Connect to us your way regarding any aspect of The Owners Club - by email, WhatsApp or through LinkedIn. Feel free to run anything past us regarding buying or building a yacht or superyacht, or any aspect of owning, managing or selling. Plus anything to do with superyacht crew recruitment and employment. Home / Contact Reach Out CONNECT YOUR WAY Feel free to drop us a line gensec@theownersclub.org Connect with the General Secretary on LinkedIn here Chat directly with the General Secretary on WhatsApp here Follow our LinkedIn page here

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

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 29 m Length Placeholder Yards Builder 2001 Build year 160 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Symbol

Unavailable at present Latest Position Example Brokerage & Co Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 48 m Length DMS & Co Builder 2003 Build year 420 Gross tonnage British Virgin Islands Registry Particulars Future

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

Compliance with the more obscure flag state regulations and local laws can sometimes seem like unnecessary hassle and expense. Yet if you, as a yacht owner, are to remain protected in the event of an accident, investing in detailed compliance may be money well spent. You also need to keep lines of communication with your insurance broker open. Home Handbook Insuring / / Staying Covered 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 6 Reading time Compliance with the more obscure flag state regulations and local laws can sometimes seem like unnecessary hassle and expense. Yet if you, as owner, are to remain protected in the event of an accident, investing in detailed compliance may be money well spent. You also need to keep lines of communication with your insurance broker open. minutes 6 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised Compliance with the more obscure flag state regulations and local laws can sometimes seem like unnecessary hassle and expense. Yet if you, as owner, are to remain protected in the event of an accident, investing in detailed compliance may be money well spent. You also need to keep lines of communication with your insurance broker open. Warranties are requirements that must be fulfilled by the policyholder to manage risk in insurance situations. Breach of warranty no longer automatically avoids all liability for underwriters since 2016. Underwriters remain liable for losses occurring after a breach of warranty if it can be remedied. If a loss occurs while the insured is in breach of warranty and the breach increases the risk, underwriters can deny liability. Breach of warranty regarding past facts may permanently suspend the underwriter's liability. Identifying warranties in a policy is crucial as they can be expressed or implied by law. Popular policy forms include warranties related to the purpose of use, navigation limits, vessel control, etc. The warranty of legality is an important implied warranty that covers lawful adventures and lawful usage of the yacht. Seaworthiness may not be explicitly required in policies, but it can impact coverage and claims. Sensible precautions, such as using approved charter agreements and verifying crew qualifications, are recommended to ensure coverage and compliance with laws and regulations. Identifying warranties in a policy is crucial as they can be expressed or implied by law. Popular policy forms include warranties related to the purpose of use, navigation limits, vessel control, etc. The warranty of legality is an important implied warranty that covers lawful adventures and lawful usage of the yacht. Seaworthiness may not be explicitly required in policies, but it can impact coverage and claims. Sensible precautions, such as using approved charter agreements and verifying crew qualifications, are recommended to ensure coverage and compliance with laws and regulations. Warranties are requirements that must be fulfilled by the policyholder to manage risk in insurance situations. Breach of warranty no longer automatically avoids all liability for underwriters since 2016. Underwriters remain liable for losses occurring after a breach of warranty if it can be remedied. If a loss occurs while the insured is in breach of warranty and the breach increases the risk, underwriters can deny liability. Breach of warranty regarding past facts may permanently suspend the underwriter's liability. Warranties serve to manage risk in various situations. They are requirements that need to be fulfilled by the policyholder. Warranties can be promissory, where the policyholder commits to a specific action or condition, or they can affirm or deny the existence of certain facts. Simply labelling a term as a warranty is insufficient, and the courts will consider the parties' intentions as well. They can be set out in the policy, or are implied by law – for example that the yacht will be used for lawful purposes, and operated in a lawful manner. BREACHES OF WARRANTY Since 2016, the old ‘basis of the contract’ clauses have been abolished. This means that underwriters cannot automatically avoid all liability if an express warranty is breached. The underwriter is liable for losses that occurred before a breach of warranty – as was always the case. But now, if the breach can be remedied, the underwriter remains liable for losses that happen after the breach has been fixed. If a loss occurs while the insured is in breach of a warranty, and if (crucially) the breach actually increased the risk of the actual loss, underwriters can still deny liability. Once (if) the insured rectifies the breach before the loss happens, the insured will again be back on-cover. After a breach of a warranty, the insured is still responsible for paying the premium. However, underwriters may be cautious when demanding payment to avoid waiving their right to rely on the breach. If the breach cannot be rectified, such as a breach of warranty regarding past facts (e.g., previous insurance claims or losses), the liability of the underwriter remains permanently suspended, and the insured will not have had any cover. RECOGNISING WARRANTIES So, with such serious consequences flowing from a breach of warranty, it is vital to be able to identify what warranties apply to a policy. The trouble is that warranties can be expressed in the contract, but not actually described as a warranty. More worryingly, they can be implied automatically by law, without even having to be agreed upon. Thankfully, express warranties must at least be included in the policy, or must at least be contained in some document referred to in the policy. So in the event of a claim it wouldn’t be good enough for an underwriter to simply dust-off some previously unknown ‘standard’ terms and refuse to pay. They are normally added as a deliberate and obvious fundamental stipulation of the contract. While implied warranties cannot be found in policies, they are easy to ascertain from the UK’s Marine Insurance Act 1906, and we’ll consider the more important ones below. While it may seem narrow-minded just to look at English law, it’s worth considering that most of the world’s risks are insured on the London market, and most countries model their own insurance laws on this Act – sometimes word for word. Whereas express warranties tend to be specific, implied warranties can be overarching and vague; so there can be overlaps between them. But an express warranty will not exclude an implied warranty on a related matter, unless directly inconsistent with it. EXPRESS WARRANTIES The two most widely used policy forms, the Institute Yacht Clauses and the American Yacht Form, contain warranties that the yacht is only to be used for ‘private pleasure purposes’ and is not to be chartered unless the underwriters specifically agree. The Institute Yacht Clauses also frame agreed navigation limits and the vessel’s maximum speed as warranties. Other popular forms often demand that when the yacht is underway a competent person must be on board and in control of the vessel. In a 2006 English case, concerning a claim following a serious fire on board the motor yacht Newfoundland Explorer while she was laid up afloat in Fort Lauderdale, the court held that the phrase ‘warranted vessel fully crewed at all times’ meant that the owner had to keep at least one crew member on board the yacht 24 hours a day, subject to (i) emergencies rendering crew departure necessary, or (ii) necessary temporary departures for the purposes of performing crewing duties or related activities such as adjusting mooring lines. It wasn’t good enough to employ a captain who lived ashore 30 minutes away. History was repeated in 2008 with a fire on board another vessel, Resolute, whose crew lived nearby – and the court in that case came to the same conclusion. WARRANTY OF LEGALITY Arguably the most important warranty is not expressed, but implied. Under the UK’s Marine Insurance Act 1906 (and in the laws of many other nations) there is an implied warranty that: The ‘adventure’ (i.e. a charter or a period of use by the owner and/or crew) will be lawful; and The yacht will be used in a lawful manner – as far as the insured can control the matter. With regard to legality of the adventure, at one end of the spectrum a yacht will clearly not be covered where the owner uses it for smuggling. Problems arise where the owner has no knowledge of doing anything illegal. Illegality may stem from local law as well as the yacht’s flag state law: a yacht chartering in without a local charter licence may not be covered. One would also want to ensure that the complex US security regulations are complied with when entering their waters. As for the second part – using the yacht in a lawful manner – this is only an issue as far the owner can control it. Compliance with safety-related regulations, such as the International Safety Management (ISM) Code or the Red Ensign Group Yacht Code Large Yacht will be a prerequisite to the underwriter paying related claims. So important is the warranty of legality that breaches of it cannot be waived by a kind underwriter, neither can the parties agree to overlook it. The warranty of legality has been used to avoid payment even where the crew failed to keep a proper watch – as this was in itself a breach of international collision regulations. In one landmark case, a yard was also denied cover where fire destroyed yachts in the yard, but where the yard itself did not conform to municipal byelaws. SEAWORTHINESS As surprising as it may seem, where a policy is for a period of time (as nearly all are) rather than for a specific passage, there is no implicit requirement in law for your yacht to be maintained in a seaworthy state. While some policies overcome this by expressly obliging the owner to maintain the yacht in a seaworthy condition, some standard forms don’t. Where there’s no stated obligation to do so, the underwriter will not be liable for any losses arising from unseaworthiness if the yacht actually puts to sea in that state with the knowledge of the insured. Where, as is normally the case, the legal owner (and therefore the named insured) is an offshore company, perhaps held in trust, identifying the individual(s) with such knowledge is difficult. The managers are an obvious starting point. Whilst it is for the underwriters to prove such knowledge, not for the insured to disprove, a review of the documents and correspondence held by the ISM Code ‘designated person’ could prove fatal to the chances of a pay-out. Being in a seaworthy condition means just that: falling short, but nevertheless making every effort, will not do. Even if a policy does not insist on seaworthiness, this is likely to be examined by the underwriter in any event after a claim, as any material non-disclosure would still provide a separate route for invalidating the claim. Many flag states, in particular within the Red Ensign group, have technical Codes of Practice that apply specifically to large yachts and those which are chartered. These provide objective measures of unseaworthiness, but, whilst helpful, should not be considered as providing a complete description of what constitutes a seaworthy yacht. SENSIBLE PRECAUTIONS If you’re chartering your yacht out, underwriters may insist on the use of a charter agreement that has been specifically approved by them, or is in a standard industry format, such as that published by MYBA . Likewise, if you’re going to race your sailing yacht, you may net to provide advance notification. However you use your yacht, be sure to get written confirmation of the ongoing information needed by underwriters – and provide this clearly, verifiable and in good time. It's also vital to check that your yacht is operating in accordance with flag and port state laws, and that you have the paperwork to provide this. Check, also, that your crew have the qualifications they claim they have: there are various third parties which provide this standalone service. 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 Making a Claim Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Making a Claim

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

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

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

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

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 . Gulf Superyacht Summit Abu Dhabi to 5 December 2025 4 December 2025 Antigua Charter Yacht Show English Harbour to 9 December 2025 4 December 2025 Kata Rocks Superyacht Rendezvous Phuket to 13 December 2025 11 December 2025 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race Programme Sydney & Hobart 26 December 2025 Thailand International Boat Show Phuket to 18 January 2026 15 January 2026 boot Düsseldorf Düsseldorf to 25 January 2026 17 January 2026 Bahamas Charter Yacht Show Nassau to 1 February 2026 28 January 2026 Seattle Boat Show Seattle to 7 February 2026 30 January 2026 New Zealand Millennium Cup Auckland to 3 February 2026 31 January 2026 Superyacht Design Festival Kitzbühel to 3 February 2026 1 February 2026 Discover Boating Miami International Boat Show Miami to 15 February 2026 11 February 2026 Sydney Charter Show Sydney to 23 February 2026 22 February 2026 Superyacht Challenge Antigua Antigua to 8 March 2026 3 March 2026 Superyacht Technology Show Barcelona to 11 March 2026 10 March 2026 St Barths Bucket St Barths to 15 March 2026 12 March 2026 Superyacht UK Technical Seminar London 19 March 2026 Palm Beach International Boat Show West Palm Beach to 29 March 2026 25 March 2026 China (Shanghai) International Boat Show Shanghai to 1 April 2026 29 March 2026 Mediterranean Superyacht Forum Palma de Mallorca April 2026 Dubai International Boat Show Dubai to 12 April 2026 8 April 2026 Singapore Yachting Festival Singapore to 26 April 2026 23 April 2026 PalmaVela Palma to 3 May 2026 23 April 2026 MYBA Charter Show Sanremo to 30 April 2026 27 April 2026 Palma Superyacht Village Palma to 2 May 2026 29 April 2026 BI World Superyacht Awards Venice to 2 May 2026 1 May 2026 Mediterranean Yacht Show Nafplion to 6 May 2026 2 May 2026 Asia-Pacific Superyacht Summit Kobe to 8 May 2026 7 May 2026 East Med Multihull & Yacht Charter Show Poros to 10 May 2026 7 May 2026 TYBA Yacht Charter Show Göcek to 11 May 2026 7 May 2026 British Motor Yacht Show Southampton to 17 May 2026 14 May 2026 Blue Design Summit La Spezia to 20 May 2026 18 May 2026 Limassol Boat Show Limassol to 24 May 2026 21 May 2026 Sanctuary Cove International Boat Show Gold Coast to 24 May 2026 21 May 2026 Giorgio Armani Superyacht Regatta Porto Cervo to 30 May 2026 26 May 2026 Venice Boat Show Venice to 31 May 2026 27 May 2026 Cyclades Cup Antiparos to 13 June 2026 10 June 2026 MTB Superyachts 2026 Lake Maggiore to 13 June 2026 10 June 2026 Loro Piana Giraglia Saint Tropez to 20 June 2026 12 June 2026 Newport Charter Yacht Show Rhode Island to 25 June 2026 22 June 2026 The Superyacht Cup Palma to 27 June 2026 24 June 2026 Cowes Week Isle of Wight to 7 August 2026 1 August 2026 Safe Harbor Race Weekend Rhode Island to 9 August 2026 7 August 2026 Maxi Yacht Rolex Cup Porto Cervo to 12 September 2026 6 September 2026 Cannes Yachting Festival Cannes to 13 September 2026 8 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 Salon Nautico Internacional de Barcelona Barcelona to 18 October 2026 14 October 2026 Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show Fort Lauderdale to 1 November 2026 28 October 2026 METSTRADE Amsterdam to 19 November 2026 17 November 2026 Abu Dhabi International Boat Show Abu Dhabi to 22 November 2026 19 November 2026 Improving Yacht Crew Retention Nice TBC Les Voiles de St Barth St Barths TBC The Turkey Superyacht Forum Istanbul 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 Balearic Superyacht Forum Palma TBC South Coast Powerhouse Summit Southampton TBC Rolex Middle Sea Race Valletta TBC Croatia Yacht Show Zadar TBC Understanding Superyacht & Business Jet Tax Barcelona TBC Olympic Yacht Show Lavrion TBC Superyacht Investor London London TBC Superyacht Summit Adria Porto Montenegro TBC World Yachts Trophies Cannes TBC 7th Super Yacht Americas 2026 Fort Lauderdale TBC Superyacht Summit Türkiye Istanbul TBC International Charter Expo Amsterdam TBC Malta Boat Show Valetta TBC Lantau Yacht Club Boat Show Hong Kong TBC Hong Kong International Boat Show Hong Kong TBC

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

Unavailable at present Latest Position New Horizons Listing Email WhatsApp +44 7773 246 246 Central Agent 54 m Length Builder & Co Builder 2002 Build year 499 Gross tonnage Cayman Islands Registry Particulars Precursor

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

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

Unavailable at present Latest Position 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

Traditionally, large yachts are owned through companies and trusts, typically based in small offshore locations. However, their use can still leave owners liable for non-compliance with the law. This article examines the reasons behind the tradition, and considers how effective companies and trusts can be at insulating the owner from the liabilities of ownership. Home Handbook Buying / / Corporate Ownership 8 August 2014 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time Traditionally, large yachts are owned through companies and trusts, typically based in small offshore locations. However, their use can still leave owners liable for non-compliance with the law. This article examines the reasons behind the tradition, and considers how effective companies and trusts can be at insulating the owner from the liabilities of ownership. minutes 5 Reading time 8 August 2014 Last revised Traditionally, large yachts are owned through companies and trusts, typically based in small offshore locations. However, their use can still leave owners liable for non-compliance with the law. This article examines the reasons behind the tradition, and considers how effective companies and trusts can be at insulating the owner from the liabilities of ownership. Companies have their own legal personality and can buy and sell goods and services like individuals. Trusts are arrangements where property is handed over for the benefit of another, with legal rights enforceable by the courts. Companies and trusts can help reduce personal tax exposure and protect assets, such as yachts. Owning a yacht through a company can ring-fence liability and protect other assets. Companies and trusts can isolate ownership in politically unstable countries or protect against creditors. Establishing transactions through a company provides personal liability protection for directors and shareholders. Yachts can be arrested following accidents, pollution allegations, or unpaid services, requiring payment or security to release them. 'Lifting the corporate veil' allows individuals involved in fraudulent transactions to be held liable. Companies cannot be used to evade legal obligations, and privacy may not be entirely guaranteed. Offshore jurisdictions are commonly used for private, tax-efficient business operations, and careful consideration is needed when choosing one. Yachts can be arrested following accidents, pollution allegations, or unpaid services, requiring payment or security to release them. 'Lifting the corporate veil' allows individuals involved in fraudulent transactions to be held liable. Companies cannot be used to evade legal obligations, and privacy may not be entirely guaranteed. Offshore jurisdictions are commonly used for private, tax-efficient business operations, and careful consideration is needed when choosing one. Companies have their own legal personality and can buy and sell goods and services like individuals. Trusts are arrangements where property is handed over for the benefit of another, with legal rights enforceable by the courts. Companies and trusts can help reduce personal tax exposure and protect assets, such as yachts. Owning a yacht through a company can ring-fence liability and protect other assets. Companies and trusts can isolate ownership in politically unstable countries or protect against creditors. Establishing transactions through a company provides personal liability protection for directors and shareholders. Companies are said by lawyers to have their own ‘legal personality’. This curious phrase just means that they are able to buy and sell goods and services in just the same way as an individual person. Although the idea was dreamt up to allow entrepreneurs to raise money without the fear of loosing all their remaining wealth should their business not succeed, companies can also be used in a non-commercial way to own assets – such as yachts. 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. Although legal title is actually transferred from the settlor to the trustee, the trustee’s and 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. Although until recently a concept only recognised in United Kingdom Commonwealth countries and other former colonies, it is now possible to establish trusts in countries with very different legal traditions, such as China. BENEFITS Although establishing and administering either a company or a trust is not without expense, they make a lot of sense when it comes to buying and owning a yacht. Most importantly, companies and trusts can also be used, quite lawfully, to reduce an individual’s apparent wealth and subsequent personal tax exposure. Companies are also used to form the basis of VAT-avoidance structures, by putting the use of a yacht on a commercial basis and through the use of cross-border leases. 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. Similarly, companies and trusts can help to isolate ownership where wealth is derived from developing or otherwise unstable countries, where there is a risk of political rivals attempting to expropriate personal possessions. And for those in even the most stable surroundings, protection from creditors is usually desirable where the owner wants to indulge in large, commercial risk-taking. By law, yachts must be registered somewhere. 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 tabloid 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. The beauty of undertaking transactions through a company is that it is the company that undertakes the transaction, not the directors or shareholders, meaning that the latter can bask safe in the knowledge that they are largely immune from personal liability. YACHT ARREST This comfortable state of affairs cannot, however, 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 ultimate owner. LIMITATIONS 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. Further, companies cannot be used to circumvent legal obligations. This does not mean that individuals will be liable if the company’s legal obligations are breached, but if the company is set up just because a legal obligation (such as complying with safety requirements in respect of a large yacht) is inconvenient or expensive to comply with, then the veil could be lifted. 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. Property placed in a trust may still be made the subject of asset freezing orders and court judgments if a trust is not recognised, although if the property is physically located in the same country that the trust is administered from, this will be difficult. A number of countries, including the United Kingdom, are party to an international convention on the recognition of trusts, known as the Hague Convention, recognising trusts which conform to certain characteristics. JURISDICTIONS Offshore jurisdictions still have a reputation as being sun-baked islands where dodgy deals can be concluded in an unregulated financial free-for-all. Nothing could be further from the truth for the vast majority of commonly-used locations. 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 in for tax purposes. They certainly don’t need to be either sunny or insular, although many are as it can form a lucrative boost to otherwise small, remote and tourist-dependent economies. In fact, a good example of a growing offshore centre is the United Kingdom. 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 perhaps have discretionary powers – there exists opportunities to extract more from their clients than had been expected. CHOICE 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. 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 a truly impartial, global overview. 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

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 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

While the lender retains so much security, it also retains liability as registered owner, so it’s perhaps not surprising that pure leasing isn’t more popular. It does form the basis of various VAT-reduction and deferment schemes. Home Handbook Financing / / Leasing Overview 22 October 2020 Last revised minutes 2 Reading time While the lender retains so much security, it also retains liability as registered owner, so it’s perhaps not surprising that pure leasing isn’t more popular. It does form the basis of various VAT-reduction and deferment schemes. Such schemes come and go, and are not covered here. Feel free to contact us regarding tax avoidance. minutes 2 Reading time 22 October 2020 Last revised While the lender retains so much security, it also retains liability as registered owner, so it’s perhaps not surprising that pure leasing isn’t more popular. It does form the basis of various VAT-reduction and deferment schemes. Such schemes come and go, and are not covered here. Feel free to contact us regarding tax avoidance. The arrangement involves a bank or leasing company (lessor) buying a yacht and becoming its legal owner. The lessor then bareboat charters the yacht to the lessee (owner) for an agreed period of time. The lessee pays instalments equivalent to the full value of the yacht plus a return on capital instead of interest on a loan. The lessee is considered the regulatory owner of the yacht. The lessee has exclusive possession and control of the yacht and must keep it in good working order. Insurance against loss or damage is the lessee's responsibility. The lessee is entitled to the warranties provided by the yard. The lessor is indemnified against liabilities related to being the registered owner. The lessee cannot sell the yacht as they do not own it. To terminate the lease, the lessee must pay the remaining instalments or a cancellation fee. The lessee has exclusive possession and control of the yacht and must keep it in good working order. Insurance against loss or damage is the lessee's responsibility. The lessee is entitled to the warranties provided by the yard. The lessor is indemnified against liabilities related to being the registered owner. The lessee cannot sell the yacht as they do not own it. To terminate the lease, the lessee must pay the remaining instalments or a cancellation fee. The arrangement involves a bank or leasing company (lessor) buying a yacht and becoming its legal owner. The lessor then bareboat charters the yacht to the lessee (owner) for an agreed period of time. The lessee pays instalments equivalent to the full value of the yacht plus a return on capital instead of interest on a loan. The lessee is considered the regulatory owner of the yacht. The bank or leasing company (known as the ‘lessor’) buys the yacht and is the legal, registered owner. Then the lessor, in effect, bareboat charters (so, without crew) it to the ‘owner’ (known as the ‘lessee’), over an agreed period of time. The lessee pays instalments equivalent to the full value of the asset over the term of the lease plus a return on capital to the lender, instead of interest on a loan. At the end of the lease, after the final payment has been made, the asset may be transferred to the lessee. FEATURES Typically, the lessee: Is the ‘owner’ of the yacht for regulatory purposes; Has exclusive possession and control of the yacht; Will be obliged to keep the yacht in good working order; Must insure the yacht against loss or damage; Will be entitled to the yard’s warranties; Must indemnify the lessor against liabilities stemming from the lessor being the registered owner; Cannot sell the yacht as it does not own it; and Must pay the remaining instalments, or a cancellation fee, to terminate the lease agreement. OTHER FORMS The Statement of Standard Accounting Practice SSAP 21 (Accounting for leases and hire purchase contracts) defines a finance lease as a lease which transfers ‘substantially all of the risks and rewards of ownership of the asset to the lessee’. The distinction is drawn with operating leases, common for aircraft, plant and equipment, where the risk in relation to the asset falls on the lessor rather than the lessee. An operating lease will be treated as being off balance sheet in the lessee’s accounts, and at the expiry of the lease term, the lessee is obliged to return the asset to the lessor and the asset’s residual value is of no concern to the lessee. Only relevant to smaller yachts and tenders, SSAP 21 also distinguishes a hire purchase contract, which allows the hirer to acquire legal title by exercising an option to purchase the asset – normally having paid an agreed number of instalments. SSAP 21 prescribes the accounting treatments, but note that accounting standards are being developed which will supersede SSAP 21. 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 Loans Overview Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Loans Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unavailable at present Latest Position 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

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!

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

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

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

The Owners Club's General Secretary is an English superyacht lawyer. He is a Partner at a leading international law firm, regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the London Stock Exchange. Naturally used to maintaining client confidence, he has also provided expertise on the law and practice of yacht ownership to leading publications and broadcasters. Home About Secretariat / / At Your Service It’s a huge honour to be appointed. Having had many owners and managers as clients over the years, I am only too aware of the issues which need to be addressed. BENJAMIN MALTBY, GENERAL SECRETARY TRUSTED PROFESSIONAL CLUB SECRETARIAT We considered it important to have a regulated professional managing the Club and organising its affairs. We have therefore appointed an English lawyer as our General Secretary. He is a Partner at a leading international firm, regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the London Stock Exchange. Naturally used to maintaining client confidence, he has also provided expertise on the law and practice of yacht ownership to leading publications and broadcasters, including: Truly Independent Leadership FAQs The General Secretary’s role is to operate the Club at a high level, undertake research, provide guidance and draft the documents and agreements essential to yacht acquisition and ownership. Neither the Club nor General Secretary have vested interests in particular third party suppliers. We’re not beholden to particular yachting industry advertisers . So our approach is objective. Our contracts are fair, balanced and conducive to efficient, fuss-free ownership.

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

Most yacht builders have their own ‘just sign here’ standard build terms. They vary enormously in length and complexity. Such agreements often miss out important aspects and can be subject to local law and jurisdiction - whose courts may not be impartial and where you may struggle to find competent, specialist lawyers. Don’t sign them. Contact us for guidance. Given the amount of money at stake, such contracts should only be viewed as an opening to contractual negotiations. Home Handbook Building / / The Build Agreement 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 10 Reading time Most builders have their own ‘just sign here’ standard build terms. They vary enormously in length and complexity. Such agreements often miss out important aspects and can be subject to local law and jurisdiction - whose courts may not be impartial and where you may struggle to find competent, specialist lawyers. Don’t sign them. Contact us for guidance. Given the amount of money at stake, such contracts should only be viewed as an opening to contractual negotiations. minutes 10 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised Most builders have their own ‘just sign here’ standard build terms. They vary enormously in length and complexity. Such agreements often miss out important aspects and can be subject to local law and jurisdiction - whose courts may not be impartial and where you may struggle to find competent, specialist lawyers. Don’t sign them. Contact us for guidance. Given the amount of money at stake, such contracts should only be viewed as an opening to contractual negotiations. Privacy concerns and the need for NDAs should be addressed early on with the engagement of an experienced lawyer. Payments should be made upon completion of build milestones, with independent surveyor signoff, and account for material costs, transport, and exchange rates. Security measures should be in place to protect against builder insolvency, including ownership transfer and guarantees from the builder's bank. Consider local legal requirements for ownership transfer and potential statutory liens by unpaid subcontractors. Clearly define the triggering events and duration of guarantees to ensure protection in case of builder insolvency or yacht issues. Establish clear and rigid procedures for change orders to avoid cost overruns and delays. Subcontractors should be carefully vetted, and the builder should remain liable for their mistakes. Materials should not be subject to title retention. Specify insurance requirements for the part-built project and ensure the wording is adequate and obtained from reputable insurers. Address force majeure events, their effect on the delivery date, and the need for a cap. Clarify buyer-ordered modifications' impact on delays. Ensure all correct legal documents for the yacht's registration are presented before final payment and agree on the place of legal delivery. Allow access for tests, inspections, and reasonable rectification of faults before delivery. Define criteria for acceptance or rejection of the yacht. Formal testing at sea is necessary to verify performance against specifications, and a margin of tolerance with incremental compensation may be agreed upon. Establish the buyer's right to refuse delivery if faults are not rectified, and differentiate between minor non-conformities and deliverable condition requirements. Warranty period should be agreed upon for materials and workmanship, and provisions for rectifying defects and compensation should be addressed. Dispute resolution mechanisms should include independent technical experts for technical matters and arbitration or litigation for non-technical or high-value disputes. Consider enforceability and confidentiality aspects when choosing between arbitration and litigation. Ensure all correct legal documents for the yacht's registration are presented before final payment and agree on the place of legal delivery. Allow access for tests, inspections, and reasonable rectification of faults before delivery. Define criteria for acceptance or rejection of the yacht. Formal testing at sea is necessary to verify performance against specifications, and a margin of tolerance with incremental compensation may be agreed upon. Establish the buyer's right to refuse delivery if faults are not rectified, and differentiate between minor non-conformities and deliverable condition requirements. Warranty period should be agreed upon for materials and workmanship, and provisions for rectifying defects and compensation should be addressed. Dispute resolution mechanisms should include independent technical experts for technical matters and arbitration or litigation for non-technical or high-value disputes. Consider enforceability and confidentiality aspects when choosing between arbitration and litigation. Privacy concerns and the need for NDAs should be addressed early on with the engagement of an experienced lawyer. Payments should be made upon completion of build milestones, with independent surveyor signoff, and account for material costs, transport, and exchange rates. Security measures should be in place to protect against builder insolvency, including ownership transfer and guarantees from the builder's bank. Consider local legal requirements for ownership transfer and potential statutory liens by unpaid subcontractors. Clearly define the triggering events and duration of guarantees to ensure protection in case of builder insolvency or yacht issues. Establish clear and rigid procedures for change orders to avoid cost overruns and delays. Subcontractors should be carefully vetted, and the builder should remain liable for their mistakes. Materials should not be subject to title retention. Specify insurance requirements for the part-built project and ensure the wording is adequate and obtained from reputable insurers. Address force majeure events, their effect on the delivery date, and the need for a cap. Clarify buyer-ordered modifications' impact on delays. An immediate concern usually not covered is privacy, which may, of course, be one of the reasons you’re looking to have a yacht built in the first place. An experienced lawyer must be engaged at the outset – not brought in at the last minute to cast an eye over what everyone else considers to be a done deal. And his or her priority will be to get NDAs in place with the builder. SPECIFICATION & COST There’s no point finding designers who pen the perfect yacht, which the builder then interprets in its own (possibly cost-cutting) way. Moreover, modifying a yacht retrospectively can be particularly time-consuming and expensive. An incorrectly interpreted specification might prevent a yacht being chartered out . So the design and specification, in compliance with specific Flag State regulations and classification society Rules (if applicable) must be set out in exquisite detail, and agreed – in principle – with the builder, along with the build cost. With this settled, attention can be turned to the principal elements of the build agreement. PAYMENTS It’s customary for payments to be made upon the completion of certain build milestones. This way, your exposure is minimised while the builder has sufficient cashflow. Whether or not a stage has been satisfactorily completed is a technical question, needing signoff from an independent surveyor instructed by you – not the builder. The first payment is made by way of a deposit before construction starts. With large projects taking years to complete, account should be made for fluctuations in materials costs and transport, and exchange rates. Placing the builder under real financial strain will be to no one’s advantage. SECURITY Consideration must be given to the consequence of the builder folding mid-build. It happens. Without agreement otherwise, the builder would be left with both instalments and an incomplete yacht as assets, with you standing at the end of a long line of creditors. So your security takes two forms. Firstly, ownership of the yacht is transferred to the buyer as it is built. Secondly, the builder supplies the buyer with guarantees, issued by the builder’s bank, for the refund of pre-delivery instalments, against which the buyer pays each such instalment. Such guarantee can also take the form of an insurance-backed Advance Payment Bond (remembering that banks can, on occasion, themselves go bust). Keep in mind that any transfer of ownership may be subject to formalities under local law – regardless of the build agreement’s law and jurisdiction – so it’s important to take local legal advice. If the worst does happen, in spite of all the financial due diligence you undertook, then you will still need to have the project moved elsewhere for completion, so check that, under local law, unpaid subcontractors aren’t automatically entitled to a statutory lien over the yacht and materials, which may prevent removal. It is vital to state in the contract that only ownership, and not risk (which may otherwise also automatically be transferred at the same time), is being transferred. If the yacht is being financed, it may also be possible to register a mortgage over the incomplete project in favour of the lender. As to the specific small print of the guarantee, the most important element is what triggers the ability of the buyer to make a demand for payment under it. The most favourable option is for the buyer to have the ability to make a demand by stating that there has been a default on the part of the builder, under the terms of the build agreement, which therefore merits payment. The builder or bank may wish instead to expressly state the particular events which could lead to payment. By far the most important triggering event which must be described in the guarantee is the builder’s insolvency. It will not be good enough, for example, for the guarantee to become payable only when a receiver has been appointed, or any dispute between buyer and builder is settled, as these may take many months or even years in some jurisdictions. Far better for the guarantee to become payable as soon as it can be shown that the builder is in financial difficulties. Moreover, the procedure for presenting the bank with a demand for payment should be simple and straightforward. And there’s no point in having a guarantee which offers high protection, but which expires too soon. Where a guarantor will only pay after the matter has been litigated (in the absence of settlement) the guarantee must last for a period of years to take account of lethargic court processes. A number of owners have, in the past, enjoyed using their own business acumen to diagnose mismanagement and their own capital to save it. But this takes time and may not lead to a solution. Moreover, if the builder survives until completion of the yacht, there may still be issues with the delivered yacht for which the buyer wants significant compensation, and may still need the protection of the guarantee. If it expires immediately upon delivery and sea trial, for example, then there will be virtually no time in which to decide whether or not demand payment, and calculate the appropriate figure. CHANGE ORDERS It may well be that it’s only when you see your yacht start to take shape that realise that the layout or specification could be improved. While there’s a temptation to discuss modifications orally – for convenience – cost overruns and disproportionate delays may result. Modification procedures must be clear, and rigidly adhered to. As large numbers of changes may also start to affect the builder’s other projects, the builder may want terms in the contract to the effect that such modifications will only take effect if the builder agrees to the proposed adjustment to the contractual price and delivery date. The builder may also want to reserve a right of refusal if other projects would be affected. Additional payments may also be required. Clearly, the builder could be put in an overly dominant position if such a clause was not well drafted. In the case of very large projects taking many years, you may also want to leave gaps in the specification to allow for last-minute choices of high-tech equipment. SUBCONTRACTORS It’s common to subcontract significant elements of the builds, but you must make sure that only approved third parties can be brought in. If there’s any doubt, ask your project manager to visit the subcontractors and their previous projects to assess quality. To avoid confusion, the builder should still be expressly liable for any of its suppliers' or subcontractors' mistakes. Further, the builder must be obliged to pay suppliers promptly, and the materials provided must not be allowed to be subject to any form of title retention – to prevent anything being reclaimed later. DAMAGE While the builder should be obliged to insure the part-built project, the quality and wording of that insurance must also be clearly specified if it’s to be worth more than the paper it’s written on. The Institute Clauses for Builders’ Risks policy wording is adequate, and security obtained on the Lloyd’s of London insurance market (or equivalent) should be insisted upon. The builder and buyer should be named as joint assured, with any claims payable to the builder and buyer as a reflection of their interests at the time of the claim. There will also be other matters to be considered in the event of the project being damaged. You should have the option of either cancelling the contract and being refunded payments made up to that point, or requiring the builder to use its insurance pay-out to carry on with the build, in spite of the enormous delays involved. Where the damage causes the project to be scrapped rather than just delayed, builders will normally be reluctant to agree to compensate buyers for the loss of their slot, and for any premium a speculative buyer hoped to make on the build. It is still open to buyers to seek separate insurance for this loss. A new delivery schedule will need to be agreed. FORCE MAJEURE Events beyond the control of the builder are known as ‘force majeure’ events. These may or may not be defined by law. Where they are not, the parties need to ensure that all possibilities are covered, and what their effect will be. Typically, the contractual delivery date will be extended, but the parties will need to clarify whether this is by reference to the number of days the force majeure event continued or the effect on the project’s critical path. Even where delay is caused by a force majeure, such latitude should be subject to a cap – so that the point where enough is enough is clear. The exception to this will be delays due to modifications ordered by the buyer. DELIVERY Sorting matters out with a builder after the final instalment has been paid can be especially difficult. It is crucial that all the correct documents relating to legal title are presented before payment is made. Otherwise the new yacht cannot be registered and will not be allowed to sail anywhere. The place of legal delivery may also have tax implications, and must be agreed. At the point of delivery, the yacht should not only function and appear as envisaged, but it should meet all the classification society and Flag State regulations, especially if it is going to be chartered. Build agreements should allow not only access to the builder for the buyer’s representative, but reasonable tests and inspections, including those to be undertaken at subcontractors’ and suppliers’ premises. The representative should be allowed to require the builder to rectify evident faults immediately. TESTING The newly completed yacht will have to be formally tested, at sea, to make sure that the performance matches the specification. This is the buyer’s opportunity to determine whether the yacht has been built in conformity with the agreed contractual specifications and meets the contractual performance criteria. The owner’s representative, Class and Flag State surveyors will attend these trials and sign off the individual test protocols. As no two yachts are ever identical, their performance in terms of displacement, speed, noise levels, vibration and range, are difficult to predict even whilst using the latest computer-aided design techniques, FEA (finite element analysis), CFD (computational fluid dynamics), tank testing and wind tunnel testing. A practical solution is to agree a small margin of tolerance followed by incremental compensation which the builder must pay if the performance criteria aren’t met but still fall within certain limits. This incremental approach can only be applied to a certain extent and thereafter the right of rejection must lie with the buyer. REJECTION Ultimately, if faults are not put right, the buyer must have the right to refuse delivery. So the build agreement must make it crystal clear whether a particular requirement is to have the legal status of a condition, entitling the buyer to refuse delivery – especially as small defects are simply inevitable in any large project. The laws of most jurisdictions are vague on such matters, involving considerations of whether the yacht is of ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘reasonably fit’ for purpose, and therefore in a ‘deliverable’ condition. This problem is made much worse by the critical importance of aesthetic elements. The standard contractual term for the small and inevitable defects is a ‘minor non-conformity’. Usually, the buyer will be forced to accept delivery with the minor non-conformity list outstanding, under the proviso that the list is taken care of by the builder as soon as possible. WARRANTY Not all of your new yacht’s inevitable little faults will come to light during the trails. Only over time will all the equipment and systems be used in varying weather conditions. The builder should guarantee materials and workmanship for a period of warranty – at least a year – after delivery. Builders will usually agree to correct defects during this period, but not to compensate. The builder may demand that otherwise pre-existing legal rights are given up, and that once the warranty period has expired no further responsibility will rest with the builder. The builder may not wish to compensate for loss of use and charter income, and a detailed notification procedure may also have to be complied with. Such demands should be considered carefully. Where significant concessions are granted by the buyer, the contract should ideally provide for the last payment instalment to be withheld until the end of the warranty period. It may be necessary to bring the yacht into dry-dock, so the buyer must be entitled to have work carried out by a yard other than that in which she was built if cruising schedules are not going to be spoiled.. DISPUTES Disputes between the buyer and builder are most likely to be technical in nature. Even the lustre of paint, for example, can be objectively measured. As courts are better at deciding points of law rather than fact, it makes sense to decide which points would be better decided by an independent expert. A representative from the classification society, for example, is typically agreed on to decide points upon which the society has created technical rules, but the use of another mutually agreed third-party expert should also be agreed for other matters. The expert should be asked to provide an independent opinion, and not act as arbitrator. Arbitrators can decide upon matters of law and evidence, and this requires the expertise of an experienced legal expert. Matters which are non-technical, or which involve large sums, should be agreed to be arbitrated according to the rules of an established arbitrators’ association, or referred to court. The choice of arbitration or litigation may depend on the enforceability or otherwise of an arbitrator’s decision, compared with a court judgment, in the home states of the parties involved. Sometimes, an arbitrators’ decision will be the more powerful of the two, and – unlike court proceedings – arbitrations are confidential in nature. To include long-term flexibility, and an acceptance that some flaws will be evident in the finished product, into a cast-iron contract, is no easy task. Time spent discussing and agreeing on this at the start will be a sound investment compared with the potential arguments which bubble-up later on. 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 Process Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about The Build Process

While adherence to classification society Rules is often mandatory, don’t think of these organisations as being there to impose health and safety restrictions and add to an already considerable mound of paperwork. They have their limitations, but they are useful sources of technical knowhow, and their experts can add real value to your build. Home Handbook Building / / Keep it Classy 10 May 2023 Last revised minutes 3 Reading time While adherence to classification society Rules is often mandatory, don’t think of these organisations as being there to impose health and safety restrictions and add to an already considerable mound of paperwork. They have their limitations, but they are useful sources of technical knowhow, and their experts can add real value to your build. minutes 3 Reading time 10 May 2023 Last revised While adherence to classification society Rules is often mandatory, don’t think of these organisations as being there to impose health and safety restrictions and add to an already considerable mound of paperwork. They have their limitations, but they are useful sources of technical knowhow, and their experts can add real value to your build. Classification societies establish and apply standards (Rules) for design, construction, and maintenance of yachts, focusing on technical aspects. Building and keeping a yacht in Class can boost resale value and ensure compliance with Flag State requirements and insurance policies. Classification societies can provide additional consultancy services during builds and refits, assisting with design development. The connection between classification and insurance dates back to the 17th century, with societies like Lloyd's Register providing vessel information to underwriters. The leading classification societies are members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), which aids in developing regulations. Societies have limitations, including their focus on physical aspects and potential reliance on sampling instead of full examinations due to their experience with larger ships. Claims against societies for mistakes during the build or regular surveys can be challenging due to the choice of law, historical links to specific countries, and liability exclusions in the agreement. When choosing a society, consider membership in IACS, acceptance by insurance underwriters, openness to new ideas, and a deep understanding of large yachts. Establish a good working relationship with the society's surveyor, considering them as an integral part of the build team. Classification does not guarantee build quality or vessel maintenance; it primarily focuses on technical compliance. Societies have limitations, including their focus on physical aspects and potential reliance on sampling instead of full examinations due to their experience with larger ships. Claims against societies for mistakes during the build or regular surveys can be challenging due to the choice of law, historical links to specific countries, and liability exclusions in the agreement. When choosing a society, consider membership in IACS, acceptance by insurance underwriters, openness to new ideas, and a deep understanding of large yachts. Establish a good working relationship with the society's surveyor, considering them as an integral part of the build team. Classification does not guarantee build quality or vessel maintenance; it primarily focuses on technical compliance. Classification societies establish and apply standards (Rules) for design, construction, and maintenance of yachts, focusing on technical aspects. Building and keeping a yacht in Class can boost resale value and ensure compliance with Flag State requirements and insurance policies. Classification societies can provide additional consultancy services during builds and refits, assisting with design development. The connection between classification and insurance dates back to the 17th century, with societies like Lloyd's Register providing vessel information to underwriters. The leading classification societies are members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), which aids in developing regulations. Classification societies (sometimes known just as ‘Class’) are privately-organised groups of engineers and surveyors. They are experts in the technical aspects of yacht construction and maintenance. Their principal role is to research, establish and apply standards (known as ‘Rules’) for design, building and maintenance. The Rules are highly detailed, covering the integrity of the hull, machinery and key safety systems. Depending on your yacht’s size, and whether it’s going to be chartered-out, your chosen Flag State, may require the vessel to be built according to Rules, and, on launching, be kept ‘in Class’. Societies also offer additional consultancy services, going beyond basic classification, during builds and refits. Building to Rules and keeping your yacht in Class can boost the resale value whether or not it is chartered. Where must, as a matter of law, be kept in class, then failing to do so may invalidate insurance policies. Even before the build agreement is signed, the society can review the proposed plans, and in particular any novel features or materials. As well as assessing Rule compliance, they can assist with design development – in a relatively cost-effective way, too. CLASS & INSURANCE The connection between classification and insurance goes back a long way. The oldest society, Lloyd's Register , was named after a 17th-century London coffee house that was frequented by merchants, ship owners and insurance underwriters. Keen to encourage patrons to stay longer, coffee house owner, Edward Lloyd, printed and circulated industry news. The customers set up the Society for the Registry of Shipping in 1760, with the aim of recording information about vessel quality, thereby enabling the underwriters to make more informed decisions about risk. The records were listed, rated and classed in the Society’s Register Book. Subscriptions generated by the Register Book paid for surveyors to examine the vessels. Today, the leading 11 societies are all members of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) - a non-governmental organization covering over 90% of the world’s shipping tonnage. IACS is a non-governmental organization, which helps the International Maritime Organization to develop regulations. LIMITATIONS Societies have two principal limitations. Firstly, they only consider the physical aspects of the yacht and its equipment, not how they are used. Secondly, because they are more used to examining ships ten times the volume of even the largest yachts, there can be a reliance on sampling rather than full examinations: things can be missed. Classification doesn’t automatically assure build quality or vessel maintenance. LIABILITY Society surveyors are human and make mistakes. An owner might want to claim against a society where there has been a mistake made during the build process. More common are omissions made during the regular surveys, especially where the maintenance of the yacht ‘in Class’ is a reason underpinning a purchase. The latter may be an important route to getting compensation, given that the societies are large organisations with deep pockets, whereas the seller is often just an owning company with no other assets once the vessel is sold. What makes claims against societies difficult is that while commercial parties often automatically choose English law, the societies all have historical links to particular countries, and often insist on the law of their ‘home’ country. Further, there are still no international conventions on this subject, despite some initiatives. The choice of law is normally agreed in the contract, of course, but this may not automatically be respected by certain courts, and such a choice may be meaningless to third party buyer who was not party to original contract for classification services. Societies will, where possible, expressly exclude their own liability in the terms of the agreement with the owner. These attempts have largely been upheld. Amazingly, terms will commonly state, for example, that the society ‘does not warrant the accuracy of any information or advice supplied…’ and ‘…will not be liable for any … act, omission, error, negligence, or … any inaccuracy in any information or advice given’. Indeed, the society may also state if there has been negligence on their part, then they will compensate the owner, but only up to the amount of the society’s fees paid – which will usually be a fraction of the damages sought. CHOICE OF SOCIETY You should choose a society which: Is a member of IACS, Is acceptable to the proposed insurance underwriter, Is receptive to new ideas and solutions, and Really understands large yachts. The last point is particularly important where your build includes novel designs or materials. Much can be at the discretion of the society’s surveyor, so a good working relationship is vital. Think of the surveyor as an integral part of your build 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 Engage a Builder Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Engage a Builder

The unique Regulations Radar sets out the minimum documentation owners are obliged to maintain for yachts and superyachts registered in the United Kingdom and carrying no more than 12 guests. Other ship registries have similar obligations. This page aims to set out the minimum documentation owners are obliged to maintain for yachts registered in the United Kingdom and carrying no more than 12 guests. Other flags have similar obligations. Non-compliance can lead to port detention and/or fines, and can have implications for insurance cover. Most documents will be needed by the next owner, so if you're looking to sell check that all necessary paperwork is present before your yacht is placed on the market. Don't leave it until a sale has been agreed. M-Notices and Notes are useful guides but not authoritative statements of law, and are regularly withdrawn. Home Handbook Regulation / / Regulations Radar This page aims to set out the minimum documentation owners are obliged to maintain for yachts registered in the United Kingdom and carrying no more than 12 guests. Other flags have similar obligations. Non-compliance can lead to port detention and/or fines, and can have implications for insurance cover . Most documents will be needed by the next owner, so if you're looking to sell check that all necessary paperwork is present before your yacht is placed on the market. Don't leave it until a sale has been agreed. M-Notices and Notes are useful guides but not authoritative statements of law, and are regularly withdrawn. BOTH ≥400 GT or >15 persons BOTH ≥400 GT BOTH ≥150 GT BOTH ≥24 m LOA to <400 GT BOTH ≥100 GT or >15 persons BOTH >130 kW engine(s) after 1 Jan 2000 COMMERCIAL ≥24 m LOA or ≥150 GT before 21 July 1968 COMMERCIAL ≥24 m LLL or ≥150 GT before 21 July 1968 BOTH ≥300 GT COMMERCIAL ≥300 GT BOTH all sizes COMMERCIAL all sizes PRIVATE all sizes BOTH >1000 GT COMMERCIAL ≥500 GT BOTH ≥24 m LOA PLEASE SELECT THE RELEVANT SIZE(S) TO SEE WHICH DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED AND WHY. SELECT ALL RELEVANT CATEGORIES INCLUDING SMALLER SIZES. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR 499GT SEE ≥400GT, ≥300GT, ETC WHILE GT AND USAGE CAN BE FOUND ON YOUR VESSEL'S CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, IT IS THE ACTUAL USE TO WHICH YOUR VESSEL IS PUT WHICH IS KEY. THIS GUIDE IS NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY. CHECK THAT M-NOTICES/NOTES, REGULATIONS AND ACTS ARE STILL IN FORCE. CONTACT US FOR ASSISTANCE. THIS GUIDE IS NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY. CHECK THAT M-NOTICES/NOTES, REGULATIONS AND ACTS ARE STILL IN FORCE. CONTACT US FOR ASSISTANCE. WHILE GT AND USAGE CAN BE FOUND ON YOUR VESSEL'S CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION, IT IS THE ACTUAL USE TO WHICH YOUR VESSEL IS PUT WHICH IS KEY SELECT ALL RELEVANT CATEGORIES INCLUDING SMALLER SIZES. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR 499GT SEE ≥400GT, ≥300GT, ETC PLEASE SELECT THE RELEVANT SIZE(S) TO SEE WHICH DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED AND WHY PRIVATE all sizes N/A Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1970 Statute Merchant Shipping (Crew Agreements, Lists of Crew and Discharge of Seamen) Regulations 1991 Regulation N/A Code of Practice MGN 474 M-Notice//Note Crew Agreement and List of Crew COMMERCIAL ≥24 m LLL or ≥150 GT before 21 July 1968 Various Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note REG Yacht Code Certificate Various Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M & N Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Certificate of Classification COMMERCIAL ≥24 m LOA or ≥150 GT before 21 July 1968 International Convention on Load Lines 1966/1988 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations 1998, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MGN 579 MSN 1752 M-Notice//Note Load Line Conditions of Assignment International Convention on Load Lines 1966/1988 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations 1998, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MGN 579 MSN 1752 M-Notice//Note International Load Line Certificate International Convention on Load Lines 1966/1988 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations 1998, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Part A, Chapter 11 Code of Practice MGN 579 M-Notice//Note Stability Information COMMERCIAL all sizes Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Survey and Certification) Regulations 2013 Regulation N/A Code of Practice MSN 1849 M-Notice//Note On-board complaints procedure International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS), Chapter IV Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Radio Installations) Regulations 1998 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Part A, Chapter 16 Code of Practice MGN 530 M-Notice//Note GMDSS Log Book Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex G Code of Practice MSN 1877 (M) Amendment 1 M-Notice//Note Table of Shipboard Working Arrangements N/A Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1970, as amended Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Official Log Book) Regulations 1981, as amended Regulation N/A Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Official Log Book Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Minimum Requirements for Seafarers etc. Regulations 2014 Regulation N/A Code of Practice MGN 477 (M) Amendment 4 M-Notice//Note Seafarer Employment Agreement Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex G Code of Practice MSN 1877 Amendment 1 M-Notice//Note Record of Hours of Rest of Seafarers COMMERCIAL ≥300 GT International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974/1988 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations 1998, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes M & N Code of Practice MSN 1751 M-Notice//Note Safety Radio Certificate COMMERCIAL ≥500 GT International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter XI-2 International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) Code Convention European Communities Act 1972 (originally) Statute Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations 2004, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Part A, Chapter 11 Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Ship Security Assessment Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Survey and Certification) Regulations 2013 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex G Code of Practice MSN 1848 Amendment 3 M-Notice//Note Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter XI-! Convention European Communities Act 1972 (originally) Statute Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations 2004, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Continuous Synopsis Record International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS), Chapter IX Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations 2014, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Safety Management Certificate Maritime Labour Convention 2006 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Survey and Certification) Regulations 2013 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex G Code of Practice MSN 1848 Amendment 3 M-Notice//Note Maritime Labour Certificate (including DMLC I and DMLC II) International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter XI-2 International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) Code Convention European Communities Act 1972 (originally) Statute Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations 2004, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note International Ship Security Certificate International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS), Chapter IX Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations 2014, as amended Regulation N/A Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Document of Compliance International Convention on Standards of Training and Certification and Watchkeepers 1978/1995 (STCW) Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex G and M Code of Practice MSN 1868 Amendment 1 M-Notice//Note Safe Manning Document International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974/1988 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Survey and Certification) Regulations 2015, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes M & N Code of Practice MSN 1751 M-Notice//Note Safety Equipment Certificate International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974/1988 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Survey and Certification) Regulations 2015, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes M & N Code of Practice MSN 1751 M-Notice//Note Safety Construction Certificate International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS), Chapter IX Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) Regulations 2014, as amended Regulation N/A Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Safety Management System International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter XI-2 & International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) Code Convention European Communities Act 1972 (originally) Statute Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations 2004, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Part A, Chapter 11 Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Ship Security Plan BOTH all sizes International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute The Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022 Regulation N/A Code of Practice None M-Notice//Note Ballast water management plan (if applicable) N/A Convention Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 Statute N/A Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Ship Station Radio Licence N/A Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Part A, Chapter 23A Code of Practice MGN 539 M-Notice//Note Code of Safe Working Practices International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute The Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022 Regulation N/A Code of Practice None M-Notice//Note Ballast water record book (if applicable) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 2004 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute The Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice None M-Notice//Note International Ballast Water Management Certificate (if applicable) BOTH >130 kW engine(s) after 1 Jan 2000 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex VI Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MSN 1819 M-Notice//Note Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate & NOx technical file BOTH ≥24 m LOA International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Regulations 1997, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MGN 398 M-Notice//Note International Tonnage Certificate BOTH ≥24 m LOA to <400 GT N/A Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Anti-Fouling Systems) Regulations 2009 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice MGN 398 M-Notice//Note Declaration on Anti-fouling System BOTH ≥100 GT or >15 persons Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex V Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2020 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice MGN 398 M-Notice//Note Garbage management plan BOTH ≥150 GT Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex I Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 2019, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice None M-Notice//Note Oil Record Book BOTH ≥300 GT N/A Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Compulsory Insurance of Shipowners for Maritime Claims) Regulations 2012 Regulation N/A Code of Practice N/A M-Notice//Note Certificate of Insurance (third party liabilities) Nairobi International Convention on the removal of Wrecks 2007 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended, & Wreck Removal Convention Act 2011 Statute N/A Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice MIN 499 M-Notice//Note Wreck Removal Insurance Certificate BOTH ≥400 GT Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex I Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 2019, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex F Code of Practice MGN 231 M-Notice//Note Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex VI Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MGN 462 M-Notice//Note International Energy Efficiency Certificate International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships 2001 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Anti-Fouling Systems) Regulations 2009 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice MGN 398 M-Notice//Note International Anti-fouling System Certificate Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex I Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 2019, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice None M-Notice//Note International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex VI Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008, as amended Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MSN 1819 MGN 381 MGN 386 MSN 1819 Amendment M-Notice//Note International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex VI Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 Regulation N/A Code of Practice MGN 462 M-Notice//Note Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan BOTH ≥400 GT or >15 persons Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex IV Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships) Regulations 2020 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MGN 631 M-Notice//Note International Sewage Pollution Prevention Certificate Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL), Annex V Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships) Regulations 2020 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annex M Code of Practice MGN 632 Amendment 1 M-Notice//Note Garbage record book and reception facilities receipts BOTH >1000 GT International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 Convention Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended Statute Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) (Bunkers Convention) Regulations 2006 Regulation Red Ensign Group Yacht Code, Common Annexes, Annexes L & M Code of Practice MGN 507 (M+F) Amendment 1 M-Notice//Note Civil Liability Certificate for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage This page aims to set out the minimum documentation owners are obliged to maintain for yachts registered in the United Kingdom and carrying no more than 12 guests. Other flags have similar obligations. Non-compliance can lead to port detention and/or fines, and can have implications for insurance cover. Most documents will be needed by the next owner, so if you're looking to sell check that all necessary paperwork is present before your yacht is placed on the market. Don't leave it until a sale has been agreed. M-Notices and Notes are useful guides but not authoritative statements of law, and are regularly withdrawn.

Buying yacht insurance is an annual chore which you, as owner, no doubt leave to your manager or captain. Some larger managers have in-house insurance specialists, but it’s fair to say that it’s often an area that is little understood. Here, we look at the various parties involved and their respective roles. Home Handbook Insuring / / Who's Who 3 January 2023 Last revised minutes 5 Reading time Buying insurance is an annual chore which you, as owner, no doubt leave to your yacht manager or captain. Some larger managers have in-house insurance specialists, but it’s fair to say that it’s often an area that is little understood. Here, we look at the various parties involved and their respective roles. minutes 5 Reading time 3 January 2023 Last revised Buying insurance is an annual chore which you, as owner, no doubt leave to your yacht manager or captain. Some larger managers have in-house insurance specialists, but it’s fair to say that it’s often an area that is little understood. Here, we look at the various parties involved and their respective roles. Large yacht insurance is provided by underwriters: other parties are merely part of the distribution channel. Insurance brokers should act on behalf of the insured - not underwriters - but are paid commission by underwriters. Some intermediaries may mislead clients into believing they are brokers when they are actually agents of underwriters. Other intermediaries may act as brokers during policy inception but switch to being underwriters' claims handlers during claims, leaving owners without the guidance they had expected to receive. Repackaging existing P&I cover to appear as an add-on can mislead clients and inflate costs. Underwriters prioritize profitability and may challenge large claims, causing significant delays and losses to the insured. It is crucial to verify the location and regulation of underwriters to avoid being left without coverage if they become insolvent. Insurance brokers are tightly regulated to prevent conflicts of interest, ensuring they act in the client's best interests. Brokers have a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, identify the needed insurance, disclose material facts, and obtain suitable cover underwritten by a reputable underwriter. Acting as an unregulated insurance intermediary in the UK is a serious criminal offence; you should check that they're registered with the FCA . Underwriters prioritize profitability and may challenge large claims, causing significant delays and losses to the insured. It is crucial to verify the location and regulation of underwriters to avoid being left without coverage if they become insolvent. Insurance brokers are tightly regulated to prevent conflicts of interest, ensuring they act in the client's best interests. Brokers have a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, identify the needed insurance, disclose material facts, and obtain suitable cover underwritten by a reputable underwriter. Acting as an unregulated insurance intermediary in the UK is a serious criminal offence; you should check that they're registered with the FCA . Large yacht insurance is provided by underwriters: other parties are merely part of the distribution channel. Insurance brokers should act on behalf of the insured - not underwriters - but are paid commission by underwriters. Some intermediaries may mislead clients into believing they are brokers when they are actually agents of underwriters. Other intermediaries may act as brokers during policy inception but switch to being underwriters' claims handlers during claims, leaving owners without the guidance they had expected to receive. Repackaging existing P&I cover to appear as an add-on can mislead clients and inflate costs. Look for large yacht insurance, and you’ll find all kinds of parties offering it. In fact, it’s only underwriters who provide cover. Everyone else is part of the distribution channel. The term ‘underwriter’ stems from the days when well-heeled individuals, happy to leverage their wealth as collateral, would sign underneath a description of the risk being insured. With some exceptions, you can’t buy cover from underwriters. They use agents to reach the market. Insurance brokers, by contrast, provide a service to those looking for insurance. Brokers act (or should be – they don’t always) in the insured’s interests, even though they are paid commission from underwriters. MARKET PRACTICES One particularly obnoxious practice is to infer that cover is being bought from a broker, whereas, in fact, that party – standing behind a well-marketed brand – is an underwriter’s agent. Another business model to be wary of is that the turncoat, where the intermediary acts as broker at the time of policy inception, but then acts as the underwriter’s claims handler when there’s a claim. The (legal) basis for this is often buried in the small print, but it’s of little help for the owner who, when needing to claim, is left without the guidance which might have been expected. Another unhelpful practice is to divide up and repackage cover so as to appear to add value. For example, third party liability insurance typically covers injury claims from guests – but this doesn’t prevent some from selling guest welfare insurance separately as an add-on. Relative to Hull & Machinery, P&I cover is relatively inexpensive and normally already provides owners with mandatory international cover. And – make no mistake – underwriters are there to turn a profit. They can, and will, challenge large claims, to a final and unappealable conclusion if necessary, in a legal process that can take years, with the insured incurring unrecoverable losses no matter the outcome. One trick is to pay smaller claims quickly and make a song-and-dance of doing so in their marketing materials, public relations and social media, giving the impression that all claims are handled in this way. THE UNDERWRITER Check carefully where the underwriter is based, and who’s regulating them. Should an underwriter become insolvent following a large claim, the owner would almost certainly be left high and dry. For this reason, underwriters based in the United Kingdom and European Union must maintain ‘solvency margins’, to ensure that their assets will cover their potential liabilities. Reinsurance provides further protection. Further afield, however, policyholders should consider just how much of a hit their underwriter could take. Given the expense of holding reserves, and with reinsurance typically accounting for a fair percentage of the premium, some underwriters could be tempted to cut corners. THE BROKER Given that they are paid on a commission basis, inherent potential conflicts of interest are tightly regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In particular, brokers must act honestly, fairly and in their clients' best interests – and communicate clearly, especially regarding fees and commission. Advice provided must be appropriate for the client and only suitable insurance, and level of cover, must be proposed. GENERAL DUTIES As well as regulatory duties, the law more generally requires brokers to exercise reasonable skill and care (with reference to what one would ordinarily expect from a member of that profession operating within the same market) – plus, there may be a specific contractual duty to source insurance of particular type or standard. OBTAINING COVER Brokers who hold themselves out as dealing or specialising in yacht insurance will owe the insured a duty of care to identify what insurance is needed. While not lawyers, they are expected to have a working knowledge of insurance law, be able to ask their client the right questions, and understand how any exclusion clauses may affect cover. They are under a duty of care to warn the insured of the duty to make a fair presentation to the underwriter, and the separate requirement to disclose material facts. Brokers should also indicate what sort of matters could be considered to be material and ask questions about facts that they know are material but the insured might not think to mention. They must also, when it comes to renewal, go through the same procedure that was carried out at the inception of the policy: they cannot just renew the policy and pick up their commission. While brokers must do everything reasonably possible in order to obtain or renew cover, there is no absolute obligation to do so. Brokers must act with reasonable speed, and obtain multiple quotes, if possible, to make certain that the insured pays no more than necessary. The cover which is obtained must be clear, suitable and meet the insured’s requirements – and has been underwritten by a suitable underwriter(s). ADVISING ON TERMS Crucially for owners of large, permanently-crewed yachts, which are subject to a myriad of regulations, brokers must draw their clients’ attention to any onerous or unusual terms or conditions, so that owners have the opportunity to ensure that they are able to comply with such requirements or, if possible, obtain alternative cover. CLAIMS HANDLING Generally, unless agreed otherwise, brokers must assist clients with making claims. As ever, the broker must act with due skill, care and diligence. Notably (these are issues commonly leading to disputes) the broker must ensure that time limits and notification requirements are complied with. Time limits can be very tight. Policies can also require, for example, a sworn proof of loss to be provided. A whole strategy must be in place for handling claims. OTHER INTERMEDIARIES Do not assume that non-specialist intermediaries such as yacht managers will add value. Some may simply extend chains of communication, increasing the risk of non-payment for non-disclosure of a material fact, while paying the manager’s commission will only increase premiums. Acting as an unregulated intermediary in the UK is a serious criminal offence, carrying a maximum two-year prison term and an unlimited fine for the individuals involved. You can quickly check whether anyone doing so is regulated by looking them up on the FCA's Financial Services Register . BE WARNED Always look beyond the slick websites, social media advertising and event sponsorships, and be clear about the role played about the party(ies) you’re dealing with. Seek written confirmation if you’re in any doubt. Also pay attention to where they’re located, who’s regulating them, and the law and jurisdiction applicable to the policy. 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 Types of Insurance Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Types of Insurance

While the refitting of an older yacht may appeal to some owners, others may prefer to go a stage further and upcycle a naval or other working vessel. These often have an attractive aesthetic born of practical necessity - which can be transformed into uniquely beautiful yachts, inherently well suited to cruising in unusual locations. Home Handbook Upcycling / / Conversion Projects 8 August 2018 Last revised minutes 2 Reading time While the refitting of an older yacht may appeal to some owners, others may prefer to go a stage further and upcycle a naval or other working vessel. These often have an attractive aesthetic born of practical necessity - which can be transformed into uniquely beautiful yachts, inherently well suited to cruising in unusual locations. minutes 2 Reading time 8 August 2018 Last revised While the refitting of an older yacht may appeal to some owners, others may prefer to go a stage further and upcycle a naval or other working vessel. These often have an attractive aesthetic born of practical necessity - which can be transformed into uniquely beautiful yachts, inherently well suited to cruising in unusual locations. Some commercial and surplus military vessels can be purchased at a fraction of the price of large yachts, creating interesting opportunities. Buying directly from the seller or their appointed broker is preferable to using an intermediary, which can lead to increased costs and communication issues. Refit and repair yards, rather than builders, are more likely to undertake conversion projects, providing more choice and negotiation power for owners. Conversion projects involve combining new and old designs into a single vessel, requiring integration and compliance with evolving regulations. Interfaces between old and new elements can present challenges during and after the conversion process. Structural changes can affect the distribution of pressures and forces, potentially compromising previously sound parts of the vessel. There is a risk of unexpected costs and lost commercial opportunities during conversions, leading to compensation payments from the yard. Yacht conversions require a measured approach to ensure high-quality fit and finish. Legal and practical issues specific to conversion projects should be addressed before entering into an agreement with the yard. Converting ships to yachts is a niche business, and experienced project management is crucial to ensure high standards and attention to detail. Structural changes can affect the distribution of pressures and forces, potentially compromising previously sound parts of the vessel. There is a risk of unexpected costs and lost commercial opportunities during conversions, leading to compensation payments from the yard. Yacht conversions require a measured approach to ensure high-quality fit and finish. Legal and practical issues specific to conversion projects should be addressed before entering into an agreement with the yard. Converting ships to yachts is a niche business, and experienced project management is crucial to ensure high standards and attention to detail. Some commercial and surplus military vessels can be purchased at a fraction of the price of large yachts, creating interesting opportunities. Buying directly from the seller or their appointed broker is preferable to using an intermediary, which can lead to increased costs and communication issues. Refit and repair yards, rather than builders, are more likely to undertake conversion projects, providing more choice and negotiation power for owners. Conversion projects involve combining new and old designs into a single vessel, requiring integration and compliance with evolving regulations. Interfaces between old and new elements can present challenges during and after the conversion process. Commercial vessels exist to fulfil particular roles. When no longer needed they become liabilities which are generally disposed of without delay – often at a fraction of the price of a similar-sized yacht. High-performance military vessels can also become dated or surplus to requirements as geopolitical sands shift, with government bureaucrats having little interest in maximising sale prices. Opportunities to purchase tend to arise on an ad hoc basis. As when buying a yacht, you should ensure that you’re dealing with the seller directly or the seller’s appointed broker. Using an intermediary broker leads to extended lines of communication, more costs and a greater chance of the purchase falling through. YARD CHOICE While conversions may involve the rebuilding of entire parts of the original ship, such projects are always unique, and cannot readily be fitted into a build slot. For this reason, it is generalised refit and repair yards rather than builders which tend to undertake the work. And, as there are more of the former than the latter, owners have more choice and can drive a harder bargain. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS All conversion projects have a number of common characteristics. To a greater or lesser degree, they will all combine new and old designs into a single vessel, which must then function effectively as an integrated whole. All this against a backdrop of constantly evolving regulations governing specifications, materials and equipment. And so there will exist various interfaces between old and new elements which do not exist in the context of newbuilds. Issues may arise not only during the conversion process but well after the vessel has re-entered service in its new role. Depending on the extent of any structural changes, hydrodynamic forces may no longer be distributed as originally intended, possibly compromising previously sound parts. Even where the yard has provided a post-redelivery guarantee of workmanship and materials, it may be an unforeseeable aspect of the combination of old and new elements that leads to a fault – rather than a deficiency in the workmanship and (new) materials. When trading ships are converted from one role to another, there is always the risk that the project will cost more than expected because the works have taken longer than expected and charters and other commercial opportunities have been lost. A yard will often have to pay a fixed, daily rate in compensation as part of their agreement with the owner. The works can be rushed and/or the vessel not properly surveyed prior to agreeing a timescale. As the quality of fit and finish is paramount, a more measured approach is needed for yacht conversions. The unique characteristics of the conversion project give rise to a number of practical and legal issues that need to be considered and addressed before entering into any agreement with the yard. And sometimes even before acquiring the would-be project in the first place. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Converting ships to yachts is, to say the least, a niche business. Using yards more used to converting ships for use in one trade to another can lead to significant cost savings, but the high standards of workmanship and the attention to detail demanded by yacht owners can come as a surprise to the yard’s management. Various specialist third party contractors might be needed – and this may not be how the yard typically operates. It is therefore vital that owners have an experienced and effective project manager in attendance on a full-time basis. Return to top Thank you to all our Members who contributed to this article. Unless otherwise stated, this article broadly describes, by way of illustration, the situation in the United Kingdom waters in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels. This piece does not provide or replace legal advice. Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Conversion Agreements Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Conversion Agreements

The loan finance business model is as simple as it sounds: the owner borrows part of the purchase price from a bank or other lender, and is the legal, registered owner of the yacht. The lender takes security over the yacht. While most yacht loan agreements and associated documentation is complex, most of this relates to the lender’s security. Home Handbook Financing / / Loans Overview 21 July 2015 Last revised minutes 2 Reading time The loan finance business model is as simple as it sounds: the owner borrows part of the purchase price from a bank or other lender, and is the legal, registered owner of the yacht. The lender takes security over the yacht. While most yacht loan agreements and associated documentation is complex, most of this relates to the lender’s security. minutes 2 Reading time 21 July 2015 Last revised The loan finance business model is as simple as it sounds: the owner borrows part of the purchase price from a bank or other lender, and is the legal, registered owner of the yacht. The lender takes security over the yacht. While most yacht loan agreements and associated documentation is complex, most of this relates to the lender’s security. Lenders typically use their own documentation, which may lack clarity and organization. The loan agreement outlines the availability of funds and conditions for repayment. Security provisions are crucial and can be detailed in the loan agreement and additional documents. Covenants in the loan agreement specify borrower obligations and restrictions, such as the sale and navigation of the yacht. Assignments of rights under insurance policies and charter earnings may be required. The mortgage on the yacht is registered as part of the loan agreement. Guarantees from third-party companies and beneficial owners provide additional security. Covenants and restrictions aim to ensure proper management, operational compliance, and insurance coverage. Choosing English law and jurisdiction is common in the ship finance sector due to expertise and favorable legal conditions. Opting for English law can save costs and promote amicable relationships among parties involved. The mortgage on the yacht is registered as part of the loan agreement. Guarantees from third-party companies and beneficial owners provide additional security. Covenants and restrictions aim to ensure proper management, operational compliance, and insurance coverage. Choosing English law and jurisdiction is common in the ship finance sector due to expertise and favorable legal conditions. Opting for English law can save costs and promote amicable relationships among parties involved. Lenders typically use their own documentation, which may lack clarity and organization. The loan agreement outlines the availability of funds and conditions for repayment. Security provisions are crucial and can be detailed in the loan agreement and additional documents. Covenants in the loan agreement specify borrower obligations and restrictions, such as the sale and navigation of the yacht. Assignments of rights under insurance policies and charter earnings may be required. Lenders will usually have their own ready-made documentation. While reasonably uniform in scope and contents, the taxonomy and readability usually leave much to be desired. Within the loan agreement, the loan clause sets out that the loan will be available, either in one lump sum where the yacht has already been built, or at certain newbuild milestones. Given that the lender’s not the owner, the security, detailed in the agreement, is comprehensive. Default events are set out in the loan agreement, to make clear the circumstances which will trigger the lender’s right to demand immediate repayment of the loan and what happens in the event such payment is not forthcoming. Finally, various standard boilerplate clauses in the loan agreement deal with key housekeeping matters, with the most important being the law and jurisdiction clause: parties must make sure they are taking advice from an experienced, insured lawyer duly qualified in the correct jurisdiction. SECURITY Security provisions make up most of the loan documentation, and can be set out both in the loan agreement and further documents: A covenants clause within the loan agreement, and/or a separate deed of covenant Assignments to the lender of the borrower’s rights under yacht’s insurance policies An assignment of the yacht’s charter earnings to the lender The mortgage on the yacht, registered pursuant to the loan agreement A guarantee from a third party company owned by the yacht’s beneficial owner A guarantee from the beneficial owner him or herself Covenants set out positive and negative promises on the part of the borrower. There is usually a restriction on the sale of the yacht, and restrictions the geographical navigation and use of the yacht – for example, the yacht may not be allowed to visit places where enforcement of loan could prove challenging. Chartering and operational management often may only be undertake on approved terms. Where management is deficient, insurance cover could be withdrawn and the lender’s security unnecessarily jeopardised. A more detailed analysis of the security requirements is set out here . LAW & JURISDICTION As, for historical reasons, the centre of the world’s ship finance sector is London, it makes sense to ensure that all the contractual relationships are governed by English law and subject to English jurisdiction. Although it is not easy to think of yachts as being ships, that is exactly what they are in the eyes of the law. A greater concentration of yachting lawyers and case-law, coupled with an innovative banking culture and a legal regime which encourages settlement, means that this choice may well save legal costs and maintain good relations among the parties. 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 Loan Security Join the discussion over in the Club's group Questions or comments? Please contact us You can also read about Loan Security

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

Home / No idea Navigational Error!

Home / No idea Navigational Error!