Mooring Lines Inquiry: How Many is Enough?

Ports sometimes have requirements for the number of mooring ropes a vessel calling must have on board. John Southam and Vicky Dolka, of NorthStandard*, examine who is responsible when the requirement exceeds the number normally carried.

The number of mooring lines a vessel must carry during normal operation is decided on a vessel-by-vessel basis. The vessel must prove compliance with SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-8 and its associated MSC guidelines (MSC. 1/Circ. 1619, MSC. 1/Circ. 1620, and MSC. 1/Circ. 1175/Rev. 1) which entered into force on 1 January 2024.

Local regulations may, however, require more ropes – often based on the specific port situation or expected environmental conditions, as well as the need for redundancy in the mooring rope system.

Some local or terminal requirements will state the exact number of lines required on board, in some cases even stipulating the type and length. Examples include Port Hedland and Hay Point (Australia), Dahej Port (India), Caleta Coloso (Chile), and Saudi Aramco Operated Terminals.

If a vessel fails to comply with the rules, it may not be allowed to enter the port, which in turn gives rise to disputes between owners and charterers. On some occasions, where hiring or buying new ropes has been necessary to allow port entry, the quick fix has only led on to later disputes over which party is responsible for the cost of the additional mooring lines.

Even if owners have complied with SOLAS, therefore, local regulations can create an issue. And in our experience, there is a risk that expenses relating to additional mooring lines can become an owners’ problem.

Line of responsibility

In a time charter context, owners who have fixed their vessel to trade on a worldwide basis may face port regulations that impose mooring line requirements which go beyond their vessel’s statutory standards. This can potentially result in extra costs being incurred for the purchase or hire of additional lines and may lead to disputes under the charterparty.

In such circumstances, responsibility for bearing the cost will depend on the terms of the governing charterparty and the underlying facts. For example, if the vessel has been fixed on the NYPE 2015 form, owners may say that charterers should be liable for such costs because the port’s requirement for additional lines is an unusual requirement such that trading to that port is a “special trade” for the purposes of Clause 7(c). Owners may also argue that the cost of the extra lines arose from complying with charterers’ employment orders and they should therefore be indemnified.

In response, charterers may argue that, by fixing for worldwide trading, owners have agreed the vessel should be properly equipped for such ports of call; or that by not having sufficient mooring lines on board, owners are in breach of their seaworthiness obligation.  Charterers may also argue that owners are in breach of their maintenance obligation on the basis that this obligation includes exercising due diligence to ensure that equipment, such as mooring lines, is maintained.

Arguments similar to those discussed above were considered in London Arbitration 19/01. In that arbitration, the vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE form. The charterers ordered the vessel to the port of Caleta Coloso in northern Chile which required vessels to use 14 mooring lines, each of 220 metres length. However, the vessel was only equipped with 5 mooring lines of 197 metres in length each, which was in accordance with design specification. Accordingly, 14 mooring lines of the requisite length had to be hired at a cost to enable the vessel to be berthed. A dispute arose as to whether the owners or charterers were liable in respect of the hire of the 14 mooring lines.

The charterparty provided that the vessel on delivery would be “… in every way fitted for the service” and that the owner would “provide and pay for … all necessary stores … and keep the vessel in a thoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery and equipment … for and during the service”. No specific reference was made in the charterparty to the vessel calling at Chilean ports.

The tribunal held that the costs of additional mooring ropes were for owners’ account. The tribunal made the following comments in reaching its decision:

(i) the provision of mooring ropes for a vessel was a matter falling within the owners’ sphere of responsibility under the time charterparty.

(ii) the length requirement set by the port authorities at Caleta Coloso was not unusual.

(iii) the Tribunal rejected owners’ argument that they were entitled to an implied indemnity covering the cost of hiring the mooring lines as a consequence of the master complying with charterers’ order. The Tribunal considered that the risk of the vessel being ordered to a port requiring more than the bare classification requirements for mooring was one that should have been contemplated by the owners when entering into the charterparty with its wide trading limits.

(iv) the classification requirements were minimum requirements for trading and took no account of the practical needs of ports such as Caleta Coloso, and many others to which the vessel might legitimately have been ordered, where local wind, current or swell conditions called for securing arrangements of a higher level than the minimum Class requirements. The Tribunal noted that owners of commercial vessels plying their trade worldwide should reasonably anticipate such requirements.

Based on the above reasoning, the tribunal held that the risk and responsibility for providing the requisite mooring lines to enable the vessel to berth at Caleta Coloso rested with the owners. Although arbitration awards do not have a binding effect on other tribunals or courts, they can have persuasive value and may serve as guidance to other London arbitration tribunals in future disputes.

Best to declare intentions

From a practical perspective, owners can consider conducting a full appraisal of the intended ports of call for the vessel. Locally appointed agents should be able to assist in advising owners of any local requirements.

On the contractual side, owners can consider providing information on the number of mooring ropes and their length in the charterparty “Descriptions Clause”. Whilst charterers might still argue that the number of ropes on delivery is not sufficient for “ordinary cargo service” or “the intended service”, a tribunal may be more sympathetic towards owners who have as part of the fixture negotiations declared to the charterers the number and length of available mooring ropes. This may also be of particular relevance if on delivery of the ship into their service, charterers did not issue a protest declaring that the number of mooring ropes carried by the vessel, or their length, were insufficient for “ordinary cargo service” or “the intended service”. 

Owners could also consider inserting a tailor-made clause in the charterparty to cater for this situation.

ENDS

* Authors: John Southam, Loss Prevention Director – Greece, NorthStandard;  Vicky Dolka, FD&D Claims Advisor, NorthStandard

Editorial Standards · Corrections · About gCaptain

Subscribe for Daily Maritime Insights

Sign up for gCaptain’s newsletter and never miss an update

— trusted by our 104,564 members