You are on page 1of 19

Contents

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................2
1.1

Charterparty......................................................................................................................2

1.2

Safe Port............................................................................................................................5

2.0 Safe Port.....................................................................................................................................6


2.1 Characteristic Of Safe Port....................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Physical...........................................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Political...........................................................................................................................8
2.1.3 Meteorology....................................................................................................................9
3.0 Case Law.................................................................................................................................10
3.1 Defective Berthing Facilities...............................................................................................10
3.2 Delay....................................................................................................................................13
4.0 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................17
5.0 Bibliography............................................................................................................................18

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Charterparty
Charter party is a contract or rent contract between the owner of a vessel (ship), and the
hirer or renter (charterer). Under a charter party, a vessel is leased (in full or to some degree) for
at least one voyage (voyage sanction) or for an altered period (time contract). Normally, the
vessel owner retains rights of possession and control while the charter has the right to choose the
ports of call. Also called charter agreement or charter contract, and written also as charter party.
The charter party divided to 3 charter party, which is time charter party, voyage charter party and
demise charter party.
The definitions of time charter party is agreement whereby the lessor puts a completely
prepared and kept an eye on ship at the transfer of the resident for a timeframe for a thought
called enlist. The lessor might be the ship proprietor or downfall charterer and the time charterer
will be the resident. The contract is payable at indicated interims amid the term of the sanction.
Then again, a "time charter for a trip is a period sanction for a specific voyage or voyages. In
such a case, the lessor puts the completely outfitted and kept an eye on ship with the resident till
the finish of the voyage. In such charter, hire is paid at periodic intervals.
While the definition of voyage time charter party is a charter party whereby the owner of
a ship agrees to transport a full shipload of cargo owned or furnished by another person with the
ship's crew and master in control of the navigation.
The definition of demise charter party is an arrangement for the chartering or hiring
of a ship or boat, whereby no crew or provisions are included as part of the agreement; instead,
the people who rent the vessel from the owner are responsible for taking care of such things.

The differentiate between voyage charter party, time charter party and demise charter party .
Voyage charter party
a) General :

Time charter party


a)General:

Demise charter party


Demise
charter,

or

Under voyage charters, the These types of charter bareboat charter, occurs
charterer pays for the use differ

from

voyage when an owner hires or

of the ships cargo space charters in that the owner leases the vessel to a
for one, or sometimes places the vessel, crew and charterer

who

then

more than one, voyage. In equipment at the disposal provides the crew, together
these cases the owner's of

the

charterer.

The with stores and bunkers as

earnings are usually based charterer then generally well as paying for all the
on the quantity of cargo has

full

loaded, or as a lump sum control

of

commercial operating costs. In such


the

irrespective of the quantity including


of

cargo

loaded.

vessel, cases the vessel will then

arranging likely be sub-let by the

bunkers,

handling bareboat charterer on time

operations, port charges and/or

voyage

charters.

and other matters that The preceding sections of


would normally handle by the procedure will then
the owner under a voyage apply.
charter.

Under

time

charter the owner will


receive hire based on the
period of the charter or per
dead-weight

ton

per

month.

b)

Charter

Agreement:

Party b)Charter

Party:

On receiving the recap or

i) The Operator must read fixture note the Operator is


and

be

thoroughly responsible for ensuring

conversant with the charter that the Master is provided

party agreement or fixing with

all

the

necessary

telex and bring to the information in order to


attention of the Manager comply with the terms of
any

point

requiring the contract and to be able

clarification.

to work with the time


charterers. In particular the
Operator must carefully
note the period of the
charter,

any

cargo

exclusions, trading limits,


performance

warranties

and the hire rate and


frequency of payment.
ii) In circumstances where C)Hire:
the client and/or broker do The

Operator

is

not forward the charter responsible for ensuring


party,

the

Ship

Operator

request
voyage

the

Commercial that hire is invoiced as per


shall the terms of the charter

necessary party and that the same is


information. collected without delay.
Any problems with nonpayment of hire must be
notified to the Manager

1.2 Safe Port


If the ship can enter, remain and depart without causing any circumstances and damage to
the ship, it already can be said as a safe port. Safe ports can be classifically defined as 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 danger
which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship ,(the eastern city,Lloyds,1958).
The ship can enter the port safely, doing loading and unloading operation without any
circumstances and can leave the port safely.
In charter party, either voyage charter or time charter, it is crucial to have a warranty by
which a charterer WARRANTS to the ship owner that the ship will be sent to the safe ports.
How long the period required to make sure that the port stated in the charter party was entitled as
a safe port? The period covers in when the ship was using the port from the moment of entry to
the time of departure. Since the port reaching the port limit, was already counted as the ship
entering the port area. A port can be considered to be unsafe if the ship was unable to enter the
port due to the risk of physical or climatic characteristics that can affect the condition of the ship
itself either technically and physically. Sometimes there are certain situation that we cannot
aspects such as act of the goods which is damaged while entering the port. For example, the port
was already granted as a safe port, but during at the moment of the arrival of the ship , suddenly
a weather turned worst, basically different from the weather forecast. "The law does not require
the port to be safe at the very time of the vessels arrival. Just as she may encounter wind and
weather conditions which delay her on her voyage to the loading port, so she may encounter
similar conditions which delay her entry into the port, and the charterer is no more responsible
for the one than for the other, said by Mr. Justice Devline.

2.0 Safe Port


2.1 Characteristic Of Safe Port
2.1.1 Physical
The nominated safe port must be physically safe for the vessel to arrive, remain and
depart. In theories, the water depthness must be adequate for the vessel to enter the port without
any difficulties happen. If the vessel can only enter during high tide, the vessel needs to wait
until the right time to enter to avoid grounding. Based on the Hermine 1 cases, the vessel cannot
continue her journey due to unsufficient water depth making the vessel aground and later another
vessel aground making it impossible for her to pass through.
There are certain vessel that cannot go through all the port. This particular vessel is has
less safe port to be nominated as the port may or does not have any competence facilities to load
and discharge the goods. Other than that, the size and dimension of the ship may become the
factor to be considered before nominating the safe port. The Innisboffin2 cases is the one of the
example. The vessel was able to pass through the bridge during in full laden but after departure,
the vessel cannot go through the bridge because of low draft, semi-fully laden and height of the
vessel. So, the master instructs to cut the mast in order to go through the bridge.
The facilities in the port must be adequate depending on the vessel during operation. Tug
boats and pilots is essential for large vessel to navigate the vessel in restricted waters to a safe. In
the Universal Monarch3 cases, the vessel needs six tugboats but only three available. Hence,
another three tugboats from other nearby port was ordered to complete the six tugboat and owner
has to pay extra cost because of the order of additional tugboats.
1 Unitramp v. Garnac Grain Co. Inc. (The Hermine), 1978, 1 Lloyds Rep 212.
2 Limerick Steamship Company LTD v. W.H. Stott & Co (The Inishboffin), 1920, 5 Lloyds
Rep 190.
3 Palm Shipping inc v. Vitol S.A. (The Universal Monarch), 1988, 2 Lloyds Rep 483.

It is must because any lackness of facilities due to competence and quantity in the port
may increase the risk percentage for accident and more time consuming to load and discharge the
goods. In the Count4 cases, the judge held that misalignments of navigational buoys did render
the port unsafe. The port is no safe to be nominated and any fault happen in the port will be port
authority fault. The navigational buoy and light should be functional, if it is malfunction, the port
authority should repair as soon as possible. In the Evia5 cases. The judge stated that port should
give sufficient warning of the hazard existed as a precaution for the vessel to avoid.
The danger which can be avoidable by good seamanship and navigations are not considerable
safe if it can cause delay which can make the charterer frustrated because of commercial purpose
and extraordinary skill needed to avoid danger is also not making port safe to be nominated.
Sometimes, an obstacle may happen unexpectedly during the arrival of the vessel. The obstacles
may come in form of blockage by other aground vessel or iceberg during winter. This will create
an unsafe port.

4 Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v. Seacarriers Count Pte Ltd (The Count), 2008, 1 Lloyds
Rep 72.
5 Kodros Shipping Corp of Monrovia v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia), 1982, 1 Lloyds
Rep 307

2.1.2 Political
Other than physical features which disable the nomination of the safe port, politics is also
plays a crucial roles to define the safe port. Example of political issue may arise is terroist attack
and war. When there is wars exist especially at port nearby, the vessel may be damaged
physically. Automatically the port is unsafe. In war, the damaged done is usually big towards
property, land and also lives of people and animal. At port, the vessel, cargo and crews lives will
be at stake if the operation is continued. The shipowner may cancel his contract and refuse to
continue the voyage operation in order to protect his asset from the damaged.
The Respigadera6 cannot enter the Carrisal Bajo as it is closed by the Chilean
Government and the vessel could not call there without being confiscated. The vessel has to wait
in Valparaiso for the re-opening of Carrisal Bajo port. The judge stated that port was unsafe
because the vessel needs to detained before entering the port.
The port is consider unsafe if the goods that were unload are prohibited by the law. In the
Greek Fighter7 case, the tanker was loaded and unloaded onboard via small tanker during
illegal time. The coastguard arrested the tanker and sold to the public auction. The judge stated
that the port was unsafe because during loading process, the vessel was capture.

6 Ogden v. Graham, 1861, 1 B & S 773.


7 Ullises Shipping Corporation v. Fal Shipping Co Ltd (The Greek Fighter), 2006, 1 Lloyds
Rep 99.

2.1.3 Meteorology
If the port able to protect the vessel from the gales abnormal weather that can cause damaged to
the vessel during docking, the port is consider safe. During the storm, a strong wind may pushes
the vessel to hit another vessel or berth or drift away. Strong current heavy swells that can give
impact towards the vessel can make the port unsafe depending on the location and the condition.
Based on the Houston City8, the judge stated that when the vessel berthed, a hauling-off buoy
and about fifty feet of the upper walling-piece was missing. The wind was calm and the forecast
did not mention or indicate any deterioration to happen. The wind speed started to increase
becomes gale and pushed the vessel to hit the berth and cause damaged to the vessel. As a
conclusion of this case, the judge said that port was generally safe but the absent of hauling-off
buoy during the gale making it unsafe.

8 Reardon Smith Line Ltd. V. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City), 1953, 1 Lloyds
Rep 131.

3.0 Case Law


3.1 Defective Berthing Facilities
In the case, the port does not have enough facilities so it was an unsafe port. One of the most
common ways to describe an unsafe port would perhaps be a physical defect of the berth itself. A
physical defect which could render the port unsafe.
RELATED CASE:
Australian Wheat Board v. Reardon Smith Line Ltd [1954] HCA 27; (1954) 91 CLR
233 (2 June 1954)
CASE
The Australian Wheat Board, which is the appellant in this Court and the defendant in the
action in the Supreme Court, chartered the ship from the owner Reardon Smith Line Ltd., which
is the respondent in this Court and the plaintiff in the action. The charter-party was dated 19th
March 1951 and was a voyage charter for the carriage of a cargo of bulk wheat from a Western
Australian port. On 3rd July 1951 the charterers by radiogram to the master of the Houston City
named Geraldton as the port and advised him that he was to load a complete cargo of wheat in
bulk.
The Houston City reached Champion Bay on 7th July and, after waiting for a time while
No. 1 berth was fully cleared, she was placed alongside by the pilot, who was also harbor master,
about six o'clock in the afternoon of that day. She was moored starboard side to the wharf. Her
port anchor was run out in a north-westerly direction to about 450 feet of chain. Unfortunately
there was no hauling-off buoy to which a line could be run from the stern of the ship to assist in
holding her off the concrete wharf. It was missing. In addition there was portion missing of the
horizontal timber fender which ran along the side of the wharf to keep ships off the actual
concrete.
The wharf had been furnished with two parallel horizontal lines of waling as fenders and
fifty feet of the upper section of the horizontal timbers had been missing for some months. The

hauling-off or mooring buoy had been torn out during May 1951. There was a rock floor and the
buoy had been held in thirty feet of water by two sixteen feet screws with a fifty feet bridle of
three inch chain, but during a blow a ship had torn it away. A tender was to come to effect the
replacement and she was said to be daily expected. In fact she arrived on 12th July, five days
after the Houston City berthed.
The harbor master told the master of the Houston City that the buoy had been damaged
and removed and said, according to the latter, that its return was imminent, that it was expected
at any moment. No suggestion was made by anyone then that the vessel's stream anchor should
be unshipped and run out aft. It is unlikely that it would have been of much service in holding off
the ship. At all events it was not done. The weather was fine and so long as it held there was no
danger. But the weather did not hold. By about noon of 12th July, the day on which the tender
actually began replacing the buoy, the weather had freshened from the northward and it rapidly
increased to a gale. Before the gale subsided considerable damage had been done to the ship's
starboard quarter, her plating suffered and her mooring ropes had been chafed and strained and
one had parted.
It is to recover in respect of this damage that the shipowner sues the charterer. The suit
was heard by Wolff J. who found that in the absence of the waling and the buoy No. 1 berth was
unsafe during the winter months, that there was no fault on the part of the master of the ship and
that he acted reasonably. His Honor held that under the charter damage suffered by the ship
owing to lying in an unsafe berth to which she had been ordered was recoverable from the
charterer.
The port is unsafe because the port does not have adequate equipment to dock the ship
such as pier or wharf and have a lot of damage in the equipment, so it can cause a damaged to the
ship. The defective berthing facilities can cause a damaged to the ship when enter to the ship
such as the ship will not dock with properly and it can caused the ship against the quay of the
port. Generally physical safety of the port refers to the dangers which the vessel may encounter
when the ship enters and leaving port, such as wrecks, and other hidden dangers.

LIABLE
The charterer is liable because the charterer must provide the cargo at a safe dock, pier or
wharf in a safe port and he must give orders to the ship as to the port and the berth. In the present
case, if the finding of the learned judge be accepted, the charterer did not fulfill this obligation
but provided the cargo at an unsafe wharf; by acting on the charterer's order, which ex hypothesis
did not comply with the contractual obligation of the charterer, the master placed his ship at an
unsafe berth and the ship was damaged.
JUDGEMENT
In the case, The court have been unable to find any case where, in the circumstances such
as the present, a charterer has been held to warrant the safety of a port nominated by him, or,
where the nomination of an unsafe loading port or berth pursuant to a charter-party in the form of
that which is before the court has been held to constitute a breach of contract giving rise to
damages where the master of the vessel has accepted the order and proceeded to the port and
there sustained damage. There is, as they have already said, no doubt that a refusal or failure to
provide the stipulated cargo at a safe port is answerable in damages but such a conclusion
depends upon principles which do not assist in the solution of the problem which arises in this
case.

3.2 Delay
The risk that a vessel is seriously delayed can in some situations constitute unsafety. A
port will not lack the characteristics of a safe port merely because some delay, insufficient to
frustrate the adventure, may be caused to the vessel in her attempt to reach, use and leave the
port, by some temporary evident obstruction or hazard. That is different from the situation where
the characteristics of the port at the time of the nomination are such as to create a continuous risk
of danger.
RELATED CASE:
Aldebaran Maritima v Aussenhandel (The Darrah) [1977] AC 159
CASE
On December 14, 1972, the appellants chartered the motor vessel Darrah for the voyage
from Novorossisk to Tripoli for carriage of some 5,500 tons of cement. The charterparty was a
port charterparty. The vessel arrived at Tripoli Roads at 2 a.m. on January 2, 1973, and notice of
readiness to discharge was immediately given. Owing to congestion at the port, the ship was
unable to berth until a.m. on January 9. The discharge of her cargo was completed at 8 a.m. on
January 24.
Clauses 20 and 21 of the charterparty provided as follows:
"20. Cargo to be discharged by receivers at their risk and expense at the rate of 625 metric tons
per weather working day of 24 consecutive hours, Fridays and holidays excepted.
"21. At discharging port, time from noon Thursday or noon on the day before a legal holiday
until 8 a.m. the next working day not to count"
Clause 4 of the charterparty says:
"Time to commence at 2 p.m. if notice of readiness to discharge is given before noon, and at 8
a.m. next working day if notice given during office hours after noon. Time lost in waiting for
berth to count as laytime."

The owners claimed that on authorities they entitled for the 7 days and 6 hours spent
waiting for the berth to be counted without adjustment for the weather working days, Fridays and
holidays, thus amounting to just under 14 days demurrage was due to them.
LIABLE
Under a berth charter the vessel does not complete the loading or the carrying voyage
until the vessel reaches the designated berth. So any time spent waiting for the berth to become
available serves only to prolong the voyage stage and in the absence of express provision to the
contrary any loss occasioned to the shipowner by reason of the delay falls on him alone. The
charterer is unable to complete the loading or discharge within the stipulated laytime he must pay
demurrage for any additional time used to complete it.
JUDGEMENT
The type of maritime adventure that is the subject of a voyage charter is exposed to risk
of delay in its performance from causes that are beyond the control of both shipowner and
charterer. Under a voyage charter time is money; so it is of commercial importance to the parties
to provide by their contract how any loss occasioned by delay due to such causes is to be
allocated between them.
Some standard forms of voyage charterparty that are in general use contain express
provision as to what are to be the financial consequences to the parties if time which would
otherwise be available for loading or discharging cargo is wasted because the vessel has been
compelled to wait for a berth to become available. Others contain no such express provision but
leave the question upon whom the loss shall fall to depend upon whether the charterparty is a
berth charter or a port (or dock) charter.

Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v. Seacarriers Count Pte Ltd (The Count), 2008, 1
Lloyds Rep 72.
CASE
The vessel was voyage chartered arrived at Beira and tendered NOR on 29 June 2004. On
the day of her arrival another inbound vessel, British Enterprise, went aground in the channel
which linked the port with the sea. After being re-floated, the British Enterprise grounded a
second time in the channel on 1 July. The Count proceeded to the discharge berth on 4 July after
the British Enterprise had completed discharge operations.
The Count completed the discharge of her cargo early on 9 July, but she was unable to
sail from the port because on 5 July an inbound container ship, the Pongola, had grounded in the
approach channel at almost the same spot as the British Enterprise had first grounded. As the
Pongola was blocking the channel, the port authorities closed the channel, and the Count was not
able to sail from Beira until 13 July.
The owners claimed from the charterers damages for detention in respect of the delay to
the Count caused by the blockage of the channel by the Pongola on the ground that this loss
resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions. The dispute was referred to
arbitration. The arbitrators upheld the owners claim and made an award in their favour of
$63,241.58.
The charterers appealed to the High Court under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996,
arguing that the tribunal was wrong to find that the port was unsafe in the abstract by reference to
the fact that two other vessels had grounded there. It should have asked itself, following Sellers
LJ in The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyds Rep 127, whether the port was safe for the Count itself.
Had it done so, it would have found that the port was safe for the Count which entered and left
the port without running aground. Since the Pongola had not grounded at the date of the
nomination, the port was not prospectively unsafe. Moreover, following The Hermine [1979] 1
Lloyds Rep 212, since the delay was temporary and not one which frustrated the adventure, the
port was not unsafe.

LIABLE
Charterer is under an obligation to nominate a safe port or place, his obligation is to
nominate a port or place which is, at the time of the nomination, prospectively safe for the period
of the vessel's call, in the absence of any abnormal or unexpected future events. For the owners
to succeed, the charterers contended, they had to establish that the vessel itself had been exposed
to danger and had suffered a loss as the result of such exposure. The charterers maintained that in
this case, the vessel was never exposed to any danger, but was merely detained in port because of
the grounding of another vessel in the approach channel.
JUDGEMENT
The arbitrators had found that at the time of the nomination the characteristics of the port
of Beira were such as to make it prospectively unsafe because the buoys were out of position and
there was no procedure in effect to monitor satisfactorily any changes in the configuration of the
access channel. It was implicit that for those reasons they judged the port to be an unsafe port to
nominate for the Count at the time of the nomination.

4.0 Conclusion
In a nutshell, charter party can be simply defined as contract between consignee and
consignor that can be classified into, voyage charter party, time charter party and demise charter
party. Under voyage charters, the charterer pays for the use of the ships cargo space for one, or
sometimes more than one, voyage meanwhile for time charter party, the ship will be chartered
for a certain period of time. The nomination of safe port is an obligation of the charterer. If the
port is unsafe for the vessel to enter, remain and departure, the ship owner can cancel his contract
or inform to the charterer to nominate a new safe port. If any damages received during in port,
the charterer mostly will be liable as he/she breach the contract. Safe port must be able to protect
the vessel from any physical, political and meteorology that can cause threat during the
operation. The physical factor comes from the port facilities such as quay cranes and services
such as towage and pilotage, water depth to avoid the vessel aground during entering, remain and
departure. Terrorist attack, war and piracy that could harm the voyage especially during in and
out of the port is classified under politics factors. Lastly, for the meteorology, if the port able to
protect the vessel from strong wind, current and wave which could pushes the vessel to hit
another vessel or berth, the port is consider safe.
Based on cases Australian Wheat Board v. Reardon Smith Line Ltd [1954] HCA 27;
(1954) 91 CLR 233 (2 June 1954) ,the port is unsafe because the port does not have adequate
equipment to dock the ship such as pier or wharf and have a lot of damage in the equipment, so it
can cause a damaged to the ship. The defective berthing facilities can cause a damaged to the
ship when enter to the ship such as the ship will not dock with properly and it can caused the ship
against the quay of the port. The charterer is liable because the charterer must provide the cargo
at a safe dock, pier or wharf in a safe port and he must give orders to the ship as to the port and
the berth. Generally physical safety of the port refers to the dangers which the vessel may
encounter when the ship enters and leaving port, such as wrecks, and other hidden dangers.
Next case, Aldebaran Maritima v Aussenhandel (The Darrah) [1977] AC 159, is about the
congestion of port which makes the charterer to suffer demurrage and frustrated for the
commercial chartering purpose. The vessel unable to berth and the laytime given are breached.

The charterer is unable to complete the loading or discharge within the stipulated laytime he
must pay demurrage for any additional time used to complete it.

Lastly, Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v. Seacarriers Count Pte Ltd (The Count),
2008, 1 Lloyds Rep 72 is about the vessel unable to enter the port because the Pongola was
aground and block the way. So, the port authority closed the channel and the Count was not able
to sail from Beira until 13 July. The owners claimed from the charterers damages for detention in
respect of the delay to the Count caused by the blockage of the channel by the Pongola on the
ground that this loss resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions

Bibliography
Safe Port And Safe Berth Warranties - Time And Voyage Charters. (1999). Retrieved November
20,

2016,

from

Steamship

Mutual:

https://www.steamshipmutual.com/publications/Articles/Articles/Safe_Port.asp
Australian Wheat Board v Reardon Smith Line Ltd (The Houston City)[1954] HCA 27; (1954)
91 CLR 233. (2012, October 10). Retrieved November 22, 2016, from law and sea:
http://www.lawandsea.net/List_of_Cases/A/AustralianWheatBoard_v_ReardonSmithLine
_1954_HCA_27.html
Aldebaran Maritima v Aussenhandel (The Darrah) [1977] AC 159. (n.d.). Retrieved November
21,

2016,

from

Law

and

Sea:

http://www.lawandsea.net/List_of_Cases/A/Aldebaran_Maritima_v_Aussenhandel_TheD
arrah_1977AC159.html
Bogesj, V. (2014). Charterers Liability for Unsafe Ports.
Cooke, J., Kimball, J. D., Young, T., Martowski, D., Ashcroft, M., Lambert, L., et al. (2014).
Voyage Charters (Vol. 4). Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Davies, M. (2011). Safe ports, safe berths. New Orleans.
E. L. Oldendorff & Co. GmbH v Tradax Export S.A. (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] AC 479.
(n.d.).

Retrieved

November

18,

2016,

from

Law

And

Sea:

http://www.lawandsea.net/List_of_Cases/E/ELOldendorff_v_Tradax_Johanna_Oldendorf
f_1974_AC479.html
Safe port and safe berth . (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from Maritime Advocate:
http://www.maritimeadvocate.com/security/safe_port_and_safe_berth.htm