🚢 Port of Dispute:
When Is a Port Truly Unsafe?
Understanding the Legal and Operational Impact of
Refusing a Port Call
❓Curiosity Triggers:
- Can
     a Master legally refuse to berth at a nominated port?
- Does
     declaring a port “unsafe” protect Owners from delays and claims?
- What
     risks do Charterers face when overriding safety objections?
⚖️ Clause Breakdown – The “Safe
Port” Principle in Charter Parties
In time or voyage charter parties, it's standard for
Charterers to nominate the loading or discharge ports. However, a long-standing
principle of English maritime law—rooted in cases like The Eastern City
(1958)—holds that Charterers may only nominate a “safe port.” If a
port is deemed unsafe, Owners or Masters can lawfully refuse to proceed—but
this comes with conditions.
📄 Charterer Protest
Example: Lagos Port Dispute
In our current case, Owners refused to proceed to Lagos,
citing safety concerns. Charterers issued a Letter of Protest arguing:
- The
     port is safe, customary, and operational.
- Vessels
     regularly discharge there without incident.
- The
     berth was nominated in line with industry norms.
- The
     pilot had already contacted the vessel to initiate berthing.
They further claim that the refusal is unjustified,
and they reserve full rights to claim damages for delays.
⚠️ Legal & Operational
Implications
- Safety
     is a high bar: A port is considered unsafe if, during the relevant
     time, the vessel cannot safely reach, use, and leave the port without
     risk to ship, cargo, or crew, assuming good seamanship.
- Mere
     risk isn’t enough: Past piracy, congestion, swell, or political issues
     must pose real-time and unavoidable danger.
- Burden
     of proof lies with Owners: If they refuse a port call, they must clearly
     substantiate the risk, including evidence and expert input.
- Charterers’
     liability ends if Owners/Master decline a safe port—delays and
     damages may be on the Owners.
🔍 Examples & Pitfalls
- Case
     Reference: In The Livanita (2008), the court ruled that even a
     port with a history of attacks was not necessarily unsafe if
     precautions were in place.
- Practical
     Pitfall: Masters occasionally act conservatively and reject a berth
     out of overcaution. This could expose Owners to LOPs, off-hire claims,
     or demurrage.
- Port
     Pilots as Evidence: If pilots or port authorities confirm safe
     berthing conditions, Owners’ argument may be considerably weakened.
🧭 Actionable Steps for
Stakeholders
✅ Ship Operators / Masters
- Always
     document detailed reasons (with weather, pilot info, Notices to Mariners)
     before declaring a port unsafe.
- Coordinate
     closely with DPA and legal team before rejecting employment orders.
- Communicate
     early with Charterers if port safety is in question.
✅ Owners
- Include
     clear port safety clause wording in CP (e.g., “in Owners’
     reasonable judgment”).
- Maintain
     P&I guidance on high-risk ports.
- Avoid
     blanket port refusals unless backed by solid justification and evidence.
✅ Charterers
- Issue
     written voyage orders referencing safe, customary port usage.
- Engage
     with agents/pilots to record local conditions and establish
     rebuttal evidence.
- Include
     protective wording to hold Owners liable for unjustified refusals.
⚓ Conclusion – Navigating the
Thin Line Between Caution and Breach
Declaring a port unsafe isn’t a decision to take lightly. It
has legal, operational, and reputational consequences. While safety must never
be compromised, unjustified refusals—especially at ports like Lagos that are
globally active—can backfire.
Charterers must document safety assurances, while Owners
must defend refusals with evidence. Collaboration is the real lifeline.
📢 Was this helpful?
💬 Share your experience
with difficult port calls.
🔁
Repost with your team to stay legally sharp at sea.
📩
Subscribe to ShipOpsInsight
with Dattaram for more practical breakdowns of real-world shipping
scenarios.
⚠️ Disclaimer:
This blog post is for informational purposes only and
does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult their legal or P&I
advisors for specific situations.
 
No comments:
Post a Comment