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 . 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 Kata Rocks Superyacht Rendezvous Phuket December 2026 Hong Kong International Boat Show Hong Kong to 6 December 2026 3 December 2026 Antigua Charter Yacht Show English Harbour to 9 December 2026 4 December 2026 Thailand International Boat Show Phuket to 17 January 2026 14 January 2027 boot Düsseldorf Düsseldorf to 31 January 2027 23 January 2027 Bahamas Charter Yacht Show Nassau to 31 January 2027 27 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 Superyacht Technology Show Barcelona to 24 February 2027 23 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 Mediterranean Superyacht Forum Palma de Mallorca April 2027 Auckland Boat Show Auckland to 4 April 2027 1 April 2027 Palma Superyacht Village Palma to 1 May 2027 28 April 2027 BI World Superyacht Awards Rome May 2027 MYBA Charter Show Sanremo to 6 May 2027 3 May 2027 Mediterranean Yacht Show Nafplion to 12 May 2027 8 May 2027 East Med Multihull & Yacht Charter Show Poros to 16 May 2027 13 May 2027 British Motor Yacht Show Southampton to 23 May 2027 20 May 2027 Sanctuary Cove International Boat Show Gold Coast to 23 May 2027 20 May 2027 Venice Boat Show Venice to 30 May 2027 26 May 2027 MTB Superyachts Porto to 5 June 2027 2 June 2027 Cyclades Cup Antiparos to 12 June 2027 9 June 2027 Loro Piana Giraglia Saint Tropez to 19 June 2027 11 June 2027 The Superyacht Cup Palma to 26 June 2027 23 June 2027 Red Sea Yacht Show Jeddah to 17 October 2027 14 October 2027 Superyacht Design Festival Kitzbühel TBC Sydney Charter Show Sydney TBC Les Voiles de St Barth St Barths TBC PalmaVela Palma TBC 4th Super Yacht Türkiye 2026 Istanbul TBC The Turkey Superyacht Forum Istanbul TBC Newport Charter Yacht Show Rhode Island TBC TYBA Yacht Charter Show Göcek 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 Improving Yacht Crew Retention Nice TBC Superyacht Challenge Antigua Antigua TBC Superyacht UK Technical Seminar London TBC International Yacht & Aviation Awards Cannes TBC World Yachting Summit Monaco 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 Richard Mille Cup Glasgow 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 .

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

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

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

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

While discussion about building a new British royal yacht ebbs and flows, it is often forgotten that a significant number of the world’s superyacht fleet already consists of royal and presidential yachts. These vessels occupy a particular place in international maritime law – often acting as floating embassies and extending extravagant hospitality and prestige. And just as diplomats hold special privileges in foreign countries, so do state vessels. Home Handbook Managing / / State Yachts 28 June 2010 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time While discussion about building a new British royal yacht ebbs and flows, it is often forgotten that a significant number of the world’s superyacht fleet already consists of royal and presidential yachts. These vessels occupy a particular place in international maritime law – often acting as floating embassies and extending extravagant hospitality and prestige. And just as diplomats hold special privileges in foreign countries, so do state vessels. minutes 5 Reading time 28 June 2010 Last revised While discussion about building a new British royal yacht ebbs and flows, it is often forgotten that a significant number of the world’s superyacht fleet already consists of royal and presidential yachts. These vessels occupy a particular place in international maritime law – often acting as floating embassies and extending extravagant hospitality and prestige. And just as diplomats hold special privileges in foreign countries, so do state vessels. Diplomatic privileges grant state yachts immunity from seizure and delay. Immunity is based on negotiated reciprocal agreements and has a legal and political foundation. State yachts represent a nation and seizing them could be seen as a diplomatic insult. Different countries have varying laws regarding immunity for state yachts. The privilege is often restrictive, requiring proof that the yacht is a state yacht and the circumstances justify the immunity. Immunity protects owners from disputes such as unpaid bills. Arrests of state yachts are governed by the laws of the jurisdiction where the yacht is located. Arrests serve to detain the yacht until financial security is provided. The International Convention on Salvage may not apply to state yachts entitled to immunity. Action can be taken against individuals responsible for negligence, even if the yacht is immune. Immunity protects owners from disputes such as unpaid bills. Arrests of state yachts are governed by the laws of the jurisdiction where the yacht is located. Arrests serve to detain the yacht until financial security is provided. The International Convention on Salvage may not apply to state yachts entitled to immunity. Action can be taken against individuals responsible for negligence, even if the yacht is immune. Diplomatic privileges grant state yachts immunity from seizure and delay. Immunity is based on negotiated reciprocal agreements and has a legal and political foundation. State yachts represent a nation and seizing them could be seen as a diplomatic insult. Different countries have varying laws regarding immunity for state yachts. The privilege is often restrictive, requiring proof that the yacht is a state yacht and the circumstances justify the immunity. For yachts, these diplomatic privileges take the form of immunity from seizure and delay. But such immunity is not automatic: it arises only because in the past various governments have reached negotiated, reciprocal agreements. This is important because it means that the immunity has a legal as well as a political foundation. So it is therefore possible to state precisely what the extent of the privilege is in any given set of circumstances. So why have such immunity anyway? The answer is that, like warships, state yachts are the floating embodiment of a particular nation, and to try to ensnare such vessels in foreign legal proceedings could be seen as a slap in the face of a foreign country, and diplomatically embarrassing. To make sure such faux pas do not happen, the treatment of state yachts is enshrined in the national laws of most states. It is a similar concept to the legal sanctity of foreign embassies. LIMITS But a line has to be drawn somewhere with regard to foreign sovereign immunities, to prevent them being taken advantage of. So a distinction is drawn between activities undertaken using vessels which are commercial in nature, and those of a governmental or public nature. For yachts, ‘commercial’ means simply being chartered. While this tenet was enshrined in 1926 in the Brussels Convention on Immunity of State Owned Vessels and later in the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, these conventions must still have been enacted into particular countries’ domestic law to have any effect: which means that the commercial/non-commercial principle is not uniformly applied. In the UK, the State Immunity Act 1978 strips immunity even where there is just an intention that the yacht be chartered – therefore encompassing charter positioning passages. In the US, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 allows for state yachts to be seized not only when being used commercially but also to enforce a mortgage on the vessel. In France, the courts have held that a vessel may be seized simply when it is not performing a public act of state – which in reality is most of the time. In most parts of the world, the privilege is what lawyers call ‘restrictive’ in nature – in other words, if you are seeking to rely on the privilege it’s up to you to demonstrate that your yacht is indeed a state yacht and the circumstances justify what you’re seeking to rely on. ARREST Being immune from seizure and delay is, almost literally, a ‘get out of jail free’ card for an owner who disputes a bill, for example. Seizing a yacht is a dramatic and effective method for recovering debts. There is nothing like it in land-based law. Normally, if you were to supply goods or services to a yacht, and weren’t paid, you could only sue the person or company with whom you agreed to deliver the supplies or do the work. Liens cut through contractual matrices. Arrests are governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the yacht is situated at the time. The yacht’s flag and the nationality of the individual or company seeking redress usually makes no difference. The arresting court can also become the trial court, making it possible to ‘forum shop’ for a country with favourable laws. Bringing an action against a ship is a remedy which has been around since ancient times. It exists because, traditionally, ships were owned by their captains and if anyone who had supplied goods or services to the ship was left unpaid, the captain could sail off, never to be seen again. Some see arrest as a punishment in itself; it isn’t – it’s just a way of detaining the yacht in order to force the owner to provide financial security, which could be in the form of a cash deposit or bank guarantee. Then the yacht is free to leave. Contrary to popular belief, at no time is the yacht actually chained to the dock. The order is served on the yacht and if the captain attempts to leave he or she will be in contempt of court and criminally liable. In the UK, a warrant of arrest will not be issued against a state yacht where, by any convention or treaty, the UK has undertaken to minimise the possibility of arrest until notice has been served on a consular officer of that state. Many countries have made similar ad hoc bilateral agreements not to arrest each other’s state vessels, in spite of any immunity laws allowing for arrest where they are being used commercially. SALVAGE If a state yacht is found to be in need of salvage assistance, the International Convention on Salvage 1989 will not apply if the vessel is entitled to immunity. This means that, unless the state owner consents, it may be impossible to arrest a salvaged yacht if financial security is wanted pending the litigation or arbitration of any salvage claim. COLLISION Where a state yacht has been sailed negligently, perhaps causing a collision, it remains possible to bring an action against the officer in charge at the time personally for negligence, just as it would be in any other situation: individuals cannot normally shelter from immunity afforded to the yacht. CONTRACTS So what can a supplier of goods and services do to ensure that the vital right to arrest is retained? Contracts should always include a ‘law and jurisdiction’ clause, although it is surprising how often this is omitted, even by sophisticated suppliers. It is a simple matter to include an extension to such a clause so that the yacht’s owning company is not entitled to claim any immunity in relation to itself (or any of its assets) under any law or in any jurisdiction in connection with any legal proceedings relating to the agreement. The owner should also be asked to irrevocably agree not to claim – and waive – such immunity. As it is always open to the owner to claim that national laws providing immunity will trump whatever is written in the contract, there is no guarantee that such a clause will be effective, but it is the most any supplier can realistically do. ROYAL YACHTS To be clear, not all yachts owned by royalty will be royal yachts in the context of international law. In those jurisdictions where the royal family is part and parcel of the state itself, it will usually be clear whether or not a royal yacht is a state yacht. The situation becomes less lucid where the royal family has a purely symbolic role: some royal households, while subject to widespread popular support and approval, are in fact constitutionally separate from the states they ‘reign’. COMPANY OWNED Further, some state yachts are owned by private owning companies, perhaps based in popular offshore jurisdictions, usually just to ring-fence the yacht as a source of potential legal liability. Where this is the case, the legal owner will be the owning company, not the royal personality or state, so any immunity would fall away. Given this, it would be preferable for state yachts which are to be chartered to be owned within the traditional company owning structure. When ownership is through such a company, the normal rules regarding whether it is possible to view the individual ‘beneficial’ owner as the actual legal owner will apply. This is known as ‘lifting the corporate veil’. It is usually only possible to reveal the beneficial owner where there has been tax evasion or an intent to defraud creditors – which is hardly likely in the case of state yachts. CONCLUSION While it is worth bearing in mind the immunity that state yachts enjoy, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that their owners are more likely to remain solvent, and will certainly behave after an incident in a manner which could be described, quite literally, as diplomatic. 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 Engaging a Manager Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Engaging a Manager

The Owners Club is the worldwide association for the owners of large, permanently-crewed yachts - often known as superyachts. We're pooling our knowledge and resources, to help each other and those looking to build or buy a superyacht. Home Welcome To The Club THE CONFLUENCE OF AFFLUENCE & INFLUENCE How it Started We are the worldwide association for the owners of large, permanently-crewed yachts often known as superyachts. The Club is fearlessly independent and has no connections with particular yacht builders, brokers, managers or suppliers. By pooling expertise and experience, we’re making ownership easier, more transparent and better value. The Club's a wonderful idea and long overdue. I've had teeth for years but that doesn't make me a dentist. I've had yachts for years, but I'm still glad of the opportunity to share knowledge and best practice, and help make ownership less opaque. OWNER, 42M MY GAINING KNOWLEDGE SHARING PASSION Secretariat As owners, we’re asking the same questions, to the same advisers, again and again. Or we’re asking our captains and managers, whose well-intentioned understanding can be out-of-date or based on hearsay. Members are free to consult the Club’s General Secretary about any aspect of ownership, from purchase, through crew employment and regulatory requirements, to a successful sale and on to bigger and better. About time! I can’t always justify taking advice on operational matters. If we can come together to share both expense and experience then that has got to be a good thing. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, 35m SY GUIDANCE ON MATTERS WHICH MATTER With the relevant Members’ permission, we’ve summarised some of the guidance provided previously by our General Secretary, in the form of a handbook, for the benefit of other Members and the wider community. The information may not apply to your circumstances. If you need help in respect of specific situation, please contact us. 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 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

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

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

When a deal’s on the table, it can be annoying to be asked not only for endless documents but for documents which must be authenticated in seemingly arcane ways. In the case of Bills of Sale, there’s no often no choice: it’s what many ship registries require for (re)registration. Providing authenticated documents doesn’t have to take too much additional time or resources: it just takes planning and forethought. Home Handbook Selling / / Document Authentication 8 August 2024 Last revised minutes 6 Reading time When a deal’s on the table, it can be annoying to be asked not only for endless documents but for documents which must be authenticated in seemingly arcane ways. In the case of Bills of Sale, there’s no often no choice: it’s what many ship registries require for (re)registration. Providing authenticated documents doesn’t have to take too much additional time or resources: it just takes planning and forethought. minutes 6 Reading time 8 August 2024 Last revised When a deal’s on the table, it can be annoying to be asked not only for endless documents but for documents which must be authenticated in seemingly arcane ways. In the case of Bills of Sale, there’s no often no choice: it’s what many ship registries require for (re)registration. Providing authenticated documents doesn’t have to take too much additional time or resources: it just takes planning and forethought. Ensuring document authenticity is crucial to prevent fraud and confirm the validity and irreversibility of transactions, particularly in high value purchases like yachts. As it's easy to fake documents, multiple methods and cross-checks are necessary to build confidence in their authenticity, though no method is fool-proof. A certified copy is a true copy of an original document, usually certified by a lawyer or company director, but it doesn’t confirm the original document’s genuineness. Notarisation is the verification, certifying, and sealing of documents, which is mandatory in some jurisdictions to make documents valid and enforceable. Legalisation involves government bodies authenticating the signature or seal on a document, especially for international use, often requiring an apostille certificate if both countries are Hague Convention signatories. Certification must be done by authorized individuals like lawyers or company officials, and deliberate false certification can lead to serious legal consequences. The correct wording and format for certification and notarisation must be used, often specified by the third party requiring the document. Notaries follow strict procedures, including checking IDs and corporate documents, and may require translations for documents in foreign languages. Even notarised and legalised documents can be forged, so further verification through online searches and government registers is recommended. Proper planning and adherence to authentication requirements can prevent delays and ensure compliance with legal and registration needs, particularly for documents like Bills of Sale. Certification must be done by authorized individuals like lawyers or company officials, and deliberate false certification can lead to serious legal consequences. The correct wording and format for certification and notarisation must be used, often specified by the third party requiring the document. Notaries follow strict procedures, including checking IDs and corporate documents, and may require translations for documents in foreign languages. Even notarised and legalised documents can be forged, so further verification through online searches and government registers is recommended. Proper planning and adherence to authentication requirements can prevent delays and ensure compliance with legal and registration needs, particularly for documents like Bills of Sale. Ensuring document authenticity is crucial to prevent fraud and confirm the validity and irreversibility of transactions, particularly in high value purchases like yachts. As it's easy to fake documents, multiple methods and cross-checks are necessary to build confidence in their authenticity, though no method is fool-proof. A certified copy is a true copy of an original document, usually certified by a lawyer or company director, but it doesn’t confirm the original document’s genuineness. Notarisation is the verification, certifying, and sealing of documents, which is mandatory in some jurisdictions to make documents valid and enforceable. Legalisation involves government bodies authenticating the signature or seal on a document, especially for international use, often requiring an apostille certificate if both countries are Hague Convention signatories. When yachts are bought, there’s much which needs to be proven by the seller before the buyer feels comfortable handing over a considerable sum. Who is the vessel actually owned by? Has the owner (if a company) formally resolved to sell the vessel – and appointed an individual to represent it at the closing and sign the necessary paperwork? The list goes on. And that list must be included in the sale agreement. To be presented with documents is one thing, but how do buyers know that such documents are what they appear to be? This is especially important when it comes to a selling company’s incorporation and powers: originals of the vessel’s own documentation can be provided, but the selling company will not usually be providing originals of its incorporating documentation. No single method of authentication is foolproof, as the authenticating documents, certificates, seals and signatures can themselves all be forged with ease. It’s about building sufficient confidence, combining different approaches and cross-checking with other sources where possible. It’s always good to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and expense, but keep in mind that third parties, such as yacht registries, may need documents to be authenticated in a particular way. Whatever methods are chosen, these need to be agreed upon at the outset. Now let’s look at the main methods. CERTIFICATION What is a certified copy? A certified copy is an accurate, complete and current copy (usually a photocopy, scan or photo) of an original document. It’s used when it’s not practical or possible to produce the original document. The certified copy will include a statement that it is a true copy of the original as at the date certified. Crucially, it does not certify that the original document is genuine, only that it is a true copy of the original. Who can certify a document? The certifying person is usually a lawyer or, in the case of a document relating to a company, a director or secretary of that company. If the document is also needed by a third party then it’s worth checking with that third party who can and can’t certify. In the United Kingdom, if an authorised person deliberately falsely certifies a document as being a true copy of the original, they can go to prison for up to 18 months. What’s the correct format? Any third party needing the copy may also specify the wording used. If not, the following wording is usually acceptable: “I [insert full name of the certifying person] certify that this document is a true and complete copy of the original.” In the case of photographic identification, the following could be used: “I [insert full name of the certifying person] certify that this document is a true and complete copy of the original and a true likeness of the individual [insert name].” The certifying person will then need to sign, write his or her full name under the signature, and add their law firm’s name and address. Finally, the date is added. The exact wording and format can vary, but the essential elements must be there. Provided all pages are attached together, then there’s not normally any need to certify each page – with the notable exception of Powers of Attorney, all pages of which must, in the UK, be certified "I certify this is a true and complete copy of the corresponding page of the original". Fees for certification There is no set fee for certification: fees must be fair and reasonable and will reflect time spent. NOTARISATION What is notarisation? The job of a notary (also known as a notary public) is to prepare, attest or certify documents (originals or copies) under an official seal, especially for use in certain jurisdictions. Notaries are usually (but not necessarily) qualified lawyers. Why is notarisation needed? Notarisation may seem unnecessary – given that a far wider range of professionals can just certify copies – but it’s simply part of the legal landscape in some countries. Failing to notarise can render a document invalid or unenforceable. What does notarisation involve? At the outset, notaries must also comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and data protection legislation, so it’s useful to have documents likely to be needed readily available so as to avoid unnecessary delays. Individuals involved will need to provide photographic identification. Where an individual presents corporate documents for notarisation, the company’s constitutional documents must also be presented, along with a Power of Attorney empowering that individual, and the appropriate resolutions. The relevant document is read in full in the notary's presence. If a foreign language document is to be notarised, a translation may be needed. A notary can only authenticate a document drawn up in a foreign language if they are satisfied as to its meaning. Scrivener notaries must be fluent in at least one language other than English. Once satisfied, the notary adds his or her notarial certificate to the document being notarised. The specific form of the certificate will depends on who needs the document to be notarised, and this information needs to be obtained beforehand. The notarial certificate is then signed by the notary and sealed with the notary's official seal. The notary keeps a set of the originals, or copies of all documents that they make, which then serves as a permanent record. These records must be made available to anyone with a right to see them including the notary's client and any other party involved. The final document should not be taken apart (for example, to scan) as notarised documents which have been tampered may not be accepted by the party requiring it. E-notarisation is available in some jurisdictions, which can make the whole proves much quicker. LEGALISATION What is legalisation? Certification and even notarisation isn’t good enough for some recipients. After all, who’s to say that the certifier or notary is duly qualified? And so it is that such document (in practice, normally notarised) may need to be ‘legalised’. This is the process by which one government body authenticates the signature, seal and/or stamp to the satisfaction of another country’s government body. As with the other forms of authentication, a failure to legalise a document may mean that the document is invalid or unenforceable (or both) in the jurisdiction where it is to be relied on. Who can legalise a document? Who needs to legalise the document in one country depends on the whether that county, and the recipient’s country, have both ratified the Hague Convention of 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (commonly known as the Hague Convention). 91 countries are signed-up at present. Where both are Hague Convention countries, then a standardised ‘apostille’ certificate can be obtained, relatively quickly and inexpensively. In the UK, this is done by sending the document to the Legalisation Office of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The FCDO checks the notary's or certifier’s name and signature against its register. If all’s in order, an apostille is applied to the document and it’s returned. The increasing use of e-apostilles is reducing fees and turnaround time, but it’s worth checking how long it could take in advance and planning accordingly. Where one country isn’t a Hague Convention signatory, then it’ll be up to the recipient’s country’s local embassy or consulate to legalise the document. Under their rules, it may also be necessary to obtain a Hague Convention apostille beforehand. The parties can arrange legalisation themselves. Legalisation can also be arranged by a notary on the parties' behalf. This is often preferable as the notary will be familiar with the process. FURTHER VERIFICATION Certified copies, notarial certificates and apostilles can all be, and occasionally are, forged. At least apostilles issued by the FCDO, for example, can be checked online on a special UK government website, if the apostille date and number are available. More broadly, it makes sense to conduct broad online searches into individuals and companies. Increasingly, company documents can be viewed on, or downloaded directly from, online government company registers and/or third party corporate information providers. The UK has long-since provided a wealth of company information. Now many classic offshore jurisdictions also provide extensive information which can be used to cross-check directorships and constitutional documents. 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 Your Crew Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Preparing Your Crew

Yachts bring employees together in close proximity, for long periods, working under pressure, like no other. Employers have always owed crewmembers various duties of care, but recent British legal developments oblige owners to be proactive in preventing sexual harassment. Prevention is better than cure. While these changes only apply to a minority of yachts and crewmembers, it's a step in the right direction and provides a useful industry benchmark. Home Handbook Employing / / Harassment Prevention 30 April 2024 Last revised minutes 8 Reading time Yachts bring employees together in close proximity, for long periods, working under pressure, like no other. Employers have always owed crewmembers various duties of care, but recent British legal developments oblige owners to be proactive in preventing sexual harassment. Prevention is better than cure. While these changes only apply to a minority of yachts and crewmembers, it's a step in the right direction and provides a useful industry benchmark. minutes 8 Reading time 30 April 2024 Last revised Yachts bring employees together in close proximity, for long periods, working under pressure, like no other. Employers have always owed crewmembers various duties of care, but recent British legal developments oblige owners to be proactive in preventing sexual harassment. Prevention is better than cure. While these changes only apply to a minority of yachts and crewmembers, it's a step in the right direction and provides a useful industry benchmark. Yachts create unique working conditions, bringing employees together closely for extended periods under high-pressure situations, making prevention of sexual harassment crucial. The #MeToo movement exposed systemic issues regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, prompting legal reforms to address these failings. Recent legal developments now oblige certain owners to proactively prevent this type of behaviour, emphasizing prevention over remedy. The UK’s Equality Act 2010 defines sexual harassment and places the burden on employers to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to prevent it. UK employment law applies to crew based on their employment arrangements and connections to Great Britain, with distinctions between peripatetic and expatriate crew. The Act applies to crew working in or adjacent to Great Britain, regardless of their role or the yacht's size, private or commercial. As from October 2024, all employers must take "reasonable steps" to prevent sexual harassment, with significant penalties for non-compliance. The law provides no clear guidance on what constitutes reasonable steps, leaving employers to adopt a risk-based approach. The Equality & Human Rights Commission offers a seven-step guidance for employers, emphasizing policy development, engagement, risk assessment, reporting, training, complaint handling, and addressing third-party harassment. Creating an inclusive and respectful working environment not only fulfils legal obligations but also enhances crew satisfaction, guest experiences, and mitigates retention issues. The Act applies to crew working in or adjacent to Great Britain, regardless of their role or the yacht's size, private or commercial. As from October 2024, all employers must take "reasonable steps" to prevent sexual harassment, with significant penalties for non-compliance. The law provides no clear guidance on what constitutes reasonable steps, leaving employers to adopt a risk-based approach. The Equality & Human Rights Commission offers a seven-step guidance for employers, emphasizing policy development, engagement, risk assessment, reporting, training, complaint handling, and addressing third-party harassment. Creating an inclusive and respectful working environment not only fulfils legal obligations but also enhances crew satisfaction, guest experiences, and mitigates retention issues. Yachts create unique working conditions, bringing employees together closely for extended periods under high-pressure situations, making prevention of sexual harassment crucial. The #MeToo movement exposed systemic issues regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, prompting legal reforms to address these failings. Recent legal developments now oblige certain owners to proactively prevent this type of behaviour, emphasizing prevention over remedy. The UK’s Equality Act 2010 defines sexual harassment and places the burden on employers to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to prevent it. UK employment law applies to crew based on their employment arrangements and connections to Great Britain, with distinctions between peripatetic and expatriate crew. It’s hard to believe that the #MeToo movement began way back in October 2017. And it’s by October 2024 that employers will have to abide by a set of new rules aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. The hashtag exposed not only the staggering scale of the problem but how the law was failing employees at every stage. It’s shameful that it’ll have taken seven years. But here we are. THE PRESENT POSITION The Maritime Labour Convention (applicable only to chartered yachts) already mandates that signatory states should take account of the latest version of the Guidance on eliminating shipboard harassment and bullying jointly published by the International Chamber of Shipping and the International Transport Workers’ Federation. That guidance does contain an example policy on general harassment, but it is so vague as to be almost meaningless. The Equality Act 2010 defines sexual harassment as any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, which has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Those on the receiving end can bring an employment tribunal claim against their employer (and/or a court claim against their harasser). It’ll then be for the employer to demonstrate that they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent the harassment. In practice, it’s an uphill task to prove that such steps were taken. THE NEW DUTY The Equality Act 2010 has been amended, so that, from 26 October 2024 onwards, all employers must take “reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of employees in the course of their employment. “Sexual harassment” means being subjecting someone to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature - and what constitutes that is for the tribunal to decide on the facts. Of course, sexual harassment is already outlawed, but employers are now under a positive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent it. An allegation of no such steps having been made, employers and are on the backfoot and must prove that they did indeed take such steps. And the new law is non-specific about from whom the crewmember must be protected. So as well as seeking to avoid harassment from fellow crew, reasonable steps must be taken to prevent crewmembers falling victim to unwanted sexual conduct by, say, charter guests. As well as awarding compensation, an employment tribunal may also apply a further uplift of up to 25% where it’s decided that the employer failed to take reasonable steps. This uplift applies to all the compensation awarded for any harassment (whether sexual or not). If the crewmember succeeds in a claim on multiple instances of various types of harassment, the uplift could have a significant effect. APPLICATION TO CREW Broadly, British employment law applies to crewmembers (including captains) ordinarily working in Great Britain. Visiting crews aren’t usually covered. For those working elsewhere, their employment arrangements are key. The law distinguishes between “peripatetic” crew, working on rotation, whose base is in Great Britain and from where they begin their “tours of duty” (who are covered by British employment law) and “expatriate” crew, who live and work abroad. The latter are unlikely to be covered, unless there’s a “sufficient connection” with Great Britain – just holding a UK passport isn’t enough. Employees who do not fit into the above categories, but who have "equally strong" connections with Great Britain and British employment law, might also be covered. There was found to be a sufficient connection, even where a crewmember was employed by a company based outside the UK, on a vessel which never entered UK waters, merely where her salary was paid into a UK bank account, she accounted to HMRC for tax, and the employment agreement was subject to English law and jurisdiction. More specifically (according to The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 ) the relevant parts of the Equality Act 2010 apply to any crewmember working (wholly or partly) within Great Britain or adjacent waters, where: The yacht is UK-registered and has a homeport in Great Britain, or The yacht is EEA member state-registered, and the crewmember is a citizen of Great Britain or of an EEA or designated state, and the legal relationship of the crewmember's employment is located within Great Britain, or the crewmember retains a sufficiently close link with Great Britain. The relevant parts also apply to any crewmember working outside Great Britain and adjacent waters, where: Where the crewmember is working on a yacht which is UK-registered and has a homeport in Great Britain, and The crewmember is a citizen of Great Britain or of an EEA or designated state, and the legal relationship of the crewmember's employment is located within Great Britain, or the crewmember retains a sufficiently close link with Great Britain. Where the Act applies, the crewmember’s role, and the size or use of the yacht (private or commercial) are irrelevant. And it doesn’t matter whether the contract is temporary or permanent – or even just on an informal, casual basis so long as the crewmember works on a personal basis. So dayworkers would be encompassed, but the employees of subcontractors would not. WHAT MUST BE DONE? The new law provides no steer whatsoever on what reasonable steps must be taken. Taking a risk-based approach, the tribunal would have before it a wealthy employer, employing typically young crewmembers, in a confined space, often working long hours and sometimes attending to guests whose inhibitions may have been relaxed by alcohol. So the tribunal’s expectations may be very high. Onboard cultures take time to change, and new policies take time to bed-in, so the time to start taking meaningful, tailored action is now. Helpfully, the Equality & Human Rights Commission has produced some guidance. It’s not definitive, but an employment tribunal could use it as a starting point when considering what steps should have been taken. The seven-step guidance can be summarised, and adapted for owners and managers, as follows. Remember that record-keeping is essential. Step 1: Develop an Effective Policy The policy should state that: All crewmembers are in need of protection, and are subject to and protected by the policy, Sexual harassment is unlawful and will not be tolerated, Harassment or victimisation is likely to lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal, and Aggravating factors, such as abuse of power over a more junior colleague, will be taken into account in deciding what disciplinary action will be taken. The policy should also: Define sexual harassment and provide clear examples of it - relevant to the environment of a professionally-crewed yacht, Include an effective procedure for receiving and responding to complaints of harassment, and Provide a commitment to review the policy at regular intervals and to monitor its effectiveness. The policy should go on to address third-party harassment, explaining clearly: That third-party harassment can result in legal liability on the part of the perpetrator and employer, That it will not be tolerated, That crewmembers are encouraged to report it, What steps will be taken to prevent it, and What steps will be taken to remedy a complaint and prevent it from happening again. Step 2: Engage Your Crew Conduct regular crew interviews, anonymous surveys and exit interviews. Captain, manager and the owner’s representative should have known open-door policies. Make sure that all crewmembers are verifiably aware of: How they can report sexual harassment Your sexual harassment policy, and The consequences of breaching the policy. Step 3: Assess & Reduce Risks While many of these will be obvious, you should consider and record factors that might increase the likelihood of sexual harassment and the steps that can be taken to minimise them, such as: Where are the power imbalances? Is there job insecurity for a particular group or role? Are crewmembers working alone? Are guests drinking significant amounts of alcohol? Which crewmembers have guest-facing duties? Is there a lack of diversity in your workforce? Step 4: Reporting Implement a reporting system (an online or independent telephone-based service) that allows crewmembers to raise an issue (anonymously or not). Explain clearly to all crewmembers: What is considered acceptable behaviour, How to recognise sexual harassment, and What to do if they experience or witness it. Step 5: Training Crewmembers should be trained on: What sexual harassment in the workplace looks like, What to do if they experience it, How to handle any complaints of harassment, and How to address third-party harassment from guests, suppliers, etc. Step 6: Actioning a Complaint Act immediately to resolve the complaint, taking into account how the crewmember wants it to be resolved. Respect the confidentiality of all parties. Protect the complainant from ongoing harassment or being victimised or harassed further during an investigation. If a crewmember makes a complaint of harassment that may be a criminal offence, you should speak to the individual about whether they want to report the matter. Only use confidentiality agreements where it is lawful, necessary and appropriate to do so. Always communicate the outcome of the complaint to the complainant in a timely manner. Step 7: Dealing with Third Parties Harassment by a third party, such as a guest or supplier’s employee, should be treated just as seriously as that by a colleague. Employers should take steps to prevent this type of harassment, including putting reporting mechanisms in place or assessing high-risk workplaces where staff might be left alone with guests. THE UPSIDES Owners must not see this change in the law as making life more difficult for them and their captains and managers. (Lack of) crew retention is a thorny, ongoing and expensive issue. Social media groups allow crew (anonymously) to name and shame poorly-managed yachts where unacceptable behaviour goes unchecked. In turn, such yachts will struggle to hire good quality crew to replace those who’ve had enough. Sexual harassment can ferment a toxic onboard atmosphere. By contrast, an inclusive and respectful working environment leads to happier crew and better owner and guest experiences. 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 Oh Referee! Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Oh Referee!

The automatic identification system (AIS) is a tracking system that establishes the positions of ships, and fixed and floating objects, in real time. Used as a navigational aid, it also lets the world see a yacht’s position - which isn’t always what we owners want. There are times when ‘going dark’ is allowed and times when it’s not. Home Handbook Managing / / Going Dark 28 November 2022 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time The automatic identification system (AIS) is a tracking system that establishes the positions of ships, and fixed and floating objects, in real time. Used as a navigational aid, it also lets the world see a yacht’s position - which isn’t always what we owners want. There are times when ‘going dark’ is allowed and times when it’s not. minutes 4 Reading time 28 November 2022 Last revised The automatic identification system (AIS) is a tracking system that establishes the positions of ships, and fixed and floating objects, in real time. Used as a navigational aid, it also lets the world see a yacht’s position - which isn’t always what we owners want. There are times when ‘going dark’ is allowed and times when it’s not. The Automatic Identification System (AIS) enhances safety and security by providing positional information and supplementing radar for traffic situation awareness. AIS is used in search and rescue operations, providing accurate information on the position of survival craft. It automates mandatory ship reporting to port authorities or vessel traffic service stations. Ships over 300 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages are required by SOLAS regulations to be fitted with Class A AIS equipment. Local regulations may be significantly more stringent. Yachts not subject to SOLAS requirements can carry Class B AIS devices. AIS systems consist of a small box with VHF transmitters, receivers, and a central processing unit, connected to various shipborne sensors and navigation systems. It transmits static information, dynamic information updated from ship sensors, and voyage-related information. AIS should not be solely relied upon for collision avoidance and does not replace radar target-tracking. It can be switched off under certain circumstances, but the master should report it to the competent authority and restart it when the source of danger has disappeared. Failure to operate AIS may lead to penalties by port state authorities and insurance underwriters may claim the vessel was unseaworthy in case of a collision without AIS. AIS systems consist of a small box with VHF transmitters, receivers, and a central processing unit, connected to various shipborne sensors and navigation systems. It transmits static information, dynamic information updated from ship sensors, and voyage-related information. AIS should not be solely relied upon for collision avoidance and does not replace radar target-tracking. It can be switched off under certain circumstances, but the master should report it to the competent authority and restart it when the source of danger has disappeared. Failure to operate AIS may lead to penalties by port state authorities and insurance underwriters may claim the vessel was unseaworthy in case of a collision without AIS. The Automatic Identification System (AIS) enhances safety and security by providing positional information and supplementing radar for traffic situation awareness. AIS is used in search and rescue operations, providing accurate information on the position of survival craft. It automates mandatory ship reporting to port authorities or vessel traffic service stations. Ships over 300 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages are required by SOLAS regulations to be fitted with Class A AIS equipment. Local regulations may be significantly more stringent. Yachts not subject to SOLAS requirements can carry Class B AIS devices. AIS enhances safety and security in various ways. By plotting positional information provided by nearby vessels, it supplements the picture produced by radar, so enhancing traffic situation awareness. Many of the problems common to radar, such as clutter, target swap as ships pass close by and target loss following a fast manoeuvre, do not affect AIS. AIS is also used in search and rescue operations. Search And Rescue operators, on land, at sea and in the air, get more accurate information, especially on the position of survival craft. Further, because AIS is used to exchange data ship-to-ship and with shore-based facilities, it is useful in automating mandatory ship reporting to port authorities or vessel traffic service (VTS) stations. LEGAL REQUIREMENT By virtue of Regulation 19 of Chapter V of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974, as amended, all ships of 300 gross tonnage or more and engaged on international voyages must be fitted with Class A AIS equipment. In law, all yachts are ships – and it is irrelevant whether registered as a private or commercial vessel. Class B devices may be carried on yachts which are not subject to the SOLAS requirements. Certain national laws take this further. For example, US Federal law requires commercial vessels of just 65 feet and over to be fitted with a Class A AIS device. HOW IT WORKS The system is contained within a small box, containing one very high frequency (VHF) radio transmitter, various VHF receivers and a central processing unit. To this is attached antennae, and interfaces for heading, speed devices and other shipborne sensors, plus interfaces to radar, Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA), Electronic Chart System/Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECS/ECDIS) and Integrated Navigation Systems (INS). There’s also a display and keyboard to input and retrieve data. The AIS can be connected either to an additional dedicated AIS display unit, possibly one with a large graphic display, or as an input to existing navigational system devices such as a radar display, ECS, ECDIS, or INS. INFORMATION SHARED The AIS information is transmitted continuously by a ship, and includes the following three types: Static information, which is entered into the AIS on installation and need only be changed if the ship changes its name, Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI), location of the electronic position fixing system (EPFS) antenna, or undergoes a major conversion from one ship type to another; Dynamic information, which, apart from navigational status information, is automatically updated from the ship sensors connected to AIS; and Voyage-related information, some of which such as destination and estimated time of arrival (ETA) will need to be entered manually at the start of the voyage and kept up to date as necessary. INCOMPLETE PICTURE AIS doesn’t always give the complete picture, and – as with any navigational aid – should only be used by itself – especially for collision-avoidance. It doesn’t take the place of radar target-tracking. The officer of the watch (OOW) should always be aware that other ships, in particular smaller leisure craft, fishing boats and warships might not be fitted with AIS. The OOW should always be aware that AIS fitted on other ships as a mandatory carriage requirement might, under certain circumstances, be switched off on the master's professional judgement. SWITCHING OFF Details of yachts whose AIS is switched on maybe accessed by anyone, anywhere, simply by looking at MarineTraffic , VesselFinder or any of the other myriad of similar websites. Not all owners will be happy about this. According to the International Maritime Organisation’s Resolution A.1106(29) of 14 December 2015, entitled Revised Guidelines for The Onboard Operational Use of Shipborne Automatic Identification Systems (AIS): AIS should always be in operation when ships are underway or at anchor. If the master believes that the continual operation of AIS might compromise the safety or security of his/her ship or where security incidents are imminent, the AIS may be switched off. Unless it would further compromise the safety or security, if the ship is operating in a mandatory ship reporting system, the master should report this action and the reason for doing so to the competent authority. Actions of this nature should always be recorded in the ship's logbook together with the reason for doing so. The master should however restart the AIS as soon as the source of danger has disappeared. If the AIS is shut down, static data and voyage-related information remains stored. Restart is done by switching on the power to the AIS unit. Ship's own data will be transmitted after a two-minute initialization period. In ports AIS operation should be in accordance with port requirements. CONSEQUENCES Port state authorities will expect AIS to be operational, and may impose penalties for this not being the case – especially where there is a collision which AIS may have helped to avoid. Keep in mind, too, that non-compliance with more stringent local regulations will be punished . Even in international waters, where a yacht goes dark other than allowed by Resolution A.1106(29), while this may not be noticed by the flag state authority, if there’s a collision then insurance underwriters could claim that, without this important navigational aid working, the vessel was, in law, unseaworthy, and they are entitled to refuse payment. But going dark may not be intentional. Interference, weak radio signals and patchy satellite reception can all compromise AIS data exchange. Distinguishing intentional from unintentional signal drop-outs is difficult but not impossible. The frequency and regularity of drop-outs prior to a full blackout may be indicative. And the reason may not be malevolent. It is known, for example, that in certain parts of the world fishing vessels switch off AIS in order not to reveal productive catch areas to competitors. CONCLUSION Whether we, as owners, like it or not, AIS is governed by international convention – and it’s here to stay. If there are legitimate concerns then going dark may be permissible, but it’s as well to discuss this with the captain and insurance underwriter well in advance of a transit through waters in which it may be prudent or desirable. 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 State Yachts Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about State Yachts

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

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 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 27 m Length Finest Craft Builder 1999 Build year 240 Gross tonnage United Kingdom Registry Particulars Forerunner

Life’s short: build a yacht. Seems simple enough. For some, only new will do. But building a large yacht is a complicated process, the result of which is a complex series of systems, which need to work reliably, and in harmony. With the right guidance, the process is an exciting and satisfying journey. If you’re not already a Member, your first step's to contact us so we can help you find the right people. Home Handbook Building / / Build Your Team 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time Life’s short: build a yacht. Seems simple enough. For some, only new will do. But building a large yacht is a complicated process, the result of which is a complex series of systems, which need to work reliably, and in harmony. With the right guidance, the process is an exciting and satisfying journey. If you’re not already a Member, your first step's to contact us so we can help you find the right people. minutes 4 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised Life’s short: build a yacht. Seems simple enough. For some, only new will do. But building a large yacht is a complicated process, the result of which is a complex series of systems, which need to work reliably, and in harmony. With the right guidance, the process is an exciting and satisfying journey. If you’re not already a Member, your first step's to contact us so we can help you find the right people. Exceptional projects require exceptional teams, and building a good working relationship with all team members from the start is essential. Small projects allow individuals to combine roles, especially in design. Trusted brokers with industry knowledge add value and may help in maintaining resale value. Exterior and interior designers, naval architects, and project managers are essential team members. Project managers coordinate efforts and seek compromises: some seagoing experience is helpful. Yachts are typically owned through companies for liability and privacy reasons. Cost savings can be achieved through proven hull designs and repurposing existing designs. Clear definitions of team roles, strict timescales, and engaging a lawyer with build experience are important. Project managers coordinate efforts and seek compromises: some seagoing experience is helpful. Yachts are typically owned through companies for liability and privacy reasons. Cost savings can be achieved through proven hull designs and repurposing existing designs. Clear definitions of team roles, strict timescales, and engaging a lawyer with build experience are important. Exceptional projects require exceptional teams, and building a good working relationship with all team members from the start is essential. Small projects allow individuals to combine roles, especially in design. Trusted brokers with industry knowledge add value and may help in maintaining resale value. Exterior and interior designers, naval architects, and project managers are essential team members. As with the counterparts building trading and passenger vessels, yacht builders tend to be conservative in their outlook. Why change what’s worked before? They’re also in business to make money and will look to save costs where they can – in particular by interpreting poorly-drafted build agreements to suit themselves. To a certain extent, builders’ yards are, in reality, pieces of waterside real estate where a multitude of suppliers and subcontractors come together to create the finished article. So putting the right team in place is a vital first step, whose members will advise, negotiate and integrate the efforts and wares of countless third parties. And the more exceptional the project, the more exceptional your team needs to be. All the participants need to be involved right from the start and an excellent working relationship must be built up and maintained. The smaller the project, the greater the scope for individuals to combine roles, especially when it comes to the vessel’s design. KEY TEAM MEMBERS Having decided on how and where they wish to use their yacht, a trusted broker is the best starting point for some Members. Trusted is the key word here. Brokers usually work on commission. Are they looking to build a relationship which could last many happy years, or are they just looking to complete the next deal? Good brokers will have excellent industry knowledge and will add real value. They are sounding boards for ideas, and arbiters of practicality and good taste: the latter two elements being essential in maintaining resale value. The next team members to have on board are the exterior and interior designers, plus a naval architect where a custom yacht is envisaged, and a project manager. Designers produce designs, not technical solutions. Even the most accomplished designers won’t know exactly how workable their designs are, and architects don’t always have an eye for design. So a project manager will also be needed to coordinate all their efforts, and – diplomatically – seek compromises here and there. The project manager should have recent seagoing experience, as captain or engineer, on a vessel of similar type and size. Everyone in the team – you included – need honest feedback on what is and isn’t going to work. Because yachts are sources of liability as well as being assets, and to provide privacy and make accounting easier, yachts are nearly always owned through companies. Trusts can provide an additional layer of secrecy, but keep in mind that obtaining justice can be challenging in some far-flung jurisdictions should your expectations not be met. DON’T ECONOMISE Costs can be kept down by using a proven hull design. Many builders offer semi-custom yachts, where you’ll be making mostly aesthetic choices. If you want to stand out from the crowd, commercial and even military designs can be repurposed to make striking yachts. You need to be clear on who owns the intellectual property and that you have the right to use such designs. Some team roles can be taken on by the same individual or company. Exterior and interior design can be carried out by the same person – arguably leading to more harmonious aesthetics. But trying to save costs by omitting any of the core technical skills sets can have significant adverse effects. Oversights at this first stage can require expensive modifications later, causing lengthy delays. Everyone’s remit must be clearly defined and dovetailed, with strict timescales baked-in to their service contracts. Engaging a good lawyer, with build experience, is crucial here. DESIGN ESSENTIALS A yacht’s design will be determined, in part, by the minimum technical standards dictated by the Flag State , which in turn may require your yacht to be built in compliance with classification society Rules. These are based on internationally agreed-to standards, which must be adhered to if your yacht is going to ever to sail anywhere, and without which you will find it near impossible to insure the vessel. They vary according to length, internal volume and use. But such standards do not generally cover some aspects, such as preventive maintenance, which, over time, will help support the vessel’s condition and resale value. Remove the panels of any yacht and you’ll see an array of pipes, wires and items of equipment. If it’s too difficult or time-consuming to reach such items, they can be overlooked and, eventually, fail. The result is not just you and your guests being inconvenienced. Some repairs can be disproportionately expensive, and in extreme cases this can lead to your yacht not being accepted by a buyer when it’s time to sell. With regards aesthetics, most buyers are reasonably conservative. Avant garde designs are going to look newer for longer, and this will help to maintain their value. But when futuristic tips into plain weird the resale market shrinks rapidly and cost of ownership skyrockets. THE END RESULT Playwright George Bernard Shaw once quipped that reasonable people adapt themselves to the world, while unreasonable people adapt the world to themselves – hence progress depends on unreasonable people. Challenging the innate conservativeness of builders and regulatory authorities requires an experienced, imaginative and practical team. In the case of a full custom yacht, the end result of this exciting pre-build stage should be a design and specification you’re happy with, which is ready to be put out to tender with shortlisted builders, and a team ready to oversee the build. If a semi-custom or series production yacht is your preference, the result is a team which understands your vision and is ready to review, negotiate and modify the builders’ pre-existing designs and specifications. With your team in place, it's time to chose a Flag State , and possibly a classification society , before engaging a builder . 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 Choose a Flag Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Choose a Flag

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 59 m Length DMS & Co Builder 2007 Build year 308 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Archetype

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

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

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 Britannia's Rules Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Britannia's Rules

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 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

Obtaining a reference for a candidate makes a lot of sense, especially in the yachting sector where standards of service are so subjective. There is a common misunderstanding among shoreside employers that they are only allowed to confirm dates of employment and role(s). This is incorrect. You may be obliged to provide one, and refences for captains and crew are commonly sought and given in any event. But care must be taken when providing them. Home Handbook Employing / / Oh Referee! 1 March 2024 Last revised minutes 7 Reading time Obtaining a reference for a candidate makes a lot of sense, especially in the yachting sector where standards of service are so subjective. There is a common misunderstanding among shoreside employers that they are only allowed to confirm dates of employment and role(s). This is incorrect. You may be obliged to provide one, and refences for captains and crew are commonly sought and given in any event. But care must be taken when providing them. minutes 7 Reading time 1 March 2024 Last revised Obtaining a reference for a candidate makes a lot of sense, especially in the yachting sector where standards of service are so subjective. There is a common misunderstanding among shoreside employers that they are only allowed to confirm dates of employment and role(s). This is incorrect. You may be obliged to provide one, and refences for captains and crew are commonly sought and given in any event. But care must be taken when providing them. Employers commonly make job offers contingent upon satisfactory references, which should be explicitly stated in the offer letter. Employers may be obligated to provide subjective references if it's customary in their industry or contractually specified. Not providing references could lead to claims of discrimination or breach of trust. References can come from individuals or corporate entities and can be either written or oral. Using third-party services like Superyacht References is recommended. Employers should ensure accuracy, fairness, and compliance with data protection laws when providing references. Policies should be established and adhered to. References should include employment duration, roles, and may cover performance, disciplinary history, and reasons for departure. Comments on suitability must be based on first-hand experience only. Employers have a duty to provide accurate and impartial references. Negligent misstatement and defamation risks exist, so references should be substantiated and labelled as private and confidential. Providing references involves handling personal data, necessitating compliance with data protection regulations. Guidance on this should be sought. Employers should disclose poor disciplinary records and ongoing proceedings in references to avoid liability for providing misleading information. Employers often include disclaimers of liability in references, though they don't absolve liability for fraud or deceit by the provider. Employers should establish clear policies on who can provide references, permissible content, and record-keeping requirements. Having template references attached to policies is recommended. Employers have a duty to provide accurate and impartial references. Negligent misstatement and defamation risks exist, so references should be substantiated and labelled as private and confidential. Providing references involves handling personal data, necessitating compliance with data protection regulations. Guidance on this should be sought. Employers should disclose poor disciplinary records and ongoing proceedings in references to avoid liability for providing misleading information. Employers often include disclaimers of liability in references, though they don't absolve liability for fraud or deceit by the provider. Employers should establish clear policies on who can provide references, permissible content, and record-keeping requirements. Having template references attached to policies is recommended. Employers commonly make job offers contingent upon satisfactory references, which should be explicitly stated in the offer letter. Employers may be obligated to provide subjective references if it's customary in their industry or contractually specified. Not providing references could lead to claims of discrimination or breach of trust. References can come from individuals or corporate entities and can be either written or oral. Using third-party services like Superyacht References is recommended. Employers should ensure accuracy, fairness, and compliance with data protection laws when providing references. Policies should be established and adhered to. References should include employment duration, roles, and may cover performance, disciplinary history, and reasons for departure. Comments on suitability must be based on first-hand experience only. It makes sense to make any offer of employment conditional upon obtaining satisfactory references. For the avoidance of doubt, this should be phrased in the job offer letter as being acceptable to the employer and not just satisfactory in a general sense. References can be given either personally or on behalf of the employer, and may be written or oral. But take care. It has been known, for example, for candidates just to give the telephone number of a friend who poses as the captain of a current or previous yacht, so it’s wise to engage an independent third party such as Superyacht References . MUST YOU PROVIDE A REFERENCE? As a present or former employer, you can be obliged to provide a subjective reference (beyond confirming dates of employment and role(s)) if there is an express obligation to do so in the employment contract, or because it’s customary in a particular industry – and is, therefore, an implied contractual term. It is, of course, very much the custom for yacht captains and departmental heads to provide references. Indeed, it’s poor form in yachting not to do so, and a refusal can be bad for a captain and/or boat’s reputation. If it’s going to be your policy, as employer, not to provide subjective references, then you should make this your formal policy, and stick to it, to avoid potential claims of discrimination or breach of the implied trust and confidence. In particular, if an employee (or former employee) has previously initiated discrimination proceedings against the employer, or alleges unlawful discrimination, a refusal to furnish a reference could lead to an additional claim of victimisation. 10 PRACTICAL TIPS ON GIVING A REFERENCE When furnishing a reference, you, as an employer, should ensure that: No statements are inaccurate The reference offers a fair overview but does not need to include every detail The reference does not convey a misleading impression The reference does not unfairly portray the subject in a negative light The subject is informed of any complaints or performance issues referred to Information regarding absence adheres to the employer's data protection obligations Comments on performance or absence abide by disability discrimination law The reference is marked as being private and confidential and for the addressee only Your policies on the subject are adhered to If providing just dates and job roles, your policy of only providing this should be referred to REFERENCE CONTENTS A reference should always set out the duration of employment and specific role(s) undertaken. The reference may also encompass other matters, such as performance, disciplinary history, perceptions of attitude and integrity, punctuality and the reason for departure. Any comments on suitability for a new role must always be – expressly – restricted to first-hand experience only. If the employee was dismissed, then this should be outlined accurately, as a favourable reference may weaken an employer's defence against an unfair dismissal claim. Maintaining consistency in providing references to different employees is vital to mitigate any allegations of discrimination or victimisation. GENERAL DUTIES When providing a reference, you (in reality, of course, your captain or head of department) must exercise reasonable care to ensure that the information provided is accurate and impartial, and does not create a false impression. There is no requirement for references to contain extensive details or be exhaustive in scope. Particular care must be taken when remarking on performance or sickness, as these could lead to a claim for disability discrimination. Employers bear legal responsibility for the content of corporate references since they are provided on the employer's behalf. So it's advisable to establish a [policy] outlining who can provide references, and the permissible content. The legal implications remain the same whether the reference is given verbally or in writing. NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT A referee can face legal action for negligent misstatement if it provides an inaccurate reference. Essentially, employers providing references must exercise reasonable care in their preparation. Failure to do so could render the employer liable if the employee suffers harm due to the reference. In particular, opinions expressed in the reference must be supported by the facts. DEFAMATION A false statement that damages a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society could constitute defamation – either in the form of a libel (if written) or slander (if oral). As long as the employer believed the reference to be accurate, and provided without malice, the claim for defamation won’t get far. Referees should therefore substantiate their comments where possible, demonstrating their truthfulness or honest belief in their accuracy. Further protection can be provided by labelling references " Private and Confidential " and " for the addressee only ". MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD An employee could also pursue a claim for malicious falsehood against a referee if he or she can demonstrate that the reference includes false statements published with malice (meaning the maker knew the statements were false or showed reckless disregard for their truth). While defamation safeguards reputation, malicious falsehood safeguards economic interests. LIABILITY TO THE RECIPIENT It’s easy to provide a polite, even glowing reference – especially in respect of a colleague and friend with whom the provider has spent many months together in the confines of a yacht. But risks can arise from an employer, especially through the agency of a captain or departmental head, providing an excessively positive reference. Previous employers automatically owe a duty of care to the recipient of the reference, to make sure that it is accurate. A well-worded disclaimer should be added just in case of any inaccuracies. DATA PROTECTION Providing a reference typically means handling personal data, and those involved must abide by the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Guidance for employers is provided in the (outdated, but still useful) Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) Employment Practices Code . Helpfully, Part two of the Code provides recommendations for employers issuing references, including establishing and communicating a clear policy regarding who can provide corporate references and under what circumstances. The Code advises against providing confidential references about an employee unless their explicit consent is obtained. It is vital to maintain the security of references and securely dispose of them when an employee leaves the organization, unless retention is required by law. DISCIPLINARY MATTERS It’s always going to be a contentious area, but it’s clear from cases on the point that have reached court that employers should disclose a poor disciplinary record, and details of any ongoing disciplinary proceedings, or risk being liable for providing a misleading reference. Unresolved disciplinary issues should also be mentioned, as not to do so could mean providing an incomplete picture. Adding a disclaimer is advisable. DISCLAIMERS It's customary for employers to add a disclaimer of liability – often specifically in respect of any negligent misstatement. This is usually effective as far as liability to the recipient is concerned, and is well worth adding, but it must such a disclaimer wouldn't absolve liability for fraud or deceit, meaning the employer cannot knowingly or recklessly make false statements. POLICIES Finally, employers ought to establish a well-defined written reference policy, outlining Which individuals are authorised to provide references; How references may be provided (in particular whether oral references may be given); The permissible content; and Any prohibited content. Having a template reference annexed to the policy is a useful further measure, and there should also be an obligation for records to be kept of oral references provided. 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 Commission or Kickback? Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Commission or Kickback?

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 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

The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (‘ISM’) Code applies to a significant number of large yachts. Members may think they need have little to do with day-to-day logistics, but they would be well advised to familiarise themselves with the basics of the code. And there’s much to learn for Members owning yachts to which the Code does not apply. Home Handbook Regulation / / The ISM Code 18 May 2009 Last revised minutes 7 Reading time The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (‘ISM’) Code applies to a significant number of large yachts. Members may think they need have little to do with day-to-day logistics, but they would be well advised to familiarise themselves with the basics of the code. And there’s much to learn for Members owning yachts to which the Code does not apply. minutes 7 Reading time 18 May 2009 Last revised The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (‘ISM’) Code applies to a significant number of large yachts. Members may think they need have little to do with day-to-day logistics, but they would be well advised to familiarise themselves with the basics of the code. And there’s much to learn for Members owning yachts to which the Code does not apply. The Code developed by the International Maritime Organisation is mandatory for certain yachts flying the flag of a maritime nation and affects yachts calling at ports in these countries. The Code applies to yachts of at least 500 gross tonnage engaged in "trade," which includes chartered yachts. The Code requires the implementation of a safety management system (SMS) to ensure safety and pollution prevention. The responsibility for safety lies with the 'Company' that has assumed responsibility for the yacht's operation from the owner. The SMS consists of set procedures outlined in manuals held ashore and onboard the yacht. Non-conformities reported to the Company must be remedied, and the Company must keep itself informed and act if issues arise. Compliance with the Code also requires observance of other international and flag state safety regulations. A designated person ashore (DPA) is appointed to ensure compliance with the SMS and statutory requirements. The Company must obtain a Document of Compliance (DOC) and a Safety Management Certificate (SMC) to operate the yacht legally. The Code helps prevent pollution, but compliance is not guaranteed, and prosecutors and insurers may scrutinize the actual implementation and maintenance of safety systems. Non-conformities reported to the Company must be remedied, and the Company must keep itself informed and act if issues arise. Compliance with the Code also requires observance of other international and flag state safety regulations. A designated person ashore (DPA) is appointed to ensure compliance with the SMS and statutory requirements. The Company must obtain a Document of Compliance (DOC) and a Safety Management Certificate (SMC) to operate the yacht legally. The Code helps prevent pollution, but compliance is not guaranteed, and prosecutors and insurers may scrutinize the actual implementation and maintenance of safety systems. The Code developed by the International Maritime Organisation is mandatory for certain yachts flying the flag of a maritime nation and affects yachts calling at ports in these countries. The Code applies to yachts of at least 500 gross tonnage engaged in "trade," which includes chartered yachts. The Code requires the implementation of a safety management system (SMS) to ensure safety and pollution prevention. The responsibility for safety lies with the 'Company' that has assumed responsibility for the yacht's operation from the owner. The SMS consists of set procedures outlined in manuals held ashore and onboard the yacht. The Code was developed by the International Maritime Organisation and, being uncontroversial, has become a part of domestic law in most maritime nations. The Code is therefore mandatory on board certain yachts flying the ensign of such a country, under what is known as the ‘flag state’ law. It also affects certain yachts calling at ports in some of these countries, by virtue of the ‘port state’ law, even if it is not required by the flag state law. The Code does not apply to all yachts subject to a particular flag state law, however. It only applies to those of at least 500 gross tonnage (GT) which are engaged in ‘trade’. Yachts which are chartered will normally be considered to be engaged in trade. SCOPE The Code concerns a great deal more than just having the right number of fire extinguishers or liferafts. It requires owners (or their appointed managers) to put in place management systems which are designed to ensure that the yacht is operated with the utmost regard to safety and pollution prevention. A complete culture of safety and continual improvement must be created. RESPONSIBILITY Where the yacht is technically owned by a single-purpose offshore owning company, ultimate responsibility for safety can nevertheless still lie with the beneficial owner. Responsibility under the Code, however, is said to lie with the ‘Company’. The Company is the party which has assumed responsibility for the operation of the yacht from the owner: it must establish the appropriate policies, and provide the necessary resources and shore-based support. The Company could be anyone, but someone has to formerly agree to take on this role if the owner is to avoid liability. This is where the managers step in. Under the Code, arranging safety systems becomes a surprisingly specialised task. This is why the managers should be chosen, and engaged, with the utmost care and attention to detail. SYSTEM The Company must implement a safety management system (‘SMS’), consisting of set, verifiable procedures. These are tailored to the individual yacht, and should ensure that the yacht is run in a way which complies with the Code. The SMS is contained in sets of manuals, held both ashore and on board. They typically outline the system itself, state general safety and environmental policies, and describe the organisation of the Company. Shoreside manuals will set out the régime for audits, risk assessment and accident analysis. Shipboard manuals will also give the planning, operating and reporting procedures. They cannot just be left on the shelf like an engine manual, however. Port inspectors, for example, may examine the manuals and interview the crew, who will be expected to be both familiar with them and actually using them. Key operational procedures and corrections are planned and recorded, as well as being audited internally and externally. Taken out of context some procedures may appear almost laughably prescriptive. In fact, in the context of the Code, this process leads both to a continual process of refinement, and independently certifiable standards of conduct. NON-CONFORMITY Where a Code ‘non-conformity’ is reported to the Company but is not remedied, or if a blind eye is turned to it, or if the system is such that non-conformities go reported, the Company will be in breach of the Code. Before the Code was introduced, the owner or manager could have legitimately said that there may have been safety issues on board the yacht which they were not aware about. By contrast, the burden is now on the Company to keep itself informed and act if all is not in order. All roles are now more accurately defined, meaning that it is now much easier to assess after an incident who was responsible for what, and what they knew or should have known. FURTHER COMPLIANCE The Code also requires and ensures observance of other international and flag state safety regulations. The obvious example is the fire drill, which cannot be meaningfully conducted unless all the correct fire fighting equipment is present. In fact, compliance with the Code requires compliance with a considerable array of international maritime conventions, ranging from crew training to vessel stability. From the owner’s point of view, this is a good thing. DESIGNATED PERSON A formal line of communication must exist between the Company and the yacht. This is absolutely vital. The Company has to appoint a designated person ashore (normally abbreviated to ‘DPA’ or ‘DP’) to sit at one and of that line. His (or her) job is to keep an eye on the safe and efficient operation of the yacht as the SMS demands, and take all necessary steps to ensure compliance. The DP must also ensure that proper provision is made for the yacht to be manned, equipped and maintained such that it is fit to operate in accordance with both the SMS and whichever other statutory requirements are dreamt up from time to time. The role of DP is often combined with others such as Technical or Operations Manager. In order that the DP is able to do all this, he must have: Direct access to the highest level of the Company’s management; Sufficient authority to influence decision-making; and Appropriate knowledge and experience of the operation of the type of yacht in question. So important is the DP’s role, that he may be jailed by the flag state should he fail to discharge certain key responsibilities. Port states can also be merciless with a DP, even where the DP is based overseas. A DP based in Denmark, for example, was recently the subject to an indictment by the United States Department of Justice. As the DP can be called upon to take action at any time, a deputy may be appointed. Some managers have been known to appoint personal assistants or secretaries to this role. This is poor practice, and indicates a culture of profit over safety. Beyond the DP and his deputy, the Code states that the Company must ensure that all personnel involved with the SMS have an adequate understanding of the relevant rules, regulations, codes and guidelines. Safety used to be the Captain’s domain, or at least the buck stopped with him or her. In terms of the immediate safety of the yacht, this remains the case. As the Company bears the responsibility of Code compliance on behalf of the owner, the existence of the DP ensures that the Company cannot leave responsibility resting on the Captain’s shoulders. Captains and managers must work together to ensure an adequate and workable system is developed. This is enshrined in the preamble to the Code, which explicitly states that in matters of safety and pollution prevention it is the commitment, competence, attitudes and motivation of individuals at all levels that determines the end result. LIABILITY Before the Code was imposed, yacht managers tended to take on the role of owner’s agent. They might have assisted the owner’s accountants, but it was the Captain who had the most to do the owner. The arrangement was based on reducing hassle for owners as much as possible. This arrangement may still, of course, suit owners of yachts not subject to the Code. As managers must take up a more interfering and directing role by virtue of the Code, there is no scope for resentment of this on the part of the crew. Instead, comfort should be taken in the fact that liability is shared with those ashore, who must keep safety issues under close scrutiny, and make sufficient resources available. Nevertheless, the owner may wish to keep an eye on whether the manager’s style is becoming too autocratic, perhaps leading to a dissatisfied crew. CERTIFICATION Once auditors from the flag state have examined the SMS, both on paper and in practice, a Document of Compliance (‘DOC’) will be issued in respect of the Company. A Safety Management Certificate (‘SMC’) may then be issued in respect of the yacht managed by that Company, as long as the SMS has been successfully implemented on board. Both these documents must be in place for the yacht to be operated legally. They will be audited regularly. Because of the number of individuals involved in the planning, undertaking and recording of actions, and the independence of external auditors, deliberate falsifications are sure to highlight themselves. Where logs have been ‘flogged’, i.e. where false entries have been made with regard to, for example, hours worked, the DOC may be withdrawn immediately. APPEARANCES In comparison with trading ships, yachts may appear to have an unblemished safety record. This is a little illusory. Whilst crewmembers may exude joyful efficiency, and the yachts themselves are kept in immaculate condition, this can have more to do with complying with the owner’s aesthetic wishes than with the maintenance of a safety culture. Accidents involving yachts do happen: they tend, however, not to involve large scale loss of life or pollution, and are not especially newsworthy. That courteous crewmember may in fact have worked excessive hours during a busy charter season, or may have been left in command without the necessary experience or qualifications. INSURANCE Following an incident, insurers will consider their liability for the claim thoroughly. Standard insurance clauses typically allow an insurer to avoid paying out, if the yacht was subject to certain perils resulting from a lack of ‘due diligence’ by the yacht’s management. The actions of the Company will be open to scrutiny by the insurer seeking to establish whether due diligence was exercised, and will be subject to a post-incident analysis. The ISM Code paper-trail is the obvious starting point. All documents in the possession of the Company which may be useful to the insurer, including internal documents, may have to be made available in the event of litigation. Any conviction of the Company or DP for Code failings would provide the insurer with the best possible evidence of a failure to exercise due diligence. INSPECTIONS Inspections of yachts by port officials tend to occur less frequently than for trading ships. This is understandable given that yachts tend to wear more respectable ensigns, and it is normally the official policy at ports to concentrate inspections on vessels which are likely to pose the greatest hazard to that port and the surrounding coastline. Nevertheless, where safety failings lead to even trivial incidents, authorities may choose to detain or even take action against a yacht herself, making the use of standard liability-avoidance vehicles, such as companies and trusts, futile measures. The knock-on effects of breached charter agreements and all-round inconvenience are obviously best avoided. The fact that the Code also helps to prevent pollution is a very good thing as far as owners are concerned. Pollution in some jurisdictions can lead to surprisingly hefty fines and even imprisonment. Spotter planes can find offending yachts with ease, and it is surprising how far even the smallest quantity of fuel will spread across the water. Unfortunately, the Company cannot simply wave the DOC and SMC in the air and expect forgiveness from prosecutors or insurers. Whilst useful, neither guarantees compliance. They simply show that, at a particular point in time in the past, the SMS, as applied by the Company and on board the yacht, met the minimum internationally agreed standards. Further, the external audit which led to the award of the DOC and SMC will have been based only on samples, will not have taken that long, and will have been far from exhaustive. By contrast, once a prosecutor or insurance company is able to access the various manuals and records, these can be scrutinised against actual findings at their leisure. It has been recognised that less respectable flag states may chose to ignore their responsibilities and may be prepared to certify compliance in any event. CONCLUSION From a legal viewpoint, the Code can be the owner’s closest ally or most feared enemy, depending on just how successful its implementation and maintenance has actually been. Owners do least have the luxury of being able to buy-in the appropriate expertise. Arranging and maintaining Code safety systems is a highly specialised task, however, and owners should grasp the fundamentals of the Code, and choose the appropriate managers accordingly. Thereafter, they should consider whether the managers and crew are successfully working together: this required by the Code and is important for morale and staff retention. Although the implementation of the Code does involve more paperwork and expense, it is the consequence of concerns about ineffective safety management stretching back many decades. Full and successful implementation will go a long way to ensuring that physical safety and pollution risks are kept under control. 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 Port State Control Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Port State Control

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

The 10% deposit is a relic of tradition, misaligned with modern yacht transactions. This white paper proposes splitting upfront payments: one paying for a more comprehensive sea trial, the other for a purchase option. The model compensates brokers much more fairly for their hard work, ensures that sellers are fairly protected, and creates a more balanced and practical framework for high-value sales. Home Handbook White Papers / / Deposits Reimagined THE DEFAULT POSITION Where the contract doesn’t state why a deposit is paid and how it can be recovered, then the default position (under English law – which is commonly used in international agreements) is that it is more than a mere part-payment: it is a guarantee that the buyer will complete, which the seller gets to keep as ‘liquidated’ (i.e. pre-agreed) damages if the buyer defaults – regardless of whether the seller has suffered any actual loss. And 10% has traditionally been the magic number. Anything more has been treated by the courts as punitive rather than compensatory – and so an unenforceable penalty clause. But this could be hard to justify in the context of the sale of an asset as expensive as one of our Members’ yachts. MYBA'S APPROACH MYBA’s Memorandum of Agreement is the dominant transactional framework for yacht sales in European waters. Under the MYBA MOA, the deposit (usually 10%) is payable upon signing, with the balance paid on completion after a successful sea trial and survey. The deposit is typically held by the broker, as stakeholder for both parties, and cannot be released except in accordance with the agreement's terms. If the buyer fails to pay the balance in accordance with the MOA, the seller can cancel and the deposit is released on a 50:50 basis between seller and broker. Various versions of this form are used, but the buyer typically has only four hours maximum for a sea trial. Even the prospective purchasers of cars can often spend a weekend test driving. And if the buyer walks away after the sea trial, the deposit must be repaid by the broker (less “all expenses … if any” although what this encompasses isn’t clear). And spare a thought for the broker(s) who will have put in an enormous amount of work into humouring a tyre-kicker - with no commission to show for it. IYBA’S APPROACH The International Yacht Brokers Association (which, despite the name, predominantly covers the US market) publishes its own Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA). This differs in several material respects from its European cousin, the MYBA MOA. There’s no stipulation for a 10% deposit, although this is commonly the starting point. In practice, deposits can be as low as 5% for higher-value vessels. There’s no set time for how long the “trial run” should take, just a provision that this should be completed “as soon as practicable”. Unlike the MYBA MOA, “all running expenses” being for the seller’s account – not the buyer’s. Moreover, whether or not the buyer has inspected the vessel, the buyer will be deemed to have rejected it unless a timely written notice of acceptance is submitted to the seller. DUAL UPFRONT PAYMENTS It’s time for traditional deposits to evolve. Here’s the idea. The buyer has the option of paying two separate amounts upfront: Firstly, a payment reflecting the actual cost of a meaningfully-long sea trial (of, say, a week) using as a guide the equivalent amount paid to charter a similar-size vessel for the same period; and Secondly, a payment paid to secure the right to purchase within the closure timeframe, just large enough to deter any daydreamers. Both amounts are set-off against the final balance due on completion, but the buyer can walk away after the sea trial no questions asked, in which case only the second amount would be repaid. This approach is surely better for the seller, who knows at the outset that an agreed fixed amount has already been paid as reasonable compensation for preparing the vessel and undertaking the sea trial. Crew can prepare the vessel to perfection. The broker should also be delighted, as he or she can still continue marketing the vessel where the prospective buyer hasn’t made the second payment. That buyer can also trial a selection of vessels, so that the choice changes from whether to buy – to which to buy. The broker could even take this a step further and charge for vessel tours, further fending off timewasters. With the seller’s blessing, sea trial payments could be retained by the broker to reward ongoing efforts and a sometimes uncertain income stream. The buyer might wish to try out several yachts – without the need to book a charter (keeping in mind that only a minority of yachts are registered for commercial use). And having had the opportunity to conduct a more thorough sea trial, buyer’s remorse is far less likely. The amount paid for this privilege being deducted from the final balance, he or she is no worse off after completion. Crewmembers will have an opportunity to display their skills to a prospective new employer, increasing the chances of them being retained by the new owner. CONCLUSION The 10% deposit owes as much to tradition than to the practical needs of today’s marketplace. It’s time to take a fresh look at this subject and make sale agreements work more effectively for everyone involved. Yes, there would need to be a dialogue with Flag States and insurance underwriters – to ensure that they understand that the sea trial is not a charter by another name. But both have shown in recent years that they are open to fresh ideas. Certainly, the sale agreement incorporating such dual upfront payments will need very careful drafting. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who provided perspectives for this white paper. The 10% deposit is a relic of tradition, misaligned with modern yacht transactions. This white paper proposes splitting upfront payments: one paying for a more comprehensive sea trial, the other for a purchase option. The model compensates brokers much more fairly for their hard work, ensures that sellers are fairly protected, and creates a more balanced and practical framework for high-value sales. 15 October 2025 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time minutes 4 Reading time 15 October 2025 Last revised The 10% deposit is a relic of tradition, misaligned with modern yacht transactions. This white paper proposes splitting upfront payments: one paying for a more comprehensive sea trial, the other for a purchase option. The model compensates brokers much more fairly for their hard work, ensures that sellers are fairly protected, and creates a more balanced and practical framework for high-value sales. For over a century, yacht brokers and lawyers have treated the 10% deposit as gospel. A ritual payment that signals commitment, deters flakiness, and soothes sellers’ nerves. But this figure, rooted in dusty English caselaw and carried into modern international agreements, is starting to look hopelessly outdated. In today’s yacht market, where buyers expect flexibility and transparency, this old model is looking outdated. This paper argues that the industry should abandon the “one-size-fits-all” single deposit and embrace a more nuanced, dual-payment model — one that reflects modern realities, aligns incentives, and makes the buying process fairer for sellers, brokers, and serious purchasers alike. You can also read about A Flood Not a Trickle Questions or comments? Please contact us Join the discussion over in the Club's group You can also read about A Flood Not a Trickle Questions or comments? Please contact us

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

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

Unavailable at present Latest Position Yachts & More Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 32 m Length Thompson Yachts Builder 2018 Build year 347 Gross tonnage United Kingdom Registry Particulars Token

Answers to questions often asked about The Owners Club, the worldwide association of superyacht owners. By pooling expertise and experience, we’re making ownership easier, more transparent and better value. Home About FAQs / / Any Questions? Have a question? Just contact us . Some regularly asked questions are set out below. Contact Us How do I become a member? Membership so far has been on an informal basis. To meet the needs of today’s rapidly growing numbers of owners and their representatives, we are now working towards online onboarding. This will allow immediate access to the Club’s suite of standard documents and specialist guidance. How long has the Club been in existence? The idea of creating the Club was first floated back in 2008. Only recently, with the return to pre-global financial crisis levels of building, and increasing public scrutiny of large yacht ownership, have Members sought to formalise their association. Which yacht broker do you recommend? While brokers play a vital role in the yacht market, we cannot recommend particular brokers. Each brokerage, and each individual broker, has its, his and her advantages and disadvantages in terms of contacts, experience and location. For the sake of simplicity and ease of completion, we would urge would-be buyers to ensure that they are dealing with central sales agents. Can we advertise with you? Yes – as long as your business isn’t selling yachts or any yachting-related goods or services. Members trust the Club to provide information and assistance without fear or favour. As we provide object owner-focused guidance, allowing yachting businesses to advertise might create a conflict of interest. Find out more here . Can I network with Members? If Members agree, the Club may organise social and networking events for Members and their representatives in future. Can you help find me a captain? Crew agencies, aside, our General Secretary is happy to publicise direct crew and shoreside staff vacancies. Just contact us . Can you manage my yacht? No, but Members will soon be able to use the Club’s standard yacht management agreement to contract with third party managers. Indeed, Members may consider that, using the Club’s suite of documents, there may be certain aspects of management which can be undertaken by their own family offices. Why doesn’t the Club use the term ‘superyacht’? It turns out that most of our Members don’t actually like the terms ‘superyacht’, ‘megayacht' or ‘gigayacht’. They generally feel that it isn’t helpful to be seen by authorities and the media as a special type of yacht. They feel there’s a fine line between label and target.

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

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 Superyachts'R'Us Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 26 m Length Builder & Co Builder 2012 Build year 80 Gross tonnage Marshall Islands Registry Particulars Yardstick

The Owners Club started with a chance meeting between two owners racing in the Superyacht Cup. They wondered if yacht owners, could speak with one voice, and share best practice, when buying, building, owning and selling. They also thought to pool their considerable buying power to negotiate discounts for insurance, finance and lawyers fees. Home About Genesis / / A Fresh Start COMMON SENSE FOR UNCOMMON WEALTH FAQs Why is it that, while we can innovate, build strong businesses and drive economies forward, our voice as yacht owners remains so quiet? Sure, our brokers, managers and captains have our backs, but they’ve got their hands full. Who’s there to take a high-level view of ownership? Who’s there to provide guidance so we’re not each taking advice and reinventing the wheel? Who’s drafting the agreements and documents we have to have in place? Shouldn’t we be working together? Yes. It’s common sense. I can’t believe we’re all taking advice on pretty much the same things – crew employment, taxes, etc. It’s great to see owners and their reps come together like this. CAPTAIN 72m MY FROM COMPETITION TO COOPERATION Contact Us It all started with a chance meeting between two owners. Sitting on the rail of a Superyacht Cup competitor, they wondered why yachts were subject to so much regulation. Protecting seafarers on large ships, many of the complex rules are arbitrary and inconsistent when applied to smaller vessels. Could this be put right? Yes, if only we, the owners, could speak with one voice. And if coming together, let's share best practice, rather than seek expensive advice at every turn. And why not pool our considerable buying power to negotiate discounts?

Unavailable at present Latest Position Superyachts'R'Us Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 88 m Length Thompson Yachts Builder 2010 Build year 1502 Gross tonnage Malta Registry Particulars Representation

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 72 m Length Thompson Yachts Builder 1996 Build year 1020 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Instance

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

Most large yachts are bought and sold on the basis of the MYBA MOA. While the mechanics of the sale process is dealt with in that document, there’s one glaring omission: what documents does the seller need to produce to prove ownership and liabilities? As mere paperwork, such matters are often only negotiated once the MOA has been agreed, leaving scope for an otherwise viable deal to falter. Consider what’s likely to be requested at the outset and prepare accordingly. Home Handbook Selling / / Preparing the Paperwork 29 January 2025 Last revised minutes 9 Reading time Most large yachts are bought and sold on the basis of the MYBA MOA . While the mechanics of the sale process is dealt with in that document, there’s one glaring omission: what documents does the seller need to produce to prove ownership and liabilities, and ensure a smooth transaction? As mere paperwork, such matters are often only negotiated once the MOA has been agreed, leaving scope for an otherwise viable deal to falter. Consider what’s likely to be requested at the outset and prepare accordingly. minutes 9 Reading time 29 January 2025 Last revised Most large yachts are bought and sold on the basis of the MYBA MOA . While the mechanics of the sale process is dealt with in that document, there’s one glaring omission: what documents does the seller need to produce to prove ownership and liabilities, and ensure a smooth transaction? As mere paperwork, such matters are often only negotiated once the MOA has been agreed, leaving scope for an otherwise viable deal to falter. Consider what’s likely to be requested at the outset and prepare accordingly. Clause 18 of the MOA requires "Addendum One" documents, but no such addendum is included. Essential documents are needed for re-registration and proving title, without which the vessel could lose value. Missing corporate authorities or powers of attorney could invalidate the sale. Documents may need specific authentication to be accepted by the flag state. Seller’s documents are crucial for proving ownership and regulatory compliance. Legal professionals have standard expectations for required documents, beyond outdated MYBA lists. Proper planning is needed before the MOA is agreed to ensure all documents are available. Sale documents fall into six categories, which are considered in detail below. Seller’s documents are crucial for proving ownership and regulatory compliance. Legal professionals have standard expectations for required documents, beyond outdated MYBA lists. Proper planning is needed before the MOA is agreed to ensure all documents are available. Sale documents fall into six categories, which are considered in detail below. Clause 18 of the MOA requires "Addendum One" documents, but no such addendum is included. Essential documents are needed for re-registration and proving title, without which the vessel could lose value. Missing corporate authorities or powers of attorney could invalidate the sale. Documents may need specific authentication to be accepted by the flag state. Unhelpfully, Clause 18 of the MOA simply sets out that the “Addendum One” documents must be provided by the seller, yet the MOA doesn’t come with Addendum One – or any addenda for that matter. 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. The seller’s documents are so much more than mere paperwork: they help prove ownership, and are evidence that the vessel complies with certain regulations. They’re fundamental, not a formality. Most lawyers involved in yacht sale and purchase will have their own standard document setting out what they expect to see when representing the buyer. At some point, MYBA has produced it own rather meagre list, versions of which are still doing the rounds years later. It’s best to think about what’ll be asked for, and who has possession of these (or can provide them) even before the MOA is agreed. Assuming the vessel is owned through a company, the paperwork can be divided into six broad categories: Seller due diligence, proving that the company exists and has the capacity to own and sell the vessel; Beneficial owner due diligence, confirming identity and providing a personal guarantee; Seller corporate documents, resolving to sell and appointing attorneys; Asset due diligence, demonstrating provenance and conformity with safety regulations; Liability due diligence, showing that those would could have a claim against the vessel do not; and Sale process documents, which will show that the sale took place, when and where. Let’s look at each group in further detail. SELLER DUE DILIGENCE A Certificate of Incorporation , Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association , in respect of the selling company (including any amendments) are needed to verify that the seller is the legally-registered entity it appears to be, which actually has the authority to own and sell the asset. This may sound obvious, but companies can only do what they’re empowered to do. A recent Certificate of Incumbency , or equivalent certificate, is important in verifying the current shareholders and directors of the seller, as well as confirming that the seller is in good standing and no action is being taken against them. A Certificate of Good Standing , or equivalent certificate, is also needed from the seller's registry to certify that they are in good standing with that registry. These documents are necessary fundamental to ensuring that the buyer is not at risk of fraud. BENEFICIAL OWNER DUE DILIGENCE A Personal Guarantee & Indemnity , whether on standard MYBA terms or otherwise, from the yacht’s beneficial owner, goes a long way to providing additional security for the buyer in case the seller is unable to fulfil its obligations under the sale agreement. The seller, after all, is almost certainly an offshore company with no assets to claim against other than the vessel which has just been sold. The guarantee should make provision for private arbitration so that, in the event of a dispute, matters aren’t settled in the public eye. Up-to-date personal identity documents are also useful in making sure that whoever signs the guarantee is who they claim to be. It should be noted that not all beneficial owners are happy to provide these documents. Some take the view that all their assets are owned through companies with which they don’t want to have any involvement. If you don’t want to agree to provide these to the seller, that’s your prerogative. This may or may not be a deal-breaker for the buyer. SELLER CORPORATE DOCUMENTS As with any large transaction undertaken by a company, the seller needs to produce written Resolutions , signed by someone with the requisite authority, confirming ownership, approving the sale, and authorising representatives to act on behalf of the company in respect of the completion of the sale (such attending on board at completion, and signing the sale documents). For the sake of certainty, Powers of Attorney are also needed to give the individuals the powers which the company has resolved to given them. ASSET DUE DILIGENCE It doesn’t provide conclusive proof, but the Certificate of Registry does help to prove ownership. The Builder’s Certificate shows who the builder was (yard pedigree being an important component of value) as well as it’s specification (which is vital when establishing what regulations will apply and establishing whether it can be chartered). Providing all the previous Bills of Sale will establish a chain of ownership transferal, extending back to its launch, which helps to confirm current ownership, as well as being documents which a fraudster would struggle to produce. The yacht will be subject to various regulations and all the relevant safety and convention certificates must be obtained well in advance of the sale so that the buyer knows that the yacht is capable of satisfying these rules. LIABILITY DUE DILIGENCE Debts incurred by an owner, in respect of their yacht, can be enforced against that yacht (as well as that owner) even after it’s been sold to an unsuspecting buyer. So a recent Transcript of Register will show that the vessel is free from any registered liens or encumbrances and is still solely owned by the seller. It’s also important to obtain a Manager’s Letter (if a yacht manager has been engaged) and a Captain’s Letter , confirming that the seller has no liabilities to the manager, or captain, or any third parties, and that the yacht has not been involved in any incidents or accidents since the pre-sale condition survey. Crewmembers’ Letters will confirm that each crewmember has been paid everything owed to them. And where the yacht is being sold as having a tax-paid status, evidence of this must be prepared – allowing sufficient time for the buyer to take advice from a local tax specialist. SALE PROCESS DOCUMENTS A Completion Timetable , which lists all parties involved in the completion of the sale, their contact details, and the necessary steps to be taken during and after completion, is essential to ensure that all parties are aware of the steps required to complete the sale and that they are well-coordinated. The Bill of Sale , signed by the seller, declares that the vessel is free from all debts, claims, liens, and encumbrances and transfers ownership to the buyer. This document is necessary to establish transfer of ownership, and is vital for re-registration in the buyer’s name. As the time and location of the transfer of ownership may have tax implications, a Protocol of Delivery & Acceptance , in an agreed format, must be agreed. As a formal payment request, the seller’s Commercial Invoice is essential for bookkeeping and provides customs authorities with essential information regarding the transaction. Finally, the seller must produce a Letter of Undertaking that the yacht will be deleted from the current ship registry soon after the sale. Deletion isn’t free and involves professional time which the seller will have to pay for. Feel free to contact us for further guidance. 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 Document Authentication Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Document Authentication

Unavailable at present Latest Position Superyachts'R'Us Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 33 m Length DMS & Co Builder 2017 Build year 350 Gross tonnage Malta Registry Particulars Display

Everyone knows what a superyacht is - until they’re asked to define it. The term has no legal meaning, yet countless organisations claim one. A justifiable boast of prestige and craftsmanship, the term “superyacht” has also become a linguistic liability. Perhaps it’s time to drop the “super” altogether? Home Handbook White Papers / / Language of Luxury "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (1871) While there is no legal definition of what a ‘superyacht’ is, this doesn’t stop some unilaterally deciding what it is: > 24 metres in length overall - Superyacht UK > 24 metres in length with full-time captain and crew – Burgess Yachts ≥ 24 metres in loadline length and commercially operated – Warsash Maritime School > 98 feet (29.87metres) in Length - The New Yorker > 30 metres in length – Superyacht Times > 30.48 metres in length overall – Offshore Racing Congress > 45.72 metres in length with a draught of ≥ 3 metres - Port Authority of New South Wales Generally, we know what we mean by the term: a pleasure vessel which, for regulatory reasons and on account of its sheer size, needs a permanent, full-time crew. This is the point at which, irrespective of size, the vessel isn’t just an asset but a place of employment and worker accommodation – all rolled into one. Large yachts, with a full-time crew, have been around since the dawn of the 20th century. But the term ‘superyacht’, and the now lesser-used label ‘megayacht’, have only been in widespread use since the mid-1980s. Looking back at the yachting journals of the 1980s, it’s clear that the terms ‘superyacht’ and ‘megayacht’ were simply applied to distinguish between larger vessels which were owner-operated and smaller ones which were not. It was used by brokers and journalists as hyperbole – long before digital media and online videos allowed size, style and pedigree to speak for themselves. This was an age – let’s not forget – when many owners not only sailed some of the larger yachts themselves but often built or at least fitted them out themselves, too. Fast forward to 2000, and there were still only a fraction of the number of large yachts is use compared to today. It was an industry still largely unknown to those not involved. Most brokers and many captains knew each other. Except for some opportunist paparazzi, most journalists paid little regard. A USEFUL DESCRIPTION To be fair, ‘superyacht’ is a useful term – within the industry itself. When an owner can afford crew, he or she can afford to pay for, say, paint of a higher quality but needing a more exacting application standards. A superyacht insurance policy will take account of the owner’s role as an employer and the vessel’s function as a workplace. But such details can be contained deep within a product’s specification.The term has a kudos all of its own. They are, after all, impressive and effortlessly cool. It makes sense to appropriate the term to distinguish oneself as a services supplier. It adds marketplace swagger – although there has been a tendency, for example, for shipping lawyers with little understanding of the market or business models to label themselves as superyacht lawyers. AN UNWELCOME LABEL? Time and again, however, since the early 2010s, environmentalists – and politicians looking to combine green virtue signalling with the politics of envy – have used the term superyacht in a pejorative sense. Rarely, if ever, do they simply refer to yachts: “ Specifically, we draw attention to assessing aspects of ecological footprints of super yachts [sic], 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 .” Lynch, Long, Stretesky & Barrett: Measuring the Ecological Impact of the Wealthy: Excessive Consumption, Ecological Disorganization, Green Crime, and Justice (2019) “ Among the many possessions of billionaires, large “superyachts” are by far the largest producers of greenhouse gases. ” Barros & Wilk: The outsized carbon footprints of the super-rich (2021) “ Superyacht sale surge prompt fresh calls for curbs on their emissions ” The Guardian , 4 October 2022 “ Superyachts aim to go green – but at what cost? ” Financial Times , 1 September 2022 “ THE SUPERYACHT INDUSTRY IS A SINKING SHIP ” - Extinction Rebellion protestors’ banner unfurled during The Superyacht Forum, 16 November 2022 NOT WANTED & NOT NEEDED Informal discussions with Club Members reveal that many just do not like the term superyacht. It has nowadays, for some, the wrong connotations. It’s become a target as well as a description. A lot of owners neither want nor need the perceived kudos which attaches to the term. In short, they have nothing to prove. Their vessels just happen to be larger than most, more or less in proportion to their net worth. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Perhaps the industry needs to bite the bullet and do away with the term superyacht. Remember when The Superyacht Report was just called The Yacht Report? Maybe it's time to change back. Yes, rebranding is expensive, but such changes may prove far less expensive than not evolving. Brand refreshment is a regular necessity. When the next one’s due, let’s drop the ‘super’ and just call a yacht a yacht. It’s not about trying to make large yachts somehow less conspicuous. It is about removing the popular and mistaken distinction between yachts and superyachts, and instead viewing one being merely a subset of the other. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who provided perspectives for this white paper. Everyone knows what a superyacht is - until they’re asked to define it. The term has no legal meaning, yet countless organisations claim one. A justifiable boast of prestige and craftsmanship, the term “superyacht” has also become a linguistic liability. Perhaps it’s time to drop the “super” altogether? 13 October 2025 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time minutes 4 Reading time 13 October 2025 Last revised Everyone knows what a superyacht is - until they’re asked to define it. The term has no legal meaning, yet countless organisations claim one. A justifiable boast of prestige and craftsmanship, the term “superyacht” has also become a linguistic liability. Perhaps it’s time to drop the “super” altogether? The term 'superyacht' has many definitions, but none in law. The term gained widespread use in the mid-1980s to distinguish larger, crewed vessels from smaller ones. The word has become associated with luxury and prestige. In recent years, however, environmentalists and politicians have used the term in a negative way, linking it to excessive consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Informal discussions among our Members reveals that many of us feel we neither want nor need the perceived kudos associated with the term. Some suggest doing away with the term 'superyacht' altogether and simply calling them yachts. Rebranding may be costly, but it could be a worthwhile change for the industry to make. You can also read about Cut to the Chase Questions or comments? Please contact us Join the discussion over in the Club's group You can also read about Cut to the Chase Questions or comments? Please contact us

When buying a superyacht owned by a company (and they almost always are), purchasing the yacht itself as an asset and re-registering it is normally preferable to simply buying the shares in the owning company - despite the apparent simplicity of a share purchase. The fundamental reason is that a share purchase means acquiring the entire company complete with all its liabilities - past, present, future, known and unknown. An asset purchase, meanwhile, allows the buyer to acquire just the yacht whilst leaving most unwanted liabilities behind. Home Handbook Buying / / Buy the Company? 17 June 2026 Last revised minutes 4 Reading time When buying a superyacht owned by a company (and they almost always are), purchasing the yacht itself as an asset and re-registering it is normally preferable to simply buying the shares in the owning company - despite the apparent simplicity of a share purchase. The fundamental reason is that a share purchase means acquiring the entire company complete with all its liabilities - past, present, future, known and unknown. An asset purchase, meanwhile, allows the buyer to acquire just the yacht whilst leaving most unwanted liabilities behind. minutes 4 Reading time 17 June 2026 Last revised When buying a superyacht owned by a company (and they almost always are), purchasing the yacht itself as an asset and re-registering it is normally preferable to simply buying the shares in the owning company - despite the apparent simplicity of a share purchase. The fundamental reason is that a share purchase means acquiring the entire company complete with all its liabilities - past, present, future, known and unknown. An asset purchase, meanwhile, allows the buyer to acquire just the yacht whilst leaving most unwanted liabilities behind. Buying a yacht as an asset is usually safer than buying the yacht owning company’s shares, as it allows the buyer to acquire the asset while leaving behind corporate liabilities . A share purchase transfers the entire company, including all known and unknown liabilities, tax exposures, contractual obligations, and historical risks accumulated before the buyer’s involvement. An asset purchase enables the buyer to start with a fresh ownership structure, registration, financing, insurance, and operational arrangements, giving greater certainty to both buyers and lenders. Even asset purchases are not completely risk-free because maritime liens can attach directly to the yacht and survive a change of ownership, making due diligence essential. An asset purchase enables the buyer to start with a fresh ownership structure, registration, financing, insurance, and operational arrangements, giving greater certainty to both buyers and lenders. Even asset purchases are not completely risk-free because maritime liens can attach directly to the yacht and survive a change of ownership, making due diligence essential. Buying a yacht as an asset is usually safer than buying the yacht owning company’s shares, as it allows the buyer to acquire the asset while leaving behind corporate liabilities . A share purchase transfers the entire company, including all known and unknown liabilities, tax exposures, contractual obligations, and historical risks accumulated before the buyer’s involvement. Buying a superyacht can involve a surprising amount of paperwork and procedures. And possible delays where documents are missing. What a palaver! Surely the solution’s obvious. Just buy the owning company. You’d be transferring just one asset: the share capital. The yacht itself stays exactly where it is, in the same ownership structure, and all the underlying contracts, licences, and arrangements continue undisturbed. There’re no ownership transfer formalities. No requirement to obtain third-party consents. The whole transaction can be completed with little more than a stock transfer form. So simple. So quick. So why not? THE GREAT UNKNOWN Unlike a yacht, a company doesn't just sit there looking magnificent. It has a past. It has signed things, promised things, owed things, and possibly upset people in ways you know nothing about. When you purchase shares in a company, you acquire all that company’s liabilities and obligations, whether past, present, or future, and whether known or unknown. The company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders, so ownership of its assets does not change hands: you simply become the owner of the legal entity that holds them. Perhaps most notably, on a share purchase, the buyer inherits the company's entire tax history – and liabilities. Imagine a yacht operating in the Mediterranean. For years she has been cruising the waters of France, Italy, Spain and Greece. Each jurisdiction has its own VAT rules. The company has taken positions that appeared reasonable at the time. Years later a tax authority disagrees. If you purchased the shares, congratulations. You are now the proud owner of an argument between experts that began before you even knew the yacht existed. MITIGATING EXPOSURE A buyer could attempt to mitigate exposure by requiring extensive warranties and indemnities in the share purchase agreement, or through a price reduction. But such agreements only bind the contracting parties and cannot be enforced against the company's creditors. Breach of warranty claims are costly and time-consuming to enforce, and ultimately worthless if the seller lacks the financial substance to meet the claim – which, as an SPV no longer with any assets, is highly likely. An extensive due diligence exercise could be undertaken, examining accounts, tax filings, charter records, insurance history, etc – but this would be expensive, time-consuming and probably inconclusive. Which is what you’ve been looking to avoid. CLEAR THE DECKS By contrast, with a pure asset purchase, the buyer generally does not take on the seller’s tax or other liabilities. The buyer takes the yacht. The seller keeps the history. The de-registration and re-registration process provides confirmation that any existing registered mortgage has been discharged. The buyer can create a fresh ownership structure with a new company, new registration, new insurance, a new crew, etc. There is no need to negotiate a tax covenant to protect against pre-completion tax liabilities. Also, consider the lender's position. A bank financing a yacht to the tune of tens of millions wants security. A tangible thing. A thing it can arrest and sell if everything goes wrong. The bank does not particularly want exposure to an obscure corporate history involving VAT returns filed by somebody in Croatia three years ago. Asset purchases are cleaner. The lender receives a fresh mortgage, and fresh security documents. Everyone starts from a known position. IMPERFECT PANACEA Under maritime law, liens can always attach directly to the vessel itself – not the owning company. Crew wages. Marina charges. Repair claims. These will survive a change of ownership of the yacht even if you, as purchaser, has had no notice of them. Liens also rank in priority ahead of mortgages, and the holder of the lien also has the right to arrest the vessel - which can prevent it from generating any charter income or even being used. So while buying just the asset is better, it’s far from fool-proof. The buyer's due diligence should specifically investigate whether any liens have arisen from unpaid crew wages, collision damage, salvage claims, or other maritime incidents. And the buyer must take steps to ensure these are cleared before completion. The purchase agreement should require the seller to discharge all maritime liens as a condition of completion. A judicial sale of the ship by court order normally removes any liens from the title, producing a clean asset for the purchaser. IT HAPPENS Buying just the shares can work – and it is quick and easy – but only where the buyer knows and seller and the yacht well enough to be certain there are no hidden liabilities. Indeed, it could be the better option where charters have been agreed. It’d still be preferable to have a personal guarantee in place from the beneficial owner of the selling company. CONCLUSION From the seller's perspective, a share purchase delivers a clean break from the company and its associated liabilities. On completion, all continuing obligations and liabilities remain with the company, and the seller's post-transaction liability is generally limited to agreed warranties, indemnities and covenants in the share purchase agreement. However, what is commercially attractive for the seller is precisely what makes share purchases risky for buyers. For a buyer concerned about the extent of potential liabilities, or the risk of unknown contingent claims, an asset purchase offers the ability to acquire the yacht whilst leaving the corporate liability vehicle behind. The buyer acquires a clean asset, subject only to those liabilities which attach to the yacht itself by operation of law. 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 Brokers' Role Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about The Brokers' Role

As soon as you enter any country’s waters, you’re under an obligation to abide by all their laws. Detailed onboard examinations are used to check compliance. Port State Control (PSC) is the system of inspection by officials to check vessels’ condition and operation. Safety, security, environmental protection and seafarer welfare are the areas of interest. Port States can require defects to be put right, and detain vessels if necessary. This is all separate, and in addition to, any consideration of the tax status of the owner, beneficial owner and yacht. Home Handbook Regulation / / Port State Control 19 June 2011 Last revised minutes 3 Reading time As soon as you enter any country’s waters, you’re under an obligation to abide by all their laws. Detailed onboard examinations are used to check compliance. Port State Control (PSC) is the system of inspection by officials to check vessels’ condition and operation. Safety, security, environmental protection and seafarer welfare are the areas of interest. Port States can require defects to be put right, and detain vessels if necessary. This is all separate, and in addition to, any consideration of the tax status of the owner, beneficial owner and yacht. minutes 3 Reading time 19 June 2011 Last revised As soon as you enter any country’s waters, you’re under an obligation to abide by all their laws. Detailed onboard examinations are used to check compliance. Port State Control (PSC) is the system of inspection by officials to check vessels’ condition and operation. Safety, security, environmental protection and seafarer welfare are the areas of interest. Port States can require defects to be put right, and detain vessels if necessary. This is all separate, and in addition to, any consideration of the tax status of the owner, beneficial owner and yacht. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MoU) includes European Union coastal countries, Canada, Croatia, Norway, and Russia, among others. The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment provides the secretariat for the Paris MoU. The Paris MoU introduced the New Inspection Regime (NIR) which aims to inspect 100% of all ships, including yachts, visiting ports in the Paris MoU region over a three-year period. Yachts are now included in the NIR and are subject to assessments regarding safety, health, and the environment. Vessels are categorized into High Risk Ships, Standard Risk Ships, and Low Risk Ships, determining the frequency of inspections. The risk categorization is based on factors such as previous inspections, vessel type and age, the yacht's manager's performance, and the country of registry. Inspections are not meant to disrupt cruising schedules but are necessary for compliance. Inspections focus on training, management systems, and the physical integrity of the yacht to ensure safety for the owner, guests, and crew. Preparation is key to a hassle-free inspection, including compliance with relevant rules, crew training, and detailed guidelines. Safety and security procedures must be followed, and honesty is crucial during inspections, as falsifying records or lying to officials is a serious offence. The risk categorization is based on factors such as previous inspections, vessel type and age, the yacht's manager's performance, and the country of registry. Inspections are not meant to disrupt cruising schedules but are necessary for compliance. Inspections focus on training, management systems, and the physical integrity of the yacht to ensure safety for the owner, guests, and crew. Preparation is key to a hassle-free inspection, including compliance with relevant rules, crew training, and detailed guidelines. Safety and security procedures must be followed, and honesty is crucial during inspections, as falsifying records or lying to officials is a serious offence. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MoU) includes European Union coastal countries, Canada, Croatia, Norway, and Russia, among others. The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment provides the secretariat for the Paris MoU. The Paris MoU introduced the New Inspection Regime (NIR) which aims to inspect 100% of all ships, including yachts, visiting ports in the Paris MoU region over a three-year period. Yachts are now included in the NIR and are subject to assessments regarding safety, health, and the environment. Vessels are categorized into High Risk Ships, Standard Risk Ships, and Low Risk Ships, determining the frequency of inspections. All European Union coastal countries, and Canada, Croatia, Norway, and Russia, are party to the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MoU). The Hague-based Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure & Environment provides the secretariat. There are 6 other MoU blocs worldwide. INSPECTION REGIME The Paris MoU New Inspection Regime (NIR) introduced a target of inspecting, over any three-year period, 100% of all the ships visiting ports and anchorages in the Paris MoU region. Yachts have been lumped-in with trading ships and ferries. The NIR applies to “ships”, which includes all yachts. Where a yacht is so small, or is not chartered, such that parts of the various maritime conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, etc) do not apply, the PSC’s task is now to “…to assess whether the ship is of an acceptable standard in regard to safety, health or the environment.” Further, in assessing such vessels, account must be taken, “…of such factors as the length and nature of the intended voyage or service, the size and type of the ship…”. All vessels are deemed to fall into one of three risk profiles. High Risk Ships must be inspected 5 to 6 months after the last inspection, Standard Risk Ships 10 to 12 months after the last inspection and Low Risk Ships 24 to 36 months after the last inspection. Additional inspections, however, can also be triggered by overriding or unexpected factors. Time windows for the next periodic inspection re-start after any inspection. Where a window has come and gone without checks having been carried – because a yacht has not called at a participating port – that yacht will automatically be targeted on arrival. The risk categorisation is based on a number of factors – including the details and results of previous Paris MoU inspections, the vessels’ type and age, the performance of the yacht’s manager and the country of registry. In fact, for a yacht to be a Low Risk Ship, the flag must be approved and appear on the annual Paris MoU White List. The United States, Switzerland, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Panama, and the Netherlands Antilles all fail to make the List. Unless a yacht is a High Risk Ship, port officials have the option of undertaking an initial inspection – then deciding whether or not to carry out a detailed inspection. INSPECTIONS Inspections are not intended to interrupt cruising schedules. They are carried out because they have to be. Most officials in most ports will be polite and efficient, but they can make life difficult if they choose to. While nearly all large yachts are extremely well presented, it is the training and management systems – as well as the physical integrity of the vessel – which is being examined. Poorly-run vessels can still present a hazard to the owner, guests and crew: perhaps it is better that these issues are picked up sooner rather than later. PREPARATION It’s up to the yacht’s captain and manager to ensure that the relevant rules are being complied with and that all crewmembers know what do in an emergency. Detailed guidelines and instructions should already be laid out, where these are mandatory, in the Safety Management System and Ship Security Plan, but it’s how these and other forms of pre-prepared guidance translate into reality that’s key to a fast and hassle-free inspection. First impressions are crucial. Do all the deckhands and steward(ess)s automatically know to be especially courteous with the PSC inspector? They may not be wearing an official uniform, and could just be yet another supplier. They may not take kindly to being told to remove their shoes – so a box of disposable shoe covers kept by the passarelle will get the process off on the right foot. Safety and security procedures must be followed at all times: it is the checks that count – not the ticks. Even where a guest may be inconvenienced by a safety briefing, this will be as nothing compared to the yacht being detained later. Falsifying logs and records, or lying to officials, will constitute a serious criminal offence. It is always better to admit a failing than to cover it up: the inspectors have seen it all before. Members would be well advised to discuss the possibility of inspection with captains and managers sooner rather than later. 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 ISM Code Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about The ISM Code

The types of yacht insurance you need depends on the size of your vessel – and how you use it. Various types of cover can be combined within one product. Having insufficient cover can breach local laws, but be careful not to be sold cover you don’t need. And make sure you understand the role of the company you’re buying the policy through. Home Handbook Insuring / / Types of Insurance 26 March 2023 Last revised minutes 8 Reading time The type of insurance you need depends on the size of your yacht – and how you use it. Various types of cover can be combined within one product. Having insufficient cover can breach local laws, but be careful not to buy cover you don’t need. And make sure you understand the role of the company you’re buying the policy through. minutes 8 Reading time 26 March 2023 Last revised The type of insurance you need depends on the size of your yacht – and how you use it. Various types of cover can be combined within one product. Having insufficient cover can breach local laws, but be careful not to buy cover you don’t need. And make sure you understand the role of the company you’re buying the policy through. Large yacht ownership involves various risks, and insurance coverage is available to mitigate those risks. Compulsory insurances are required by port authorities, including third-party liability cover for yachts over 300 gross tonnes. Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Clubs provide liability coverage and support for yacht owners, often combined with Freight, Demurrage & Defence (FD&D) cover. Employers' liability insurance is required under UK law for the legal owner's liability for employee injuries. Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) requirements include liability coverage for repatriation, outstanding salaries, and occupational injury-related payments for crew. Crew welfare insurance covers medical costs and financial repercussions for crew members in case of illness or accidents. Oil pollution insurance is necessary to cover the legal owner's liability for oil spills caused by crew members. Wreck removal insurance is required by some countries and mandates coverage for the costs of removing wrecks. Hull & Machinery insurance covers loss or damage to the yacht, its engines, equipment, fittings, and accessories. Additional coverage options include war & strikes, fine art & valuables, subsea equipment, kidnap & ransom, project risk, and project liability insurance. Crew welfare insurance covers medical costs and financial repercussions for crew members in case of illness or accidents. Oil pollution insurance is necessary to cover the legal owner's liability for oil spills caused by crew members. Wreck removal insurance is required by some countries and mandates coverage for the costs of removing wrecks. Hull & Machinery insurance covers loss or damage to the yacht, its engines, equipment, fittings, and accessories. Additional coverage options include war & strikes, fine art & valuables, subsea equipment, kidnap & ransom, project risk, and project liability insurance. Large yacht ownership involves various risks, and insurance coverage is available to mitigate those risks. Compulsory insurances are required by port authorities, including third-party liability cover for yachts over 300 gross tonnes. Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Clubs provide liability coverage and support for yacht owners, often combined with Freight, Demurrage & Defence (FD&D) cover. Employers' liability insurance is required under UK law for the legal owner's liability for employee injuries. Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) requirements include liability coverage for repatriation, outstanding salaries, and occupational injury-related payments for crew. Here we’re looking at the various risks which large yacht ownership entails, and the cover available. Individual policies go by various names, and multiple risks are sometimes covered by one product, especially for smaller vessels. Compulsory insurances are considered first, followed by discretionary coverage. Many port authorities require not only cover, but also immediate proof in the form of certificates, so make sure these are issued simultaneously with insurance documentation. THIRD PARTY LIABILITY Risk Risk of the legal owner’s liability to third parties, while your yacht is in service. Required For yachts of 300 gross tonnes or more, third party liability cover is required by, and in accordance with, the Merchant Shipping (Compulsory Insurance of Shipowners for Maritime Claims) Regulations 2012 (UK) and Directive 2009/20/EC on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims (EU). Most port states and private marinas require third party cover. Remarks Offered as Third Party Liability (TPL) insurance, or as broader Protection & Indemnity (P&I) cover - particularly for larger yachts. Historically, because third party claims can be so large (think oil spills), commercial ship owners joined together to form Protection & Indemnity Clubs, known as P&I Clubs. The larger ones are members of the International Group which has liability pooling arrangements to cope with the largest claims. Operating on a mutual not-for-profit basis, meaning that members can be asked to pay additional amounts to make the books balance, yacht owners can be an awkward fit. Some Clubs now offer fixed-premium cover. P&I Clubs in particular have claims handlers and foreign correspondents able to provide immediate advice following an incident, and can provide useful loss prevention guidance. In the unlikely event of a yacht being detained at a port following, for example, an accidental diesel discharge, the club will also have the known and respected financial muscle to provide security and allow the yacht to be released while the claim is processed at a later date. This support can be extremely useful in helping to keep a charter schedule on track, especially where problems are encountered in exotic destinations where local insider knowledge and contacts are vital. Although owners and managers should always ensure that they make the most of the Clubs’ support, this network is often overlooked. It can be packaged with Freight, Demurrage & Defence (FD&D) cover, which combines hands-on legal support provided by P&I Club in-house lawyers, and cover for external legal advice. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY Risk Risk of the legal owner’s liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by any of its employees and arising out of and in the course of their employment. Required Required within the waters of, and yards within, Great Britain under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 as supplemented by the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998, in respect of any employee ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Remarks This is a specific requirement of United Kingdom law, but similar requirements apply in many other jurisdictions, such as under the Jones Act in the United States. Cover will usually already be provided by a P&I Club (if applicable) so make sure you’re not paying for separate employers’ liability unnecessarily. Your broker should be able to advise you of cover limits applicable. It’s easy for dayworkers to become employees for the purposes of the law – even though they aren’t formally employed as crew or otherwise. MLC REQUIREMENTS Risk Risk of the legal owner’s liability for repatriation of crew and associated essentials, liability for outstanding salaries, etc, and liability for contractual payments for death or long-term disability due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard. Required Required in respect of all chartered yachts, where the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, as amended, (MLC) is in force, and aboard yachts registered in countries applying the MLC, pursuant to Regulation 2.5 Standard A2.5.2 Paragraph 9 and Regulation 4.2 Standard A4.2.1 paragraph 1(b) of MLC. Remarks Cover will usually already be provided by a P&I Club (if applicable) so make sure you’re not paying for separate MLC cover unnecessarily. Your broker should be able to advise you on whether such cover is needed. CREW WELFARE Risk Risk of a crewmember being unavailable for work for longer than necessary. Required Some elements may be required by law. Remarks Typically covers treatment costs, and financial repercussions, for crew in the event of illness or accident – whether on duty or not, and whether on board or ashore. Cover varies considerably, and there may be some elements of the cover which overlaps with, or includes, employers’ liability insurance and/or cover required by MLC. Beyond legal requirements, unless you’re prepared to pay this out of your own pocket, it makes sense to insure against crew accidents and medical treatments costs. It’s a benefit which is appreciated and may help to ensure that crew with minor injuries can return to work as soon as possible. OIL POLLUTION Risk Risk of the legal owner being held liable for the criminal acts of crewmembers in causing oil pollution, and the effects and costs of cleaning up. Required Insurance is usually required in respect of all yachts over 1,000 GT by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001, but liability under this convention extends to vessels of all sizes. May also be required by other local laws, such as the United States Oil Pollution Act 1990. Remarks Fines and clean-up costs can be enormous, and the spectre of criminal liability – potentially meaning that beneficial owners cannot shelter behind an owning company – means that you must be clear that the requisite cover is in place. Cover is normally provided by P&I Clubs, and Blue Cards, proving cover, can normally be obtained on request. Fines can be issued for not carrying proof on board. WRECK REMOVAL Risk Risk of the legal owner being fined for not being insured against the costs of wreck removal. Required Insurance can be required in respect of all yachts of 300 GT and over – by a small but growing number of countries – under the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007. It can also be mandated by local laws. Remarks Cover is normally provided by P&I Clubs, and Blue Cards, proving cover, can normally be obtained on request. Fines can be issued for not carrying proof on board. HULL & MACHINERY Risk Risk of loss of, or damage caused to, your yacht, its engines, equipment, fittings and accessories. Required Not normally required by law. Remarks The term Hull & Machinery is a little misleading since the whole yacht will be covered, not just the hull and ‘machinery’ – a shipping term essentially meaning the engine and sterngear. The precise scope of cover will vary. Check, for example, whether fine art and valuables are covered, as well as your other personal effects and those of guests and crewmembers. Be aware of conditions in respect of named storms, and geographical cruising limits. Also check whether tenders are covered. Aircraft and submersibles carried on board are normally excluded. WAR & STRIKES Risk Risk of loss of, or damage caused to, your yacht, its engines, equipment, fittings and accessories, caused by war, terrorism, insurrection and strikes, and not covered by your Hull & Machinery policy. Required Not normally required by law. Remarks While cruising in a war zone isn’t going to provide the most relaxing experience, this fills gaps in the Hull & Machinery policy which may exclude passages through waters known for piracy, and damage caused where volatile political demonstrations spill over into harbourside areas. FINE ART & VALUABLES Risk Risk of loss of, or damage caused to, works of art and other valuable items, installed or carried on board your yacht, and not covered by your Hull & Machinery policy. Required Not normally required by law. Remarks Because the sky could otherwise be the limit to losses – and because yacht insurance has its roots in commercial shipping, works of art and other valuable items are normally excluded from Hull & Machinery policies. This insurance fills that gap. Be alert of the need to agree item descriptions and valuations at inception. SUBSEA EQUIPMENT Risk Risk of loss of, or damage caused to, submersibles being carried on board your yacht, and not covered by your Hull & Machinery policy. Required Not normally required by law. Remarks Submersibles being too specialist a risk for many underwriters, they are normally excluded. KIDNAP & RANSOM Risk Risk of you having to pay for crisis response, negotiation services and ransoms in the event of a kidnapping. Required Not normally required by law. Remarks While damage caused to your yacht, by pirates, should be covered by Hull & Machinery or War & Strikes Risks, costs associated with any resulting kidnapping are not. This insurance looks to plug that gap. PROJECT RISK Risk Risk of loss of, or damage caused to, your yacht, its engines, equipment, fittings and accessories, while being built. Required Not normally required by law. Remarks Hull & Machinery insurance is for yachts that have been completed – not in-build projects. The builder will insure the project (and this should have been addressed in the build agreement ) but the builder’s cover may be limited. This cover looks to plug that gap, as well as covering parts and equipment in storage at the yard and awaiting installation. PROJECT LIABILITY Risk Risk of the legal owner’s liability to third parties, while your yacht is being built, refitted or repaired. Required May be required by law. Remarks While the builder’s insurances should provide cover in respect of its own contractors and employees, it will not normally cover your project manager(s), crewmembers and contractors which you engage in respect of the project, and its tenders. You may have specific employers’ liability insurance obligations, or the local equivalent. 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 Understanding the Contract Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Understanding the Contract