Breaching the UKC policy for commercial reasons is a calculated risk taken frequently. Sometimes the safety margins are however just too slim to take this risk, as in The Stena Primorsk [2022] where the Master decided to unberth from the first terminal and refused to berth at the second one. Owners were claiming demurrage and charterers were counter claiming for lightering costs incurred.
First terminal: The plan was to berth at high water and then start discharging at a high rate to keep the vessel afloat at all times. Based on detailed calculations and RA, Owner’s allowed Master’s request to waive the UKC policy requirements. Upon berthing the terminal informed that discharging can only happen at a reduced rate to which Master refused and decided to unberth. Vessel was directed to another terminal the next day.
Second terminal: Given a much smaller margin of safety here in maintaining a safe UKC because of no room whatsoever for delays or technical failures, owners refused to grant a UKC policy waiver this time.
Vessel ultimately had to lighter some 8000t of cargo before berthing. Charterers said that owners were at fault for refusing charterer's orders; whereas owners maintained their position that decisions were taken keeping safety in mind.
Decision: Q88 formed part of the C/P. It was here that owners had declared their UKC policy. The section it was included in was worded in a way such that any information therein was paramount and formed an integral part of the C/P. As per the court owner’s UKC policy was thus considered to be binding and for it to be breached owner’s consent was needed. Both the decisions, i.e. Master’s decision to leave the berth on day 1 and owner’s refusal to berth on Day 2 were based on a proper risk analysis, and were in accordance with the charter.
Every once in a while, you do get a decision like this one where the actions of the Master are not judged with the benefit hindsight.
Link to judgement: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/2147.html
It is heartening to see the judiciary take cognisance of the considered decisions made by the master and the operator. This gives a filip to improved decision making based not on fear of imagined (legal) consequences but based on information available and operational consequences.