Vessels occasionally use local paper charts when entering & leaving ports instead of charts issued by BA or other agencies, for reasons such as they might be more accurate, provide greater details, and sometimes even a larger scale. In such situations, can a vessel held to be unseaworthy for not carrying appropriate charts? In London Arbitration 2/23, a bulker grounded in Chaozhou, China. Owners were saying the port was unsafe, whereas charterers were alleging negligent navigation & lack of due diligence by owners in making the vessel seaworthy.
The in-port passage plan for Chaozhou was prepared while at anchor awaiting berthing instructions. The approach channel was a few miles long with buoys on either side. It was dredged to 14.5m, but the buoys were placed beyond the limits of the channel. The presence & navigable limits of the channel were shown only on the local MSA chart which the vessel didn't have. For the crew it was difficult to assess how close to the buoys can they pass. After passing the breakwater, the vsl had to make a stbd. turn to reach the berth. This turn couldn’t be executed as planned between the pilot & the master, and the vessel grounded on a shoal just outside the dredged channel. Master reportedly stated afterwards that he 'relied on the pilot mostly' because of the absence of an appropriate chart.
Looking at causation first, the Tribunal held that the grounding was caused by negligent navigation. The pilot knew the limits of the deep water but failed to carry out the manoeuvre. The crew were also not monitoring his conduct. On port being unsafe, they said that although the pilot misjudged the turn, he was competent. A one-off mistake such as this by a competent pilot was not a defect in the set-up of the port. Lastly, on the point of unseaworthiness, the in-port passage plan was found to be defective, and the owners had failed to exercise due diligence at the beginning of the voyage since the local chart was not onboard and the absence of a berth-to-berth passage plan as per IMO Resolution A893(21). However, the unseaworthiness did not cause the grounding. Owners were nonetheless still responsible because the risk of negligent navigation was theirs to bear.
ความคิดเห็น