Is a Remotely Operated Vehicle (an ROV) a ship?
This was one of the questions recently asked in the Australian Federal Courts. The relevant Australian statute, The Admiralty Act 1988 allows claims to be brought against ships and in this case a warrant of arrest was issued against the Defendant, an ROV, the Saab Seaeye Leopard 1702.
The owner of the ROV in question sought to have the arrest of the ROV dismissed on the basis that amongst other things, the ROV was not a ‘ship’ as defined in the legislation and therefore the arrest was made ‘without jurisdiction’.
The Court first looked at whether in normal parlance the ROV had the ‘usual characteristics of a ship’. In this case, the Court considered it didn’t and therefore they looked at the wider statutory definition, in particular the key words that a ship is a “vessel used or constructed for use in navigation by water, however it is propelled or moved”.
The factors considered by the Court were:
A ROV does not obtain buoyancy by the displacement of water as is usual, indeed the ROV was in fact designed so that water could flow through it and indeed if detached from its umbilical cord to the vessel controlling it, it would sink.
Its ability to navigate in the water is limited, it is lowered into the water by a winch from the main vessel and then can only move as far as its tether allows.
The ROV would not be able to navigate the high seas or waterways whilst being towed and therefore it could not be considered ‘seaworthy’, the ROV’s movement in the water was limited, it being taken to its general location by the main vessel.
ROVs are not registered as ships.
The ROV was small and there is a history of not including small craft such as rowing boats within the admiralty jurisdiction. Navigation is generally regarded as including the carriage of passengers or cargo, and whilst a ROV can pick up items, that capacity is very limited.
It does nor act in the same way as a vessel used in navigation, it is a submersible piece of equipment and when deployed forms part of the equipment of the main vessel.
The Court therefore found in the case that the ROV was not a ship.
Whilst this is an Australian decision, it will be persuasive in other jurisdictions including in New Zealand when considering similar scenarios. This decision is clearly of use in classifying ROVs, however and as maritime technology evolves and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), Autonomous Surface Vehicles (ASVs) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) including saildrones become more commonplace, more capable and not limited mainly to military applications these issues will certainly be more prevalent in the courts.
For further information, contact Peter Dawson by email peter@maritimelaw.co.nz, or by phone 027 229 9624.
Guardian Offshore AU Pty Ltd v Saab Seaeye Leopard 1702 Remotely Operated Vehicle Lately On Board The Ship ‘Offshore Guardian’