Incompetent or Negligent? Admiralty Court Sets the Bar High Articles Voirrey Davies Published: February 09, 2026 Contact author Download article pdf There is a high bar to clear when it comes to allegations of causative incompetence and unseaworthiness but that was the Admiralty Court’s finding in the recent decision in The Happy Aras [2026] EWHC 7 .  Background On 20 March 2023, the “HAPPY ARAS” (the “Vessel”) ran aground on the Datca peninsula in southern Turkey. The Vessel was seriously damaged and had to be salvaged. The cargo of soya beans had to be lightened from the Vessel and transhipped.  Owners declared General Average (“GA”). The insurers of Diatold Trade Pte Ltd (the “Cargo Interests”) provided an Average Guarantee to cover such GA contributions as were found to be “reasonably, properly and legally due”. The GA adjustment provided for a GA contribution from Cargo Interests of USD 1,271,095.89. Cargo Interests refused to pay on the basis that the Vessel was unseaworthy.  Unseaworthiness Arguments The York-Antwerp Rules provide that a shipowner can still seek contributions in GA even though the GA event that occurred was due to their fault. The party from whom the contribution is being demanded can resist the claim such that the shipowner is not entitled to recover the GA contributions, if the loss/expenditure was caused by the shipowner’s “actionable fault” (See The BSLE Sunrise [2019 ]) . In The Happy Aras, the actionable fault being relied upon by Cargo Interests was the breach of the carrier’s duty of seaworthiness under the Hague Rules.  The test for unseaworthiness is clearly set out in The Cape Bonny  [2018] and is whether a prudent owner would have required the relevant defect, had he known of it, to be made good before sending his ship to sea.  Cargo Interests put forward two arguments on unseaworthiness: the Vessel was not manned with a competent crew, specifically a competent Master; and there was a failure to exerc