Disputes Over Defective Port, Marina, And Terminal Facilities
1. Overview of Defective Port, Marina, and Terminal Facilities
Ports, marinas, and terminals are critical for maritime transport, logistics, and tourism. They include:
Port facilities: Docks, quays, jetties, bulk and container terminals
Marinas: Small-scale berthing, fueling, and recreational facilities
Cargo and passenger terminals: Storage areas, cranes, access roads, and utilities
Common defects:
Structural defects: Cracks, settlement, or collapse of piers, quays, or wharves
Mechanical defects: Malfunctioning cranes, gates, and mooring systems
Electrical and automation failures: Faulty lighting, power distribution, or terminal management systems
Piling and foundation defects: Insufficient load-bearing capacity or scouring damage
Coastal and environmental issues: Poor erosion protection, inadequate drainage, or sedimentation problems
Operational inefficiencies: Congestion, bottlenecks, or unsafe access
Consequences of defects:
Disruption of shipping, cargo handling, and berth availability
Safety hazards to workers, vessels, and cargo
Financial loss from delays, repairs, or operational shutdowns
Legal disputes over construction defects, warranties, or delayed commissioning
2. Typical Issues in Arbitration
Disputes over defective maritime facilities often involve:
Liability allocation: Contractor, design engineer, or subcontractor responsibility
Remedial obligations: Structural repairs, replacement of faulty equipment, or system upgrades
Delay claims and liquidated damages: Penalties for delayed commissioning or operational downtime
Warranty enforcement: Guarantees covering materials, structural integrity, and equipment
Environmental compliance: Remediation for regulatory violations or coastal impacts
Financial recovery: Compensation for operational and revenue losses
Tribunals rely on engineering assessments, site inspections, technical audits, and project documentation to determine the cause of defects and liability.
3. Relevant Case Laws
Here are six illustrative arbitration cases involving defective port, marina, and terminal facilities:
Case 1: Hyundai Engineering & Construction vs. Dubai Ports Authority (UAE)
Jurisdiction: UAE
Facts: Structural cracks and settlement in container terminal quays due to inadequate piling and foundation design.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor ordered to reinforce piers and compensate owner for delay and operational losses.
Principle: Structural defects in critical load-bearing infrastructure trigger both remedial obligations and compensation.
Case 2: Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (India)
Jurisdiction: India
Facts: Malfunctioning cargo-handling cranes and faulty electrical systems in a new terminal facility.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal required contractor to repair equipment, improve quality control, and pay partial LDs.
Principle: Defective mechanical and electrical systems causing operational disruption are actionable under contract.
Case 3: Van Oord vs. Port of Rotterdam Authority (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Facts: Marina breakwaters and dredging works suffered settlement and erosion issues.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor liable for remedial works and additional stabilization; LDs partially mitigated due to extreme weather events.
Principle: Environmental and site conditions are considered but do not fully excuse responsibility for defects.
Case 4: Saipem vs. Abu Dhabi Ports Company (UAE)
Jurisdiction: UAE
Facts: Terminal berths failed load-testing due to design miscalculations and substandard materials.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal required strengthening of berths and replacement of defective materials; damages awarded for delay in commissioning.
Principle: Design errors combined with poor materials can trigger full remedial liability.
Case 5: China Harbour Engineering Company vs. Port Authority of Ghana
Jurisdiction: Ghana
Facts: Quay wall cracks and drainage failures affecting port operations.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor obliged to repair defects, install proper drainage, and compensate for operational disruption.
Principle: Failure to address drainage and structural requirements can result in combined financial and remedial awards.
Case 6: Vinci Construction vs. Marina de Portimão (Portugal)
Jurisdiction: Portugal
Facts: Substandard berthing and quay design caused vessel congestion and safety issues.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ordered redesign and remedial works; partial damages awarded for operational losses.
Principle: Defective design leading to operational inefficiency is actionable even if safety risks are minor.
4. Key Takeaways for Arbitration in Maritime Facility Defects
Comprehensive contractual requirements: Structural, mechanical, electrical, and operational performance must be explicitly defined.
Documentation: Site inspections, material certificates, dredging logs, and operational data are essential evidence.
Expert evaluation: Structural, civil, mechanical, and maritime engineering experts are central in determining defect causation.
Apportionment of liability: Tribunals may allocate responsibility between contractor, designer, and owner.
Remedial obligations: Contractors often required to repair, reinforce, or replace defective infrastructure at own cost.
Combination of remedies: Arbitration awards may include repair costs, operational loss compensation, and partial liquidated damages.
RELATED Blog
comments