ABSTRACT
The recent case law is reluctant to consider fortuity when deciding whether the cause of loss results from 'perils of the sea'. The peril was not the fortuity which gave rise to the ingress; it was the fortuitous ingress itself. It is evident that 'severity of weather' is no longer regarded as the test of fortuity, and the Supreme Court judges in The Cendor MOPU treated 'perils of the sea' like all other perils and misfortunes in a wider framework. As the statutory definition of 'perils of the sea' fails to give a clear definition of fortuity in the case law, the meaning of fortuity has been varied. Finally, the chapter offers a solution as to how the true meaning of fortuity needs to be interpreted in order to survive and in order for 'perils of the sea' to be raised as a defence.
