Cruise ship outbreaks and passenger liability claims

The much-publicised hantavirus outbreak, during April and May 2026, onboard the Dutch-flagged expedition cruise ship MV Hondius, after it had set sail from South Argentina with around 150 passengers of many different nationalities, raised similar concerns to Covid-19 and norovirus outbreaks onboard passenger cruise liners. 

Such incidents have resulted in cruise line operators facing death and personal injury claims and allegations of negligence from infected passengers. The MV Hondius outbreak resulted in 11 hantavirus cases, including 3 passenger deaths. It also drew renewed attention to the potential risks of a global outbreak extending beyond immediate concerns regarding passenger safety for those onboard. 

In fact, the vessel was anchored off Cape Verde because the local health authorities refused to allow the vessel to enter port. Ultimately, and after an initial refusal from the local authorities in Tenerife, Canary Islands, the Spanish Government allowed the vessel to dock at Tenerife so that the passengers could disembark and be repatriated. 

Passenger claims

Passenger claims against cruise liners can involve complex jurisdictional issues since the incidents complained of generally occur in international waters, the vessel may be flagged in one jurisdiction but owned or operated by a company in a different jurisdiction and the passengers and crew can originate from a variety of nations. 

In the case of the MV Hondius, the vessel is Dutch flagged, the owner and operator is Dutch, two of the deceased were Dutch, the other deceased was German, and the remaining passengers were of 23 different nationalities. It is also suspected that the hantavirus was first contracted by the Dutch couple travelling through Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, although this is not definitive. 

In such situations, the rights of passengers (or their estate) to claim compensation are governed by international and/or EU regulations.

The applicable international convention is the International Maritime Organisation’s Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974 (Athens Convention), as amended by the Athens Protocol of 2002 (2002 Protocol), which came into force in April 2014.

The Athens Convention sets out a comprehensive legal mechanism for passengers to claim damages for death, personal injury or loss of or damage to luggage suffered during international carriage at sea. 

Additionally, the EU Passenger Liability Regulation 392/2009 (PLR) entered into force in 2012 in all EU member states. The PLR largely incorporates the provisions of the 2002 Protocol Convention but with some additions. Post Brexit, the PLR has been retained into English law.

The PLR applies to the international carriage of passengers or luggage by a ship if a Member State / the UK is involved in one of the following capacities: 

1. the flag state of the ship;

2. the state where the relevant contract of carriage has been made; or

3. the place of departure or destination according to the contract of carriage. 

Where the PLR does not apply, the Athens Convention / 2002 Protocol will apply in the same circumstances stated above in relation to the PLR, as long as the country involved is a signatory.

Given that the flag state of the MV Hondius is the Netherlands and it was undertaking international carriage with place of departure and destination being in different states, then any claims would come within the scope of the PLR.

Article 17 provides that a claim at the option of the Claimant may be brought either 

1. before the court at the defendant’s permanent residence or principal place of business,

2. the court at the place of departure or destination under the contract of carriage, 

3. the court of the claimant’s permanent residence (provided that the defendant has a place of business and is subject to jurisdiction in that state),

4. the court of the state where the contract of carriage was made, again, provided that the defendant has a place of business and is subject to jurisdiction in that state, or

5. the jurisdiction agreed on by the parties after the occurrence of the incident which caused the damage. 

Importantly, the mandatory jurisdictional provisions in the PLR will override any conflicting terms in the standard terms and conditions of the contract of carriage.

Article 17 potentially exposes the Dutch owner/operator to legal action in a number of different jurisdictions, thereby leading to fragmented litigation involving similar issues. The law to be applied will be set out in the passenger tickets and may vary from nationality to nationality. As at time of writing, however, it is early days (the limitation period is two years under the Regulations) and it remains to be seen the number of claims that the cruise operator may face and the number of jurisdictions across which legal action may spread. In such circumstances, it may be that an agreement is reached for claims to be consolidated and/or for a sole jurisdiction to be agreed by all parties. Alternatively, no claims may be brought for the reasons set out below, or the cruise operator and their insurers may look to settle any claims early to avoid protracted litigation and any ensuing damage to their reputation. 

Duty of care

In situations involving a virus onboard and illness/death of the type sustained here, the carrier will be liable under Article 3(2) if it was negligent or at fault. In other words, did it fail in its duty of care towards the claimant?

Questions of fault and causation in human-to-human disease transmission cases may depend on the epidemiology of the disease. A key issue is whether the illness was first contracted outside the ship and then brought onto the ship, or whether the disease was first contracted onboard. 

Where the illness/virus was, on the balance of probabilities, contracted outside the ship (as was found in the norovirus case, Nolan -v- TUI [2016] 1 LLR 211), the focus shifts to whether the carrier had an adequate outbreak plan  in place and whether it effectively implemented its response plan to satisfy the standard of care it owes its passengers. In Nolan -v- TUI, the Court concluded that the on-board outbreak plan and response systems were adequately implemented, and even with high levels of implementation of procedures, outbreaks do occur. However, in Swift & others -v- Fred Olsen Cruise Lines [2016] EWCA Civ 785, the Court of Appeal held that this was a very fact-sensitive issue, and the first instance judge had been entitled to conclude that the cruise line had failed adequately to implement its outbreak plan to manage the risk of norovirus.

WHO public health mandates - v- port state control 

Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) safeguards the maritime sovereignty of a Coastal State to ensure the state can enforce its laws to protect its people. However, port state sovereignty is subject to international mandates issued by intergovernmental organisations, specifically the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR) of the World Health Organization (WHO), a legally binding framework that defines the rights and obligations of member states in managing cross-border public health risks.

Under Article 28 of the IHR, a ship should not be prevented for public health reasons from calling at any point of entry. However, there is a carve out (Article 28(1) IHR 2005) stating that if the point of entry is not equipped to apply health measures, the ship may be denied entry or may be ordered to proceed at its own risk to the nearest suitable point of entry available to it. The ship may also be required to carry out decontamination and disinfection procedures and measures before being allowed entry. The International Convention on the Facilitation of Maritime Traffic (FAL Convention) applies similar principles.

Furthermore, the IHR lacks a state liability provision outlining the consequences for unilateral action that is not in the spirit of the framework. Therefore, the weaknesses in the framework are twofold, namely port states are afforded a significant margin of discretion to prioritise domestic interests above the wellbeing of those onboard, and they may only face political criticism from the international community for doing so.