 5% which is artificially elevated beyond where they would be in a free market. In Defosey v Boats Group LLC et al , a plaintiff brought another class action, in May 2024, against some 18 defendants, making broadly the same claims as Ya Mon , arguing that broker associations’ rules “ force sellers to pay a portion of the commission … to the buyer-broker, someone who provided no service to the sellers ” and, as the commission paid to the buyer-broker is not subject to negotiation between the buyer and his/her broker, such rules prevent competition among buyer-brokers based on their commission rates. A similar case was pleaded in Magna Charter LLC v Boats Group LLC et al . At the time of writing (October 2024) Ya Mon is ongoing, while Defosey and Magna have been terminated, presumably because these have been settled or consolidated with other class actions. MLSs made a lot of sense where potential buyers would drop by their local harbourside brokerage and might have been interested in a vessel details of which weren’t displayed in the window. But they make less sense in a world where most buyers look online, and could reach out directly to the CA – if only they understood the pitfalls of not doing so, and knew where to look. FAKE LISTINGS Incredibly, some brokers will post on their own website, or an MLS, without even having been appointed as CA. Maybe they've had just a conversation with a friendly captain. Indeed, with so much at stake, truly unscrupulous brokers might list your yacht for sale without your broker’s permission – copying photos and plans regardless of copyright infringement. But a sales lead is a sales lead (assuming he or she has been qualified as being a bone fide UHNWI which doesn’t always happen) and such unethical business practices can be overlooked. If you see your yacht advertised with other brokerages, check to see that your CA agreement has permitted this. Unauthorised listings must be removed as soon as possible – before the content is indexed by search engines. PROPOSED SOLUTION In some cases, a commission of 10% can be perfectly reasonable – especially given the sheer amount of time, effort, outgoings and risk involved. The signing of CAs are widely (and proudly) publicised within the large yacht sector, with press releases circulated on LinkedIn and some specialist media outlets. Ideally, buyers would check through these to make sure that they’re dealing with the CA, and negotiate directly with them. Yet, seemingly, they don’t. Many buyers won’t even know what a CA is or does. They will see a yacht advertised and (not unreasonably) make inquires. As soon as they have done so, the advertiser will often have become what the law calls an “effective cause” and will be entitled to some of the commission – over and above any broker association rules requiring payment. The additional step added by the use of buyer-brokers causes delays and miscommunications – especially where there’s a mix of time zones and first languages. As well as educating would-be buyers as to the role and importance of the CA, the solution is surely to list as many CAs as possible, in one place. The CA agreements will need to be checked, prior to listing, in confidence, by a lawyer (the key information contained in the agreements (i.e. the name of the vessel and its registered owner) is freely available to the public anyway. If a potential buyer wants as second opinion on the asking price, an independent valuation can be obtained. Lawyers and surveyors are there to advise the buyer on legal and technical aspects. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who provided perspectives for this white paper. Selling a yacht should be relatively easy. Assuming the price is realistic, there'll be a buyer out there. Connecting with that buyer, however, can be unnecessarily complex. Current business models mean that otherwise viable deals can sometimes fall though. This white paper considers the pitfalls in greater detail, and proposes a solution. 16 October 2024 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time minutes 5 Reading time 16 October 2024 Last revised Selling a yacht should be relatively easy. Assuming the price is realistic, there'll be a buyer out there. Connecting with that buyer, however, can be unnecessarily complex. Current business models mean that otherwise viable deals can sometimes fall though. This white paper considers the pitfalls in greater detail, and proposes a solution. Brokers perform a vital role i n yacht sales, with Central Agency (CA) agreements protecting commissions and streamlining the process. By contrast, while supposedly broadening market reach, Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) can lead to confusion and delays. Class actions have been brought against MLSs in the United States. The proposed solution is to independently authenticate and centralise CA listings, maximising efficiency and transparency. You can also read about Deposits Reimagined Questions or comments? Please contact us Join the discussion over in the Club's group You can also read about Deposits Reimagined Questions or comments? Please contact us

Unavailable at present Latest Position Rapid Brokers Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 38 m Length Example Yachts Builder 2003 Build year 380 Gross tonnage Marshall Islands Registry Particulars Blueprint

It is possible that political protests targeted at yachts and yachting infrastructure become more common. But such outcries are based on a complete ignorance about the nature and scope of the societal benefits flowing from ownership. It is up to us owners to inform and educate, as and when this is needed, and undertake research to support axiomatic assertions. Home Handbook White Papers / / A Flood Not a Trickle By far the majority of large, permanently-crewed yachts in existence today have only been launched since 2000. They’re new, and their positive impact is poorly understood by the general public, pressure groups and authorities alike. Yachts are increasingly becoming the targets of conflated environmental and political protests. As well as causing inconvenience in the short term, politicians may, in the long term be more reluctant to allow more marina developments, for example. After all, a small numbers of owners can only wield a small number of votes. It’s clear that yachting’s positive impact is woefully underestimated and misunderstood. Being confrontational will be counterproductive. As owners, we don’t want yachts to be on the political agenda. They exist, after all, for quiet enjoyment. But it’s as well to be prepared, with facts and figures at the ready, to respond to false accusations. And we may need to educate stakeholders and agitators quietly behind the scenes. PORTALS FOR THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH The most fundamental error is to consider a yacht purely as an asset – rather than a place of employment and worker accommodation. They are communities of individuals, most of whom are very well paid, and many of them are also entrusted to spend significant amounts of their employer’s hard-earned money. Whatever one’s views on the technical efficacy of trickle-down economics as part of a macroeconomic strategy, the boost to coastal economies is difficult to ignore. And this isn’t money being paid to an élite of lawyers and investment managers: it’s being paid directly into the accounts of waterside retailers and suppliers. Who, in turn, buy stock, employ staff and pay tax, leading to a significant quasi-Keynesian multiplier effect. BUYERS ALREADY PAY A PREMIUM Yachts are easy targets, because they are perceived – rightly – as being luxurious. But luxury isn’t just about opulence. Luxury is the combination of desirability and scarcity. Taking this to an extreme to illustrate the point, consider an expensive 50 year-old single malt Scotch whiskey. It’s matured in white oak barrels which – very slowly – allow some of the liquid to evaporate. There’s less and less of it as the years pass. So if this is what your heart desires you’ll pay more for it. The whiskey may or may not be any better than a 10 year-old dram, but it’s subjectively more desirable and objectively much scarcer. A yacht’s component parts are made in small numbers and/to an unusual specification. Producing them can be risky and unattractive for suppliers so they will demand higher prices. And precious few yards have the experience or equipment to craft the vessels themselves. All of this means that buyers pay significant premiums for yachts. As Mark Twain put it in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876): " Tom … had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it – namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain. " MODEST CREW BACKGROUNDS Long gone are the days when crewmembers came from privileged backgrounds – perhaps the children of the owner’s friends, or just sporty types whose leisure and social lives centred around prestigious yacht clubs. Like owners today, crew come from a wide variety of backgrounds – maybe having grown up in workaday towns situated far from the sea. They also come from all over the world, and must adapt quickly to a life afloat. The Owners Club is actively looking into ways to widen further the appeal of a career working on yachts – helping to make the industry as professional and meritocratic as possible. STATE-OWNED HARBOURS Mooring fees – together with harbour dues and associated services costs – form a significant outgoing for many yachts. While most marinas operate on a concession basis, it is usually the government or local municipal authority which owns the facility, and to whom the operator pays significant sums. These boost local coffers which are used to pay for vital local services which the whole community benefit from. REDUCING DEMAND FOR PROPERTY Recent decades have seen demand for property rise steeply. And as, in the most part, they stopped making land years ago, prices have risen accordingly. Starting in European capitals, a ripple effect then affects all parts of the relevant country. The result is property which is too expensive for most first-time buyers. They end up without a physical stake in society. Their lives are more transient, less settled and less secure. At the top of the property-owning tree, the world’s wealthiest can own multiple residences, each of which is perhaps only occupied for part of the year. Reducing a property portfolio in favour of a yacht purchase reduces demand at the highest end of the market, which should – eventually – reduce inflationary pressures at the bottom. Not by much, one suspects, but every little helps. HIGHLIGHTING MARINE POLLUTION The more time one spends afloat, the more one is aware of the amount of pollution entering the sea and the food chain – especially in the form of plastics. The owners of large yachts are better placed than anyone to actually address the issues beyond making changes to their own habits. They are likely to own companies which can introduce behavioural changes on a massive scale. Or they may own media outlets which bang the drum of change. Or they may know politicians who can enact change. It is impossible not to be moved by the beauty of the marine environment, or outraged at seeing it compromised. Owners are in the position to act. YACHTS INSPIRE SOCIETY French philosopher Roland Barthes wrote in Mythologies (1957): “ I think that cars today are almost the exact equivalent of the great Gothic cathedrals; I mean the supreme creation of an era, conceived with passion by unknown artists, and consumed in image if not in usage by a whole population which appropriates them as a purely magical object. ” In today’s context, this description applies to yachts far more than cars. And such sentiment is nothing new. Economist and key Enlightenment figure Adam Smith opined in his 1759 book The Theory of Moral Sentiments : “ The pleasures of wealth and greatness … strike the imagination as something grand and beautiful and noble, of which the attainment is well worth all the toil and anxiety which we are so apt to bestow upon it .” And so it is that, by symbolising wealth and success, yachts serve to inspire entrepreneurs to redouble their efforts. They encourage everyone inclined to do so, to work hard, take risks and use their imaginations. OWNERS INSPIRE CREWMEMBERS Owners’ energy, work ethic and meritocratic outlook often rubs off on the crewmembers who work for them. As crew usually do not have to pay income tax, and have little in the way of daily outgoings, when the time comes for them to come ashore they often do so with sufficient capital set aside to fund a new business. Many such enterprises will be related to yachting, but some will have nothing to do with their previous seagoing careers. Either way, yet more of the owners’ capital will be injected into economies far and wide. CONCLUSION Since the detention of certain Russian-owned yachts in early 2022, it looks at last as if large yachts can be rehabilitated from being seen in the popular imagination as icons of oligarchy to that which they were in previous times: symbols of success and the rewards for hard work and entrepreneurial élan. The possibility of future minority kickback shouldn’t be ignored. The benefits of yacht ownership are manifold for society generally. It is incumbent us owners to ensure, by supporting the Club and its aims, that all stakeholders understand the scope and extent of such benefits. The good news will be developed and deployed as needed. Other than that, let’s just get on enjoying the fruits of our labours and investments. To quote Eleanor Roosevelt: “ The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear, for newer and richer experience .” Return to top Thank you to all our Members who provided perspectives for this white paper. It is possible that political protests targeted at yachts and yachting infrastructure become more common. But such outcries are based on a complete ignorance about the nature and scope of the societal benefits flowing from ownership. It is up to us owners to inform and educate, as and when this is needed, and undertake research to support axiomatic assertions. 15 November 2022 Last revised minutes 6 Reading time minutes 6 Reading time 15 November 2022 Last revised It is possible that political protests targeted at yachts and yachting infrastructure become more common. But such outcries are based on a complete ignorance about the nature and scope of the societal benefits flowing from ownership. It is up to us owners to inform and educate, as and when this is needed, and undertake research to support axiomatic assertions. Large, permanently-crewed yachts face misconceptions and challenges related to their environmental impact and public perception. It is important for us, as owners, to understand and communicate the positive aspects of yachting to counter this. Yachts are not just assets; they are floating communities, providing employment and contributing massively to local economies. Crewing provides employment for indivuals from all backgrounds. Yacht purchases can also reduce demand for expensive property and inspire society as symbols of success. We are in a position to drive environmental change through our businesses. Yachts can also inspire crewmembers to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors. Ownership should be seen as a positive contribution to society, and we have a responsibility to promote and educate others about its benefits. You can also read about Blue is the New Green Questions or comments? Please contact us Join the discussion over in the Club's group You can also read about Blue is the New Green Questions or comments? Please contact us

Piracy raises a matrix of legal issues, just at the time when the consideration of these will be the last thing on anyone’s mind. This reinforces the desirability of taking advice in advance and, if necessary, placing a trained and equipped security team on board. For those with real concerns about security, compared with highways, houses and offices, yachts will always be – by far – the most secure location. Home Handbook Managing / / Piracy & Protection 16 April 2010 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time Piracy raises a matrix of legal issues, just at the time when the consideration of these will be the last thing on anyone’s mind. This reinforces the desirability of taking advice in advance and, if necessary, placing a trained and equipped security team on board. For those with real concerns about security, compared with highways, houses and offices, yachts will always be – by far – the most secure location. minutes 4 Reading time 16 April 2010 Last revised Piracy raises a matrix of legal issues, just at the time when the consideration of these will be the last thing on anyone’s mind. This reinforces the desirability of taking advice in advance and, if necessary, placing a trained and equipped security team on board. For those with real concerns about security, compared with highways, houses and offices, yachts will always be – by far – the most secure location. Piracy is defined as any illegal act of violence, detention, or destruction committed by the crew or passengers of a private vessel against another vessel or persons/property on board, outside any country's territorial waters. Hotspots for piracy include the coasts of Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and some South American countries. Insurance coverage for yachts usually has restrictions on cruising areas, and breaching these restrictions may void coverage . Insurers have a broader definition of piracy than the legal definition, as attacks are more likely to occur within territorial waters. Obtaining up-to-date information on current piracy hotspots is crucial, and insurers and maritime security firms can provide assistance. Maintaining vigilance and employing defence measures such as acoustic defence systems and strong-rooms are recommended for yachts in high-risk areas. The legality of carrying weapons depends on the laws of the flag state (where the yacht is registered) and the port state (where the yacht is located). Some countries allow firearms on board as part of the yacht's equipment, while others prohibit certain weapons entirely. Legal consequences and the use of firearms in self-defence can vary depending on the laws of the flag state, port state, and international criminal law. Recognizing pirates can be challenging, and preemptive action may have legal implications. Self-defence and defence of others must be reasonable and proportional to the perceived threat. Maintaining vigilance and employing defence measures such as acoustic defence systems and strong-rooms are recommended for yachts in high-risk areas. The legality of carrying weapons depends on the laws of the flag state (where the yacht is registered) and the port state (where the yacht is located). Some countries allow firearms on board as part of the yacht's equipment, while others prohibit certain weapons entirely. Legal consequences and the use of firearms in self-defence can vary depending on the laws of the flag state, port state, and international criminal law. Recognizing pirates can be challenging, and preemptive action may have legal implications. Self-defence and defence of others must be reasonable and proportional to the perceived threat. Piracy is defined as any illegal act of violence, detention, or destruction committed by the crew or passengers of a private vessel against another vessel or persons/property on board, outside any country's territorial waters. Hotspots for piracy include the coasts of Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and some South American countries. Insurance coverage for yachts usually has restrictions on cruising areas, and breaching these restrictions may void coverage . Insurers have a broader definition of piracy than the legal definition, as attacks are more likely to occur within territorial waters. Obtaining up-to-date information on current piracy hotspots is crucial, and insurers and maritime security firms can provide assistance. Piracy is defined internationally by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Articles 101–103. Although local laws may add to this definition, the crime essentially consists of: Any illegal act of violence, detention, or destruction, Committed for private ends, By the crew or passengers of a private vessel, Against another vessel or against persons or property on board another vessel, Which is outside any country’s territorial waters; or Any act of inciting or intentionally facilitating such an act. HOTSPOTS Attacks are logged on the website of Commercial Crime Services (CCS), a division of the International Chamber of Commerce. Currently, while the principal hotspots are to be found off the coasts of Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh and Nigeria, acts have been committed off the coasts of various South American countries and even in the Caribbean. INSURANCE Insurers are usually very strict about where yachts can and cannot cruise while remaining covered. Any breach of these restrictions will allow them to escape paying out in the event of a claim for absolutely anything. Once the owner has decided where he or she wishes to cruise, this must be disclosed to the insurer if it is outside the area permitted in the policy, and additional cover negotiated – the cost of which will reflect any perceived increase in risk. In common with the IMB, the definition of ‘piracy’ used by insurers is generally much wider than that given above. This is fortunate since, statistically, attacks are more likely to occur within a state’s own territorial waters – i.e. within 12 nautical miles of the adjacent shoreline. Although piracy risks are specifically covered by the standard ‘Institute Yacht Clauses (1/11/85)’, which are the most commonly-used first-party insurance terms, the risks should still be discussed with the broker anyway. Where, unusually, the policy is not subject to English law, then it may be prudent to take independent legal advice. INFORMATION Patterns of worldwide piracy fluctuate with the political stability and, to a lesser extent, the economic fortunes of adjacent states. It is imperative to obtain up-to-date advice on where the current trouble spots are. Insurers can help with this, although specialist maritime security firms can often provide more detailed information. It should be noted that the security industry is not well regulated in some countries, and firms’ services vary in quality. DEFENCE Although the advice to all yachts travelling in high-risk areas is to maintain particular vigilance, and defences such as acoustic defence systems, satellite-alert systems and strong-rooms are options, the question most commonly raised is whether weapons are, legally, an option. To decide what’s legal and what’s not, it’s necessary to know which countries’ laws apply to any given situation. One needs to consider both the ‘Flag State’ law and the ‘Port State’ law. The Flag State law is the law of the country where the yacht is registered: it governs what happens on board the yacht, wherever in the world the yacht is located, as if the yacht was a small, floating piece of that country. The Port State law is that of the country in whose territorial waters the yacht is located – not just in or around any particular port. EQUIPMENT To take the example of one of the most popular Flag States, the United Kingdom, weapons may kept on board, but not all types. Under the Firearms Act 1968, as amended, firearms (including shotguns) and associated ammunition normally require a licence for purchase and possession. A firearm and ammunition, however, can be possessed on board a yacht, if it forms part of that yacht’s ‘equipment’, without the need for such a licence. A police permit is still needed to bring the firearm to and from the yacht, and a licence required to purchase the firearm in the first place. Section 5 of the same Act still outlaws some weapons altogether for the general public, including: Automatic and semi-automatic weapons, Pump-action weapons, Pistols, other than flare guns, Rocket launchers, other than those used for line-throwing or signalling, Air guns using gas cartridges, and Pepper sprays, TASER®s, etc. Port States will have their own laws relating to possession and disclosure. Researching and complying with these can be difficult and expert advice is a must. ACTION Clearly, there is no point in having weapons on board unless someone is prepared to use them. Introducing them into the equation might change a confrontation into a shoot-out. Guns in untrained hands are not an option. It is also very difficult to work out in advance what the legal consequences of firing shots might be. Thankfully, this choice can be neatly sidestepped by placing a specialist security team on board just for the necessary passages. Shooting at someone whilst they are on another vessel potentially constitutes an act of violence committed on both vessels. The shooter will therefore be subject to the laws of both Flag States, plus that of the Port State if the shooting occurs within 12 nautical miles of the coast (although this limit may not be respected in all countries). Looking by way of example at the UK criminal law, which is followed in much of the world, the raising of a weapon at a suspected pirate, who in fact wasn’t, could constitute an ‘assault’, i.e. putting someone in fear of violence. Shooting a pirate (or otherwise harming him) could lead to charges of grievous bodily harm, where serious injury is caused. Where the pirate is unintentionally or intentionally killed, manslaughter or murder charges could follow. Obviously, a number of defences could be put forward in response, the most useful of which would be self-defence or the defence of another. The accused would not need to have retreated as far as possible before the act of self-defence. Indeed, an act of self-defence or the defence of another may be pre-emptive, given reasonable apprehension. If the threat of force would have been enough, it may be unreasonable to go ahead and use force. If one person on a yacht is threatened, all are can be seen as having been threatened. The force used in self-defence or in the defence of another must be ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances as the accused saw it. What is reasonable would be up to the jury and difficult to predict. The main practical problem is recognising whether or not the yacht is faced with pirates. Until they raise a weapon in your direction or commit any act of violence against anyone, they are just other seafarers. Attack first, and you risk becoming the pirate. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about The Right to Vanish Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about The Right to Vanish

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 37 m Length Finest Craft Builder 2011 Build year 156 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Type

Unavailable at present Latest Position Rapid Brokers Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 22 m Length Placeholder Yards Builder 2005 Build year 56 Gross tonnage British Virgin Islands Registry Particulars Innovation

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 80 m Length DMS & Co Builder 2006 Build year 1300 Gross tonnage Spain Registry Particulars Example

Converting working and naval ships in to yachts can save time and money, and the results can be spectacular. As each project is unique and challenging, it is crucial that terms are agreed with the yard undertaking the work which are clear, fair and practical. And each such agreement will be a one-off. Home Handbook Upcycling / / Conversion Agreements 10 August 2019 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time Converting working and naval ships into yachts can save time and money, and the results can be spectacular. Each project is unique and challenging. It is crucial that the terms agreed with the yard undertaking the work are clear, fair and practical. And each such agreement will be as unique as the project. minutes 5 Reading time 10 August 2019 Last revised Converting working and naval ships into yachts can save time and money, and the results can be spectacular. Each project is unique and challenging. It is crucial that the terms agreed with the yard undertaking the work are clear, fair and practical. And each such agreement will be as unique as the project. By choice, most shipping agreements, including yachting, are governed by English law regardless of the parties' location. Conversion agreements are subject to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which implies terms such as satisfactory quality and reasonable fitness for purpose. Yards must use reasonable care and skill in providing services, but it may not meet the high standards expected in yachts. Parties should seek legal advice to create fair and workable terms for conversion agreements. The price for conversion works is usually a fixed fee payable in installments, with adjustments for changes in specifications. The scope of works should be clearly defined, including repair and conversion components, with detailed technical specifications and objective performance standards. The agreement should address interface risks and allocate responsibility for inaccuracies in plans and specifications. A specific timeframe, known as the Redelivery Date, should be agreed upon, with provisions for liquidated damages and cancellation if the project overruns. Other key provisions include force majeure clauses, security arrangements, material ownership, insurance coverage, and warranty periods for remedying faults. The scope of works should be clearly defined, including repair and conversion components, with detailed technical specifications and objective performance standards. The agreement should address interface risks and allocate responsibility for inaccuracies in plans and specifications. A specific timeframe, known as the Redelivery Date, should be agreed upon, with provisions for liquidated damages and cancellation if the project overruns. Other key provisions include force majeure clauses, security arrangements, material ownership, insurance coverage, and warranty periods for remedying faults. By choice, most shipping agreements, including yachting, are governed by English law regardless of the parties' location. Conversion agreements are subject to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which implies terms such as satisfactory quality and reasonable fitness for purpose. Yards must use reasonable care and skill in providing services, but it may not meet the high standards expected in yachts. Parties should seek legal advice to create fair and workable terms for conversion agreements. The price for conversion works is usually a fixed fee payable in installments, with adjustments for changes in specifications. Most agreements in shipping (including yachting) are governed, by contract if not otherwise, by English law – no matter where in the world the parties are. Unlike shipbuilding agreements, which under English law are contracts for the sale and purchase of goods, conversion agreements are, broadly, contracts for the sale and purchase of labour combined with a supply of materials. As such, they are governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (as amended) and thereby subject to the same implied terms that apply to a contract for the sale of goods, namely that the materials must be of “ satisfactory quality ” and “ reasonably fit ” for any specific purpose expressly or implicitly disclosed to the yard. Further, in providing services, the yard must merely use “ reasonable care and skill ” – which the courts have determined means “ the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent [person] performing that particular art .” The result may be far from the highest standards of workmanship expected in the context of yachts. Far better, then, to agree to certain objective specifications being met. KEY PROVISIONS As with yacht building, there is no standard conversion agreement for parties to use and adapt. Elements of standard shipbuilding, and standard yacht refit, agreements could be used but the parties should take advice at the outset so that fair and workable terms are agreed – including some of the following key terms. PRICE Works are typically carried on for fixed fee, payable in instalments following the completion of particular stages of the conversion. Changes in specifications are reflected in adjustments agreed to the fee. Owners should insist on unit prices for labour and key materials being fixed at the outset, in order that the yard cannot raise these unduly in respect of additional works. SCOPE Setting out the scope of the works to be completed is key. There is no alternative to drafting a detailed technical specification – including plans, objective performance and/or finish standards to be achieved. It's helpful to divide the scope into two distinct components: A repair scope, setting out the elements needing repair following the thorough pre-purchase survey; and A conversion scope, setting out what needs to be added – or removed – in order for the vessel to become a yacht. The repair scope will need some inherent flexibility as the repairs themselves may reveal further issues which weren’t apparent during the survey, while the conversion scope can, and should, be very rigid. In addition, the conversion agreement will have to describe standards to be met by the yard in respect of the works. Vague standards often used in the context of trading vessels – such as “ first class ” shipbuilding standards – should be avoided, and objective standards used. Comparisons can be made to other existing vessels. But ideally, reference should be made to Classification Society Rules or other objective standards and measurements. There are few, if any, aspects which can’t be measured objectively – which is crucial especially where the yard isn’t used to the very high standards expected by yacht owners. Converting a vessel into a yacht may pose “interface risks”. These are the risks of a failure of materials and/or design where new materials and equipment are installed into an existing structure. So, if possible, the yard should bear such risks. Yards can require owners to warrant that plans and specifications of the vessel as it comes into the yard are accurate – meaning that additional expenses arising from any inaccuracies will be for the owner’s account. TIMEFRAME Parties will need to agree that the works should be finished by a specific date, typically referred to as the Redelivery Date – with fixed amounts of money (known by lawyers as “liquidated damages”) payable for each day that the project overruns. This avoids otherwise lengthy and expensive arguments about quantifying loss of use. And if the overrun goes beyond an agreed date, the owner must be allowed to cancel the agreement and take the vessel for completion elsewhere. Yards will need to prepare for the vessel’s arrival well ahead of time. In particular, other projects may need to be relocated within the yard to make space. Manpower will need to be arranged. Supplies will have been ordered and/or delivered, and third-party contractors may have been booked or will be on standby. The yard will therefore want to be notified of the actual arrival date – and be updated on her progress towards the yard – irrespective of the specific agreed starting date. The agreement will typically specify what will happen if the vessel is delivered late, with the yard usually being allowed to extend the contractual redelivery date by the same amount of time. Alternatively, the redelivery date may be replaced by an obligation on the yard’s part to finish the work and redeliver the vessel within a reasonable amount of time. FORCE MAJEURE Force majeure clauses automatically retard the redelivery date by an amount of time equivalent to that of the delaying event – where such event is due to certain circumstances beyond the yard’s control. As with the timeframe for the works, it is wise to have a long-stop date, beyond which the owner can cancel the agreement and take the vessel away elsewhere for completion. SECURITY It must be expressly agreed that the owner at all times retains title in the vessel, and all her machinery, equipment and items awaiting installation. Indeed, the owner may need to keep a skeleton crew on board, at least a build captain, for the duration of the works. The conversion agreement should also state that the owner acquires title to the works and equipment that are continuously added as the project progresses. As owner, should you wish to cancel the project prior to completion, your remedies are normally limited to removing your project for completion at a second yard, and suing the yard for any additional completion costs over and above the outstanding balance of the price agreed with the first yard. This will take time – especially where enforcement proceedings are required in the yard’s own jurisdiction – and some legal costs may not be recoverable. Far better, then, to obtain a performance guarantee or completion bond, giving security against major cost overruns when finishing the vessel elsewhere. MATERIALS With a steady throughflow of materials at the yard, there is scope for disagreement over who owns what at any given time. It is vital to establish this, as such materials must be insured, and protected from the yard’s creditors in the event of insolvency. The yard must ensure that such provisions in the conversion agreement do not contradict the terms under which such materials have been bought by the yard form third party suppliers. Where ownership has passed to the owner, the yard may want to have a contractual lien over such materials in case of a future non-payment by the owner. INSURANCE It’s vital that the owner and yard agree on how the risks of loss or damage to the vessel and materials will be covered. This includes owner-supplied items being stored ashore at the yard. Owners usually maintain their Hull & Machinery (first party) and Third Party Liability policies. And it’s vital not only to discuss the works in detail with insurance brokers , but to be as certain as possible that the underwriters themselves have been notified and agree to the scope of the works, which yard is to be used, etc. Particular attention must be paid to policy terms, especially any requiring the vessel to remain fully crewed at all times. It would be unwise to assume that underwriters will overlook such a requirement just because the vessel is subject to extensive works. WARRANTY A warranty period of twelve months is typical – during which the yard is contractually obliged to remedy faults arising – as is normally found in build agreements. However, the warranty will need to be carefully drafted to avoid disputes over whether is it the new or original parts or equipment which have failed, and if it’s the original elements whether this is due to the presence of the new elements. Yards will often only agree to limit its liability to the repair of its own defective materials or workmanship. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Conversion Projects Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Conversion Projects

Unavailable at present Latest Position Yachts & More Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 62 m Length Thompson Yachts Builder 2005 Build year 670 Gross tonnage Malta Registry Particulars Guide

Unavailable at present Latest Position Wright A Way & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 54 m Length Builder & Co Builder 2010 Build year 790 Gross tonnage Cyprus Registry Particulars Illustration

Home Journeys Eastern Seaboard / / New England Charm At last we reach Boston Harbor and its islands. Boston Harbor is older than most countries. It’s gritty. Polished – lightly – for the tourists, but without losing its edge. There’s the glint of glass skyscrapers, sure, but they’re sitting awkwardly next to 18th-century brick buildings. It’s a city that’s never quite made up its mind about whether it wants to be New York’s cooler cousin or a living history museum. Then there are the islands: little green blips like Spectacle, Thompson, and George’s that offer refuge from the city’s pace, with forts, trails and beaches. It’s authentic, and all the better for it. Waypoint 7 Boston Harbor The penultimate waypoint is Provincetown (or “P-Town,” as it’s known by those who wear feather boas unironically) is a glorious explosion of art, colour, and character perched on the edge of Cape Cod. It’s one of the very few places in the States where the weird, the wild, and the wildly wealthy have all agreed to share a bit of sand and sea without shouting at each other. It’s part art colony, part fishing village, part social experiment—and all of it works in a glorious, slightly chaotic way. Climb the Pilgrim Monument, explore Herring Cove Beach, or go whale watching. Waypoint 6 Provincetown This is where the journey peaks in old-money splendour: an island where cobblestone streets and historic whaling cottages transport you back in time. It’s got taste. And manners. Even the seagulls seem well-behaved. This is not a place where you show off your wealth by revving a Lamborghini. You park your battered car outside a house with perfectly weathered shingles that’s been in the family since the Civil War. Explore the Whaling Museum to delve into the island's rich maritime history, or visit the Sankaty Head Lighthouse for breathtaking coastal views. It’s charming, peaceful, and absurdly picturesque. Waypoint 5 Nantucket Known as Amity in the 1975 film Jaws, it’s less workaday than depicted. Martha’s Vineyard exudes charm and sophistication It’s a place where people ‘summer’ rather than merely spend their vacation. The island is a patchwork of little towns, each with its own flavour. You can cycle the entire island, get lost in farmers’ markets, eat lobster rolls, or browse art galleries. Strolling through Edgartown, all white picket fences and centuries-old captain’s houses, you half expect Chief Brody to burst onto the street shouting about closing the beaches. It does add a certain thrill to paddleboarding. Waypoint 4 Martha’s Vineyard Today we’re dropping by Cuttyhunk Island, a tranquil retreat known for its pristine beaches and abundant marine life. Cuttyhunk is the westernmost of the Elizabeth Islands, a chain of rugged, mostly private lumps of land owned by people who have last names that sound like Ivy League libraries. But public Cuttyhunk is the exception. When you arrive, it feels less like entering a port and more like stumbling into someone’s well-kept secret. There are no cars and no boutiques. In fact, there’s not much to do here except eat fresh local oysters and congratulate yourself on your life choices. Waypoint 3 Cuttyhunk Island Next is Block Island, anchoring at Great Salt Pond. At only about 7 miles long and 3 miles wide, it’s one of the most charming, gloriously old-fashioned specks of land in the United States. The island runs on what one can only describe as “lobster time.” People are either going to eat it, catch it, or talk about how good it was last night. Explore the island's scenic trails by bicycle, visit the iconic Southeast Lighthouse, or relax on the beaches. The town of New Shoreham is basically a handful of weather-beaten buildings which have probably looked exactly the same since Roosevelt was president. There’s something refreshingly unbothered about the place. Waypoint 2 Block Island We’re beginning our journey in Newport - the spiritual home of American yachting. Back in the Gilded Age, the great and the grotesquely wealthy (think Vanderbilts, Astors, people whose surnames sound like investment banks) descended on this seaside town and decided to build summer ‘cottages’ not too far from New York. Cottages, that is, roughly the size of Versailles. The opulent Breakers mansion is worth visiting. Then explore the historic waterfront – packed with sloops and schooners. As evening descends, dine at one of the harbour’s upscale restaurants, savouring seafood delicacies. Waypoint 1 Newport Welcome to old America. The kind of place where the towns weren’t designed around cars but horses, and the harbours have seen everything from pirate ships and whaling vessels to America’s Cup contenders. The coast hugs you like an old friend. It’s glorious, elegant – and exactly how summer should be. By sharing some Members' itineraries, we're helping others unlock their yachts’ full potential, reducing crew turnover and making ownership a more rewarding experience. Country(ies): United States Time zone(s): Winter: EST (UTC-5) Summer: EDT (UTC-4) Currency(ies): United States Dollar (USD) Temperature: February: 4°C (40°F) August: 18°C (64°F) Sunshine: February: 6 hours August: 9 hours Humidity: February: 62% August: 71%

Unavailable at present Latest Position Yachts & More Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 28 m Length Finest Craft Builder 2006 Build year 150 Gross tonnage Marshall Islands Registry Particulars Prototype

Unavailable at present Latest Position New Horizons Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 62 m Length Builder & Co Builder 2009 Build year 700 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Result

While your yacht insurance broker should understand and be able to explain policy terms to you, there can be ambiguity as to the role played by intermediaries. If you’re going to do your utmost to make sure that you remain covered, you need to be clear about the insurance contract itself, beyond deductible amounts. Underwriters are in business to make money and, despite marketing to the contrary, can and will fight larger claims. Home Handbook Insuring / / Understanding The Contract 18 April 2023 Last revised minutes 3 Reading time While your broker should understand and be able to explain policy terms to you, there can be ambiguity as to the role played by intermediaries. If you’re going to do your utmost to make sure that you remain covered, you need to be clear about the insurance contract itself, beyond deductible amounts. Underwriters are in business to make money and, despite marketing to the contrary, can and will fight larger claims. minutes 3 Reading time 18 April 2023 Last revised While your broker should understand and be able to explain policy terms to you, there can be ambiguity as to the role played by intermediaries. If you’re going to do your utmost to make sure that you remain covered, you need to be clear about the insurance contract itself, beyond deductible amounts. Underwriters are in business to make money and, despite marketing to the contrary, can and will fight larger claims. Where there's a dispute, ambiguous terms in a policy are construed in favour of the insured . Consumer protection may vary based on whether the insured uses the yacht privately or commercially. Insurance contracts consist of four types of terms: terms descriptive of the risk, exclusions, warranties, and conditions. Breach of warranty can release the underwriter from future liability or suspend coverage, while breach of a condition can lead to liability rejection or claims for damages. Terms descriptive of the risk define the perilscovered , and the insured must prove that the loss resulted from one of these perils. Exclusions limit the scope of coverage and suspend cover during the excluded circumstances. Warranties are fundamental terms that must be strictly followed, regardless of whether they are labeled as such. Conditions can be either conditions precedent (before coverage) or bare conditions (during the policy), and breach can result in different outcomes. The insured party must have an insurable interest in the matter being insured, typically the owner of the yacht. Other interested parties must be declared in the contract and can be entitled to notifications, but to claim directly, they need to be named as joint or co-insureds. Exclusions limit the scope of coverage and suspend cover during the excluded circumstances. Warranties are fundamental terms that must be strictly followed, regardless of whether they are labeled as such. Conditions can be either conditions precedent (before coverage) or bare conditions (during the policy), and breach can result in different outcomes. The insured party must have an insurable interest in the matter being insured, typically the owner of the yacht. Other interested parties must be declared in the contract and can be entitled to notifications, but to claim directly, they need to be named as joint or co-insureds. Where there's a dispute, ambiguous terms in a policy are construed in favour of the insured . Consumer protection may vary based on whether the insured uses the yacht privately or commercially. Insurance contracts consist of four types of terms: terms descriptive of the risk, exclusions, warranties, and conditions. Breach of warranty can release the underwriter from future liability or suspend coverage, while breach of a condition can lead to liability rejection or claims for damages. Terms descriptive of the risk define the perilscovered , and the insured must prove that the loss resulted from one of these perils. Insurance contracts must set out the risk, the duration of cover, the premium and the amount payable in the event of loss. That’s it. They don’t need to be set out in any particular way. And, aside from marine insurance, they don’t even need to be in writing. The policies for larger risks can be long-winded and written in rather theatrical terms. These old-fashioned words and phrases have well-known and judicially considered meanings and implications. In recent years, there has been a move towards simpler terminology – but such words may not have been considered in court. In the event of a dispute arising between insured and underwriter, unfamiliar terms can lead to doubt. If words are ambiguous, they will be construed in favour of the insured. Whilst an owner who keeps the yacht solely for private use may be given the benefit of any doubt as a consumer, where the vessel is chartered or otherwise maintained on a commercial basis for tax reasons, this consumer protection evaporates. Where words have a technical legal meaning, this definition will prevail, as will any definitions set out in the contract. Where there are rival meanings, the construction consistent with commercial common sense will triumph. The contract will also be construed in line with the purpose of the contract, such that insuring clauses are interpreted widely, and exclusions narrowly. TYPES OF TERMS Insurance contracts contain four types of terms. It’s important to know which category a term falls into, as this affects what happens where such terms aren’t complied with. The categories are: Terms descriptive of the risk; Exceptions and exclusions; Warranties; and Conditions. For those who already know a little about general contract law, the terms ‘warranty’ and ‘condition’ are used differently. In insurance law, a breach of warranty can discharge an underwriter from all future liability, or may suspend cover for the period during which the insured is in breach, rather than merely rise to a claim for damages. Breaching a condition can give the underwriter the right to reject liability – or claim damages. TERMS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE RISK These are terms that describe the risk, and so define the cover in terms of the perils insured against. The insured must prove that its loss was caused by one of these perils. EXCEPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS Exceptions and exclusions set limits on the scope of the risk. They have the effect of suspending cover while the excluded circumstances are in effect. WARRANTIES Warranties are fundamental terms and must be strictly complied with. They may or may not labelled as such, but exist where the insured declares that something will or will not be done, or that a condition has or has not been fulfilled, or that it holds a particular intention or belief. It used to be that underwriters made all kinds of terms warranties simply by including ‘basis of contract’ clauses. This is no longer allowed, but statements as to particular facts (past or present) can still be deemed to be warranties. CONDITIONS Conditions take the form of either: A ‘condition precedent’, which requires compliance by the insured before being on-cover, and which, if breached, allows the underwriter to reject liability altogether; or A ‘bare condition’, which requires compliance by the insured during the currency of the policy, and which, if breached, allows the underwriter to claim damages for any loss suffered as a result of a breach. Examples of a condition precedent might be the payment of the premium, or compliance with claim notification requirements, while a bare condition might take the form of an obligation to give prompt notice to the underwriter of any circumstance likely to give rise to a claim, or a requirement to co-operate with the underwriter in respect to a claim. Either way, the underwriter bears the burden of proving that a condition has been breached. And labelling a condition as such is not conclusive as to its status. INSURABLE INTEREST It may sound obvious, but the party taking out the insurance must be the owner of the yacht – not the beneficial owner. Otherwise, in law, the beneficial owner would merely be taking a bet. The insured is said to need to have an ‘insurable interest’ in the matter being insured. Other parties may have an interest which is insurable, and this must be declared in the contract. The noted party can be entitled to notification by the underwriter of changes to cover, cancellation or non-renewal. If such parties want to be able to claim directly from the underwriter, however, they need to be named either as joint or co-insureds in the policy. Joint insureds each have a contractual right to indemnity, perhaps because they both jointly own a yacht. But the wrongdoing of one joint insured can preclude a claim by the other (innocent) joint insured. A co-insured, such as a mortgagor bank, is not precluded from claiming under such circumstances. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Providing Information Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Providing Information

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 33 m Length Finest Craft Builder 1937 Build year 116 Gross tonnage United Kingdom Registry Particulars Paragon

Some liabilities, such as those arising from collisions or the injury of a guest or crew member, are obvious. Other liabilities are less obvious: a large wash made by excessive speed can damage both fixed and floating objects some distance away. Occasionally, it may be possible to limit liability just by spelling this out in a well-drafted charter agreement or employment contract. Often, however, there will be no such contractual relationship with an aggrieved party. Home Handbook Managing / / Limiting Liability 26 February 2011 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time Some liabilities, such as those arising from collisions or the injury of a guest or crew member, are obvious. Other liabilities are less obvious: a large wash made by excessive speed can damage both fixed and floating objects some distance away. Occasionally, it may be possible to limit liability just by spelling this out in a well-drafted charter agreement or employment contract. Often, however, there will be no such contractual relationship with an aggrieved party. minutes 5 Reading time 26 February 2011 Last revised Some liabilities, such as those arising from collisions or the injury of a guest or crew member, are obvious. Other liabilities are less obvious: a large wash made by excessive speed can damage both fixed and floating objects some distance away. Occasionally, it may be possible to limit liability just by spelling this out in a well-drafted charter agreement or employment contract. Often, however, there will be no such contractual relationship with an aggrieved party. Yacht owners who are considered the legal owners, rather than just beneficial owners, can be held personally liable for incidents involving their yacht, putting their other assets at risk. Effective insurance, known as Protection & Indemnity (P&I) insurance, is crucial to protect owners against liabilities to third parties. International conventions allow owners to limit their liability, which provides a maximum payout for insurers and encourages trade. The limitation figure for liability does not differentiate between trading ships and yachts, even though yachts are often worth more. International conventions have specific requirements and standards of behavior that must be met to qualify for limitation. The limitation amount is determined based on the tonnage of the yacht in most countries, except for Italy, the United States, and parts of South America. The 1957 and 1976 Limitation Conventions have subtle differences, such as the circumstances under which the right to limit can be lost. Besides the owner, charterers, managers, captains, crew, employees, salvors, and insurers may also have the right to limit liability under the conventions. Owners can set up a fund with a court or competent authority, depositing an amount up to the limitation, to prevent the yacht from being detained in the future and protect other assets. Jurisdictional issues can arise, and different jurisdictions may apply different conventions and rules, making it crucial to seek legal advice promptly and establish jurisdiction in a favorable location with a lower limitation figure. The limitation amount is determined based on the tonnage of the yacht in most countries, except for Italy, the United States, and parts of South America. The 1957 and 1976 Limitation Conventions have subtle differences, such as the circumstances under which the right to limit can be lost. Besides the owner, charterers, managers, captains, crew, employees, salvors, and insurers may also have the right to limit liability under the conventions. Owners can set up a fund with a court or competent authority, depositing an amount up to the limitation, to prevent the yacht from being detained in the future and protect other assets. Jurisdictional issues can arise, and different jurisdictions may apply different conventions and rules, making it crucial to seek legal advice promptly and establish jurisdiction in a favorable location with a lower limitation figure. Yacht owners who are considered the legal owners, rather than just beneficial owners, can be held personally liable for incidents involving their yacht, putting their other assets at risk. Effective insurance, known as Protection & Indemnity (P&I) insurance, is crucial to protect owners against liabilities to third parties. International conventions allow owners to limit their liability, which provides a maximum payout for insurers and encourages trade. The limitation figure for liability does not differentiate between trading ships and yachts, even though yachts are often worth more. International conventions have specific requirements and standards of behavior that must be met to qualify for limitation. Even though yachts tend to be the only asset of an offshore owning company, it is possible, after a serious incident, for the individual ‘beneficial’ owner to be seen as the legal owner. This means that all the beneficial owner’s other assets are at risk. The need for effective insurance against liabilities to third parties, often known as Protection & Indemnity (‘P&I’) insurance, is therefore all the more important. Fortunately, throughout much of the world, the law gives owners the opportunity to restrict their liability. This is for two reasons. Firstly, insurers are more comfortable giving cover if they know what their maximum pay-out could be. Secondly, it is normally government policy to encourage trade. The owners of trading ships are more likely to put to sea if they know what their maximum liability could be. As an English judge recently put it, a ship owner might be prepared to lose his shirt, but not his entire wardrobe. As far as limitation is concerned, the law does not distinguish between trading ships and yachts, and, even though yachts are usually worth much more than similar-sized trading ships, the limitation figure will still be the same. CONVENTIONS But with the appropriate insurance in place, why should the owner need to even think about limitation? The answer is that the international conventions providing the limitation require certain standards of behaviour to be met before granting this invaluable right. That way, it is hoped, the sea is made a safer place for everyone. To understand how the opportunity to limit can slip through the owner’s fingers, it is necessary to look a little more closely at the international rules. It used to be that an owner could give up his ship to a claimant and walk away. As the ship would have been the beneficial owner’s largest asset, this was as much as a claimant could sensibly hope for anyway. This principal survives in Italy, the United States and parts of South America, but in most other countries the tonnage of the yacht will determine the owner’s limit in purely financial terms. A few nations still have no limitation regime whatsoever. EXAMPLE For example, a 35-metre yacht, with a gross tonnage of 120, negligently rams a cargo ship at night. Neither sinks, although the ship requires repairs costing £500,000. A further £500,000 of cargo is damaged, and the time spent carrying out repairs costs the owner another £500,000 in lost business. The yacht owner’s total liability in the UK would be just £650,000 approximately, not £1,500,000. The exact figure is determined using a basket of major currencies, and therefore changes daily. Most countries are party to either the 1957 or 1976 Limitation Conventions. There are subtle but vital differences between the two. The 1957 Convention contains a lower limitation figure, but no limitation is allowed where an incident was the owner’s fault or was the result of something the owner knew about. The 1976 Convention sets a higher figure, but the right to limit will only be lost where the owner did (or failed to do) something with the actual intention of causing loss, or not caring whether or not loss will be caused. Whether or not ‘owner’ here refers to the beneficial owner who chooses to skipper his own yacht, will depend on how transparent the owning company will be to the courts concerned. CHARTERER & MANAGER Aside from the owner, the 1957 Convention allows a charterer or manager, and the captain, crew and any other employees, to limit liability. The 1976 Convention adds salvors and insurers to that list. Broadly, both Conventions limit claims for loss of life or personal injury to any person carried on board, loss of or damage to property, liabilities for dealing with a wrecked or abandoned yacht, and the infringement of any non-contractual rights. The Convention limits do not apply to payments to salvors, or claims by the captain, crew or any of the owner’s employees where the law, or the employment contact itself, does not limit liability. Each Convention has lower limits for property claims than for injury or loss of life. FUND Under the Conventions, where the owner could benefit from limitation, a fund can be set up with a court, or other competent authority. The owner can then make a deposit or present a guarantee of no more than the limitation amount. The setting up of the fund is not a prerequisite to limitation, but will help prevent the yacht being detained in future over the same incident, which would require the security to be provided anyway prior to release, seriously disrupting any charter. The owner’s other assets are also placed out of the reach. This is particularly important where a court considers the owner to mean the beneficial owner. Where the yacht has been detained as security for a claim before a fund is established, it will have to be released. JURISDICTION Of course, any Convention will only be as effective as the law implementing it allows. Details, even the limits themselves and those entitled to them, can vary, as countries embroider the Conventions with their own unique thinking. A claim may be subject to a number of possible jurisdictions, each applying different Conventions in different ways. What’s more, each jurisdiction applies it’s own rules in deciding whether or not their courts can hear a claim, and if so whether their own law should apply. Jurisdiction can be founded by an owner, by bringing a pre-emptive action, in a jurisdiction with a favourably low limitation. Otherwise, there is a risk that an aggrieved party may arrest the yacht in a less favourable jurisdiction, presenting a vague case at that stage, leading to the case being later tried in those courts. Jurisdictional arguments are highly complex and an adventure playground for unscrupulous lawyers looking to rack up large bills! Lawyers have also been known to contrive to keep the business in their own courts, even where this is not in the owner’s best interest. INSURANCE Insurance policies normally state that where the assured would have been entitled to limit liability, but failed, unreasonably, to take the necessary steps to do so, the insurers’ liability will not exceed what would have been the limitation figure. This implies that there is an obligation to ensure, if possible, that the claim is subject to a jurisdiction with a relatively low limitation figure. What’s more, the burden of proving that any failure to limit is not unreasonable often rests with the assured. The assured is also normally under a separate obligation to obtain the necessary legal advice and assistance, as and when required. ADVICE The important point is for owners (or their managers) to seek advice promptly in the event of an incident, in order for the jurisdiction to be established where the limitation is lowest. At the outset, a trusted lawyer in a reputable jurisdiction must be instructed, with the guidance and consent of the insurer, in order to work out a strategy for minimising liability. Other local lawyers in the most favourable jurisdiction can then be appointed. The insurers will have a network of reliable lawyers covering most maritime jurisdictions. Liaising with insurers, from the moment an incident occurs, will bring the insurers’ considerable expertise to bear and prevent the insurer from later claiming that the assured failed to do everything possible to limit liability. As well as being a source of unrivalled pleasure and prestige, yacht ownership also carries with it certain responsibilities. As long as owners appreciate the importance of taking timely advice, from a reputable source, and of liaising closely with their insurers, they can rest assured that they have done everything possible to limit any liability. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Piracy & Protection Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Piracy & Protection

There are two basic types of charter: those where the crew is provided by the owner and those where it is up to the charterer to provide the crew (known as ‘bareboat’ charters). Because of the complex crew certification requirements, larger yachts are rarely bareboat chartered although they may be the subject of such a charter as part of a complex finance and/or tax avoidance scheme. Home Handbook Chartering Out / / How to Charter Out 6 February 2011 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time There are two basic types of charter: those where the crew is provided by the owner and those where it is up to the charterer to provide the crew (known as ‘bareboat’ charters). Because of the complex crew certification requirements, larger yachts are rarely bareboat chartered although they may be the subject of such a charter as part of a complex finance and/or tax avoidance scheme. minutes 5 Reading time 6 February 2011 Last revised There are two basic types of charter: those where the crew is provided by the owner and those where it is up to the charterer to provide the crew (known as ‘bareboat’ charters). Because of the complex crew certification requirements, larger yachts are rarely bareboat chartered although they may be the subject of such a charter as part of a complex finance and/or tax avoidance scheme. Bareboat charters make the charterer responsible for crew actions and liabilities. Implied terms include yacht seaworthiness and compliance with descriptions. Yacht age doesn't excuse outdated safety and navigational equipment. Breach of charter terms may lead to charter termination or damages. Charterers can give instructions on the yacht's destination but not on seamanship matters. Charter rates may include additional expenses; attention to terms is important. Insurance is required for liabilities caused by the charterer; compliance with policies is crucial. Redelivery of the yacht must be prompt to avoid additional charges. Captains may have authority to make contracts on behalf of the owner. Owners should consider national and regional laws before placing a yacht on the charter market. Charter rates may include additional expenses; attention to terms is important. Insurance is required for liabilities caused by the charterer; compliance with policies is crucial. Redelivery of the yacht must be prompt to avoid additional charges. Captains may have authority to make contracts on behalf of the owner. Owners should consider national and regional laws before placing a yacht on the charter market. Bareboat charters make the charterer responsible for crew actions and liabilities. Implied terms include yacht seaworthiness and compliance with descriptions. Yacht age doesn't excuse outdated safety and navigational equipment. Breach of charter terms may lead to charter termination or damages. Charterers can give instructions on the yacht's destination but not on seamanship matters. Whether or not crew is provided makes a real difference to the legal positions of the parties. Generally, with bareboat charters, the charterer remains responsible as if he or she was the owner: since the crew are employees of the charterer and not of the owner, the acts and omissions of the crew are the responsibility of the charterer and not the owner, should the yacht, for example, be involved in a collision. Bareboat charterers can take comfort in the fact that the Limitation Conventions of 1957 and 1976 allow charterers to limit their liability for loss of life or personal injury to any person carried on board, loss of or damage to property, liabilities for dealing with a wrecked or abandoned yacht, and the infringement of any other non-contractual rights. IMPLIED TERMS Whatever the type of charter, the law will automatically imply further terms. These include conditions that the yacht is seaworthy and that she corresponds with the description given by or on behalf of her owner. Seaworthiness is taken to mean that the yacht, her equipment and crew (if any) must be able to cope with any foreseeable dangers. More specifically, in order to be seaworthy, the yacht must be as fit as an ordinary, careful owner would require at the start of any passage, taking into account all the likely circumstances of that passage. The age of the yacht is relevant, but age does not excuse having out-of-date safety and navigational equipment. All legal documents required must be held on board. The charter agreement may oblige the owner to maintain the yacht in a seaworthy condition for the whole duration of the charter rather than just the start. BREACH OF CHARTER Generally, a breach of any terms may allow the charterer to treat the charter as having come to an end immediately and claim damages, or just claim damages afterwards, depending on how serious the breach is, but the charterer must have suffered some sort of loss as a result of the breach. Just because the yacht is unseaworthy, for example, does not mean that the charterer can claim damages. The particular seaworthiness must have caused loss on the part of the charterer. This would certainly be the case, for example, if the yacht was detained because she did not have the correct papers on board. Moreover, the courts will, as a matter of law, overlook breaches that are so trivial as to be negligible. What is trivial, however, depends entirely on the facts. CHARTERERS’ INSTRUCTIONS Subject to the charter agreement (known by lawyers as a ‘charter party’) the yacht is the charterer’s to do with as he or she pleases. Accordingly, the charterer is entitled to give, and the captain is obliged to comply with, legitimate instructions as to where the charterer wishes the yacht to go. This also means that should the yacht be saved from misfortune, the charterer could be liable to pay the rescuers for their services. Unless a route proposed by the charterer will be inherently dangerous, the captain is bound to comply with the charterer’s request and must then use his navigational skills to avoid danger should it be encountered. Yet the charterer is not entitled to direct the captain on any matters of seamanship. In fact, the captain is not only entitled but also obliged to retain responsibility for all matters relating to the seaworthiness, navigation and the general safety of the vessel, and must refuse requests that might compromise these. A captain is also obliged to refuse to comply with instructions that are illegal under the laws governing the charter agreement. LITTLE EXTRAS While there is much else for the charterer to pay for aside from the hire, such other expenses are usually lumped in with the hire payment to produce the charter rate or fee. The charterer needs to pay close attention to the charter terms to avoid any unexpected bills, however. Quoted charter rates are normally inclusive of the brokers’ fees, but the charterer would be well advised to confirm this. MYBA AGREEMENT The most common terms are those published by MYBA (formerly the Mediterranean Yacht Brokers Association), which have also been adopted by the American Yacht Charter Association. On these terms, the operating costs of the yacht are in addition to the hire. The charterer must pay a self-explanatory Advance Provisioning Allowance, which must be topped up as required, although the captain is required to keep an eye on this expenditure. The charterer should be familiar with other key parts of the MYBA contract. DELAYS For various reasons beyond the owner’s reasonable control, the yacht may be delivered late to the charterer. The owner has 48 hours, or one tenth of the charter period – whichever is the shorter – in which to deliver the yacht for charter, with a proportionate refund being given, or the charterer may cancel the charter, but will only be entitled to a full refund. If the owner fails to deliver the yacht to the charterer, and the reason for this failure was within the owner’s reasonable control, then the charterer will be entitled to a full refund, plus an extra 50 per cent. The charterer may not, however, claim more, no matter how much inconvenience was caused. Should the owner choose to cancel before the start of the charter, the charterer will still only be entitled to a full refund plus 50 per cent. A chartering area is agreed, and the charterer is allowed to cruise for up to six hours per day within that area. Should the yacht break down or become disabled for any other reason, for any length of time over 48 consecutive hours or 10 per cent of the charter period – whichever is the shorter – the charterer has the option to terminate the agreement. INSURANCE Insurance is required against liabilities to third parties that may be caused by the charterer. In as much as the cover required is no less than that set out in the Institute Yacht Clauses in use in the London insurance market, owners may well wish to use these terms rather than any foreign alternatives to save future argument over what is or is not cover of such a standard. The charterer will still be liable, however, should the yacht or any crewmember be detained as a result of any illegal activity on the part of the charterer or any of his or her guests. The insurance policies for larger risks can be written in long-winded terms. In the event of a dispute arising between owner and insurer, unfamiliar terms can lead to doubt. While an owner who keeps the yacht for his or her own use may be given the benefit of any doubt as a consumer, where a yacht is chartered, this protection evaporates. The additional clause inserted by the insurer to allow the yacht to be chartered will usually take the form of a ‘warranty’ added to the policy, requiring the yacht to be skippered by a professional yacht captain. Being a warranty, if this is not abided by, the policy will be ineffective in its entirety. In the case of bareboat charters, the qualifications needed to be held by skipper-charterers will be set out in detail and, again, must be complied with to the letter. REDELIVERY Under the MYBA terms, the charterer should make sure that the yacht is redelivered back to the owner promptly, otherwise the charterer will be liable to pay the charter rate plus an extra 50 per cent, plus the owner’s resulting losses. There is also no agreed limit as to the amount that can be reclaimed should the charterer choose to cancel the contract. AUTHORITY A captain will often be given the authority to make contracts as the owner’s agent, as long as he or she is acting within his or her given authority. Where the yacht has been chartered and the charter agreement states that certain supplies, for example, are to be paid by the charterer, the owner will be liable to pay if the charterer doesn’t, even if the creditor knows of the existence of the charter agreement. POINTS TO CONSIDER Before a yacht is even placed on the charter market, there are a number of points owners should consider. Depending on the waters in which the yacht will be chartered, such activities will be affected by national laws and increasingly by capricious regional laws, especially in the Mediterranean. This may affect the number of guests allowed, safety requirements and the flag the yacht must sail under. Many flag states, in particular within the Red Ensign group, also have technical Codes of Practice applicable to chartered yachts, which can be expensive to comply with. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Difficult Guests Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Difficult Guests

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 70 m Length Finest Craft Builder 2013 Build year 805 Gross tonnage Marshall Islands Registry Particulars Simulation

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 39 m Length Builder & Co Builder 1921 Build year 210 Gross tonnage British Virgin Islands Registry Particulars Template

Unavailable at present Latest Position New Horizons Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 30 m Length Builder & Co Builder 2004 Build year 70 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Snapshot

Preparing the crew for the sale of your yacht is an essential part of the selling process. Tact and transparency are key to ensuring that crewmembers play their part in a swift sale. A lack of cooperation on the part of crew can make marketing that much harder, while a disgruntled crewmember can potentially bring the sale process to a halt. With a good chance of being re-employed by the buyer, crew should be encouraged to see the sale process as a recruitment opportunity, and a normal part of a career afloat. Home Handbook Selling / / Preparing Your Crew 29 January 2025 Last revised minutes 7 Reading time Preparing the crew for the sale of your yacht is an essential part of the selling process. Tact and transparency are key to ensuring that crewmembers play their part in a swift sale. A lack of cooperation on the part of crew can make marketing that much harder, while a disgruntled crewmember can potentially bring the sale process to a halt. With a good chance of being re-employed by the buyer, crew should be encouraged to see the sale process as a recruitment opportunity, and a normal part of a career afloat. minutes 7 Reading time 29 January 2025 Last revised Preparing the crew for the sale of your yacht is an essential part of the selling process. Tact and transparency are key to ensuring that crewmembers play their part in a swift sale. A lack of cooperation on the part of crew can make marketing that much harder, while a disgruntled crewmember can potentially bring the sale process to a halt. With a good chance of being re-employed by the buyer, crew should be encouraged to see the sale process as a recruitment opportunity, and a normal part of a career afloat. Cooperation is crucial. The sale of a yacht typically requires terminating existing crew employment. Early engagement with the captain ensures crew cooperation, vessel upkeep, and a smooth transition. Buyers prefer a clean purchase. Rather than acquiring the owning company (which may have hidden liabilities), buyers usually re-register the yacht, necessitating crew redundancies. Most crew members are legally considered employees, though specialist technicians may be independent contractors with different rights. Employers must consult crew about redundancy, both individually and collectively if 20+ jobs are affected. Written notifications and meeting records are essential. Notice depends on service length, but if immediate sale is required, pay in lieu of notice may be agreed. Crew with at least two years’ continuous service are entitled to redundancy pay, calculated based on age, service duration, and salary. Under the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006, employers must cover costs for returning crew home, including travel and accommodation. Crew Release Letters, signed by crew confirming receipt of all owed payments, help protect sellers from future claims. Employment Tribunal claims remain a risk. Notice depends on service length, but if immediate sale is required, pay in lieu of notice may be agreed. Crew with at least two years’ continuous service are entitled to redundancy pay, calculated based on age, service duration, and salary. Under the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006, employers must cover costs for returning crew home, including travel and accommodation. Crew Release Letters, signed by crew confirming receipt of all owed payments, help protect sellers from future claims. Employment Tribunal claims remain a risk. Cooperation is crucial. The sale of a yacht typically requires terminating existing crew employment. Early engagement with the captain ensures crew cooperation, vessel upkeep, and a smooth transition. Buyers prefer a clean purchase. Rather than acquiring the owning company (which may have hidden liabilities), buyers usually re-register the yacht, necessitating crew redundancies. Most crew members are legally considered employees, though specialist technicians may be independent contractors with different rights. Employers must consult crew about redundancy, both individually and collectively if 20+ jobs are affected. Written notifications and meeting records are essential. For clarity’s sake, we’re going to look at the case of United Kingdom law, which applies to any UK-registered yacht, or any vessel operating for the UK, or to any crewmember operating from the UK (which is very broadly defined). Similar rules apply to other Red Ensign vessels. COOPERATION Buyers will usually want to buy the yacht, rather than its owning company, and re-register it in the name of their new owning company – enough though this is a more complex route than simply transferring company shares. There are various reasons for this, but the most important is that an owning company’s debts, lawsuits, unpaid taxes and other obligations may not be immediately apparent. Debts can still attach to a yacht directly, but at least such risks are minimised. The upshot of this is that the existing crew’s employment has to come to an end. But they can’t simply be ‘let go’. There are legal and financial obligations that sellers must meet ahead of the sale. As soon as you’re minded to sell your yacht, you or your representative needs to discuss this with your captain(s) to ensure their full engagement and cooperation. The captain will be instructed to disseminate this information to the crew. The vessel must look her best for photoshoots, and the pre-purchase survey must not highlight missed maintenance. Recruitment is an expensive process for buyers. Re-hiring makes sense – especially in the case of engineers who will know the vessel’s systems and technical idiosyncrasies better than anyone, but the existing crew’s expectations need to be managed. The marketing period is their opportunity to shine. STATUS Nearly all crew will, as a matter of law, have the status of employee – but this isn’t always the case. Specialist technicians might be engaged on board in respect of a specific project, but they’re likely to be contractors and won’t have the same rights. CONSULTATION With redundancy on the horizon, employers are obligated to consult with crewmembers, both on an individual basis – and a collective one if 20 or more are to lose their jobs. This is not just a formality; it's about ensuring a transparent and fair process. For both types, employers should provide a written notification of any potential redundancy, and a representative should discuss the situation in person – with records of this kept. NOTICE How much notice period is required depends on the length of service, i.e. 1 week’s notice for 1 month to 2 years of service, 1 week’s notice per year of service for 2 to 12 years17, and 12 weeks’ notice for 12 or more years of service. If the employment contract specifies a longer notice period then this must be honoured. Of course, this is a problem where the sale of a yacht is to complete within a short timeframe. So, employers can offer pay in lieu of notice if the contract allows for this, or otherwise the amount will be that which is mutually agreed. REDUNDANCY PAY Employees who have at least two years’ continuous service will be eligible for redundancy pay, calculated on the basis of age, length of service and pay. REPATRIATION Repatriation is an essential seafarer’s right, enshrined in the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006. Employers are obligated to cover all costs including travel, accommodation, and subsistence until the individual is safely home. The home country should be stated in the employment agreement, and if that’s where the vessel is then the crewmember will have been repatriated simply by stepping off the passerelle. RECORDS While the importance of record-keeping throughout cannot be over-emphasised, the most important documents to obtain are the Crew Release Letters. Drafted by the seller’s lawyer, these are addressed to the seller and signed by each crewmember, confirming that they have received everything owed to them and have not claim against the owning company or the yacht. Once signed, while not a complete bar to legal action, this provides the best evidence that the crewmember concerned has no claim against the seller. The provision of a full set of such from each and every crewmember is likely to be a condition of the sale, so a refusal to provide one can be disruptive. Crewmembers can also bring a later claim in an Employment Tribunal. This is a public forum, akin to a court, in which beneficial owners can be – and have been – named. PREPARE EARLY For a long time, it was assumed that if crew didn’t like the fact that the yacht was being sold then that was simply tough luck. But, with easier access to advice, and with seafarer unions (especially Nautilus ) more willing to act on behalf of individual members, it is important to prepare crew for a sale as early and fully as possible. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Preparing the Paperwork Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Preparing the Paperwork

Building a large, custom yacht is a complex process which must be carefully choreographed. There’re a lot of specialists involved, and much which can wrong. Here we look at what construction actually involves, and why building your team at the outset is such a vital first step. Home Handbook Building / / The Build Process 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time Building a large, custom yacht is a complex process which must be carefully choreographed. There are a lot of specialists involved, and much which can wrong. Here we look at what construction actually involves, and why building your team at the outset is such a vital first step. minutes 4 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised Building a large, custom yacht is a complex process which must be carefully choreographed. There are a lot of specialists involved, and much which can wrong. Here we look at what construction actually involves, and why building your team at the outset is such a vital first step. Large yacht construction involves a tightly-controlled sequence of events, and adherence to classification society standards for welding and quality control. Machinery and larger systems must be installed before the superstructure is joined ot the hull. Filling, fairing, insulation, and the addition of cable trays and pipework must be carefully choreographed. Interior panels are prefabricated and should be removable for access and maintenance. The sooner the build captain is recruited the better. Project managers should be present at all stages of the build and provide progress reports. Crewmembers, other than the build captain, are engaged as the build nears completion, with the build captain overseeing recruitment. Insurance coverage should be clarified in the build agreement, including employer's liability insurance for crew. Sea trials are conducted to test the yacht's systems and performance, followed by formal legal delivery and a warranty period to address any issues that arise. Project managers should be present at all stages of the build and provide progress reports. Crewmembers, other than the build captain, are engaged as the build nears completion, with the build captain overseeing recruitment. Insurance coverage should be clarified in the build agreement, including employer's liability insurance for crew. Sea trials are conducted to test the yacht's systems and performance, followed by formal legal delivery and a warranty period to address any issues that arise. Large yacht construction involves a tightly-controlled sequence of events, and adherence to classification society standards for welding and quality control. Machinery and larger systems must be installed before the superstructure is joined ot the hull. Filling, fairing, insulation, and the addition of cable trays and pipework must be carefully choreographed. Interior panels are prefabricated and should be removable for access and maintenance. The sooner the build captain is recruited the better. Generally speaking, yachts are far more complex than working vessels of a similar size, and finishes must, of course, be of a far higher standard. Yard cleanliness and orderliness make ensuring this much easier. You’ll have gotten a feel for the builder’s work practices having visited beforehand . Once the build is underway, there’s a lot going on and a lot to go wrong. For steel-hulled yachts, huge plates are cut to shape before being assembled and welded into place. Steps must be taken in precisely the right order. Where the vessel will be classed, welders must be qualified in accordance with the classification society standards. The welds themselves must conform to measurable standards with tolerances measuring less than a millimetre. If it’s not right it must be corrected until it is. It can take a year and half to complete a bare 100-metre hull, during which about 1,000 tonnes of steel will be used. Superstructures are typically made from aluminium – requiring even greater welding skills. They are usually constructed in sections, away from the hull, then bonded together. Larger items of machinery, such as engines and generators, must be installed before superstructure encloses the internal spaces. The project will then typically be moved way from under the gantry cranes of the construction facility, to a fitting-out facility, where the machinery and systems will be fitted. The hull’s surface will be slightly rippled and will need filling and fairing: a skilled and labour-intensive process. The epoxy fillers, and paints covering them, are sensitive to temperature and humidity. Insulation, cable trays and pipework can now be installed – in exactly the right sequence. Interior panels are normally prefabricated by subcontractors, before being brought to the yard for installation. They will normally produce full-scale mock-ups of various interiors which you can check before they are installed. It’s important that the bulkhead and deckhead panels be removeable to allow access as needed for regular system maintenance. It's vital that photographs are taken during construction so that what’s behind the panels can be checked easily. SUPERVISION The builder will employ its own project manager(s), but with so much going on it’s easy to see why your project manager needs to be present at all stages of the build. Your project manager should compile monthly reports showing progress, with photos and detailing how this compares to the agreed time schedule. Your project manager should also know the build agreement inside-out, and must remind you of upcoming decision deadlines in good time. As with any large project, communication is key. ENGAGING CREW More and more crew are brought in as the build nears completion. The build captain is first – and in the case of larger projects may have been engaged at the outset. Where the build is on a more modest scale, the project manager also performs the role of build captain and may be the vessel’s first captain following launch. Build captains perform two roles: firstly they add a helpful seagoing captain’s perspective to the build, and secondly they recruit and oversee other crewmembers. The build captain will need excellent organisational skills, an analytical mindset and be a superb manager and motivator. Next comes the Chief Engineer, who can bring real value right away, followed by other heads of departments, who will be key in recruiting those who report to them – and may already have contacts waiting in the wings. Some hires may have been misjudged and just aren’t the right fit. This is to be expected. Not hiring crew until absolutely necessary can be a false economy. There’s much to be got ready before launch. Aside from completing the build, operational and regulatory procedures need to be established, and if these are rushed they may not be fit for purpose. INSURANCE The build agreement should be clear on when the build no longer bears the risk of damage occurring to the yacht, or the liabilities incurred to third parties. There should be no gaps in cover. Keep in mind, too, that you will need employers’ liability insurance in respect of crew as soon as they are engaged. While insurance brokers owe a legal duty to you, as insured, in reality they can value their commercial relationships with underwriters more. Indeed, some will expressly be your agent at the time of inception, but become the underwriter’s agent once a claim has been made. Be warned, and examine the policies in detail. TRIALS At last, your new yacht is complete and is ready for her first sea trial. You may like to come along – but it’s not going to be the most exciting cruise. Before she goes anywhere, there’s a dock trial. The generators and main engines are started and their cooling systems checked for leaks. Once the captain is satisfied that she is ready, she can head out to sea. Aboard will be representatives from the builder, subcontractors and classification society, as well as your own team. All kinds of objective measurements are made which can be checked against the contractual specification. The trial will take most of the day, or a few days for a large, complex vessel. DELIVERY At last your yacht is ready for formal, legal delivery. There may still be teething problems evident at the time of delivery, which the builder hasn’t had time to correct, but which you’re happy to live with for now. The scope and nature of such works must be formally agreed. The build documentation will have been examined and approved by your lawyer, and will be released to you against receipt of the penultimate payment – the final payment being made upon successful completion of the warranty period. WARRANTY PERIOD Because yachts are, in essence, a matrix of complex systems operating together in a harsh environment, it is inevitable that some systems will fail, or fail to perform as expected. The warranty period should be clearly set out in the build agreement. It is vital for crewmembers to inform the captain, and the captain to inform you and the builder, right away and in writing, of any faults. Documentation and record keeping are key. Keep in mind any notice formalities which must be observed. It's in the builder’s interests to work with you to create a yacht which will serve as a masterpiece – quite literally a shining example of what that yard is able to produce. Finding new clients is expensive and time-consuming. It’s far easier to keep existing clients happy and work towards selling them a larger yacht. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about A Firm Foundation Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about A Firm Foundation

From afar, buying a superyacht looks straightforward. You have money, and you wish to exchange it for a large, shiny boat. You browse websites, attend some yacht shows, view some vessels, shake hands and sign an agreement – et voilà – it’s yours. Except, of course, it isn’t that straightforward. Beneath the perfect teak decks is a matrix of interconnected systems, built and maintained in accordance with specifications and regulations, and run by a community of skilled seafarers. Home Handbook Buying / / You Need Help! 13 May 2026 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time From afar, buying a large yacht looks straightforward. You have money, and you wish to exchange it for a large, shiny boat. You browse websites, attend some yacht shows, view some vessels, shake hands and sign an agreement – et voilà – it’s yours. Except, of course, it isn’t that straightforward. Beneath the perfect teak decks is a matrix of interconnected systems, built and maintained in accordance with specifications and regulations, and run by a community of skilled seafarers. minutes 5 Reading time 13 May 2026 Last revised From afar, buying a large yacht looks straightforward. You have money, and you wish to exchange it for a large, shiny boat. You browse websites, attend some yacht shows, view some vessels, shake hands and sign an agreement – et voilà – it’s yours. Except, of course, it isn’t that straightforward. Beneath the perfect teak decks is a matrix of interconnected systems, built and maintained in accordance with specifications and regulations, and run by a community of skilled seafarers. Superyacht purchases demand specialised expertise beyond general business or negotiation experience. Epistemic trespassing causes confident decisions despite lacking essential yacht-specific knowledge or skills. Deferred maintenance, compliance, and operational realities often escape inexperienced yacht purchasers’ understanding. The Dunning–Kruger effect encourages misplaced confidence while concealing critical gaps in expertise. Successful owners recognise complexity and assemble strong multidisciplinary advisory and operational teams. Thorough due diligence, realistic budgeting, and scepticism reduce costly superyacht purchasing mistakes. The Dunning–Kruger effect encourages misplaced confidence while concealing critical gaps in expertise. Successful owners recognise complexity and assemble strong multidisciplinary advisory and operational teams. Thorough due diligence, realistic budgeting, and scepticism reduce costly superyacht purchasing mistakes. Superyacht purchases demand specialised expertise beyond general business or negotiation experience. Epistemic trespassing causes confident decisions despite lacking essential yacht-specific knowledge or skills. Deferred maintenance, compliance, and operational realities often escape inexperienced yacht purchasers’ understanding. WHAT'S TRESPASSING? In his eponymous 2019 paper, Nathan Ballantyne, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Arizona State University, defines what he calls ‘epistemic trespassing’. This is when someone who is an expert in one field trespasses into another – in which he or she lacks the knowledge and/or skills needed for good judgment, and yet confidently makes decisions anyway – leading to suboptimal outcomes. In other words: just because you are brilliant at making money, you’ll still need help when buying. And that, argues the professor, is exactly as it should be. Epistemology is just the term given to that branch of philosophy devoted to the study of knowledge: its nature, sources, justification, and limits. Epistemic expertise requires both sufficient knowledge and the skills required to use that knowledge properly. Being an ‘expert’ here doesn’t mean omniscience: experts can disagree with each other while still meeting the thresholds of knowledge and skill. FORMS OF TRESPASSING Specifically, trespassing takes one of the following forms: Having the skills but lacking knowledge. For example, you’re excellent at negotiations, but lack certain technical facts – such as the realities of deferred maintenance. Having knowledge but lacking the skills. For example, you’ll be shown the stability booklet but you haven’t got a clue what Hydrostatic Particulars are. Lacking both knowledge and skills. For example, you don’t know what you don’t know about class compliance or charter restrictions. Most trespasses occur due to the hybrid nature of the subject matter. So while you’ll be familiar with asset procurement, superyachts are a very different proposition to, say, real estate or aircraft. Similarly, your businesses may employ vast numbers of workers, but their rights and expectations will differ significantly from those of seafarers. The Dunning–Kruger effect also comes into play. This is the academic label applied to situations where people who lack knowledge are also oblivious to their inexperience, leaving them unreasonably confident in their judgment. It’s a ‘double curse’ of inability, plus an inability to detect that inability. Trespassers may have just enough knowledge to feel confident, but not enough to avoid error. NOT ALWAYS OBVIOUS Buy why isn’t trespassing obvious to the trespasser? Ballantyne has identified three main defences, which, in the context of a superyacht purchase, are as follows: You’re trespassing in a field whose experts’ opinions do not affect your conclusions. You might think that surveyors are pessimists, or that your crew can surely put things right later. You could be right. You could be wrong. We’ll see. You’re trespassing, but you think that you already have all the knowledge you need. You’ve seen from your own inspection that everything looks fine, so it probably is. But that’s not knowledge: it’s vibes. You’re trespassing, but you consider your existing skills to be sufficiently transferable and give you all the expertise you need. You’ll treat the purchase as just another deal to be completed, without sufficient though to the long term. Superyacht ownership is not simple. It is a sustained exercise in managing complexity across multiple domains simultaneously - technical, legal, regulatory, financial, operational, and interpersonal. The people who do it well are not the people who understand all of it themselves. They are the people who understand that they don't, and who surround themselves accordingly. PRACTICAL DOS AND DON'TS So now we know that trespassing is a recognised behavioural pattern, what are the resulting dos and don’ts when buying a superyacht? Here’s ten of each: Do: Accept that you’re an expert in many things – but not everything Put together a team, covering all aspects of the purchase, not just the technical, including legal and tax - in all relevant jurisdictions Model a five-year plan of true likely operating costs and any charter income Discuss the vessel and your itineraries with insurers as soon as possible Start engaging with candidate shoreside technical managers if required Obtain full references from candidate captains and crewmembers Get to the bottom of what any recent ‘refit’ did or did not entail Look out for obsolete equipment with poor support Treat sea trials as screening rather than proof Seek second opinions if need be Don’t: Accept a non-standard sale and purchase agreement: the industry standard contracts aren’t ideal but the parties’ positions are broadly known and understood Allow ‘private use’ as an excuse for thin paperwork and a lack of certification and records Skip any due diligence for the sake of beating a competing purchaser Rely on charter projections without discussing with charter brokers first Engage technical managers on a lowest-bid basis Rely solely on the reputation of the builder Treat any test or trial as conclusive Think that your crew will be able to fix every defect picked up in the survey Agree to any refit work without a works scope and fixed payment milestones Dismiss bureaucratic stages and documents as mere paperwork Nathan Ballantyne's paper Epistemic Trespassing was published in the renowned academic journal Mind in 2019. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Corporate Ownership Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Corporate Ownership

When yacht insurance underwriters ask questions, you, the owner, must respond to as accurately as possible. But there is also a positive duty on insured to speak up about matters which may affect the risk. It’s important not only to understand the nature and extent of that duty if you’re yacht is to stay covered, but also to ensure that your broker isn’t a weak link in the chain. Home Handbook Insuring / / Providing Information 15 April 2023 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time When underwriters ask questions, you, the owner, must respond as accurately as possible. But there is also a positive duty on you, as insured, to speak up about matters which may affect the risk. It’s important not only to understand the nature and extent of that duty if you’re yacht is to stay covered, but also to ensure that your broker isn’t a weak link in the chain. minutes 4 Reading time 15 April 2023 Last revised When underwriters ask questions, you, the owner, must respond as accurately as possible. But there is also a positive duty on you, as insured, to speak up about matters which may affect the risk. It’s important not only to understand the nature and extent of that duty if you’re yacht is to stay covered, but also to ensure that your broker isn’t a weak link in the chain. Insurance contracts are based on the principle of the utmost good faith, requiring parties to provide honest and complete information. Underwriters may not have detailed knowledge of each specific risk, so insured individuals have a duty to disclose material information. A fair presentation of the risk includes disclosing all material circumstances or providing sufficient information to prompt further inquiries by a prudent insurer. Disclosure should be clear and accessible to the insurer, and statements must be made in good faith. Material circumstances are those that would influence a prudent insurer's judgment in determining whether to accept the risk and on what terms. The insured's knowledge refers to the company's senior management, including captains, departmental heads, and insurance brokers. Claims history, crewing arrangements, and yacht valuations are among the practical matters that need to be disclosed. Yacht valuations can be contentious, and a specific reference to the agreed value should be included in policies. Breaching the duty of fair presentation can lead to remedies for the underwriter if it directly influenced their decision to enter the contract. Consequences for breaching the duty of fair presentation vary based on intent, ranging from no liability with no premium return to reduced claim payment or returned premiums. The insured's knowledge refers to the company's senior management, including captains, departmental heads, and insurance brokers. Claims history, crewing arrangements, and yacht valuations are among the practical matters that need to be disclosed. Yacht valuations can be contentious, and a specific reference to the agreed value should be included in policies. Breaching the duty of fair presentation can lead to remedies for the underwriter if it directly influenced their decision to enter the contract. Consequences for breaching the duty of fair presentation vary based on intent, ranging from no liability with no premium return to reduced claim payment or returned premiums. Insurance contracts are based on the principle of the utmost good faith, requiring parties to provide honest and complete information. Underwriters may not have detailed knowledge of each specific risk, so insured individuals have a duty to disclose material information. A fair presentation of the risk includes disclosing all material circumstances or providing sufficient information to prompt further inquiries by a prudent insurer. Disclosure should be clear and accessible to the insurer, and statements must be made in good faith. Material circumstances are those that would influence a prudent insurer's judgment in determining whether to accept the risk and on what terms. No two insurance risks will ever be identical. Underwriters will know about yachts in general, but they cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of your particular vessel, which will be, to a greater or lesser extent, unique, and crewed, managed and operated in a distinctive way. So while most contracts work on the basis of buyer beware – with parties doing their own homework – insurance works on the opposite basis: there’s a positive duty to provide honest information. They are said to be contracts of ‘utmost good faith’. This is manifested in the insurer, in the case of yachts owned by companies (which cannot, by definition, be considered as consumers) being under a duty to make a ‘fair presentation’ of the risk. This duty obliges the insured to disclose material circumstances that it knows (or ought to know) or put a prudent underwriter on notice that it needs to make further enquiries. FAIR PRESENTATION A fair presentation is one where the insured discloses every ‘material circumstance’ which the insured knows or ought to know, or, failing that, gives sufficient information to put a (hypothetical) ‘prudent insurer’ on notice that it needs to make further enquiries for the purpose of revealing those material circumstances. Disclosure must be made in a manner which would be reasonably clear and accessible to that hypothetical prudent insurer. Facts must ‘substantially correct’ and statements of expectation or belief must be made in good faith. A circumstance will be material if it ‘would influence the judgement of a prudent insurer in determining whether to take the risk and, if so, on what terms’. This includes special or unusual facts relating to the risk, particular concerns which led the insured to look for cover, and anything which those specialising in yachting-related risks would generally understand as being something that should be included in a fair presentation of risk. Note that we are concerned with the judgement of a prudent insurer: the opinions of the actual underwriter concerned are irrelevant. The insured’s knowledge, in the case of an owning company, is taken to mean the company’s ‘senior management’, which will include captains and departmental heads, plus those making decisions about insurance (including insurance brokers or other intermediaries acting on the owner’s behalf – whether regulated or not – such as a yacht broker). A ‘reasonable search’ for relevant information must be made – including with third parties. This might include, for example, making inquires with classification societies. PRACTICAL MATTERS The claims history of both the legal and beneficial owner will almost certainly be material – even if the proposal form simply asks in respect of the ‘insured’s claims record. If you, as beneficial owner, have criminal convictions in respect of dishonesty then this should be disclosed. While it may be obvious whether or not a yacht requires crew, the nature and extent of crewing arrangements will need to be provided in detail. The captain’s CV/résumé may be requested. You should ask a third party services provider to verify the crewmember’s qualifications and stated experience. If a survey is needed, check whether that surveyor must have been approved by the underwriter and/or hold certain qualifications. VALUATIONS Yacht valuations can, and have, been a source of contention over the years. Policies can be unvalued but given the obvious room for disagreement, nearly all on the basis of a valuation agreed at the outset. There should be a specific reference to the value being agreed – not merely to a ‘sum insured’ or similar. Unless fraud can be proved, the fixed value is usually conclusive. Problems arise where owners pay over the odds at the outset, or where renewals haven’t taken account of depreciation, so that the resulting over-valuation risks being deemed to be a material misrepresentation. This will be the conclusion where the owner has no genuine belief that the value given was a true valuation. It would be wise to obtain an independent valuation, but – being subjective – this shouldn’t be treated as conclusive. CONSEQUENCES If the insured breaches the duty of fair presentation, the underwriter is entitled to a remedy only if it can demonstrate that the breach directly influenced its decision to enter into the insurance contract, or at all. To prove this influence, the underwriter must establish that, without the breach, it would not have entered into the contract or, at least, would have done so on different terms, such as a higher premium. If the breach of the duty of fair presentation was made deliberately or recklessly, the underwriter can walk away from liability entirely – not even pausing to return premiums paid. If the breach was neither deliberate nor reckless, and the underwriter would not have provided cover on any terms, then payment of claims can be refused but premiums paid must be returned. If the underwriter would have just charged a higher premium, then the amount payable on a claim may be reduced proportionately. CONSUMERS In the unlikely ( and unwise ) event that own your yacht personally, and it’s not chartered out or otherwise used for business purposes, then your position, as a consumer, is different to that set out above. It’s then up to underwriters to ask the questions and determine the risk. The insured simply has to exercise reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when answering questions. There’s no obligation to volunteer information. TIPS & TRICKS Be sure that the insurance broker earns its commission and tells you everything you need to disclose. It is quite possible that your broker advises you poorly, and, as a result, you fail in your duty of fair presentation. In which case, the broker will be liable. Consider where the broker is based and how it is regulated. Obtaining the requisite information takes time, so plan ahead – including when it’s time to renew. Do not assume that the underwriter already has sufficient information: disclose all material information, even if it’s obvious. Be sure to respond fully to all questions raised. Avoid data dumping, and make sure that information is indexed, categorised or otherwise easily navigable. Keep an audit trail of the searches carried out and the enquiries made, to prove that you have conducted a reasonable search. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Staying Covered Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Staying Covered

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 38 m Length Finest Craft Builder 2019 Build year 362 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Ideal

Unavailable at present Latest Position Rapid Brokers Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 58 m Length Thompson Yachts Builder 2020 Build year 642 Gross tonnage United Kingdom Registry Particulars Specimen

The loan agreement and/or the deed of covenant will provide that the ship mortgage will become enforceable following a defined default event. What constitutes default will be set out in the loan agreement – and will cover more than just a failure to make loan repayments. A breach of any term of the security documentation, in particular positive or negative covenants, can constitute a default. Home Handbook Financing / / Loan Enforcement 3 March 2014 Last revised minutes 3 Reading time The loan agreement and/or the deed of covenant will provide that the ship mortgage will become enforceable following a defined default event. What constitutes default will be set out in the loan agreement – and will cover more than just a failure to make loan repayments. A breach of any term of the security documentation, in particular positive or negative covenants, can constitute a default. minutes 3 Reading time 3 March 2014 Last revised The loan agreement and/or the deed of covenant will provide that the ship mortgage will become enforceable following a defined default event. What constitutes default will be set out in the loan agreement – and will cover more than just a failure to make loan repayments. A breach of any term of the security documentation, in particular positive or negative covenants, can constitute a default. When there is a default, the lender may choose to waive it or demand that it be corrected by the borrower. The lender can enforce the mortgage through a deed of covenant that grants specific powers. The deed of covenant allows the lender to order the yacht to a specific port, manage the yacht, take possession of it, and sell it. The lender can use a power of attorney granted by the borrower to act on their behalf, including selling the yacht. Lenders have pre-existing rights, such as taking possession of the yacht or selling it when loan repayments are outstanding. Lenders can arrest the yacht through a court application, leading to a judicial sale that may attract higher prices. The lender is responsible for immediate expenses incurred after the arrest, such as crew salaries and mooring fees. The lender can apply for an order of sale before judgment, which involves appraisal, valuation, and advertising for sealed bids. If a default occurs during a charter, the lender's rights may be restricted if it interferes with the charter, but certain conditions must be met. The lender's claim as a mortgagee is prioritized over unpaid creditors with maritime liens and possessory liens. After a court sale, proceeds are distributed in a specific order. Lenders can arrest the yacht through a court application, leading to a judicial sale that may attract higher prices. The lender is responsible for immediate expenses incurred after the arrest, such as crew salaries and mooring fees. The lender can apply for an order of sale before judgment, which involves appraisal, valuation, and advertising for sealed bids. If a default occurs during a charter, the lender's rights may be restricted if it interferes with the charter, but certain conditions must be met. The lender's claim as a mortgagee is prioritized over unpaid creditors with maritime liens and possessory liens. After a court sale, proceeds are distributed in a specific order. When there is a default, the lender may choose to waive it or demand that it be corrected by the borrower. The lender can enforce the mortgage through a deed of covenant that grants specific powers. The deed of covenant allows the lender to order the yacht to a specific port, manage the yacht, take possession of it, and sell it. The lender can use a power of attorney granted by the borrower to act on their behalf, including selling the yacht. Lenders have pre-existing rights, such as taking possession of the yacht or selling it when loan repayments are outstanding. Where there is a default, the lender decide that the commercial relationship is worth saving. The lender may therefore choose to waive the default – either unconditionally or if the borrower complies with new conditions. Alternatively, the lender may demand that a default be put right by the borrower or even put things right itself and charge the borrower for this – such as renewing an insurance policy. If all else fails, the lender may press ahead with enforcement action. CONTRACTUAL ENFORCEMENT The deed of covenant sets out the lender’s enforcement powers, exercisable once the mortgage has become enforceable. This is on top of the rights existing in law anyway (set out below). Typical rights granted by the deed of covenant include the following: To order the captain to proceed to a port nominated by the lender – which will be within a jurisdiction where arresting the yacht is particularly easy or convenient; To manage the yacht, including chartering her out (assuming that the yacht is commercially registered and insured for chartering), and even replacing the entire crew if need be; To take possession of the yacht ahead of a sale, and take her to a jurisdiction where a relatively rapid sale can be concluded or where the lender will rank higher than other creditors; and To sell the yacht, either by public action or private sale. POWER OF ATTORNEY As well as the borrower’s covenants, the lender can use any power of attorney granted by the borrower to the lender, by which the lender can act in the borrower’s name to correct any default, or even go so far as to sell the yacht without much further ado. PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS Beyond the lenders rights which exist by virtue of the borrower’s covenants and any power of attorney, the law automatically gives lenders the ability to do any of the following: To take possession of the yacht, where the borrower has actually defaulted on loan repayments, or the lender’s security has been compromised as a result of the borrower’s (in)actions. In reality, this is rare as the lender will be on the hook for operational costs – even assuming that the lender has the relevant experience or can procure this at short notice. To sell the yacht, but only when the mortgage repayments are outstanding, and not simply where covenants have been breached: for this the lender will have to rely on the express provisions of the loan agreement and deed of covenant. To arrest the yacht, on application to the court, as a procedural step leading to the judicial sale of the vessel. A judicial sale may be preferred over a sale by the lenders this allows a buyer to but a yacht free from pre-existing liens and encumbrances – which benefits may help to boost the price of what will otherwise be something of a fire sale. The arrest of a yacht will result in the court’s officer, the Admiralty Marshal, incurring expenses right away, such as crew salaries, mooring fees and essential maintenance. The lender’s lawyer must provide a personal undertaking to pay such expenses, and will need a considerable sum paid to his or her firm on account. The lender will also need to arrange first and third party insurance if need be. Following arrest, the lender may apply to the court, even before judgment has been handed down, for an order for sale. The court order will contain instructions for the Admiralty Marshal to have the yacht appraised, valued and advertised for sale, typically on a sealed bid basis. The Admiralty Marshal’s Conditions of Sale will apply, under which – if the Admiralty Marshal accepts a sealed offer – the buyer must pay 10% right away and the balance within one week. CHARTERS Should a default occur when a charter has been booked or the she’s out on charter, the lender, as mortgagee, will be bound by the terms of charter, and prevented from exercising its rights under the mortgage, such as taking possession, arrest and/or sale, where doing so would interfere with the charter, as long as: Undertaking or completion of the charter doesn’t compromise the lender’s security; and The borrower is willing and able to complete the charter. PRIORITY Even with all the loan documentation, covenants, etc, in place, a lender’s claim as mortgagee is trumped by those with maritime liens such as unpaid crew, or those with a possessory lien such as a refit yard. This is the case even though neither maritime nor possessory liens can be registered anywhere. Mortgagees will take priority over all other unpaid creditors. The deed of covenant will usually stipulate that, following sale, the lender’s costs and expenses are paid first, then the outstanding principal and interest will be paid off. The borrower will then receive any amount left over. Following a court sale, the proceeds are distributed in the following order: Admiralty Marshal’s fees and expenses; Lender’s legal costs; Maritime liens; Possessory liens; Mortgages and charges over the yacht, in order of registration; and Statutory liens. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Leasing Overview Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Leasing Overview

The first question your naval architect is likely to ask is where your yacht will be registered. That registry’s regulations will do much to determine the design of your yacht. But, beyond that, the registry provides the legal framework for crew employment, and may determine how easily insurance and finance can be obtained. So research this in-depth rather than accepting your architect’s suggestion. Home Handbook Building / / Choose A Flag 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time The first question your naval architect is likely to ask is where your yacht will be registered. That registry’s regulations will do much to determine the design of your yacht. But, beyond that, the registry provides the legal framework for crew employment, and may determine how easily insurance and finance can be obtained. So research this in-depth rather than accepting your architect’s suggestion. minutes 4 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised The first question your naval architect is likely to ask is where your yacht will be registered. That registry’s regulations will do much to determine the design of your yacht. But, beyond that, the registry provides the legal framework for crew employment, and may determine how easily insurance and finance can be obtained. So research this in-depth rather than accepting your architect’s suggestion. Registering a yacht in a country's ship registry determines its nationality, owner's responsibilities, and compliance with laws and regulations. The choice of registry impacts insurance availability, financing options, chartering regulations, taxation requirements, scrutiny from port officials, and service provided. Unusual flags may reduce insurance options and increase premiums. Lenders require high maintenance and safety standards and confidence in the country's rule of law for financing agreements. Chartering requires compliance with international regulations, and certain registries have simplified safety codes for cost-effective compliance. Cabotage rules may require local registration for commercial operations in specific jurisdictions. Temporary Admission allows tax avoidance in the EU for non-commercial use, but specific advice is necessary. Scrutiny by port officials can cause delays and inspections may be prioritized based on flag categorization. Helpful registries with easily accessible regulations and guidance are preferred. Local agents and service providers can assist with overcoming time zone difficulties, but may come with additional costs and risks. Cabotage rules may require local registration for commercial operations in specific jurisdictions. Temporary Admission allows tax avoidance in the EU for non-commercial use, but specific advice is necessary. Scrutiny by port officials can cause delays and inspections may be prioritized based on flag categorization. Helpful registries with easily accessible regulations and guidance are preferred. Local agents and service providers can assist with overcoming time zone difficulties, but may come with additional costs and risks. Registering a yacht in a country's ship registry determines its nationality, owner's responsibilities, and compliance with laws and regulations. The choice of registry impacts insurance availability, financing options, chartering regulations, taxation requirements, scrutiny from port officials, and service provided. Unusual flags may reduce insurance options and increase premiums. Lenders require high maintenance and safety standards and confidence in the country's rule of law for financing agreements. Chartering requires compliance with international regulations, and certain registries have simplified safety codes for cost-effective compliance. With some limited exceptions, all yachts have to be registered in a country’s ship registry, and fly that nation’s maritime flag, known as an ensign. That registry is often know as the Flag State, especially to distinguish it from the Port State – the latter being the country where a yacht is located when not in international waters. Registration is about much more than just choosing a flag to wear on the stern: it’s what gives a yacht nationality and frames owner’s, manager’s and crewmembers’ responsibilities. The choice of registry affects the laws and regulations the owner must adhere to, the ready availability of insurance and finance, whether certain taxes must be paid and the attention port officials may pay the vessel. Registration can also prove ownership and is a requirement for international cruising. Notably, there are registries entry into which proves nothing in terms of title. Examples of these include Delaware and the United Kingdom Part III Small Ships Register. Fees and expenses for registration are relatively small, but choosing the wrong registry can be a very costly error. Making that selection is a complicated process requiring independent, expert advice. A trap for the unwary is the recommendation of a certain flag with which a naval architect, project manager or other adviser happens to be familiar – without due consideration of all the owner’s particular circumstances and wishes. SIX FLAGGING FACTORS While the registries themselves are state agencies, many popular ones are managed on a commercial basis and – to an extent – compete with each other. This is a good thing since levels of service must be raised above that which one might otherwise expect from the government departments of certain countries. However, there can also be an incentive to be overly flexible when it comes to the drafting and enforcement of safety regulations. To an extent, flag choice can come down to a process of elimination. Emotions can be a factor but it’s best to let head rule heart. Here are the six main factors you should consider: Insurance Finance Chartering Taxation Scrutiny Service INSURANCE All yachts should be insured and third party cover is normally mandatory. Underwriters will want to understand the risk they’re agreeing to cover, and key to this will be the flag. An unusual flag will not make insurance impossible to find, but it will reduce the number of underwriters with an appetite to write such business thereby pushing up premiums. FINANCE Some yachts are financed, by means of a lease or loan , as a means to free-up investment capital for owners’ businesses. As with insurers, lenders will be taking a financial and legal interest in the vessel, and will want to make sure that the owner abides by high maintenance and safety standards. Lenders will also need to have confidence in the rule of law in the country of registration itself, since the mortgages will be entered in the registry. CHARTERING For the protection of paying guests, chartering requires adherence to a wide range of international regulations. Fortunately, certain registries have created safety codes to simplify compliance which reduces cost and administration. Certification by a classification society is normally required above a certain size, although this size varies. Some owners may regard classification as expensive and unnecessary (and it may not be possible for some vessels not originally built to class rules) while others choose this route for peace of mind regardless of charter activity. Chartering isn’t possible at all with some flags when the vessel is over a certain size, for example Jersey and Guernsey. The existence of any cabotage rules should also be considered. These are protectionist measures requiring vessels operating commercially to be registered locally if not engaged in international voyages. The best example of this is the United States. If the plan was to charter in US waters there would no other real choice but to fly the Stars and Stripes. TAXATION If not being used commercially, it is possible – where the beneficial owner is not tax resident in or connected with the European Union – to avoid the payment of Value Added Tax and customs in the EU on the yacht itself, for up to 18 months, through Temporary Admission. However, this requires registration outside the EU amongst other conditions. It also requires detailed, specific advice to ensure that the correct information is given and at the right time. VAT can be up to 25% and charged on the hull value. Port officials may detain a vessel pending payment (and any fines and/or interest). SCRUTINY Any yacht can be boarded, at any time, by a port official whose job it is to make sure that all the paperwork is in order – which can be invasive and can cause unexpected delays. As their time and resources are limited, inspections are often prioritised according to flag. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding, for example, is a group of 27 European and North Atlantic nations which inspect safety, security and environmental standards of more than 18,000 vessels each year. Other similar such groups exist worldwide. Information is shared between members, and flags categorised into White, Grey and Black lists. White List categorisation should mean fewer inspections but does not lead to immunity altogether. SERVICE If a registry isn’t helpful and doesn’t make its regulations and guidance easily available, in a language which managers, captains and crew can understand, then as a matter of common sense it can be ruled-out. Local agents and corporate service providers can be used to overcome time zone difficulties, but at a cost and with the risk of misunderstandings and further delays. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Keep it Classy Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Keep it Classy

Unavailable at present Latest Position Rapid Brokers Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 27 m Length Finest Craft Builder 1999 Build year 240 Gross tonnage United Kingdom Registry Particulars Forerunner

Unavailable at present Latest Position Wright A Way & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 105 m Length Builder & Co Builder 2022 Build year 1980 Gross tonnage Panama Registry Particulars Role Model

It’s time to free ourselves from a tun of unnecessary paperwork. In this white paper, drawn up at the suggestion of, and following consultations with, some of our Members, our General Secretary considers what Gross Tonnage is, why it’s used as the primary regulatory threshold, and what workarounds could be utilised to circumvent its blunt impact. Home Handbook White Papers / / Speaking Volumes Browse the website of any large brokerage and you will find numerous vessels said to have a “GT” of 499. This refers to Gross Tonnage. Owners of these are relieved from having to comply with a raft of regulations which apply to chartered vessels of 500 GT and above. Not doing so can lead to the yacht being detained and will lead to insurance policies being invalid. To be clear, this paper isn’t suggesting that the relevant safety regulations shouldn’t apply to certain larger yachts - it’s just that Gross Tonnage creates peculiar regulatory thresholds which can lead to compromised designs. Whether or not owners are looking to shave money off compliance costs, designers certainly consider there to be a market for such “paragraph” yachts. Keep in mind, also, that many such safety regulations don’t apply to private (i.e. non-chartered) yachts - even though they require the same number of permanent, full-time crewmembers. WHAT IS GROSS TONNAGE? The word ‘tonnage’ here does not mean weight. It is derived from the old English term ‘tun’ meaning a large wooden barrel – used for measuring, storing and transporting wine, oil or honey. They usually held 252 gallons, but other sizes were common. As it happens, a tun of wine weights about one long ton, which is 2240 pounds or 1016 kg, but the key point is that Gross Tonnage reflects volume – not weight, mass or displacement. Gross Tonnage is an abstract, unitless calculation, being the vessel’s total enclosed volume but modified by a logarithmic factor based on that volume. It was a compromise which met the needs of the shipping community of the 1960s. Yet these arcane rules still govern the design and specification of certain yachts over half a century later. Crucially, the figure is calculated as much as it is measured. It is defined by the Regulation 3 of Annex I of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (normally abbreviated to “ITC 69”) by the formula: GT=K1V Where: V = the total volume of all enclosed spaces of the ship in cubic metres, and K1 = 0.2 + 0.02 log10V (or as set out in Appendix 2 of ITC 69) Calculating this requires a good grasp of both naval architecture and mathematics. UNDERLYING RATIONALE The reason why volume is used rather than weight is that, historically, ships were measured in order to calculate taxes. Aside from warships, all vessels were cargo ships of some description. And the easiest and fairest way to fund port operations and levy foreign trade was to tax ship owners according to cargo carrying capacity and, therefore, profitability. Overall vessel size was not the key factor. The same principles were applied to later passenger ships. Different countries used a variety of methods, which is why the ITC 69 was needed. This also did away with Gross Register(ed) Tonnage (GRT) - a measure of total internal capacity which is confused with GT even to this day – and at least ten other key measurements in use internationally. PROBLEMS CAUSED Inevitably, there is pressure on ship designers to minimise enclosed volume and reduce Gross Tonnage-based taxes and dues. Such amounts are minimal on relatively small vessels, such as yachts, but squeezing beneath a particular tonnage threshold seems to be a common aim. This can lead to freeboards (the distance between the waterline and the deck) being reduced to the minimum legal requirement. In turn, this reduces the available reserve buoyancy – those internal areas, above the waterline, which can be made watertight in the event of an emergency and help keep the vessel afloat for longer. Further, crew areas are reduced to the bare minimum in terms of floor space and headroom, and engine rooms are made as small as possible with machinery crammed in. Most pertinently for yachts, sterns tend to be cut off and slab-sided, sheer (the curving of the main deck upwards towards bow and stern) is reduced or eliminated, and swathes of the upper decks are given over to sundecks. Arguably, yachts are less elegant as a result. SHORT-TERM SOLUTION? Help could be at hand – if only more ship registry officials knew where to look. Regulation 1(3) of Annex I of ITC 69 states – arguably, in effect – that where there are “novel” aspects of a vessel’s design these aspects can be ignored when calculating Gross Tonnage. There is a small number of precedents for this in the context of trading ships, but this loophole does not appear to have been exercised when assessing yachts. This is surprising given that the latter are usually, almost by definition, full of novel features be they aesthetic elements or technical innovations. While there is Regulation 1(3) is written in vague terms, individual ship registries’ determination as to what “novel” means is definitive. Article 11 of ITC 69 makes it clear that tonnage certificates must be accepted at face value by other port states. It is perhaps surprising how this apparent loophole hasn’t been exploited more – especially by those registries marketing themselves at large yacht owners. But it would be better to change the rules than bend them. LONG-TERM SOLUTION The shortcomings of ITC 69 have been raised with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), over the years, in respect of various types of cargo ships. Yet the convention has yet to be amended. Ship registries and owners have observed that too little or too much tonnage tax is being paid relative to other vessels of a similar displacement – depending on the point of view. The IMO’s view is that it doesn’t control tonnage tax and is unable to disallow the use of the gross tonnage in its calculation as this is a matter for individual port authorities. The most promising alternative has been mooted by the Australian government. Known informally as the “maritime real estate” and more formally as “Register Tonnage”, this is simply the length overall x breadth x summer draught. This seems fair as ports can charge ships on the basis of the amount of the port they take up, and the amount of dredging required. Yacht owners will need to work with trading ship owners in order to bring pressure to bear on the IMO. The procedure for amending the ITC 69 is particularly lengthy and involved. But surely worthwhile if yacht owners are going to put an end to this bureaucratic tail waging a very expensive dog. CONCLUSION No one system of measurement is going to satisfy all owners. ITC 69 is a compromise which has endured where numerous previous regimes have not. From a regulatory perspective, for nearly all trading and passenger vessels size doesn’t matter: all regulations will apply. And rightly so. Crew have every right to work in a safe and comfortable environment, and third parties have every right not to suffer the effects of collisions and pollution. But large, crewed yachts are different. Very few even existed when ITC 69 was drafted. Their crew live in comfortable quarters and are well paid (competition for the most able crewmembers ensures this). It can’t be right for yacht designers to be working around a figure to which vessel measurements form just one part, and which in any event attempts to satisfy the needs of a trading shipping community from a bygone era. It will be useful for Members to engage with ship registries at the outset regarding, via the Club Secretary, about Regulation 1(3) and what it could mean for the design of their yacht. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who provided perspectives for this white paper. It’s time to free ourselves from a tun of unnecessary paperwork. In this white paper, drawn up at the suggestion of, and following consultations with, some of our Members, our General Secretary considers what Gross Tonnage is, why it’s used as the primary regulatory threshold, and what workarounds could be utilised to circumvent its blunt impact. 8 February 2019 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time minutes 4 Reading time 8 February 2019 Last revised It’s time to free ourselves from a tun of unnecessary paperwork. In this white paper, drawn up at the suggestion of, and following consultations with, some of our Members, our General Secretary considers what Gross Tonnage is, why it’s used as the primary regulatory threshold, and what workarounds could be utilised to circumvent its blunt impact. Gross Tonnage (GT) is the key factor in determining which regulations apply, and this is vital to ensuring that insurance policies remain valid . GT is based on the total enclosed volume of the yacht and is derived from historical measurements used for taxation. The use of GT as a regulatory threshold can lead to compromised designs as owners and designers aim to minimize ongoing mangement costs. There is a loophole in the regulations that allows "novel" aspects of a yacht's design to be ignored when calculating GT, but this option has not been widely utilized. A potential alternative to GT is "Register Tonnage," which considers the physical dimensions of the yacht, and, as owners, perhaps we should engage with ship registries and pressure the International Maritime Organisation to change the regulations. You can also read about Language of Luxury Questions or comments? Please contact us Join the discussion over in the Club's group You can also read about Language of Luxury Questions or comments? Please contact us

Unavailable at present Latest Position Rapid Brokers Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 67 m Length Italia srl Builder 2000 Build year 608 Gross tonnage United Kingdom Registry Particulars Simulator

Unavailable at present Latest Position Yachts & More Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 46 m Length Placeholder Yards Builder 2016 Build year 499 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Exemplar

Unavailable at present Latest Position Rapid Brokers Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 50 m Length Finest Craft Builder 2004 Build year 498 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Manifestation

All large yachts are now subject to a considerable array of regulations, imposed both by the country whose flag they fly, and by the jurisdiction into which they sail. Thankfully, whilst complicated, most of these regulations have been agreed upon internationally. By contrast, there are no uniform principles governing yacht management. The intricate relationship between owner and manager must be set out in detail in the management agreement itself. Naturally, as with any business relationship, the key to longevity lies in establishing at the very beginning exactly who is responsible for what. Home Handbook Managing / / Engaging a Manager 18 May 2009 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time All large yachts are now subject to a considerable array of regulations, imposed both by the country whose flag they fly, and by the jurisdiction into which they sail. Thankfully, whilst complicated, most of these regulations have been agreed upon internationally. By contrast, there are no uniform principles governing yacht management. The intricate relationship between owner and manager must be set out in detail in the management agreement itself. minutes 4 Reading time 18 May 2009 Last revised All large yachts are now subject to a considerable array of regulations, imposed both by the country whose flag they fly, and by the jurisdiction into which they sail. Thankfully, whilst complicated, most of these regulations have been agreed upon internationally. By contrast, there are no uniform principles governing yacht management. The intricate relationship between owner and manager must be set out in detail in the management agreement itself. Good quality yacht management is vital, as owners can face fines, vessel detention, and criminal liability for breaching safety regulations. Sanctions can bypass corporate and trustee owning structures by being enforceable against the yacht itself. Managers should ideally agree to indemnify owners against third-party claims arising from their actions or inaction. Owners should ensure that managers have sufficient indemnity insurance to cover potential large claims. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims may limit managers' financial liability in some cases. Managers may seek protection by being named as joint-assured or co-assured on the owner's insurance policy. Some managers may handle insurance, claims, and disputes for owners, requiring a detailed understanding of insurance law. Owners should ensure that managers act as "principals" rather than "agents" in contractual matters. Managers may outsource certain tasks, and the management contract should specify the tasks they have authority to sub-contract. The International Safety Management Code applies to commercially-operated yachts over 500 GT, and managers should assume responsibility under it. Managers may seek protection by being named as joint-assured or co-assured on the owner's insurance policy. Some managers may handle insurance, claims, and disputes for owners, requiring a detailed understanding of insurance law. Owners should ensure that managers act as "principals" rather than "agents" in contractual matters. Managers may outsource certain tasks, and the management contract should specify the tasks they have authority to sub-contract. The International Safety Management Code applies to commercially-operated yachts over 500 GT, and managers should assume responsibility under it. Good quality yacht management is vital, as owners can face fines, vessel detention, and criminal liability for breaching safety regulations. Sanctions can bypass corporate and trustee owning structures by being enforceable against the yacht itself. Managers should ideally agree to indemnify owners against third-party claims arising from their actions or inaction. Owners should ensure that managers have sufficient indemnity insurance to cover potential large claims. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims may limit managers' financial liability in some cases. Naturally, as with any business relationship, the key to longevity lies in establishing at the very beginning exactly who is responsible for what. Yacht management agreements vary hugely from the very simple to the overly complex. Even those offered by the most prestigious brokerage houses can omit essential elements. The following is an overview of what a meaningful agreement should contain. INDEMNITY As well as having to pay fines for breaching regulations, or even having his yacht detained, an owner can be subject to criminal liability where safety regulations have been breached. By being enforceable against the yacht itself, sanctions can also sidestep corporate and trustee owning structures. As a starting point, therefore, the manager should ideally agree to indemnify the owner faced with third party claims which arose because of the manager’s actions or inaction. But there is no point handing some of the liability over to a manager, if that manager is an uninsured company without the assets to meet a large claim. In most cases, even if the individuals behind the company have been negligent, and own sufficient assets to make them worth suing, it is still only the management company which would be liable. Owners should therefore make sure that their manager carries sufficient indemnity insurance. LIMITATION Although managers may be able to limit their ultimate financial liability under the internationally-recognised Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, there will still be many situations in which this will be unlimited. Understandably, therefore, a manager may wish to expressly cap liability to an owner in the contract itself. Although it is clearly in the interests of the owner to resist this, such a cap may be necessary to enable a manager to obtain indemnity insurance. INSURANCE Managers may seek protection from third party claims by being named as ‘joint-assured’ or ‘co-assured’ on an owner’s insurance policy, typically without significantly increasing the total premium. Whilst the manager’s premium savings can be passed onto the owner, as ‘joint assured’ the manager risks having to pay the owner’s unpaid premiums. As ‘co-assured’ the manager does not usually face this risk. This arrangement does not provide protection against claims by the owner. CLAIMS HANDLING Some managers may also like to add value by arranging insurance and handling the owner’s subsequent claims and disputes. This is not a matter of form-filling. It requires a detailed understanding of insurance law and practice. The owner should decide for himself whether the manager has the appropriately qualified staff. PRINCIPAL As far as possible, the owner should ensure that the manager agrees to deliver particular services as a fait accompli, rather than just provide advice and administrative support. This entails the manager contracting in its own name where possible, rather than the owner’s. To use the legal jargon, the manager should be obliged to act as ‘principal’ rather than ‘agent’ of the owner. Contractual disputes with third parties will not then have to involve the owner, subject to any liens which may have arisen on the yacht as a result of services rendered. OUTSOURCING After an owner has taken great care to appoint a reputable manager, there will be nothing to stop the manager then outsourcing responsibilities to anyone else. Of course, this may not be quite what the owner had in mind. The management contract should therefore state exactly what broad tasks the manager has the authority to sub-contract. Technical matters, such as the maintenance of specialist equipment, may be beyond even the crew’s or manager’s capabilities. Specifications and regulations do change over time, and the necessity for occasional expert third party advice should not be a cause for suspicion or alarm. ISM CODE The International Safety Management Code (more commonly, the ‘ISM Code’) applies to commercially-operated yachts over 500 GT. Although the ISM Code itself has no significant bearing on the balance of liabilities between owner and manager, it is vital to ensure that the manager assumes responsibility under it. This can be achieved by ensuring that the ‘Company’, as defined in the ISM Code, is said to be the manager in the relevant documentation. The ISM Code requires the Company to have such adequate resources immediately available, meaning that outside advice must be expressly obtainable without further permission where circumstances dictate. Further, a bespoke Safety Management System must have been developed, implemented and maintained. This is a lengthy and complex task. There is also a specific requirement under the ISM Code for a shore-based Designated Person to be appointed, whose role in an emergency is pivotal. It is not enough to leave safety management to the captain alone. Non-adherence may lead to the detention of the yacht by port authorities, and insurance being invalidated. CREW Crew members may prefer to be the employees or contractors of the manager rather than the owner, especially as they may have known the individuals at the management company for many years. Should the worst come to the worst, it is also best that the manager is responsible for terminating a contract of employment, or reassigning a crewmember, to prevent relations between the owner and the remaining crew being soured. Allowing a manager to employ the crew also allows for some comeback against an insured management company in the event of crew incompetence, rather than the individual crewmember who may not have much in the way of property or savings. Where the owner chooses to employ the crew, it must still be clearly stated in the contract of employment that the crewmember will obey all the manager’s reasonable orders, especially in connection with the operation of any compulsory Safety Management System in operation. The manager must agree to ensure that the crew meets the standards of training and medical fitness, as required by the yacht’s flag state, at all times. Manning levels must also be satisfactory. Ensuring that the crewmembers have a sufficient command of a common language is not just matter of practicality, but an ISM Code requirement. It should also be incumbent upon managers to ensure that drug and alcohol laws and polices are strictly adhered to. ACCOUNTS Managers must agree to allow their accounts relating to the particular yacht to be available for inspection by the owner. In some jurisdictions, such accounts may be seen as the property of the manager alone, encouraging litigation and forced disclosure in the event of a dispute. Indeed, the manager must agree to hand over all vital documents relating to the yacht when requested, so that these are not ‘ransomed’ in the event of a dispute. More generally, the obvious should never be overlooked. For example, it must be stated that the management agreement (and therefore fee payments) will end if the yacht is lost. Further, BALANCE Striking the right balance is never easy. Compromises are inevitable. In commercial ship management agreements, by comparison, managers typically agree to use their ‘best endeavours’ to provide management services to the owners in accordance with ‘sound management practice’ and to protect and promote the interests of the owners. This is a fair and time-honoured balance. ‘Best endeavours’ means nothing less than the best, although ‘sound management practice’ is said to envisage competing priorities for a manager handling more than one vessel, which may not be acceptable to a demanding yacht owner. CONCLUSION Most agreements are entered into in a spirit of genuine goodwill, at a time when a lawsuit couldn’t be further from the minds of the parties. This is especially so with yachts, which promise a temporary escape from the litigious business world. Yet it still requires attention to detail at the outset to ensure that this promise is fulfilled. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Limiting Liability Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Limiting Liability

Just because charterer guests have paid a great deal of money for the exclusive use of a superyacht, this does not mean that he (or she) has the right to do with the boat and crew as he pleases. A Member recently sought advice with regard to redress following a charter during which guests behaved in a way which was at best depraved – and at worst illegal. Home Handbook Chartering Out / / Difficult Guests 3 October 2017 Last revised minutes 3 Reading time Just because charterer guests have paid a great deal of money for the exclusive use of a superyacht, this does not mean that he (or she) has the right to do with the boat and crew as he pleases. A Member recently sought advice with regard to redress following a charter during which guests behaved in a way which was at best depraved – and at worst illegal. minutes 3 Reading time 3 October 2017 Last revised Just because charterer guests have paid a great deal of money for the exclusive use of a superyacht, this does not mean that he (or she) has the right to do with the boat and crew as he pleases. A Member recently sought advice with regard to redress following a charter during which guests behaved in a way which was at best depraved – and at worst illegal. In the absence of an agreement stating otherwise, the broker marketing the yacht is considered the owner's agent and must act in the owner's best interests. Once the broker books the charter, the owner is bound by the charter agreement and must provide the yacht to the charterer. The terms of the charter agreement are often based on the MYBA Charter Agreement, which allows the owner to back out only in exceptional circumstances and with financial consequences. The captain is required by law to refuse illegal instructions from the charterer, but there are other unsavory or immoral actions that may not be illegal. The MYBA form explicitly prohibits certain behaviors, such as causing nuisance or disrepute, commercial photo shoots, and harassment of crewmembers. Any breach of the charter agreement may entitle the owner to terminate the contract immediately and claim damages. The captain must raise issues with the charterer before the owner can terminate the contract, according to the MYBA Charter Agreement. Despite the challenges, chartering can help offset the costs of owning large yachts with the right guidance and support. The MYBA form explicitly prohibits certain behaviors, such as causing nuisance or disrepute, commercial photo shoots, and harassment of crewmembers. Any breach of the charter agreement may entitle the owner to terminate the contract immediately and claim damages. The captain must raise issues with the charterer before the owner can terminate the contract, according to the MYBA Charter Agreement. Despite the challenges, chartering can help offset the costs of owning large yachts with the right guidance and support. In the absence of an agreement stating otherwise, the broker marketing the yacht is considered the owner's agent and must act in the owner's best interests. Once the broker books the charter, the owner is bound by the charter agreement and must provide the yacht to the charterer. The terms of the charter agreement are often based on the MYBA Charter Agreement, which allows the owner to back out only in exceptional circumstances and with financial consequences. The captain is required by law to refuse illegal instructions from the charterer, but there are other unsavory or immoral actions that may not be illegal. Had the owner known who the charterer was, he would have never have agreed. The charter broker was aware of the charterer’s reputation but remained silent until just before the start of the charter. In the absence of agreement to the contrary, the broker marketing the yacht on behalf of the owner will often be, in law, the owner’s agent. As such, the broker must perform with the appropriate care and skill, and not allow any conflict between personal interests and those of the principal. By booking a charter with someone known to be unsuitable, it could be said that the broker wasn’t careful and just wanted the commission. THE AGREEMENT Once the broker has booked the charter, however, the owner will have been bound by the charter agreement, and is bound to provide his yacht to the charterer. The terms will have been set out in the charter agreement. The most common terms are those published by the Mediterranean Yacht Brokers Association (‘MYBA’), which have also been adopted by the American Yacht Charter Association. The MYBA Charter Agreement only allows the owner to back out as a result of circumstances beyond his control, on pain of reimbursing the owner plus an extra 50%. EDGY BEHAVIOUR While, subject to the charter agreement, the yacht is the charterer’s to do with as he pleases, the captain is obliged by law to refuse to comply with illegal instructions. However, there are many things a charterer may do which, while unsavoury or immoral, are not illegal. The MYBA form therefore expressly bans, for example, behaviour causing nuisance or disrepute, commercial photo shoots, and harassment of crewmembers. Member’s Experience: “ I have been chartering my yachts for more than 15 years and have maintained an excellent relationship with brokers and charterers. In fact, my yachts are considered some of the most successful yachts on the charter market. What has occurred is certainly an aberration and not to be confused with the excellent work the broker community has done these many years. ” Generally, any breach may allow the owner to treat the charter as having come to an end immediately and claim damages, or just claim damages afterwards, depending on how serious the breach is. But the owner must have suffered some sort of actual loss as a result of the breach: an upset crew may not be enough. RAISING ISSUES The MYBA Charter Agreement specifically requires the captain to raise issues with the charterer first, before the owner has a chance to terminate the contract. A failure to do this could arguably be seen as a waiver of the owner’s rights, and owners may wish to amend such standard form contracts. The Member was at pains to point out that these circumstances are unusual, commenting, “I have been chartering my yachts for more than 15 years and have maintained an excellent relationship with brokers and charterers. In fact, my yachts are considered some of the most successful yachts on the charter market. What has occurred is certainly an aberration and not to be confused with the excellent work the broker community has done these many years.” DON’T BE PUT OFF For all the pitfalls and hurdles, chartering can substantially offset the costs associated with the ownership of large yachts – with the right guidance and support. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about How to Charter Out Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about How to Charter Out

Unavailable at present Latest Position Wright A Way & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 22 m Length Italia srl Builder 1994 Build year 45 Gross tonnage Jersey Registry Particulars Sunray

Unavailable at present Latest Position Wright A Way & Co Listing Email WhatsApp Central Agent 36 m Length Thompson Yachts Builder 2014 Build year 400 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Case Study

Many of our Members will already be familiar with the reasoning behind corporate ownership and the use of trusts. If that’s you, then feel free to skip to the next step of building your team. Too many buyers, however, still purchase in their own names. As well as raising privacy concerns, legal owners can be held liable for accidents and regulatory non-compliance. Corporate services aren’t cheap, but it’s a sensible choice when building and owning a large yacht. Home Handbook Building / / A Firm Foundation 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time Many of our Members will already be familiar with the reasoning behind corporate ownership and the use of trusts. If that’s you, then feel free to skip to the next step of building your team . Too many buyers, however, still purchase in their own names. As well as raising privacy concerns, legal owners can be held liable for accidents and regulatory non-compliance. Corporate services aren’t cheap, but it’s a sensible choice when building and owning a large yacht. minutes 5 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised Many of our Members will already be familiar with the reasoning behind corporate ownership and the use of trusts. If that’s you, then feel free to skip to the next step of building your team . Too many buyers, however, still purchase in their own names. As well as raising privacy concerns, legal owners can be held liable for accidents and regulatory non-compliance. Corporate services aren’t cheap, but it’s a sensible choice when building and owning a large yacht. Companies have a seperate legal personality, which allows companies to buy and sell goods and services like people. Trusts are arrangements where property is held by a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary, sometimes with the same person as the settlor and beneficiary. Companies and trusts can be used to protect assets, reduce tax exposure, and shield personal wealth. Yachts can be owned through companies to ring-fence liability and protect other assets of the owner. Yachts can still be arrested in cases of accidents, pollution allegations, or unpaid debts. Releasing a yacht release from arrest requires payment of the claim or providing acceptable security, often requiring a personal guarantee from the beneficial owner. Lifting the corporate veil may expose individuals involved in fraudulent or tax evasion. The use of nominees can help to protect the identity of real directors and shareholders. Privacy is not guaranteed, as international treaties and conventions may override privacy laws, and trusts aren't always recognized. Offshore jurisdictions offer tax-efficient and legal ways for multinational companies and yacht owners, but careful consideration of jurisdiction is essential for reputation, integrity, costs, rule of law, political stability, and practicalities of winding-up corporate structures. Lifting the corporate veil may expose individuals involved in fraudulent or tax evasion. The use of nominees can help to protect the identity of real directors and shareholders. Privacy is not guaranteed, as international treaties and conventions may override privacy laws, and trusts aren't always recognized. Offshore jurisdictions offer tax-efficient and legal ways for multinational companies and yacht owners, but careful consideration of jurisdiction is essential for reputation, integrity, costs, rule of law, political stability, and practicalities of winding-up corporate structures. Companies have a seperate legal personality, which allows companies to buy and sell goods and services like people. Trusts are arrangements where property is held by a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary, sometimes with the same person as the settlor and beneficiary. Companies and trusts can be used to protect assets, reduce tax exposure, and shield personal wealth. Yachts can be owned through companies to ring-fence liability and protect other assets of the owner. Yachts can still be arrested in cases of accidents, pollution allegations, or unpaid debts. Releasing a yacht release from arrest requires payment of the claim or providing acceptable security, often requiring a personal guarantee from the beneficial owner. Companies are said by lawyers to have their own ‘legal personality’. This colourful phrase just means that they are able to buy and sell goods and services in just the same way as a human being. Although corporations were developed as a means to allow entrepreneurs to raise money and conduct business without risking their personal wealth, companies can also be used for non-commercial purposes – as vehicles for asset ownership. TRUSTS Trusts are a rather different concept. They have no such personality. They are simply an arrangement whereby property is handed over by one party (the ‘settlor’) to another (the ‘trustee’) for the benefit of another (the ‘beneficiary’), on the basis that the property will be held and used as the trustee wishes. The settlor and beneficiary can be the same person. Although legal title is actually transferred from the settlor to the trustee, the beneficiary’s rights are recognisable and enforceable by the courts. As with companies, the use of trusts has come along way since their invention: they were first used to protect the property of medieval knights while away on crusade. BENEFITS Now and then, yachts are involved in accidents. Liability could easily exceed the value of the yacht, and, should the owner be held liable, his or her other assets are at risk. More sensible, then, to ring-fence any such source of liability by owning the yacht through a company. Companies and trusts can also be used, quite lawfully, to reduce an individual’s apparent wealth and personal tax exposure, and to protect assets from creditors where the beneficial owner is asked to provide personal guarantees in respect of the financing of his or her commercial activities. With very limited exceptions, yachts must, by law, be registered somewhere. In some cases, including during the build stage. Shipping registers being open to inspection by the public, details of a yacht’s owner are readily available. Most owners just don’t like the idea of journalists – or perhaps even former spouses – knowing what they own. Although the identity of company directors and shareholders is often a matter of public record, many jurisdictions allow directorships and shares to be held in the name of nominees. LIMITATIONS No amount of corporate structing can prevent the arrest of the yacht itself. Where this happens, the yacht is legally prevented from leaving her mooring. Typically, police or customs officers present the yacht with the court papers – this is the process which used to involve the nailing of a writ to the mast. Yachts are often arrested following a collision, an allegation of pollution, or where a good or service has been provided to the yacht without the provider (including crew) having been paid. There is no need for judgment to have been given and there may be little or no warning before the yacht is arrested – potentially leaving the owner in an awkward and embarrassing position in the middle of a busy charter season. The only way to release the yacht from arrest is either to pay the claim or to provide security. Such security may only be acceptable if provided or supported by a large bank. In turn, the bank will require a personal guarantee from the yacht’s beneficial owner. On occasion it may be possible to look behind the company at the individuals involved. This is known as lifting the corporate veil. The laws of certain jurisdictions, for example, state that where it appears that, in the course of winding-up a bankrupt company, transactions have been carried out with the intent to defraud creditors, a court may declare the individuals involved liable. Criminal sanctions can also apply. Creditors here only includes those owed money at the time the transfer was made, excluding future creditors. The burden of proving the necessary intent lies with the creditors. The same principle applies where it looks as if a company was set up to frustrate a court order to freeze assets. The use of nominees only prevents the true identity of directors and shareholders being made available to the public. It is not normally possible to offload liability onto the nominees, and there is likely to be a clause in the agreement to set up the company, obliging the actual directors and shareholders to indemnify the nominees. Privacy cannot be entirely guaranteed in any event. Not unreasonably, international treaties on the exchange of information relating to criminal activities, including tax evasion, can allow require even the strongest privacy laws to be brushed aside. Further, although trusts are usually recognised in common law jurisdictions, and some countries are party to an international convention on the recognition of trusts, known as the Hague Trust Convention, trusts aren’t always recognised. One final drawback of buying through a company is that the laws which automatically protect consumers only applies to people - not to companies. Such laws are of limited value where a bespoke yacht is being built, but consumers will have ambiguous build contract provisions interpreted in their favour. CHOICE OF JURISDICTION Offshore jurisdictions still have a reputation as being sunny places for shady people. In fact, virtually all the world’s leading multinationals use offshore companies and trusts to undertake business in a private, tax-efficient yet entirely legal way. ‘Offshore’ simply means a jurisdiction other the one someone is already resident or domiciled. They certainly don’t need to be far-flung islands – although many are as it can form a lucrative boost to otherwise tourist-dependent economies. In fact, a good example of an offshore centre is the United Kingdom – which was becoming increasingly popular long before Brexit. For yacht owners, the principal advantage of using a respectable, well-known offshore jurisdiction is that there is rarely the need to reinvent the wheel: they are geared up to provide yacht owning structures. As these activities often provide a sizeable proportion of foreign income, their governments make it a priority to make matters simple for those looking for this type of service. It is important to choose the jurisdiction(s) with care, however. No two are the same. There are bad apples in the barrel, especially with regards the integrity of local practitioners. With companies, but more particularly with trusts – where legal title is transferred to a local trustee who may have discretionary powers – there exists opportunities to extract more from their clients than had been expected. Other factors to consider include initial and ongoing costs (including local taxes), international reputation, and the strength of their rule of law – in other words how tough their courts are. Political stability is another important factor, as is the time zone, the exchange controls, and any escape provisions – which allow companies to change jurisdictions while maintaining their legal personality and trusts to be transferred without needing to be rewritten. Finally, the most overlooked aspect is the ease, timeframe and expense of winding-up a corporate structure when it’s no longer needed. Working with a local branch of an international legal or accounting group may provide reassurance, but on the other hand one may end up being steered towards just those places where they happen to have an office. Ideally, guidance in the earliest stages should be sought from an independent, trusted source, capable of providing an impartial, global overview. Reach out to our General Secretary if you need a steer. With the correct ownership structure in place, it's time to build your team . Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Build Your Team Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Build Your Team

Other standard forms are in use, but the poorly drafted and incomplete MYBA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) remains the standard agreement for the sale and purchase of yachts, used by brokers large and small, whether a member of that organisation or not. Before considering what needs to be added, let’s look at what’s there at the outset. Home Handbook Buying / / MYBA MOA Clause by Clause 9 December 2022 Last revised minutes 11 Reading time Other standard forms are in use, but the poorly drafted and incomplete MYBA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) remains the standard agreement for the sale and purchase of yachts, used by brokers large and small, whether a member of that organisation or not. Before considering what needs to be added, let’s look at what’s there at the outset. minutes 11 Reading time 9 December 2022 Last revised Other standard forms are in use, but the poorly drafted and incomplete MYBA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) remains the standard agreement for the sale and purchase of yachts, used by brokers large and small, whether a member of that organisation or not. Before considering what needs to be added, let’s look at what’s there at the outset. The article focuses on the MYBA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) November 2008 edition, which is the most commonly used contract in large yacht sales and purchases. The MOA should not be accepted at face value, and it is crucial to amend and supplement it before any transaction takes place. Clause 14 allows the seller to negotiate with other potential buyers as long as no commitments are made, even after signing the MOA. Clause 15 removes the statutory buyer protection provided by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), and it is important to clarify the meaning of "warranty" in this context. The list of things that the vessel should be "free and clear of" in Clause 15 should be expanded to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes. Clause 16 highlights the importance of maintaining an inventory of the vessel's items, especially for larger vessels, and clarifies the consequences of rejecting the inventory. Clause 17 emphasizes the mandatory nature of making the vessel available for sea trials and surveys, and precautions should be taken to prevent conflicting charter arrangements. Clause 18 requires the seller to provide specific documents known as "Addendum One" that prove compliance with regulations and establish the vessel's value and validity of the sale. The list of things that the vessel should be "free and clear of" in Clause 15 should be expanded to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes. Clause 16 highlights the importance of maintaining an inventory of the vessel's items, especially for larger vessels, and clarifies the consequences of rejecting the inventory. Clause 17 emphasizes the mandatory nature of making the vessel available for sea trials and surveys, and precautions should be taken to prevent conflicting charter arrangements. Clause 18 requires the seller to provide specific documents known as "Addendum One" that prove compliance with regulations and establish the vessel's value and validity of the sale. The article focuses on the MYBA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) November 2008 edition, which is the most commonly used contract in large yacht sales and purchases. The MOA should not be accepted at face value, and it is crucial to amend and supplement it before any transaction takes place. Clause 14 allows the seller to negotiate with other potential buyers as long as no commitments are made, even after signing the MOA. Clause 15 removes the statutory buyer protection provided by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), and it is important to clarify the meaning of "warranty" in this context. This article considers the MYBA MOA, clause by clause. We’re looking at the November 2008 edition, because this is most commonly used. It’s available online. The February 2005 edition is still occasionally used and a 2021 electronic edition, featuring a few nips and tucks, has been published but is not yet in widespread use. The key takeaway is that, despite its official appearance, the MOA must not be accepted at face value, and no transaction should ever take place without the MOA being amended and supplemented. The MOA clauses themselves are in an illogical sequence, but are looked at in numerical order nevertheless. CLAUSES 1-13 The first two pages contain Clauses 1 to 13 in the form of boxes for the relevant details. A format commonly used in the commercial shipping sector. The attention to detail is immediately obvious: assuming “G.R.T.” is meant to mean Gross Register(ed) Tonnage, this is a term which was consigned to history long ago by the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969. Clause 1 refers to "banking days" without reference to a specific location. And it may be wise to not to leave Clause 5 blank in the context of Clause 25 and Clause 38 : buyers may not want to pay a pay a deposit to the seller’s statutorily unregulated broker. CLAUSE 14 While this clause commits seller to the sale process, the seller isn’t prevented from negotiating with other would-be buyers – as long as no commitments are made with any such third party. Having signed the MOA, if the buyer comes under pressure from a broker to improve on the deal – as other would-be buyers are circling – this can be ignored. CLAUSE 15 While, in law, the term “warranty” has a specific meaning, it appears under this context – confusingly – that it simply means “represents”. This clause is important as the ordinary statutory buyer protection provided by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) is normally removed by Clause 34 . Compared to the sale agreements for trading ships, the list of things which has to be “free and clear of” is a bit simplistic and limited – and should be expanded to include charters, mortgages, writs and port state and other administrative detentions rather than leave scope for argument over what “encumbrance” encompasses in the context of the MOA. The seller needs to ensure that anything of this kind is affecting the vessel: it’s not good enough to expect that the buyer will come across details of these in the public domain. Releasing the vessel from such encumbrance is a prerequisite to the sale completing as set out in Clause 30 . Where any such only comes to light after completion, the seller obliged to indemnify the buyer – which is of no use where the seller’s a company the only asset of which was the vessel just sold. Hence the need for a guarantee from a bank or the seller’s beneficial owner. Under Clause 15, the seller also represents that it(or he/she) is the legal registered owner of the vessel, with title to and the right to sell the vessel – and this will remain the case right up to the point of delivery to the buyer. This is the case anyway under section 12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) in spite of Clause 34 which only excludes statutory protection “in relation to the VESSEL, fault or errors in her description or her quality or her fitness, for any particular purpose”. CLAUSE 16 The larger the vessel, the greater the inventory, and the longer it’s going to take to compile or update and check. This should be produced or updated as soon as the vessel is placed on the market, having regard to Clause 21 , as the buyer’s surveyor will need to check the items off against it as part of the pre-purchase survey. Once agreed on, the inventory forms part of the sale agreement. Clause 16 is silent as to consequences of rejection of the inventory by the buyer, but it seems likely that the agreement itself will be unaffected – and it’s still open for the buyer to reject under Clause 26 . Regarding significant works of art, sculptures, equipment, tenders and toys, it’s helpful to obtain a clear understanding of what’s staying on board (and, as importantly, what's not) before the MOA is signed. CLAUSE 17 While self-explanatory, this clause makes it clear that making the vessel available for a Clause 26 sea trial and Clause 27 survey is mandatory, not a nice-to-have, and the seller must take care that a charter broker does not arrange for a charter to take place which might prevent this. CLAUSE 18 While this clause simply sets out that the “Addendum One” documents must be provided by the seller, the MOA doesn’t come with Addendum One – or any addenda for that matter. The documents are so much more than mere paperwork: they are evidence that the vessel complies with certain regulations. Non-compliance may require major works to be carried out. Certain documents will be needed for re-registration and for proving title – without which the vessel may be worth less or even worthless. The sale itself could be invalidated where the correct corporate authorities and powers of attorney aren’t in place. And such documents may need to be authenticated in a particular way(s) in order to be accepted by the vessel’s new or existing flag state. CLAUSE 19 Unusually for the MOA, this clause is self-explanatory. Keep in mind that “berthing fees and crew’s wages” are implicitly not an exhaustive list. CLAUSE 20 This clause makes clear that where the seller fails to deliver the vessel (that is, in the legal sense of the word ‘deliver’) per Clause 21 or documentation per Clause 18 then all bets are off and the agreement is cancelled. However, as will be seen with regard to Clause 30 , all that’s needed with broad compliance with Addendum One - there’s no mention of the documentation needing to be authenticated as the buyer may require – or even to be effective at all. CLAUSE 21 The vessel must be delivered in the condition it was in at the time of the Clause 9 / Clause 26 sea trial and Clause 9 / Clause 27 condition survey, making this a sale of the vessel on an ‘as was’ basis – not ‘as-is’. ‘Delivery’ in this clause means the transfer of physical possession, rather than the vessel being moved. The vessel may have to be delivered elsewhere than at its usual mooring – usually for tax purposes – after which it’ll head straight back to its berth. While the financial consequences for the buyer of having the vessel delivered in the wrong place could lead to an unexpected Value Added Tax liability of up to 25% of the sale price, it seems that delivering elsewhere than that stated in Clause 11 will only entitle the buyer to claim damages. By contrast, the delivery date is a contractual condition breach of which allows the buyer to cancel the agreement: this is clear from the use of the phrase “time being of the essence” in Clause 12 . How this element of Clause 21 is affected by Clause 35 - which deals with force majeure events - isn't clear. By listing in Clause 21 various specific items which are to be included in the sale, those items not listed are, arguably, excluded. It would have been better simply to state “with everything belonging to the VESSEL on board and on shore” or some such – at least the scope for disagreement would have been reduced. CLAUSE 22 As risk of loss of, or damage to, the vessel passes under this clause immediately upon delivery, the buyer must make sure that suitable cover has been obtained well in advance. CLAUSE 23 This may seem like an obvious provision, but keep in mind that where the seller is a company which is in liquidation it may require authorisation to sell the yacht. CLAUSE 24 The companion to Clause 14 this clause commits the buyer to the sale process. The buyer may only exit from the deal - should the buyer have a change of heart - will be as the agreement allows. CLAUSE 25 While the “four banking days” clock only begins to tick once the agreement has been signed, as with Clause 1 , the term “banking days” isn’t defined in terms of any particular country’s banks. And that’s a problem as a failure to pay is breach of contract, allowing the seller to terminate and sue for damages – which could be an amount equivalent to the unpaid deposit. It’s not the case that the deposit needs to be paid for the agreement to come into effect. It’s also unclear whether the date of signature is included or excluded in the four-day period. Buyers must be aware of, and take into account, the time taken for identity checks and anti-money laundering to be carried out. CLAUSE 26 One of the many ways in which the drafting of the MOA leaves much to be desired is Clauses 26 and 27 – which between presuppose that the vessel is in the water at the outset. Of course, large yachts can be out of the water for months at a time. No sensible owner would normally place his or her pride and joy on the market while she’s on the hard: often parts of the interior will have been covered-up or removed while works are ongoing, but if the sale is urgent there may be no choice. Where the vessel is out of the water, the necessary amendments will have to be detailed. Assuming the vessel is in the water when the MOA is agreed, then the seller must make her available for a sea trial of up to four hours. This does not mean that the seller is obliged to make all necessary arrangements. It’s unclear, for example, who would be responsible for ordering pilots if required. While this clause fails to mention this, the buyer would be well advised to arrange for a surveyor to attend to examine certain aspects of the vessel’s performance which can’t be tested out of the water. How easily the main engine(s) and gensets start, and how much smoke is emitted at various engine temperatures, for example, typically can’t be tested as the engine’s heat exchangers require the vessel to be in the water, and the engines should be tested under load. Following the sea trial, the buyer may then elect not to go ahead with the purchase – although it’s not clear whether the grounds for this are for any reason (i.e. the saloon cushions are the wrong colour or a similar trivial reason) or whether the reason must relate to the performance of the vessel during the sea trial. To be effective, the buyer must ensure that the rejection is: In writing; To the seller or broker; Within 24 hours of the sea trial; and Submitted as a formal notice in compliance with Clause 43 . CLAUSE 27 It should not be underestimated how difficult it can be to find at short notice a suitably qualified surveyor, appropriately insured, with availability, who the buyer can be reasonably confident will be thorough and independent. It may not be advisable to go along with the seller’s broker’s suggestion. Yard space and facilities may also be a premium – especially out of season. It is also usually be advisable for samples to taken of the engine’s lubricating oil for laboratory analysis. Elemental spectroscopy of the oil can reveal premature engine wear, while the presence of water might indicate a gasket or heat exchanger seal failure. Combined with testing for acidity a picture can be built of the seller’s crew’s approach to equipment maintenance. Differences in results for two identical engines can be an obvious cause for concern. It’s crucial to consider timescales for surveying and testing before dates are set in stone in the MOA. The object of the survey is only to discover defects which haven’t already been disclosed to the buyer in writing – although the buyer may wish to ascertain the nature and extent of disclosed defects. It’s not clear when the nature and extent of such defects is such that it could be considered that these defects haven’t actually been disclosed. While a “defect” is determined in Clause 27 to be a defect which “affect(s) the operational integrity of the VESSEL or her machinery or her systems or renders the VESSEL unseaworthy”. There’s no definition of “operational integrity” either in the MOA or in the law generally. Unseaworthiness is also not defined in the MOA. Broadly, as a matter of law, a vessel is unseaworthy when she is not reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas – but this still leaves plenty of scope for factual and legal argument. Where such an undisclosed defect is found by the surveyor, the buyer must choose one of the option given in (a) paragraph (a), bearing in mind that such notice must be given: In writing; To the seller or broker; Within seven days of the completion of the survey; and In conformity with Clause 43 . If the buyer elects for the seller to carry out remedial works, then it would be wise to set a realistic date for the completion of these, rather than just rely on the “without undue delay” provision. CLAUSE 28 This clause makes clear that the notice provisions in Clause 26 and Clause 27 must be complied with to the letter – failing which the vessel will have been accepted. CLAUSE 29 While it is hard to imagine circumstances where the vessel is damaged as a result of the captain complying with a request from the buyer during a sea trial, given the captains duty of care to the seller, it is conceivable that the buyer’s surveyor causes damage. This underlines the importance of checking that the surveyor carries suitable insurance. CLAUSE 30 Completion (more often known as ‘closing’) is the final stage of the sale and purchase process, during which payment of the balance is made, and the vessel and documents are delivered to the buyer. Subject to any Clause 27 notice or Clause 35 force majeure event, the Clause 12 completion date is the date on which the buyer must pay the balance. There is no mention of this also being the date upon which the seller must receive the funds, but it’s clearly in everyone’s interests for payment to be made as quickly as possible. The currency, bank details and payment method should be agreed in Addendum One and expressly made conditions of the agreement to be strictly adhered with. Payment is required as soon as the Addendum One documents have been tendered to the buyer – seemingly even if they are defective in terms of their effectiveness or authentication, as long as they comply with their descriptions set out in Addendum One. CLAUSE 31 This clause elaborates on Clause 25 . It’s odd that these two clauses aren’t drafted as a single clause for greater clarity. CLAUSE 32 This clause elaborates on Clause 23 . Again, it’s odd that these two clauses aren’t also drafted as a single clause for greater clarity. CLAUSE 33 While it used to be considered bad luck to change the name of a yacht, the MOA copies the now standard practice in the shipping industry to change name upon change of ownership. It’s as good to be aware of this clause, given that it is the default position. Given the amount of equipment on board bearing the yacht’s name, logo or monogram, the expense of compliance isn’t to be underestimated. An oil tanker’s name can be changed with a paintbrush: a modern yacht will almost certainly have a custom-made, illuminated name which must be installed and the immediate surrounding area filled and repainted as required. The standard seven days may be no way near long enough. That said, the seller is going to face an uphill task in proving what losses may have followed from any delay in remaining. CLAUSE 34 In the normal course of events, sections 13, 14 and 15A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) will apply to the sale and purchase of the vessel. Under these sections, goods sold must corresponded with the seller’s description of them, they must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, etc. But parties are free, subject to certain statutory limitations, to agree to exclude such provisions. And this is what Clause 34 aims to do. It succeeds in this aim, albeit in respect of corporate buyers : individual buyers are ‘consumers’ meaning that these sections cannot be excluded. This clause does not affect the seller’s Clause 15 warranty. CLAUSE 35 This clause sets out what the parties are to do where certain external events beyond their control delay the sea trial, survey or closing. As the law aims to ensure that the parties carry through with the deal, force majeure clauses are interpreted restrictively and against the party seeking to rely on them. And even then, that party must then prove that it used reasonable endeavours to minimise the delay. CLAUSE 36 This is a standard so-called boilerplate clause, which are normally placed after all the commercial terms. But MYBA, it seems, likes to do things differently. CLAUSE 37 Though detailed, Clause 37 is self-explanatory and requires no further explanation. CLAUSE 38 While Clause 5 presupposes that the stakeholder will be a broker, the seller should think long and hard about whether it’s wise to place money at the disposal of a statutorily unregulated party which is acting for the buyer. It is increasingly common for funds to be placed with the buyer’s lawyer – which also alleviates the broker from the increasing bureaucracy associated with satisfying anti-money laundering rules. Even then, the choice of lawyer is important. CLAUSE 39 This otherwise self-explanatory clause only applies where the parties agree that the bottom should be painted with antifouling and anodes replaced. Notably, it makes no mention of more modern and environmentally-friendly antifouling wraps. Where there is significant fouling but the sacrificial anodes do not require replacing, there could be a cathodic grounding fault which the surveyor should investigate. The anodes are implicitly those on the hull, shafts and rudders – rather than those within the raw-water side of the engines’ cooling systems. CLAUSE 40 Arbitration is a way of setline disputes in private, which is no less effective than going through the public courts potentially in the media spotlight. Missing from the MOA is a specific reference to the arbitration being conducted in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) terms – which allow for different levels of procedural complexity according to the amount in issue. CLAUSE 41–44 These are standard boilerplate clauses, but the reference to the “telefax” is now obviously very outdated and needs amending. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about You Need Help! Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about You Need Help!