Mariola Marine Corporation v Lloyd’s Register of Shipping [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 547.
Facts
A ship known as the ‘Morning Watch’ had been issued a class certificate by the defendant, Lloyds Register of Shipping, despite the fact that it had a variety of defects which rendered it unseaworthy. The ship was purchased by the plaintiff in reliance on the class certificate. Upon discovering the problems with the vessel, the buyer sought to recover his losses from Lloyd’s Register, arguing that it was foreseeable and reasonable that he had relied on the class certificate.
Issues
The issue was whether Lloyd’s Register owed any duty of care to a subsequent purchaser of a ship for which it issued a certificate, to make sure that the certificate reflected the true state of the ship.
Decision/Outcome
The Court determined that no relationship of proximity sufficient to form the basis of a duty of care in negligence existed between Lloyd’s and a third party purchaser such as the claimant. The Court appeared to be heavily influenced by consideration of the public purpose of the Lloyd’s register, noting that “[t]he primary purpose of the classification system is…to enhance the safety of life and property at sea, rather than to protect the economic interests of those involved…in shipping” (p. 9). To impose liability in negligence on Lloyd’s would undermine their ability to perform this important function. This consideration appeared to override the application of the usual principles for establishing a duty of care drawn from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note remains accurate as a summary of Mariola Marine Corporation v Lloyd’s Register of Shipping [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 547. The decision has not been overruled and continues to be cited as authority for the proposition that a classification society does not owe a duty of care in negligence to a purchaser who relies on a class certificate.
One point of clarification worth noting: the article refers to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 as establishing the standard three-part test for duty of care (foreseeability, proximity, and fairness). That decision remains the leading authority, though readers should be aware that subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence — particularly Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 — has refined the Caparo framework, emphasising that the three-stage test is primarily a tool for novel situations and that established categories of duty should be applied where they exist. This does not affect the outcome or reasoning in Mariola itself, but students should bear in mind the broader development of duty of care principles when situating this case in the wider law of negligence.
The article is otherwise up to date and suitable for study purposes.
