I feel there (still) is inconsistency in the use if the term party in the RRS: Under the definition of "a party to a hearing" "for a protest hearing" it is the protestor and the protestee. Protestors and protestees under RRS 60.1 are boats, not persons on that boat. However RRS 63.4(e)(1) permits a witness not to be excluded from a hearing if the witness "is also a party". This obviously refers to a person. Is this rule to be understood as refering to the "representative of the party" as mentioned in RRS 63.1(a)(4)? Or does it refer to parties other than boats. In a protest hearing, however, there are no other parties than protestor and protestee, and both are boats.
Firstly, in Definitions that aren't Definitions RRS Introduction, Terminology, Boat is defined as 'A sailboat and the crew on board ...'.
So, 'boat' does indeed include persons on the boat.
But the Part 5 rules generally don't rely on this.
In some contexts in the RRS, for example Part 2 When Boats Meet, required actions by a 'boat' are observable by seeing he sailboat. In some other contexts actions or rights of an inanimate object like a sailboat (or a corporate body such as a race committee) can only be performed by a natural person (a human being), acting as a representative of the boat.
Obviously enough a boat can't come into a protest room and appear at a protest hearing, so:
In this context party means representative of the party.
It can refer to individuals, entities, or groups on either side of the dispute or case.
So don't think of a party as describing either the human or a team (the boat) or an inanimate object (the boat).
Think of 'party' as simply an 'official role in the argument'.
In which case, it can be a person or a 'boat' or a committee. A party may also be an individual who witnessed. A party may have a nominated representative.
Hope that helps.
(Sometimes I wish it was used more in as the the other meaning - a social gathering of invited guests, typically involving eating, drinking, and entertainment.)