Disputes between shipowners and charterers can take place when a port requires additional mooring ropes. This causes confusion as to who is responsible to bear the cost. North P&I Club presents such a case and provides recommendations on how to reduce the risk of such disputes from happening.
Namely, in this case a charterer ordered the vessel to the port of Caleta Coloso in northern Chile. The port required vessels to use 14 mooring lines, each of 220 metres length. However, according to design specification and classification society requirements, the vessel had only five mooring lines of 197 metres length each.
[smlsubform prepend=”GET THE SAFETY4SEA IN YOUR INBOX!” showname=false emailtxt=”” emailholder=”Enter your email address” showsubmit=true submittxt=”Submit” jsthanks=false thankyou=”Thank you for subscribing to our mailing list”]
As a result, 14 mooring lines of the length needed were required for the ship to berth. After this, a dispute took place regarding who was responsible for the cost of those additional mooring lines.
According to the agreed Time Charterparty, the shipowner had agreed that the vessel would be “in every way fitted for the service“, and had also agreed to “provide and pay for all necessary stores and keep the vessel in a thoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery and equipment for and during the service.”
When called to decide on the case, the London Arbitration Tribunal concluded the following:
- Mooring ropes for a vessel was a responsibility of the shipowner under a Time Charterparty.
- The Class requirements were a minimum for trading, and did not take into consideration the needs of ports such as Caleta Coloso and many others.
- Owners of commercial vessels conducting worldwide trade should expect such requirements.
As, Barry Ayliffe notes, if the time charterparty was agreed on New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) 15, which says that “The Vessel on delivery shall be in every way fit to be employed for the intended service,” or NYPE 93 which says that “at the time of its delivery, the ship is to be in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service,” London Arbitration Tribunal would not have decided otherwise in case of NYPE 15 charterparty.
If the vessel been fixed on terms requiring the vessel to be fitted for “ordinary” cargo service, the answer would not be as certain and it would require the Tribunal to determine what “ordinary service” means.
In order to reduce the risk of this kind of disputes, North Club recommends that shipowners could declare how many mooring ropes will be available to charterers and their length. A charterer might still argue, but a tribunal could be more sympathetic towards the shipowner.
This will be particularly relevant if upon delivery of the ship, the charterer did not issue a protest declaring that the number of mooring ropes that the ship was carrying were not enough for “ordinary cargo service” or “the intended service.”