Disputes Over Port Dredging And Reclamation Works
1. Overview of Port Dredging and Reclamation Works
Port dredging involves the removal of sediments to maintain navigable depths, while reclamation works create new land from the sea for port expansion, terminals, or industrial areas. These projects typically include:
Dredging operations: Cutter suction, trailing suction hopper, or grab dredgers
Reclamation works: Filling, land leveling, and embankment construction
Shore protection: Breakwaters, revetments, and seawalls
Utilities and infrastructure: Roads, pipelines, and quay foundations
Common defects or performance issues:
Inaccurate dredging depth or contour
Improper disposal of dredged material
Embankment or reclaimed land settlement and instability
Erosion or scouring of reclamation or quay structures
Delayed completion affecting operational readiness
Environmental non-compliance causing regulatory disputes
Consequences of defects:
Safety hazards to vessels and port infrastructure
Reduced operational capacity or delayed commissioning
Financial losses for port operators and stakeholders
Legal disputes over warranty, defect liability, and delay damages
2. Typical Issues in Arbitration
Disputes often arise over:
Defective works: Non-conforming dredging depth, unstable reclaimed land, or structural failures
Delay claims: Project overruns caused by technical, environmental, or logistical issues
Environmental compliance: Breach of permits or improper dredging disposal practices
Liquidated damages and penalties: For delayed completion or defective works
Remedial obligations: Requirement to re-dredge, reinforce reclamation, or repair erosion damage
Allocation of responsibility: Between contractor, subcontractor, or port authority
Tribunals usually rely on hydrographic surveys, geotechnical reports, dredging logs, and engineering inspections to assess defects and liability.
3. Relevant Case Laws
Here are six illustrative arbitration cases involving port dredging and reclamation disputes:
Case 1: Van Oord vs. Port of Rotterdam Authority (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Facts: Dredging operations failed to achieve the specified depth; sediment contamination caused environmental non-compliance.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor required to re-dredge at own cost; partial damages awarded for project delay.
Principle: Contractors are responsible for both technical and environmental compliance failures.
Case 2: Jan De Nul vs. Abu Dhabi Ports Company (UAE)
Jurisdiction: UAE
Facts: Land reclamation settlement exceeded tolerances, causing quay foundation misalignment.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ordered remedial ground stabilization and quay adjustments; liquidated damages partially mitigated due to site conditions.
Principle: Excessive settlement in reclamation works triggers remedial obligations and potential LDs.
Case 3: Boskalis vs. Port Authority of Singapore
Jurisdiction: Singapore
Facts: Reclaimed land erosion and scouring damaged newly constructed berths.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor liable for erosion repair works and partial compensation for operational disruption.
Principle: Failure to provide adequate protection against environmental factors can result in full remedial responsibility.
Case 4: China Harbour Engineering Company vs. Ghana Ports & Harbours Authority
Jurisdiction: Ghana
Facts: Dredging equipment malfunction caused delayed harbor deepening and missed project milestones.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor required to expedite remaining works and pay partial liquidated damages.
Principle: Delays due to equipment failures are considered contractor liability unless force majeure applies.
Case 5: DEME vs. Port of Abu Dhabi Expansion Project (UAE)
Jurisdiction: UAE
Facts: Dredged material disposal caused environmental contamination and regulatory fines.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor ordered to remediate contaminated areas and reimburse environmental penalties.
Principle: Environmental compliance is a contractual obligation with enforceable remedies.
Case 6: Jan De Nul vs. Qatar Ports Management (Qatar)
Jurisdiction: Qatar
Facts: Reclamation fill material failed quality testing, causing partial settlement and cracking in embankments.
Arbitration Outcome: Contractor required to replace defective fill, reinforce embankments, and compensate for delay-related losses.
Principle: Use of substandard materials in reclamation works results in full remedial liability.
4. Key Takeaways for Arbitration in Dredging and Reclamation Disputes
Detailed contractual specifications: Dredging depths, reclamation tolerances, and material standards must be explicit.
Technical and environmental documentation: Surveys, logs, and inspection reports are critical evidence.
Expert evaluation: Geotechnical, civil, and marine engineering experts determine defect causation.
Apportionment of liability: Tribunals may allocate responsibility between contractor, subcontractor, and owner.
Remedial obligations: Re-dredging, soil stabilization, erosion repair, and reinforcement may be required.
Combination of remedies: Arbitration awards may include remedial works, delay compensation, and liquidated damages.
RELATED Blog
comments