Safe Port in Ship Chartering: Meaning, Charterers’ Liability, Safe Berth, NAABSA, and Legal Principles
A safe port is one of the most important concepts in ship chartering because it determines whether the charterers’ order can lawfully be performed and whether the shipowners may recover losses if the ship is damaged, delayed, trapped, or exposed to unacceptable danger. In both time charter and voyage charter arrangements, the nomination of a port or berth is not merely a commercial instruction. It may also carry a legal warranty that the nominated place will be safe for the particular ship at the relevant time.The safe port obligation must always be considered in relation to the particular ship, the timing of the employment order, the intended operation, the available approach and departure routes, the port’s physical characteristics, the quality of navigational assistance, the political environment, and the standard of navigation and seamanship reasonably expected from a competent Ship Master and crew. A port that is safe for one ship may be unsafe for another. Likewise, a port that is safe in summer may be unsafe in winter, and a port that is safe during normal conditions may become unsafe if its ordinary systems cannot protect a ship from foreseeable danger.
Definition of Safe Port as Per Sellers L.J. in The Eastern City
The classic definition of a safe port comes from Sellers L.J. in The Eastern City. A port is safe only if, during the relevant period, the particular ship can reach it, use it, and depart from it without being exposed to danger that cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship, unless the danger results from an abnormal occurrence.This definition remains central because it connects port safety to three essential stages of the port call: approach, use, and departure. The warranty is not limited to the berth itself, nor is it confined to the moment of loading or discharging. It covers the practical employment of the ship as a whole, provided that the danger is sufficiently connected with the nominated port and the route which the ship must reasonably use.
A port will not necessarily be unsafe simply because some risk exists. Shipping always involves risk, and the law does not require a perfect port. The question is whether the danger can be avoided by ordinary prudent navigation and competent seamanship. If the danger requires extraordinary skill, unusual risk-taking, or special measures beyond the ordinary capability expected of a competent crew, the port may be considered unsafe for that ship.
Liability Determination for Shipowners
When shipowners allege that a nominated port was unsafe, they must usually show that the damage, delay, or loss was caused by a danger which could not reasonably have been avoided by ordinary good navigation and seamanship. Charterers often defend unsafe port claims by arguing that the real cause of the casualty was negligence by the Ship Master, crew, pilot, tug, terminal, or another ship. Therefore, causation is often the decisive issue in safe port disputes.In The Polyglory [1977], the ship was at Port La Nouvelle for ballast operations when adverse weather required departure. Although a local pilot was used, the ship encountered serious maneuvering difficulties. The ship dragged anchor and damaged an underwater pipeline. The shipowners settled the pipeline claim and then sought an indemnity from the charterers on the basis that the port was unsafe. The tribunal found that the port required more than ordinary navigation and seamanship, and the Charterers were held liable as navigation required exceptional skills. The decision was upheld on appeal.
The Polyglory demonstrates that pilot error does not automatically protect charterers from liability. If the port itself creates conditions that require unusual skill or expose the ship to dangers beyond ordinary seamanship, the port may still be unsafe even where the immediate incident includes human error.
In The Carnival [1992], the chartered ship was damaged when another ship, navigating negligently during berthing, struck or displaced a fender which then punctured the hull. Although another ship’s poor navigation was the immediate cause of the incident, the courts still found that the port was unsafe. The charterers’ liability was reduced because the other ship also bore responsibility, but the unsafe port warranty remained relevant.
These authorities show that the court or tribunal will examine the full chain of events. A negligent act may break the chain of causation if it is truly independent and becomes the effective cause of the loss. However, where the negligence operates within a dangerous port environment, or where the port’s characteristics make such incidents foreseeable, charterers may still face liability.
Role of the Ship Master and Crew in Unsafe Port Claims
The Ship Master is often placed in a difficult commercial and legal position. If the Ship Master refuses to enter or berth at the nominated port, charterers may allege that the Ship Master is disobeying lawful employment orders. If the Ship Master proceeds and the ship is damaged, charterers may argue that the Ship Master acted negligently by accepting a known risk.The law generally asks whether the Ship Master acted reasonably in the circumstances. This is a practical standard, not a standard of hindsight perfection. The Ship Master may need to rely on port information, pilots, agents, charterers’ representatives, terminal officials, weather reports, navigational warnings, and the visible condition of the berth or anchorage.
The Stork [1954] is a leading example. The ship was ordered to load logs in a rocky and storm-exposed inlet in Newfoundland. The available loading area was restricted, and the ship could not lay sufficient anchor chain to protect itself properly from severe weather. The Ship Master knew the operation involved risk, but a local pilot employed by the charterers persuaded the Ship Master to berth and load. A storm followed and the ship was damaged.
The court held that the Ship Master had acted reasonably in accepting the assurances given to him, and the Charterers were found liable for breaching the safe port warranty. Sellers L.J. observed that the Ship Master may be on the horns of a dilemma and that the essential question is whether the Ship Master acted reasonably.
Negligent Pilot
The legal effect of a negligent pilot depends heavily on who employed the pilot, what role the pilot played, and whether the negligence was truly independent of the port’s unsafe characteristics. In many port calls, pilots are engaged through ordinary port procedures and assist the ship during approach, berthing, shifting, or departure. A pilot’s mistake does not automatically prove that the port was safe, and it does not automatically prove that the port was unsafe.Where a pilot is employed by or on behalf of the charterers, and the pilot’s advice induces the Ship Master to proceed into a dangerous situation, charterers may have difficulty relying on that pilot’s negligence as a complete defence. However, if the pilot is employed by the owners and the casualty is caused solely by the pilot’s negligent navigation, charterers may argue that the causal link between the port condition and the loss has been broken.
Actions of the Ship Master and Crew
The conduct of the Ship Master and crew is judged by reference to reasonableness and competence. The Ship Master must not knowingly expose the ship to avoidable danger, but the Ship Master is not expected to predict every abnormal event or reject every order simply because the port presents ordinary maritime difficulties.Good navigation and seamanship include proper passage planning, prudent use of pilots and tugs, attention to weather and tide, adequate mooring arrangements, readiness to sail when danger becomes imminent, and timely protest or request for alternative orders where safety concerns become serious. If the Ship Master fails to exercise ordinary care and that failure is the real cause of the damage, charterers may avoid liability. If the ship is damaged despite reasonable conduct by the Ship Master and crew, the unsafe port claim becomes stronger.
Charterers Order Ship to Unsafe Port
When charterers order a ship to proceed to a port that is or may be unsafe, the Ship Master and shipowners must decide whether the order is contractually valid. In general, charterers’ employment orders are to be obeyed, and shipowners do not have to conduct a full independent investigation into every port. However, if the danger is known, serious, and avoidable, the Ship Master must not knowingly put the ship, cargo, and crew in peril.If the port is plainly unsafe from the outset, the Ship Master may be entitled to refuse the order and request alternative directions. An order to proceed to an unsafe port may be treated as an Uncontractual Order, because it falls outside the charterers’ contractual right to employ the ship.
The Kanchenjunga [1990] illustrates the difficulty of this area. The ship was ordered to load at Kharg Island during the Iran-Iraq war. The shipowners knew of the risk, proceeded to the port, and tendered a Notice of Readiness. After an air raid, the ship left the port. The shipowners later requested a safe port order, but the charterers insisted on returning to Kharg Island. The dispute proceeded through arbitration and the courts.
The decision showed that shipowners may lose the right to reject an unsafe port order if they accept the order and act in a manner consistent with performance, such as proceeding and tendering Notice of Readiness. However, waiver of the right to refuse the order does not necessarily mean waiver of the right to claim damages, unless the shipowners clearly give up that claim.
The practical lesson is that shipowners and Ship Masters should communicate safety concerns clearly, reserve rights where appropriate, and avoid conduct that may be interpreted as unconditional acceptance of a dangerous nomination.
Safely Approach Port
A port must be capable of safe approach by the nominated ship. The safe port warranty is not limited to the geographical boundary of the port or to the berth. If the ship must use a particular river, channel, canal, bar, fairway, or passage in order to reach the port, the safety of that approach may form part of the safe port analysis.The Sussex Oak is an important example. The ship was ordered to Hamburg under a charter party containing a safe port obligation. During the voyage up the River Elbe, the ship encountered heavy ice. The ship could not safely turn, anchor, or reverse, and was forced to proceed through the ice, suffering damage. Devlin J. held that there is a breach of the safe port warranty if the ship is ordered to a port which she cannot safely reach.
The danger does not have to be physically inside the port. If the approach route is a necessary route for that ship and no safe alternative exists, the danger may render the port unsafe. This principle is especially relevant for river ports, ports with shifting channels, shallow bars, tidal restrictions, ice conditions, war risks, piracy risks, or politically unstable approaches.
However, the law does not guarantee that the shortest or most direct route will always be safe. If a safe alternative route is available and is reasonably usable for the ship, shipowners may have difficulty alleging that the port itself was unsafe merely because a more dangerous route existed.
Ship Safety in Port
A ship may be able to enter a port safely but still be unable to use the port safely for the intended operation. Port safety therefore includes the period during which the ship is loading, discharging, waiting, shifting, bunkering, ballasting, deballasting, or remaining at berth or anchorage in connection with the charter service.The port must be safe at the relevant time for the particular ship. If a temporary obstruction or danger is removed before the ship arrives, the port may be safe upon arrival. Conversely, if a known danger persists when the ship arrives, or if the port lacks an effective system to deal with foreseeable hazards, the port may be unsafe.
A port does not have to be safe every minute of the ship’s stay if the ship can depart safely when danger becomes imminent and return when the danger has passed. Some ports are exposed to seasonal storms or tidal restrictions, but they may still be safe if the port has reliable warning systems, adequate room to maneuver, sufficient holding ground, safe exit routes, and procedures that allow the ship to leave in good time.
The Eastern City concerned Mogador in Morocco during winter. The anchorage was unreliable for a ship of that size, weather could change quickly, and departure from the port could become dangerous. Pearson J. emphasized that a port is not safe unless there is reasonable assurance that threatening weather will be recognized in time and the ship will be able to leave safely. The port was therefore unsafe because the system did not provide the required level of practical protection.
Ship Safety in Port Departure
The safe port obligation also covers the ship’s ability to leave the port safely. A port may be unsafe if the ship can enter and complete cargo operations but cannot depart without being exposed to unacceptable danger.The port of Manchester cases demonstrate this point. A ship that could reach the port safely may still face unsafe conditions on departure if its changed draft, freeboard, air draft, or cargo condition creates a serious hazard when passing bridges, canals, or restricted waterways. In such circumstances, the port’s safety must be assessed not only at arrival but also after loading or discharging has changed the ship’s condition.
In The Sussex Oak, ice damage was relevant not only on the approach to Hamburg but also during the return passage. Charterers were liable because the ship had been ordered to a port that could not be safely approached and departed under the relevant conditions.
Long river passages can raise difficult questions. In The Mary Lou, the ship grounded because of silting in the Southwest Pass, which was the only practicable route for a ship of that size leaving New Orleans. Although the incident occurred a considerable distance from the berth, the court accepted that the hazard could still affect the safety of the port because no safe alternative route was available.
Therefore, the definition of a port’s safety may extend to navigational hazards significantly distant from the port itself where those hazards are part of the necessary approach or departure route for the nominated ship.
Charterers' Obligation for Safe Port
Charterers who have the contractual right to nominate ports must nominate ports that are prospectively safe. The assessment is made at the time of the nomination, looking forward to the period when the ship is expected to reach, use, and depart from the port.The Evia No. 2 is one of the leading authorities on this principle. The ship was ordered to Basrah and reached the port safely. Discharge was completed on 22 September 1980, the day Iraq declared war on Iran. The Shatt-al-Arab waterway became impassable and the ship was trapped. The shipowners alleged breach of the safe port obligation.
The House of Lords held that Basrah was prospectively safe when nominated. The later outbreak of war was treated as an abnormal occurrence which did not mean charterers had breached their primary safe port obligation at the time of nomination.
The case also established the importance of a secondary obligation. If, after the port is nominated but before the ship reaches or completes the port call, the port becomes prospectively unsafe and the ship can still avoid the danger, time charterers may be required to cancel the original order and nominate another safe port. If it is already too late for new orders to be effective, the secondary obligation may not arise in practical terms.
In The Count [2008], the ship was ordered to Beira, where channel buoys were incorrectly positioned and there was no adequate system for monitoring a shifting access channel. Another ship grounded and caused delay. The court accepted that the port was unsafe because the danger existed at the time of nomination and reflected a continuing navigational risk, not an isolated abnormal event.
Charterers' Orders to Safe Port
Some charter parties contain an express safe port clause, while others do not. Where the clause is express, the wording must be read carefully. Where there is no express clause, the issue becomes whether a safe port term should be implied into the charter party.Under English law, an implied term must generally be necessary for business efficacy or so obvious that both parties must have intended it. The older case of The Moorcock is often mentioned in this context because it dealt with the safety of a berth and the implication of contractual protection.
In The Evaggelos Th [1971], the ship was time chartered to trade in the Red Sea during a ceasefire. The ship was ordered to Suez, which was safe when nominated. Hostilities resumed while the ship was there and the ship was damaged. The court held that there was no breach of the implied safe port obligation because Suez was prospectively safe when ordered and was expected to remain safe. However, the court considered that charterers might still be liable under employment and indemnity principles if their order caused the loss.
Where a port is expressly named in a voyage charter and there is no safety warranty, English courts are more cautious about implying a safe port warranty. In The A P J Priti [1987], Bingham L.J. explained that if the parties have named a port and omitted an express safety warranty, the omission may be deliberate. Imposing an implied warranty may conflict with the bargain actually made.
The Livanita [2008] later confirmed that a named loading port and a safe port warranty are not necessarily inconsistent. A safe port warranty can still operate as a contractual limitation on where the ship is required to perform, even if the port is identified in the charter party.
Safe Port Vs Safe Berth
Safe Ports: A safe port warranty generally covers the port as a whole, including the approach, entry, port facilities, anchorages, berths, internal movements, and departure routes that the ship must reasonably use. The port must be safe physically, nautically, meteorologically, and politically. A temporary danger will not automatically make a port unsafe, but a recurring or inadequately managed hazard may do so if it exposes the ship to danger that cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship.Safe Berth: A safe berth warranty is narrower. It usually concerns the nominated berth and the movements within the port that are necessary to reach and leave that berth. If the charter party contains only a safe berth warranty, and not a safe port warranty, the shipowners may not be protected against dangers affecting the entire port or the external voyage to the port.
The distinction is commercially important. A safe port warranty may place responsibility on charterers for the wider port environment. A safe berth warranty may focus on whether the particular berth is safe compared with other possible berths in the named port. If all berths in the port are unsafe in the same way, the result may depend on the exact wording of the charter party and whether the shipowners accepted the named port risk.
Temporary Dangers at Safe Port
Temporary danger does not automatically make a port unsafe. A ship may have to wait for tide, daylight, weather improvement, pilot availability, dredging, traffic clearance, or ice movement. Ordinary waiting of this kind is part of maritime commerce and will not necessarily amount to breach of the safe port warranty.Devlin J. explained in The Stork that the law does not require a port to be safe at the precise moment of arrival. Just as a ship may be delayed by adverse weather during the sea passage, it may also be delayed before entering port. That delay alone does not make charterers liable.
However, a temporary danger may become legally significant where it is not properly marked, not communicated to the Ship Master, not managed by the port, or not avoidable by ordinary navigation and seamanship. Examples may include an unmarked obstruction in a channel, a defective fendering system, inadequate storm warning arrangements, unreliable holding ground, or a temporary closure that effectively defeats the commercial purpose of the charter.
The length and commercial effect of the delay are also relevant. A short delay may be acceptable under the charter, while an extended delay may raise issues of frustration, detention, or breach, depending on the duration of the charter and the nature of the adventure.
Safe Port Warranties under Time Charter and Voyage Charter
Absolute and Qualified Safe Port Warranties
The first question is whether the charter party contains an absolute safe port warranty or a qualified safe port undertaking. An absolute warranty may make charterers responsible if the nominated port is unsafe, subject to principles such as abnormal occurrence, causation, and good navigation. A qualified warranty may only require charterers to exercise due diligence or reasonable care.Traditional time charter forms may provide that the ship is to be employed between safe ports. In contrast, some tanker forms and specialist clauses qualify charterers’ responsibility by requiring due diligence rather than imposing an absolute guarantee. Under a due diligence wording, charterers may avoid liability if they can show that a reasonably careful charterer, acting on the information available at the time, would have regarded the port as prospectively safe.
Prospective Safety at the Time of Nomination
The central obligation is to nominate a port that is prospectively safe. The ship’s length, beam, draft, air draft, maneuvering characteristics, cargo condition, mooring requirements, and operational needs must all be considered. A port is not safe in the abstract. It must be safe for the actual ship ordered there.If the port is currently affected by a danger that is expected to disappear before the ship arrives, charterers may still nominate it. But if the danger remains, or if charterers learn that the danger will not be removed in time, charterers may have to re-nominate another safe port, particularly under a time charter.
Approaching the Port
A port is unsafe if the nominated ship cannot safely reach it because of the port’s physical, hydrographic, climatic, political, or navigational features. Necessary approach routes, river passages, channels, bars, locks, canals, and fairways may form part of the safety assessment.A temporary obstacle on approach will not normally make the port unsafe unless it cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship or causes delay so severe that it undermines the commercial purpose of the charter.
Use of the Port
The port must be safe for the ship’s intended use. This includes the berth or anchorage, mooring arrangements, weather exposure, fendering, availability and competence of port services, traffic control, port security, dredging, and emergency departure arrangements. The port must have systems that are adequate for foreseeable risks.Departing the Port
The same principles apply to departure. If the ship cannot safely leave the port because of bridges, draft restrictions, silted channels, ice, war risks, unsafe fairways, or other necessary route hazards, the port may be unsafe. Departure safety must be assessed after the ship’s condition has changed due to loading, discharging, ballasting, or deballasting.Good Navigation and Seamanship
Charterers are not in breach if the direct and effective cause of the loss is the negligence of the Ship Master, shipowners, crew, or their personnel, provided that the negligence is not merely a response to an unsafe port condition. The question remains whether the danger could have been avoided by ordinary good navigation and seamanship.Extraordinary Events
Charterers are generally not liable where the loss is caused by an abnormal occurrence. An unexpected war outbreak, an extraordinary storm, a one-off collision caused by another ship, or an isolated mistake by a competent port official may not make an otherwise safe port unsafe. The key issue is whether the event was abnormal and unrelated to the ordinary characteristics or systems of the port.Breach of the Charterers' Primary Obligation
If charterers nominate a port that is prospectively unsafe, shipowners may be entitled to reject the order and request a new nomination. Shipowners must usually act within a reasonable time after receiving the order and after becoming aware of the relevant facts.If shipowners clearly accept the order, they may waive the right to refuse to proceed. However, they do not necessarily waive the right to claim damages for losses caused by the unsafe port unless they expressly or clearly waive that right. This distinction is commercially important because shipowners may sometimes proceed under protest in order to protect the adventure, cargo, or commercial relationship.
Safe Port Warranties under Time Charter
Under a time charter, charterers usually retain continuing employment authority over the ship. For that reason, if the nominated port becomes unsafe after nomination but before the ship is trapped or damaged, charterers may have a secondary duty to re-nominate a safe alternative. This duty is particularly relevant where the ship can still avoid the danger by proceeding elsewhere or leaving the port.Safe Port Warranties under Voyage Charter
The position under voyage charter is more complicated. A voyage charter often involves a named loading or discharging port, and the charterers may not have the same continuing employment authority as time charterers. Whether a secondary duty to nominate another safe port exists will depend on the wording of the charter party, the nomination mechanism, the stage of the voyage, and the commercial structure of the fixture.Safe Berth Warranties under Time Charter and Voyage Charter
Safe berth warranties follow similar principles to safe port warranties, but the focus is narrower. The safety of the berth depends on the berth’s physical characteristics, depth, fendering, mooring arrangements, exposure, seabed, access within the port, terminal equipment, port procedures, and the risks specifically affecting that berth.Approaching the Berth and Departing the Berth
In The A P J Priti, the ship was fixed to discharge at safe berths within named Iranian ports. The ship was damaged by a missile while on the voyage to Bandar Bushire. The owners argued that the safe berth warranty had been breached. The Court of Appeal held that the warranty concerned the nominated berth and movements within the port, not the external voyage to the named port.This decision draws an important line between port risk and berth risk. If the charterers warrant only the safety of the berth, the warranty may not protect shipowners from dangers affecting the voyage to the port itself.
All the Berths within the Port
The A P J Priti also emphasized that a safe berth warranty may protect against dangers specific to the nominated berth, not dangers affecting every berth in the port in the same way. If the entire port is unsafe, or all berths are affected equally by the same political or physical danger, the issue may fall outside a narrow safe berth warranty unless the charter party also contains a safe port warranty.Safe Port under Bill of Lading (B/L)
Where shipowners act as carriers under bills of lading, they must consider not only the charter party but also the bill of lading contract. A decision to refuse an unsafe port order, deviate, delay, or discharge elsewhere may affect the carrier’s obligations to cargo interests.The bill of lading may incorporate charter party terms, including safe port or safe berth provisions, if the incorporation wording is effective. If the bill of lading does not contain or incorporate such protection, shipowners may have to rely on other clauses, war risk provisions, liberty clauses, deviation clauses, frustration, or general principles of the governing law.
This is why safe port disputes may involve more than one contractual relationship. The same incident can raise issues between shipowners and charterers, shipowners and cargo interests, charterers and sub-charterers, and insurers or P&I clubs.
What is a 1/2 SP in Ship Chartering?
In ship chartering, SP means Safe Port. A fixture described as 1/2 SP generally gives charterers the right to order the ship to one or two safe ports within the agreed trading range or charter limits.For example, a voyage charter may state that the ship is to load or discharge at 1/2 SP. This means charterers may use either one safe port or two safe ports, subject to the remaining terms of the charter party, port rotation, draft restrictions, cargo quantity, notices, freight calculation, and any additional port costs.
1/2 SP in Ship Chartering indicates that the charterer has the right to send the ship to one or two safe ports.
What is a 1/2 SB in Ship Chartering?
In ship chartering, SB means Safe Berth. A fixture described as 1/2 SB gives charterers the right to nominate one or two safe berths within the agreed port or range of ports.The berth must be safe for the particular ship at the relevant time and must be suitable for the intended cargo operation. The berth’s safety may depend on water depth, mooring arrangements, swell, current, fenders, terminal equipment, berth pocket condition, seabed, approach inside the port, and customary use by ships of similar size and type.
1/2 SB in Ship Chartering indicates that the charterer has the right to send the ship to one or two safe berths.
What is NAABSA in Ship Chartering?
NAABSA means “Not Always Afloat But Safely Aground.” It is used where a ship may safely rest on the seabed at low tide and refloat when the tide rises. NAABSA is common in ports or berths with large tidal ranges, provided that the seabed is suitable and the practice is customary for ships of similar size, construction, and type.NAABSA does not mean that any grounding is acceptable. The seabed must be soft, even, and free from hard objects, rocks, debris, projections, or conditions that could damage the hull, propeller, rudder, sea chest, or underwater fittings. The operation must be planned carefully, and the shipowners’ approval is normally required.
The commercial purpose of NAABSA is to allow cargo operations at tidal berths where remaining always afloat may not be possible. It can improve port access, reduce waiting time, increase cargo flexibility, and allow ships to use ports that would otherwise be restricted by under keel clearance. However, it also introduces technical and insurance risks, which must be addressed in the charter party wording.
BIMCO NAABSA Charter Party Wording
BIMCO has published standard NAABSA wording for use in charter parties where the parties agree that a ship may lie safely aground during loading and/or discharging. The wording is intended to be added to existing berthing provisions rather than used as a completely separate charter party form.The BIMCO approach is based on several safeguards. The shipowners’ approval is required and should not be unreasonably withheld. The berth or place must be safe and customary for similar ships. Charterers should confirm that ships using the berth or place will lie on a soft bed and can do so without damage. Charterers should also indemnify shipowners for losses, damage, costs, expenses, loss of time, or underwater inspections caused by the ship lying aground at charterers’ request.
We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of BIMCO (Baltic and International Maritime Council) to learn more about NAABSA and to obtain the original Charter Party forms and documents. www.bimco.org
What is NAABSA Clause in Ship Chartering?
A NAABSA clause records the parties’ agreement that the ship may use a berth or place where the ship is not always afloat but can safely take the ground. The clause should identify the conditions under which this is permitted, the need for shipowners’ approval, the customary nature of the operation, the required seabed condition, and charterers’ responsibility for resulting consequences.NAABSA is most suitable where the seabed consists of soft mud or sand and where ships of similar type and size regularly lie aground without damage. It is not suitable where the bottom is rocky, uneven, contaminated by debris, affected by hard patches, or insufficiently surveyed.
In ordinary safe port and safe berth clauses, the wording may require the ship to be always afloat and always accessible. NAABSA is different because it permits temporary grounding by agreement. For that reason, clear wording is essential. The parties should also consider class requirements, insurance implications, underwater inspection obligations, local port practice, tidal calculations, and evidence of previous safe use by similar ships.
The purpose of NAABSA is not to shift uncontrolled grounding risk to shipowners. Its purpose is to create a controlled, agreed, and technically safe method of using ports and berths where tidal conditions would otherwise limit operations.
When is a Port deemed to be Safe?
A port is deemed safe when the particular ship can safely reach it, use it for the intended purpose, and leave it during the relevant period, without being exposed to dangers that cannot be avoided by ordinary good navigation and seamanship, unless the danger results from an abnormal occurrence.The assessment is fact-sensitive. Courts and arbitrators will examine the ship, the port, the berth, the timing, the route, the cargo operation, the weather, the political situation, the available port systems, the conduct of the Ship Master and crew, and the actual cause of any loss.
The traditional definition from The Eastern City may be summarized as follows: “A port will only be deemed safe if, during the relevant time period, a specific ship can reach it, utilize its facilities, and depart from it without being exposed to avoidable hazards, assuming normal navigation and seamanship practices.”
The same principles usually apply to safe berths, but only within the scope of the safe berth warranty. The exact wording of the charter party is therefore critical.
Requirements for a Port to be considered Safe Port
The requirements for a port to be considered safe include physical, navigational, operational, meteorological, and political safety. The port must be suitable not merely in theory but in practical operation for the ship ordered there.- The ship must be able to approach the port through a safe and reasonably available route.
- The port must provide sufficient water depth, under keel clearance, maneuvering space, and navigational marking for the ship.
- The berth or anchorage must be suitable for the ship’s size, draft, cargo operation, mooring requirements, and expected port stay.
- The ship must be able to remain safely afloat unless NAABSA or another agreed grounding arrangement applies.
- The port must have adequate systems for weather warnings, traffic control, pilotage, towage, dredging, channel monitoring, security, and emergency response where such systems are needed.
- The ship must be able to leave the port safely after loading, discharging, ballasting, deballasting, or any other operation that changes her condition.
- The port must not expose the ship to political, war, piracy, civil unrest, or security risks that make the port prospectively unsafe.
Modern port safety is increasingly connected with port traffic density, terminal scheduling, channel maintenance, pilotage quality, tug availability, and the reliability of port information. Larger ships, tighter schedules, deeper drafts, and more congested waterways mean that the safe port warranty remains highly relevant in contemporary ship chartering.
For shipowners, the safe port warranty is a key protection against being ordered into a dangerous place. For charterers, it is a reminder that port nomination is a serious contractual responsibility. For Ship Masters, it is a practical safety issue that must be handled with judgment, documentation, and timely communication. A safe port is therefore not only a legal phrase in a charter party. It is a central part of the commercial and operational risk allocation in ship chartering.