Michael Volikas Head of Shipping
“Always accessible”: arrival, departure or both?
Seatrade Group N.V. v. Hakan Agro D.M.C.C (Aconcagua Bay)  EWHC 654 (Comm)
An “always accessible” berth warranty is often used by an owner to transfer the risk of delays in berthing to a charterer. The Commercial Court has now settled the debate as to whether that warranty also transfers the risk of delays in departing the berth post the completion of cargo operations to the charterer. The Court concluded that it did.
The background facts
The Vessel was chartered for a voyage from the US Gulf to the Republic of Congo and Angola, on an amended GENCON 1994 form which, amongst other things, provided:
“10. Loading port or place (Cl.1)
1 good safe berth always afloat always accessible 1-2 good safe ports in the USG in Charterers’ option …”
While the Vessel was loading, a bridge and lock were damaged with the result that the Vessel was unable to leave the berth for 14 days following the completion of loading. The Owners sought damages for detention from the Charterers and relied on what they said was a breach by the Charterers of the “always accessible” warranty. The dispute went to arbitration.
As the two party-appointed arbitrators could not agree, the claim was determined by an Umpire, who decided that the “always accessible” warranty given by the Charterers was not an undertaking that the Vessel would also be able to leave the berth. From the judgment, it appears that the Umpire’s decision was influenced by:
a. London Arbitration 11/97 (1997) LMLM 463, in which the Tribunal inferred “that charterers agreeing “always accessible” terms were under an obligation to provide a berth which was available immediately on arrival, but that that particular regime did not apply after the ship was actually in the berth”. This inference was drawn from the fact that: (i) the textbooks considered ignored the possible application of “always accessible” to the departure of a vessel from a berth; and (ii) the Voylayrules 1993 made no reference to a vessel leaving a berth or a port; and
b. The fact that the dictionary definition of “accessible” was concerned with access to rather than access from the berth.
The Owners were granted leave to appeal the Umpire’s decision pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the ground that the question of law that arose was of general public importance. The Commercial Court subsequently had to decide whether the warranty in a voyage charterparty that a berth is “always accessible” means that the vessel is always able not only to enter, but also to leave, the berth.
The Court held that the Umpire’s decision was wrong in law. Where a charterer warrants that a berth is “always accessible”, they are warranting that the vessel will always be able to enter and leave the berth. In particular, the Court stated as follows:
a. The point was not decisive in London Arbitration 11/97 and that decision had not always been free from question when commentaries referred to it.
b. The Baltic Code 2003, 2007 and 2014 and the Laytime Definitions for Charterparties 2013 refer to the vessel’s departure from the berth.
c. If a wider selection of dictionaries was considered, then capable of “use” or usability could be found among the available meanings of accessibility and “use” was a word that could readily include departure. While this was not conclusive, it suggested that a dictionary alone cannot resolve a point of interpretation.
d. The question was whether the parties intended to provide for departure in the wording that they used. Where commercial parties addressed the question of the accessibility of a berth, there was no reason to conclude that they should be taken to have addressed entry alone. The reasonable commercial party looking at the subject of berthing would bear all aspects in mind and not confine themselves to getting into the berth. That was decisive.
e. There was a useful vocabulary from which parties could choose if “always accessible”applied to departures as well as entry and if “reachable on arrival” applied to entry alone.
As a result of this judgment, there is now a distinct difference between a warranty that the berth will be “reachable on arrival” and a warranty that the berth will be “always accessible”. Accordingly, parties should take care to ensure that the warranties given by a charterer to the owner accord with what is intended to be agreed with regard to the risk of delays, especially where fixtures are concluded on basis done terms.
Related news & insights
News / Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening
23-11-2022 / Insurance, Maritime, Real Estate
We are pleased to be celebrating one year since opening our first Scottish office in the city of Glasgow. Stefanie Johnston, dual-qualified Partner and Head of Scotland, has worked tirelessly over the last year to develop our offering through the opening of an Ince office in what is arguably an established Scottish market. Starting from the ground up, Stefanie and her team have successfully gained an admirable reputation in the region and further afield in the maritime, insurance, real estate and regulatory sectors.
News / Shipping E-brief November 2022
17-11-2022 / Maritime
The Shipping E-Brief is a publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
News / Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?
15-11-2022 / Maritime
In September 2022, the UK Law Commission published a consultation paper with provisional recommendations for updating the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act 1996). Amongst other things, the Law Commission considered whether any changes need to be made to: (i) s.67 of the Act 1996, which deals with jurisdictional challenges to arbitral awards; and (ii) s.69 of the Act 1996, which deals with appeals on points of law.
News / Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage
09-11-2022 / Maritime
CM P-MAX III Limited v. Petroleos Del Norte SA (MT Stena Primorsk)  EWHC 2147 (Comm) This recent laytime and demurrage dispute demonstrates that an owner can legitimately refuse orders where such orders may jeopardise the safety of a vessel.
News / Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance
09-11-2022 / Maritime
Mur Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd  EWCA Civ 1406 A majority of the Court of Appeal has held that the Owner under a contract of affreightment (COA) should have accepted payment of freight in Euros, rather than the US dollars provided for in the COA. Its refusal to do so meant that the Owner could not rely on the force majeure clause in the COA, in circumstances where US sanctions might have restricted US dollar transfers from or on behalf of the Charterer.
News / “Due” means due!
03-11-2022 / Maritime
Ceto Shipping Corporation v. Savory Inc (Victor 1)  EWHC 2636 (Comm) The Court in this case had to construe a purchase option clause in a bareboat charter. Specifically, it considered whether the fact that the charterer had not fulfilled certain payment obligations under the charter because it was disputing them in good faith meant that the owner was not obliged to transfer title to the vessel at the end of the charter period.