When War Risks Bite: Who Pays for a Blocked Voyage?

When war‑time security measures block a routine commercial voyage, who bears the cost of delay? Following an explosion on the Kerch Bridge during Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russian authorities imposed strict controls on vessels deemed to pose a security risk. What should have been a straightforward carriage of ammonium nitrate instead turned into a prolonged detention at the Kerch Strait, bringing into focus familiar but contested issues of dangerous cargo, safe port warranties, war risks, and frustration under a charterparty incorporating the Voywar 1993 clause, as examined in London Arbitration 8/26.

The vessel was chartered on a Gencon 1994 form for a voyage from the Azov Sea to a Black Sea port. After loading ammonium nitrate, the vessel was denied passage through the Kerch Strait by FSB and remained detained for 2 months. Owners pressed charterers for solutions, including alternative discharge orders, while charterers explored options but delayed giving firm instructions. Eventually, the vessel was ordered back to the loading port, where the cargo was discharged. Owners claimed damages for detention and related losses.

The tribunal’s decision can be distilled into four key questions.

• Was the cargo dangerous in a legal sense? No. The tribunal found no evidence of any legal restriction prior to loading.

• Were the charterers in breach of the safe port warranty? Again No. The intervention by Russian authorities was an abnormal and unforeseeable event arising after the fixture.

• Was there a failure to nominate an alternative port? Yes. The authorities’ actions and subsequent events constituted a war risk under Voywar clause, and the charterers’ delay in giving effective orders rendered them liable for detention. The tribunal held that the demurrage rate represented the parties’ agreed measure of loss for delay, limiting owner's recovery to demurrage for 28 days.

• Finally, was the charter frustrated? No. Although performance became impossible in practical terms, Voywar clause provided a contractual mechanism to address the situation.

LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/siddharthmahajan18_maritimelaw-activity-7454064153268232192-LbGg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABExK0oBXCOltvNUA8RFP0471y6zCcwxsNo