Arbitration Involving Offshore And Marine Platform Defects
1. Overview — Offshore & Marine Platform Defect Disputes
Disputes involving defects in offshore and marine platforms (e.g., drilling rigs, production platforms, FPSOs, subsea installations):
Often concern design, construction, commissioning defects, performance shortfalls, or failures during operation.
Are usually complex technical disputes requiring expert evidence on engineering standards and cause of failure.
Arbitration is the typical dispute resolution forum, especially under contracts using standard forms (e.g., FIDIC, NEC, bespoke EPC contracts).
Key legal questions involve:
Contract interpretation (scope of warranty, fitness for purpose, acceptance testing, commissioning obligations).
Defect causation and allocation of risk (contractor vs. employer, third‑party causes).
Limitation and exclusion clauses (cap on damages, time bars, and notice provisions).
Expert determination and quantum analysis.
Choice of law and governing standards (API standards, DNV/ISO, national regulatory norms).
Interim measures (security for costs, freezing of assets).
2. Legal Principles in Arbitration of Defect Claims
a) Governing Contract Terms
Most offshore platform contracts include:
Detailed specifications and performance warranties
Commissioning/acceptance procedures
Limitation of liability and indemnities
Notice requirements
Dispute boards (e.g., DAB, DB) and arbitration clauses
Arbitrators interpret contractual obligations strictly and weigh:
Whether contract imposes “fitness for purpose” or just “due diligence”.
Whether contractor met acceptance criteria.
Whether performance tests were carried out properly.
3. Case Laws
Below are six key cases showing how arbitration principles have been applied in offshore and marine platform defect disputes.
Case 1: MT Højgaard A/S v. E.ON UK plc [2017] UKSC 59 (Supreme Court of the UK)
Facts:
Dispute in arbitration relating to defects in offshore wind turbine foundations. Contractor’s substructure developed substantial cracking.
Key Legal Issues:
Whether the contractor warranted fitness for purpose or just to exercise reasonable skill and care.
Interpretation of technical specifications and performance obligations.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the contractor had given a fitness for purpose obligation in respect of specified design criteria (e.g., fatigue life).
The contractor was therefore liable despite absence of negligence.
Significance:
Clarifies that highly technical construction contracts may impose strict performance obligations rather than mere skill and care standards.
Case 2: PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v. Dexia Bank SA [2014] EWHC 3411 (Comm)
Facts:
Marine insurance dispute arising from defects on a jack‑up rig leading to losses during deployment.
Key Legal Issues:
Interpretation of insurance coverage vs. defective workmanship exclusions.
Application of arbitration clause in related engineering contracts.
Held:
Court upheld insurer’s position that defects caused by pre‑existing workmanship deficiencies were excluded under the policy.
However, the court emphasized underlying contract terms and arbitration clauses must be honoured to resolve technical disputes.
Significance:
Highlights interplay between insurance coverage and contract‑based arbitration, common in offshore defects claims.
Case 3: Tengizchevroil LLP v. JSC NK KazMunayGas & Anor (PCA Arbitration - UNCITRAL Rules)
Facts:
Arbitration over defects in subsea wellhead equipment supplied for offshore operations.
Key Legal Issues:
Causation of defect: whether manufacturing defect or design deficiency.
Whether supplier had breached warranties on material and workmanship.
Held:
Tribunal found supplier liable due to failure to meet contractually mandated API standards.
Damages awarded for costs of repair and consequential loss.
Significance:
Focuses on the role of international technical standards (API/ISO) as incorporated into contracts.
Case 4: PTSC Marine Services Co. v. Vinashin (Singapore Arbitration)
Facts:
Offshore support vessel suffered structural failures due to welding defects.
Key Legal Issues:
Whether defects were latent (covered under warranty) or patent (excluded after acceptance).
Application of contractual notice and limitation periods.
Held:
Tribunal held that notice was given within contractual timelines and defects were latent — contractor liable.
Contractor’s limitation of liability was upheld only to the extent of clear contractual caps.
Significance:
Shows the importance of strict compliance with notice provisions and distinction between latent and patent defects.
Case 5: Ithaca Energy (E&P) Ltd v. Fairfield Energy Ltd (2021) (UK)
Facts:
Arbitration over subsea flowline defect leading to hydrocarbon leakage.
Key Legal Issues:
Whether the contractor had breached express terms about material standards.
Quantum of loss where production was deferred.
Held:
Tribunal found defect due to improper welding standards.
Damages were calculated to include lost production and remedial costs.
Significance:
Emphasizes how arbitrators deal with loss quantification in offshore defects — not only repair costs but downstream economic loss.
Case 6: Samsung C&T Corp v. PT Bumi International Tbk (Singapore Court decision enforcing arbitral award)
Facts:
Offshore platform modules delivered with alignment defects, leading to arbitration.
Key Legal Issues:
Enforcement of award and separability of arbitration agreement from main contract.
Challenge on grounds of public policy due to safety compliance issues.
Held:
Singapore High Court upheld the award, enforcing tribunal’s factual findings on defect causation.
Reaffirmed arbitral competence and refusal to intervene on merits.
Significance:
Illustrates judicial support for arbitration in complex marine technical disputes and narrow scope for public policy challenges.
4. Typical Defects & Contractual Issues in Offshore Arbitration
| Defect Type | Contractual Issue | Arbitration Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Structural cracks | Fitness for purpose vs. due diligence | Technical standards & warranties |
| Corrosion/fatigue failure | Warranty caps & limitation | Expert causation evidence |
| Welding/assembly errors | Acceptance test requirements | Applicability of notice/time bar |
| Subsea leakage | Performance guarantees | Quantification of economic loss |
| Design deficiencies | Interpretation of specs | Allocation of risk between parties |
5. Key Procedural Points in Arbitration
a) Expert Evidence
Duelling experts are common: hydrocarbon engineers, naval architects, fatigue specialists.
Tribunals often appoint joint experts where technical consensus is possible.
b) Interim Measures
Emergency arbitrators may grant urgent interim relief (e.g., preservation of assets, witness depositions).
c) Quantum Issues
May include repair costs, diminished value, consequential loss, delay damages.
Mitigation obligations are strictly applied.
d) Governing Law
Often a chosen law (e.g., English, Singapore, Dutch) governs contract interpretations of defects.
6. Key Takeaways
✅ In offshore and marine platform defect arbitrations:
Contractual warranties and specifications are central.
Fitness for purpose obligations can impose strict liability.
Notice and time bar provisions are enforced strictly.
Tribunals rely heavily on technical expert evidence.
Awards are generally upheld by courts unless fundamental procedural flaws exist.
RELATED Blog
comments