DéjàVu - 安全港口/泊位保证和两伊战争的教训

EMEA – March 2026 The conflict that has recently broken out inthe Middle East has given rise to numerousissues for the shipping and international tradesectors. We have covered several of thoseissues already in our articles on refusing transit Despite the apparent similarities of the two cases, they gave riseto different results on the question of whether or not the safeport warranties in the charterparties had been breached. The charterers inThe Eviawere found (ultimately by the House ofLords) not to have breached the safe port warranty in that case The difference between the two cases was one of timing. As theHouse of Lords made clear inThe Evia (No.2), the obligation on charterers under a safe port warranty is prospective in nature; thepromise made as to the safety of the port has to be fulfilled atthe time the order to proceed to a particular port is given. It is not While the current situation is certainly dramatic, it is notunprecedented as far as the shipping industry is concerned. Thereis a wealth of authority on safe port warranties. In particular, The order forThe Eviato go to Basrah was given around six months before the outbreak of full-scale war between Iran andIraq, on 22 September 1980. The outbreak of the war was, in thatcontext, an abnormal occurrence and accordingly there was nobreach of the safe port warranty. InThe Lucille, by contrast, the The Basics A full discussion of safe port/berth warranties is well beyond thescope of this article. However, it is useful to have in mind thelodestar in any discussion of the issue, which is the definition of It follows from the above that owners and charterers consideringtheir position in relation to orders for a vessel to proceed to a port affected by the current hostilities in the Middle East will need tolook not just at the factual situation at the port in question (or in a safe port given by Sellers LJ inThe Eastern City(as approved bythe UK Supreme Court inThe Ocean Victory): “A port will not be safe unless, in the relevantperiod of time, the particular ship can reachit, use it and return from it without, in theabsence of some abnormal occurrence, being Port v. Berth Time charters commonly contain warranties as to the safety ofthe ports to which a vessel will be ordered. In voyage charters,however, it is often the case that the warranty of safety is givenin respect of the berth(s) to be used by the vessel, not the While the test is easy to state, it can be complex to apply, as thecases discussed below demonstrate.port itself. The rationale for this is that, where a voyage charterexpressly names the loading or discharge ports, the owners cansatisfy themselves as to the safety of those ports ahead of time. Timing Is All This distinction was of critical importance inThe A.J.P. Priti. Thevessel in that case was chartered, on the Gencon form, to carrya cargo of bagged urea from Dammam to a selection of three Two cases with ostensibly similar facts,The Evia (No.2)andTheLucille, demonstrate the importance of timing when assessingwhether or not a safe port warranty has been breached. This was in 1983, during the Iran-Iraq war. In the event, the vesselwas ordered to discharge at Bandar Khomeini. While sailingnorthward in convoy, towards Bandar Khomeini, the vessel wasstruck by an Iraqi missile and severely damaged. In the case ofThe Evia, the relevant orders were given in mid- In the case ofThe Lucille, the relevant orders were given inSeptember 1980, under a charterparty concluded in July 1980.Both vessels became trapped in the Shatt-al-Arab following the The warranty given in the charterparty referred only to the safetyof the berths the vessel was to use, and not to the safety of theports. The Court of Appeal rejected any implication of a safe portwarranty. A safe berth warranty, without more, is only a warranty Waiver and Estoppel It follows from this that the warranty does not extend to the A final point illustrated by the cases discussed in this article isthat owners can, if they are not careful, waive their rights undersafe port/berth warranties or otherwise be estopped from relying A contrast can be struck betweenThe A.J.P. Priti, on the onehand, and the case ofThe Chemical Venture, on the other.The Chemical Venturealso concerned a vessel struck by a missilewhile approaching a port – in that case by an Iranian missile while approaching the port of Mina Al Ahmadi, in Kuwait. The charterersin that case were found liable, because the warranty they hadgiven was a safe port warranty, not just a safe berth warranty. Itfollowed that the warranty extended to the approach to the port,which required passing through a relatively narrow channel, inwhich three other vessels had been attacked in the preceding 11 voyage charter was ordered to Kharg Island, Iran, during the Iran-Iraq War. While the vessel was at anchor, waiting to berth, theport was bombed by Iraqi forces. The master promptly departedthe port and the owners called on