Vessel owners beware: Can a master’s incompetence render a vessel unseaworthy?
A recent English High Court shipping case has significant implications for the offshore energy sector, highlighting the critical importance for employers and vessel owners to ensure they have taken all necessary steps in the selection and management of crew and workers.
In charterparties and construction related contracts, we are increasingly seeing references to “experienced workers,” yet this term is often left undefined. Is holding a certificate enough, or must the worker also have demonstrable experience?
Background
The vessel, the “Happy Aras”, carrying soya beans was grounded off the Aegean coast of Turkey in March 2023, sustaining serious damage. Unity Ship Group SA, as Owners, declared General Average after a costly salvage operation. Owners sought contributions from the insurers of the cargo, Euroins, who refused to pay, citing two reasons: (1) the vessel was unseaworthy due to the incompetence of its crew and; (2) deficiencies in passage planning.
Regarding issue (2), the Court found that the deficiencies in passage planning did not cause the grounding.
Regarding issue (1) however, the Court looked at the requirement of seaworthiness, which was incorporated in the contract of carriage through the Hague Rules (Art III, r.1) and reiterated that Owners’ duty to provide a competent crew is indeed an aspect of seaworthiness. The Court found that the Master’s errors were “egregious” and that they constituted “a complete dereliction of duty”. The Master had not only removed many of the checks and balances aimed towards maintaining the vessel’s safety, but had also tampered with the vessel’s records, creating erroneous and misleading entries.
The Court then applied the “prudent owner” test, asking if a prudent owner would have sent the vessel to sea with this Master and crew “with their state of knowledge, training and instruction”. The Court found that the owners had exercised insufficient due diligence and that a prudent owner would have required the relevant defect (i.e. the incompetence of the master) to be remedied prior to sending the vessel to sea.
Therefore, Owners’ claim against the insurers failed on the grounds that the vessel was unseaworthy due to the incompetence of the Master.
Conclusion
This case underscores that simply relying on certificates of competence is not sufficient—owners and employers must exercise real due diligence in verifying both the qualifications and the practical experience of their personnel.
Crew competence is a crucial element of the vessel’s seaworthiness and Owners bear the burden of exercising, and indeed proving, due diligence in terms of crew election.
This decision serves as a timely reminder that the suitability and competence of workers, particularly those in key roles, can have far-reaching legal and commercial consequences for project delivery, insurance, and risk allocation.
Go back to the Offshore Energy Legal Bulletin by clicking here.
