Safe Ports and Berths - FAQs
This FAQ summarises the legal and practical considerations around “safe port” and “safe berth” warranties in charterparties, which commonly arise where a vessel suffers damage, delay, or detention when approaching, using, or departing a port.
It outlines how courts assess “safety”, the types of risks that can render a port unsafe (physical and non physical), and the consequences for owners and charterers when conditions change before arrival or during the vessel’s stay.
Jonathan Biggins
Published: September 23, 2026
What is “safety” and what makes a port unsafe?
The classic definition of a “safe port” was provided by the Court of Appeal in Leeds Shipping v Société Française Bunge (The Eastern City)1
“A port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it, and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship…”
This definition has since been supported in a number of subsequent cases (see, for example, The Evia (No. 2)2).
The port or berth must be safe for the particular ship in question (see The Sagoland3) and for the duration of her stay. In other words, a ship may enter a port which is safe, however, that port may subsequently become unsafe (due to a wide range of factors). A port can remain “safe” if the ship can safely leave the port notwithstanding it has become dangerous.
What makes a port “unsafe” is dependent on the facts. Factors rendering a port unsafe could be physical and/or non-physical. Physical factors that may give rise to considerations as to the safety of a port are weather, inadequate berthing and mooring facilities and obstructions. In The Marinicki4, the ship was damaged by an obstruction in a dredged approach channel. In an unsafe port claim, owners succeeded because the port lacked a proper system for monitoring the safety of the channel and reporting hazards accordingly. In The Khian Sea5, when bad weather arrived, the master was advised to put out to sea but it was impossible for him to leave the berth for several hours until two other ships, anchored nearby, had moved first. The Court concluded that for a port to be safe there must be: a) an adequate weather forecasting system; b) adequate availability of pilots and tugs, and c) adequate searoom to manoeuvre.
Non-physical dangers may include political and war risks (again, see The Evia (No.2)). In The Greek Fighter6 the Court accepted that, in theory, a port could be unsafe if there was a risk of unjustified confiscation of the ship by the local coastguard and the political and legal system provided no effective remedy in respect of such an unlawful seizure.
Causation remains essential, however. It is not enough to show that the port or berth was unsafe in some general sense. The alleged unsafety must be shown to have been the effective cause of the loss or damage, and this will require a careful investigation of the factual circumstances and any competing causes.
Are warranties express or implied?
Express Warranties
Many standard form charterparties contain express warranties of safety by the charterer relating to the loading or discharging port or berth. These are explicit clauses in a charterparty where the charterer warrants to the owner that they will only order the vessel to a safe port or berth. See for example, the warranties in the NYPE and ASBATANKVOY forms which respectively provide:
“[Vessel… to be employed] …in such lawful trades, between safe port and/or ports… but excluding… all unsafe ports” [NYPE 1946, Lines 27-31]
“SAFE BERTHING – SHIFTING. The vessel shall load and discharge at any safe place or wharf, or alongside vessels or lighters reachable on her arrival, which shall be designated and procured by the Charterer, provided the Vessel can proceed thereto, lie at, and depart therefrom always safely afloat…” [Asbatankvoy, Clause 9]
Where particular ports are named in the charter and there is an express term as to port safety, generally it is accepted that the safe port undertaking will apply to the port named in a charter, see for example, The Livantia7, and The Archimidis8. In The Livantia, the Court concluded that there was no inconsistency between a safe port undertaking and the naming of a particular port.
Sometimes, a charterer will only warrant the safety of a berth, as opposed to a port. In The APJ Priti, the court rejected owners’ argument that they could rely instead on the term as to the safety of the berth or berths. In the absence of a safe port term, the safe berth obligation could not be extended to the approach to the port but was restricted to movements within the port. This analysis however does depend on the distinction between a port and its berths.
Implied Warranties
Even where there is no express provision or warranty, it is possible that one could be implied. Generally, a term will not be implied unless it is necessary to give business efficacy to the charter, which will depend on the charterparty’s wider context (see The A.P.J. Priti9).
Each case will turn on its specific facts and the wording of the charterparty. However, and generally, where a port is expressly named or a range of named ports or places is given, then it is unlikely that any warranty of safety will be implied.
In The Reborn10, Lord Clarke M.R. held that whether or not there is an implied warranty will depend upon normal contractual rules for the implication of terms, and therefore that the test is one of necessity. Although this is likely to be influenced significantly by the degree of liberty which the charterer has under the terms of the charter to choose the port or place at which the ship is to load or discharge.
Which other charterparty clauses may be relevant to port safety risks?
“Always lie safely afloat”
In The Evaggelos Th11, it was held that the words "always lie safely afloat" are concerned exclusively with the marine characteristics of the place of discharge and require that the vessel should at all times be water-borne and able to remain there without risk of loss or damage from wind, weather or other properly navigated craft. As such, the above warranty does not extend to political or war risks.
“So near thereto as she may safely get”
The above term confers a liberty on the owners to load or discharge, as the case may be, the cargo at the nearest safe port if arrival, loading, or discharge at the nominated port is prevented. Such liberty is only available if the vessel will be prevented from loading or discharging at the original port for an unreasonable time and not due to only temporary obstacles.
“Reachable on arrival”
This warranty is interpreted quite broadly and has been held to extend to both physical and non-physical obstructions, including congestion, bad weather, and port restrictions (The Laura Prima12, The Sea Queen13, and The Fjordaas14). The warranty is to the effect that the vessel will be able to proceed without delay or risk immediately upon arrival (subject to any necessary formalities).
What does the “safe port” warranty really require of charterers?
Charterers’ primary obligation is to nominate a safe port. This primary obligation arises at the time charterers give the order to proceed to a port. At the point of nomination, the port need only be prospectively safe. This means that, when nominated, it must be likely or expected to be safe for the vessel to reach, use and depart from at the relevant time, absent any abnormal occurrence. This in turn means that charterers will not be in breach if (i) the port is unsafe at the time charterers’ order is given, but such unsafety will have ceased by the time of the vessel’s arrival, or (ii) the port is prospectively safe at the time of charterers’ order but subsequently becomes unsafe. For example, in The Evia (No.2)15, the vessel was ordered to discharge at Basrah, Iraq. The vessel berthed and completed discharge by 22 September 1980, on which day the Iran-Iraq war broke out. The vessel was trapped and unable to sail from the discharge port. Yet it was held that charterers were not in breach of their safe port warranty, as Basrah was prospectively safe at the time of nomination, and further the unsafety arose after her arrival and was due to an unexpected and abnormal event. Charterers’ obligation is absolute, unless the terms of the specific charterparty provide otherwise (for example, Clause 4 of Shelltime 4 only requires charterers to exercise due diligence).
If a port becomes unsafe, are charterers obliged to give new orders?
Under a time Charter?
Even if charterers comply with their primary obligation to nominate a prospectively safe port, the port might subsequently become unsafe. If this happens while the vessel is en route to such port, charterers come under a new obligation to issue alternative orders. Even if the vessel is already at the port when it becomes unsafe, if the danger can still be avoided by leaving, charterers come under a new obligation to order the vessel to leave the port and to issue alternative orders. In The Evia (No. 2), by the time the war broke out, it was impossible for the vessel to leave; therefore, no secondary obligation arose. This may be contrasted with The Lucille16, where Basrah had become unsafe due to the war while the vessel was waiting at anchorage due to congestion and there was, therefore, still time for charterers to issue alternative orders.
Under a voyage Charter?
The position under a voyage charter is not as clear, since a voyage charterer may not be entitled to order the vessel to any other ports. While there is no clear authority on this point, it seems that there is no general duty or right of renomination under a voyage charter. However, the parties can always agree to vary the terms of the charter to provide for alternative loading or discharge ports. In addition, depending on the facts, another provision (such as a war clause) may be applicable.
Members are reminded that discharge of cargo at a port other than that named in a relevant bill of lading may be a breach of owners’ obligations to the bill of lading holder. Therefore, the terms of any bill of lading should always be considered, including whether it incorporates the terms of the charter or otherwise contains suitable liberties.
What can owners do when a port is (or becomes) unsafe?
If owners or the master have cause to doubt the safety of the nominated port, they are entitled to take a reasonable time to consider and evaluate the order before complying. In The Houda17, the master delayed compliance with charterers’ order while considering its lawfulness, in circumstances where Iraq had invaded Kuwait and charterers’ management had relocated. The Court of Appeal held that “in a war situation, there might well be circumstances where the right, and indeed the duty, to pause in order to seek further information about the source of, and validity of, any orders which might be received was capable of arising, even if there was no immediate physical threat to the cargo or the ship.”
In addition, owners/the master can refuse an order to an unsafe port. In certain circumstances, where the port is obviously unsafe, as in The Kanchenjunga (further discussed below), owners or the master may even be obliged to refuse the order.
When will owners be taken to have waived their rights in relation to an unsafe port?
Owners may be deemed to have waived the right to refuse an order to an unsafe port if, despite having knowledge of the unsafety, owners unequivocally indicate that they intend to obey the order. In The Kanchenjunga18, charterers ordered the vessel to Kharg Island shortly after the onset of war between Iran and Iraq. The vessel anchored off Kharg Island, and the master gave notice of readiness to load, even though owners knew that Kharg Island was unsafe. Thereafter, owners asserted that the vessel was available to load and called on charterers to arrange priority berthing. There was an air raid on the port before the vessel could berth and the master sailed 25 miles away. Owners called on charterers to nominate an alternative port. However, the House of Lords held that owners had waived the right to object to the order to load at Kharg Island: the fact that owners had served notice of readiness and called on charterers to arrange priority berthing indicated that they were saying that they were ready and willing to load at Kharg Island, despite knowing of the unsafety. On the facts, however, owners were not liable to charterers for damages because the charterparty contained a war risks clause, which conferred a separate and independent discretion on the master of the vessel to decline to load on the basis of danger.
Waiver of the right to reject the order does not, without more, also constitute a waiver of owners’ right to claim damages in respect of loss caused by the unsafety of the port. Owners may, however, be deemed to have waived the right to damages if a sufficiently clear and unequivocal representation to that effect is made.
Do Charterers have defences to an allegation of unsafety?
If faced with allegations that a port is unsafe, there are possible defences available to Charterers, considered below.
Abnormal Occurrences
Charterers may argue that the incident was caused by an “abnormal occurrence”. Charterers will not be responsible for losses or incidents which were caused by something that is not a prevailing characteristic of port. For example, if a ship is damaged in a fortuitous storm which is unusual for a particular port, that incident is not attributable to the characteristics of the port itself. Another example could be a unique power failure resulting in unlighted hazards, as in The Saga Cob19. In The Ocean Victory20, the Vessel was ordered to leave its berth in Kashima, Japan, due to "long waves." Upon leaving, it encountered severe northernly gales, leading to grounding and breaking into two. The High Court first held that the port was unsafe because the combination of long waves and gales was foreseeable, breaching the charterers' safe port warranty. The Court of Appeal and later the Supreme Court overturned this, finding that the specific combination of conditions was an "abnormal occurrence" rather than a normal feature of the port.
Abnormal occurrences will therefore not make a port unsafe; a port will be unsafe only if the danger derives from its own qualities or attributes.
Avoidable by good navigation and seamanship
The Eastern City definition expressly excludes dangers which are avoidable by “good navigation and seamanship”. The standard required is that “expected of the ordinary prudent and skilful master”. Charterers may therefore look to establish negligence on behalf of the Master/Owners in terms of navigation and seamanship. If they can do so, this would constitute a break in the chain of causation. However, even if the Master makes a mistake or error when navigating the vessel, that may not be the effective cause of the incident such as to break the chain of causation flowing from the charterers breach in ordering the vessel to an unsafe port. The Master is on the "horns of a dilemma" (The Stork21) and the Charterer remains fully liable for any resulting damage so long as the Master's response was reasonable under the circumstances. Moreover, an act of clear negligence may not break the chain of causation if the port is otherwise unsafe and if that unsafety was a material cause of that negligence (The Polyglory22).
It is important to note that that the ship may suffer damage despite the exercise of reasonable skill and care and this does not automatically mean that the port was unsafe. As per Mustill, J in The Mary Lou23 “… care and safety are not necessarily the opposite sides of the same coin. A third possibility must be taken into account, namely that the casualty was the result of simple bad luck”. Additionally, it does not necessarily follow that, if the negligent navigation of another ship was the immediate cause of the accident, charterers will avoid liability if the port or berth was also independently unsafe. See for example, The Carnival24 where the negligent navigation of another ship caused a collision with a fender, however the Court of the Appeal still found the port to be unsafe as the fender was defective and dangerous, even without negligent navigation.
Unsafe berth or port arguments will require an in-depth analysis of the relevant facts and the applicable charterparty. For tailored guidance, Members are encouraged to contact their usual claims handler at the Club.
1 [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127
2 [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 307
3 (1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 136.
4 [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 655
5 [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545.
6 [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 99
7 [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86
8 [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101
9 [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 37
10 [2009] EWCA Civ 531
11 [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep 200
12 [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
13 [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 500
14 [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 336
15 [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 613, [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334 (C.A.) and [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 307 (H.L.)
16 [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 (C.A.)
17 [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541
18 [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391
19 [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545
20 [2017] UKSC 35
21 [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 349
22 [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 353
23 [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 272
24 [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 449
