DOI: 10.36347/sjebm.2015.v02i06.008

Pages: 630-638

The basis of remedy in civilian regime is characterized by the notion of restitution in integrum. The same concept or reaction is expressed in the common law by saying that the plaintiff or claimant should be put back into the same position as he would have been had he not suffered the loss, damage or injury inflicted on him by the defendant. The remedy of specific performance in contract perhaps best fits the notion described above. In the law of torts, a similar remedy is restoration which is now established to be an appropriate remedy for damage to the environment under the law of liability and compensation for marine pollution damage including the convention regime on the subject. Specific performance is known as an equitable remedy in Anglo – Saxon jurisdictions, that is; it has its roots in the law of equity. It is also referred to as an extraordinary remedy and is available in administrative law as well. The concept of limitation of liability is an antithesis to the principles of remedy articulated in the preceding lines of this article to wit: restitution in integrum, restoration and specific performance. The issue of limitation of shipowners‘ liability has been very much scrutinized but the question still continues as to the validity of its creeping and prolonged presence in shipping, maritime and trade. This article attempts to answer in a fresh and dynamic manner the question as to whether or not it is time for ship-owners and marine insurers to wean off the protection provided by limitation of liability regimes. Before this question can be answered, it is imperative that two areas be looked into, that is, the relevance of the ship owners‘ limitation of liability principle to the present and future and the foreseeable implications on the shipping and marine insurance industries if this principle should it be abolished.