The plaintiff was a 7 year-old Chinese girl. She travelled with her mother on the defendant's cruise ship. While the ship was sailing on the high seas, the plaintiff suffered a near-drowning incident while in the swimming pool. The plaintiff was crippled by the incident.

The plaintiff's mother acted as her legal representative during the trial. She claimed that the defendant had failed to equip the swimming pool with sufficient lifeguards, which was a violation of both UK statutory regulations and common practice. Accordingly, she claimed compensation from the defendant and contended that the governing law should be English law. The defendant argued that the governing law should be Chinese law. In addition, the defendant claimed that it was entitled to limit its liability for personal injury according to art 7.1 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea 1974 (Athens Convention 1974), since China is a contracting State to this Convention.

Held: The defendant's claim to limit its liability is rejected.

Shanghai was the cruise ship's home port and a Chinese citizen was injured on the defendant's cruise ship. Therefore, it was correct for the defendant to argue that Chinese law was the governing law of this case.

The Athens Convention 1974 should be applied here since China is a contracting State to this Convention. Therefore, the defendant had a right to claim that it was entitled to limit its liability for personal injury according to art 7.1 of the Athens Convention 1974.

However, according to arts 3.1 and 13.1 of the Athens Convention 1974, a carrier may lose its right to claim for limitation of liability under art 7.1 if it is proved that 'the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result'.

As an operator of the cruise ship, the defendant clearly had the responsibility to ensure the safety of passengers on board. An insufficient number of lifeguards was clearly a violation of both relevant Chinese domestic regulations and common practice of the cruise industry. Therefore, the personal injury of the plaintiff was caused by the omission of the defendant. According to art 13.1 of the Athens Convention 1974, the defendant is not entitled to limit its liability under art 7.1.