Tension in route selection - charterers’ voyage orders vs. master’s discretion

When it comes to route selection, there can sometimes be a tension between charterers’ voyage orders and master’s navigational discretion. Three recent London Arbitration decisions—10/25, 11/25, and 12/25—demonstrate how tribunals approach this balance. The consistent thread is—the master may disregard charterers’ instructions if there are genuine safety reasons, supported by evidence. Route selection for convenience or where not supported by evidence will not be upheld.

London Arbitration 10/25—

In this case, the master declined to follow the charterers’ preferred route from Hong Kong to Fangcheng via the Hainan Strait, citing safety concerns: the use of radar and anchors was not allowed, and there were many small fishing boats present increasing the risk of collision as well as discarded fishing nets which might become entangled ship's propellor. There had been earlier incidents of fishing nets causing problems by becoming entangled in vessels' propellors. The tribunal found the master’s decision reasonable, driven by safety concerns and within his discretion, emphasizing that navigational decisions are for the master. Charterers’ deductions from hire were disallowed.

London Arbitration 11/25—

Going from Qingdao to Canada, the vessel’s master chose a route to Wakayama, Japan and then through Kanmon straits onwards to Nanaimo, Canada, rather than the weather routing company’s recommended route north of Japan, which was advised to avoid a typhoon. The owners argued the master acted for safety given the erratic nature of the typhoon, but the tribunal found the real reason was to facilitate a crew change at Wakayama. Master’s request for routing advice at the time made no mention of navigational/safety concerns. The tribunal held that, absent a genuine safety justification, the master was not entitled to deviate from the charterers’ recommended route. Owners were liable for the additional time and fuel consumed.

London Arbitration 12/25—

The dispute centered on whether the vessel should have followed the weather routing company’s advise to pass west of Madagascar after departing from Richards Bay, rather than the route actually taken to the east. The owners claimed the master chose the eastern route for safety, as the western route would have taken the vessel closer to a piracy high risk area. However, the tribunal found no evidence that the recommended route posed a real threat, and the owners’ safety argument was raised late and without supporting evidence. The tribunal concluded the master should have followed the charterers’ routing instructions, and the charterers were entitled to an off-hire deduction for time lost. Also, the owners indicated that the message from WRC was never received and likely went into spam folder, to which the Tribunal said that “Whether it went into spam or was ignored, it should have been followed”.

LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/siddharthmahajan18_maritimelaw-activity-7397880424838070272-b9Le?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABExK0oBXCOltvNUA8RFP0471y6zCcwxsNo