Reassessing Liability for Hull Cleaning

Numerous disputes have arisen concerning the parties’ respective obligations regarding hull cleaning following prolonged port stays. In some cases, the parties incorporate the BIMCO Hull Fouling Clause (2013 or 2019), while in others, bespoke wording is used within the charterparty.

Where the vessel remains in port beyond a specified threshold—say 20 days or any other agreed—the Owners typically expect the hull to be cleaned. However, practical and legal challenges frequently arise in this context.

In a previous arbitration case, the arbitrators determined that, although the Charterers’ orders led to an extended stay and consequent bottom fouling, the Owners remained liable for the vessel’s speed deficiency due to a windlass malfunction, which impeded the Charterers’ ability to undertake complete hull cleaning. Because of the defect, the vessel could not be moved to a more sheltered location for the completion of its bottom cleaning.

This reasoning may equally apply to other operational issues such as cargo hold rejections, crane failures, or similar ship-related deficiencies that prolong the port stay and result in the prescribed time threshold being exceeded.

In certain instances, despite extended port stays, the prevailing weather and port conditions did not lead to fouling.

Furthermore, the condition of the hull upon delivery and before the extended stay was assessed, as this may influence the determination of liability.

Accordingly, while it may initially appear that the Charterers are responsible for hull cleaning, liability is not always so clear-cut.

#fouling #underperformance