Ports sometimes have specific requirements regarding the number of mooring ropes that a vessel needs to have on board. John Southam and Vicky Dolka from NorthStandard look into who is responsible when these requirements exceed the usual amount.
The required number of mooring lines for a vessel is determined individually for each ship. Compliance with SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-8 and related MSC guidelines (MSC. 1/Circ. 1619, MSC. 1/Circ. 1620, and MSC. 1/Circ. 1175/Rev. 1), which took effect on January 1, 2024, must be demonstrated.
However, local regulations may ask for more ropes, depending on the specific port circumstances or environmental conditions, as well as the need for redundancy in the mooring system.
Some local or terminal regulations specify the exact number of lines needed on board, sometimes detailing the type and length required. Examples include Port Hedland and Hay Point in Australia, Dahej Port in India, Caleta Coloso in Chile, and terminals operated by Saudi Aramco.
If a vessel does not comply with these rules, it may be denied entry to the port, leading to disputes between owners and charterers. In some cases, when vessels needed to hire or buy additional ropes for port entry, this quick solution has resulted in later arguments over which party should cover the cost of the extra mooring lines.
Even if the owners have met SOLAS requirements, local regulations can still cause issues. Based on our experience, costs related to additional mooring lines often become a responsibility for the owners.
Responsibility Issues
In a time charter situation, owners who have agreed to let their vessel operate globally may encounter port regulations that require more mooring lines than the vessel's legal standards. This can lead to extra expenses for purchasing or renting additional lines, resulting in disputes over the charter agreement.
The responsibility for these costs will depend on the terms of the charter agreement and the circumstances involved. For example, if a vessel is chartered under the NYPE 2015 form, owners might claim that charterers should bear these costs because the port's requirement for additional lines is considered unusual, making trade to that port a "special trade" under Clause 7(c). Owners may also assert that the need for extra lines arose from following charterers' employment orders, and thus, they should be compensated.
In response, charterers might argue that by agreeing to worldwide trading, owners have accepted the responsibility for ensuring the vessel is appropriately equipped for all ports of call. Another argument could be that the owners have failed to meet their obligation for seaworthiness because they lacked sufficient mooring lines. Charterers may also contend that owners have breached their maintenance obligations, which include ensuring equipment like mooring lines is adequately maintained.
The issues discussed above were examined in London Arbitration 19/01, where a vessel chartered on an amended NYPE form was ordered to Caleta Coloso, Chile, which required 14 mooring lines of 220 meters each. However, the vessel only had 5 mooring lines of 197 meters, which complied with its design specifications. To dock at the port, the vessel needed to hire the additional lines at considerable cost, leading to a dispute over whether the owners or charterers were liable for this expense.
The charterparty ensured that the vessel was to be "in every way fitted for the service" and held the owner responsible for "providing and paying for all necessary stores" to keep the vessel in excellent condition. There was no specific mention in the charterparty about the vessel calling at Chilean ports.
The tribunal decided that the costs for the additional mooring ropes would fall to the owners. They noted:
(i) Providing mooring ropes is part of the owners' responsibilities in a time charter.
(ii) The port's length requirement for mooring lines at Caleta Coloso was not unusual.
(iii) The tribunal dismissed the owners' claim for an implied indemnity, stating that the risk of having to go to a port with extra mooring line requirements was something owners should have anticipated in the charter agreement.
(iv) The classification requirements are minimum standards and do not reflect the practical needs of ports like Caleta Coloso, where weather conditions might require higher standards. The tribunal pointed out that owners of vessels operating globally ought to expect such requirements.
Based on this reasoning, the tribunal held that the owners were responsible for providing the necessary mooring lines to dock at Caleta Coloso. Although arbitration awards are not legally binding on other tribunals or courts, they can influence and guide future disputes in London arbitration.
Declare Your Intentions
From a practical standpoint, owners should consider evaluating the ports they plan to visit. Local agents can help advise on any specific requirements.
Contractually, owners may want to detail the number and length of mooring ropes in the charterparty's "Descriptions Clause." Although charterers might still claim the number of ropes is insufficient for general cargo service, a tribunal may view favorably owners who clarified this information during negotiations. This may also be relevant if the charterers did not protest about the number or length of mooring ropes when the vessel was delivered.
Owners may also explore including a tailored clause in the charterparty to address these situations.
ENDS