The far reaching scale of port safety warranties and potential
liabilities for charterers that may ensue from breaches of those
warranties have been highlighted recently in the decision of the
Commercial Court in the United Kingdom in Gard Marine &
Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd.1 A
sub-time charterer was left with an eye-watering $137.7 million
liability following the total loss of capesize bulk carrier the
On 24 October 2006, while attempting to leave the Japanese port
of Kashima during a severe gale, the 'Ocean Victory'
encountered strong winds and heavy seas in the fairway and ran
aground and broke apart. The vessel had attempted to leave Kashima
on the advice of the Charterers' port representative based on a
concern that she could not be restrained by moorings and tugs.
The vessel owners claimed damages for the loss from the
Charterers on the basis that Kashima was an unsafe port, and that
there was no system in place to ensure that vessels did not leave
in conditions which posed a threat to safe navigation.
Charterers argued that Kashima was not unsafe and, even if it
was, the incident was actually caused by the master's
negligence in navigation, or in leaving the port when he did.
Charterers further argued that Kashima could not be held unsafe
simply because the systems in place did not guard against every
conceivable hazard. Charterers submitted that the emphasis should
be on whether a reasonable level of safety was in place.
The Court found in favour of owners and held that Kashima was an
unsafe port. The Court followed the standard formulation of port
safety found in the case of The Eastern City:2
"a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of
time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it
without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed
to such danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and
seamanship..." The Court rejected the submission that
safety should be assessed by reference to a standard of
'reasonableness' as this would introduce an inappropriate
level of uncertainty.
The Court also found that although the combination of adverse
conditions present at Kashima on the day of the incident was rare,
it was not an abnormal occurrence. While something that is
'rare' may be typically described as 'abnormal',
the concept of 'abnormal' has a narrower construction in
safe port cases – an abnormal occurrence is not simply
something which has a low probability of occurring. An abnormal
occurrence is one which is unrelated to the prevailing
characteristics of the port.
The Charterers have since been given permission to appeal the
judgment on the narrow issues of abnormal occurrence and causation.
While we await the outcome of this appeal, the Ocean Victory case
remains a timely reminder to all charterers to further consider
their exposure to safe berth or port warranties and review the
adequacy of their insurance arrangements.
Many standard charter forms – including the NYPE, BIMCO
Towhire and Asbatankvoy forms – contain express warranties on
behalf of the charterer as to port and/or berth safety. Other
forms, such as the BIMCO Gencon form, do not contain an express
warranty however such a warranty is often implied, particularly in
circumstances where loading and discharging ports are unnamed.
The Ocean Victory's $137.7 million damages award is hardly
small change, but the high profile groundings of the Rena
and the Costa Concordia highlight that the costs can be
even higher: wreck removal costs alone so far reportedly amount to
$425 million for the Rena and in excess of $1 billion for the
1 EWCH 2199 (Comm).
2 2 Lloyd's Rep. 127
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Local and international news about shipping, aviation, rail and road transport.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).