This appeal in cassation was brought against the judgment of the Antwerp Court of Appeal of 2 November 2021, which held that the owners of the Badboot ('bathing boat'), which sank in the Kattendijkdok in the Port of Antwerp, Belgium, were not entitled to limit their liability for claims brought against them.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that under art 47.1 of the Zee Wet (the Law of the Sea/the ZW), shipowners were entitled to limit their liability in accordance with the provisions of the LLMC 1976. Under arts 1-15 of the Convention, shipowners may limit their liability in accordance with the rules of this Convention. Article 10 of the Law of 11 April 1989 approving this Convention in Belgium extended its application to: 1) seagoing vessels operated by a public authority or a public service, whoever owns those vessels; and 2) seagoing vessels used as pleasure craft and for scientific research.

Pursuant to art 273.1 of the ZW, arts 1-15 (but excluding art 6.5) of the Convention also apply to inland waterway vessels and to vessels and floating craft equated thereto by the King. According to art 1.1 of the Royal Decree of 24 November 1989 on the implementation and entry into force of the Law of 11 April 1989, for the purposes of arts 2 and 3 of that Decree, the following types of craft are equated with inland waterway vessels, but only insofar as they use inland waterways: 1) craft operated by a public authority or a public service, whoever owns it; vessels used as pleasure craft or for scientific research; hydrofoils; ferries; push boats; and 2) floating equipment such as dredgers, cranes, elevators, and all other floating and movable equipment, and equipment of a similar nature. Inland waterway vessels and vessels assimilated thereto are referred to as 'vessels' for the purposes of this Decree. For the purposes of these provisions, 'vessel' means any craft which floats and is capable - whether self-propelled or not - of movement on water, even if only sporadically, provided that it, or its keel, is not permanently connected with land.

Held: The Court sets aside the judgment under appeal, and refers the case to the Ghent Court of Appeal.

The first ground of appeal, that the appellate Judges who ruled that the converted push barge intended as a public bathing facility could not be regarded as a vessel because it was not equipped with 'work installations such as cranes, dredgers, etc', and was therefore 'neither a ship nor floating equipment' as referred to in art 1.01 of the Annex to the Royal Decree of 26 December 2013 amending the Royal Decree of 19 March 2009 on technical requirements for inland waterway vessels, did not legally justify their decision, is well-founded.

The second ground of appeal, that the appellate Judges who ruled that the converted push barge intended as a public bathing facility cannot be regarded as a vessel because 'it is not exclusively or mainly intended for navigation on inland waterways', did not justify their decision in law, is also well-founded.