Carisbrooke Shipping CV5 v Bird Port Ltd

A claimant alleging damage to a vessel must prove causation on the balance of probabilities by assessing the totality of the evidence. Where the physical damage, timing of leakage and surrounding circumstances cogently support one damaging event, the court may draw a reasonable inference despite the absence of direct evidence of the precise obstruction.

Operators of a berth where vessels may safely take the ground must maintain an adequate system of inspection and dredging. Inspection from the dockside alone may be insufficient where mud can conceal dangerous obstructions. Recoverable loss may include employee-related work where the evidence supports expenditure loss or loss of revenue. A conventional percentage allowance for management disruption may be used where proportionate and unlikely to overcompensate.

The claimant owned the motor vessel CHARLOTTE C, which berthed at the defendant’s NAABSA berth at Bird Port, Newport, between 8 and 12 May 2003. After loading steel coils, the vessel developed bottom-shell indentation, fractures and buckling, followed by water and fuel leakage.

The claimant sued under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and in negligence, alleging that the vessel had settled on a steel coil concealed in the mud. The defendant denied liability and disputed causation, the adequacy of its inspection system and various heads of damage. The central issues were whether the damage was caused at Bird Port, whether a steel coil was the cause, whether the defendant was negligent, and what loss was recoverable.

1. Causation. The claimant proved on the balance of probabilities that the vessel’s indentation, buckling, fractures and failed welds were caused in one event when it settled on a circular object at Bird Port. The physical appearance of the damage, the absence of leakage before arrival, and the discovery of leakage shortly after departure were cogent evidence. The expert evidence did not establish a realistic alternative involving earlier damage and later fracture.
2. Steel coil. The circular indentation, central dimple and concentric rings corresponded closely to the characteristics of a steel coil. Steel coils were regularly handled at Bird Port. The absence of a recorded missing coil did not outweigh the claimant’s evidence, particularly given the incomplete disclosure of stock-control records and the court’s rejection of evidence that no proper search had been made after departure.
3. Duty of care. The operator of a NAABSA berth required a regular system of inspection and dredging. Dredging only when operational requirements permitted was inadequate. Safe operation required thorough inspection capable of detecting objects concealed in mud, potentially using a boat, probe, sonar or cage. The defendant’s inadequate system caused the damage.
4. Quantum. Loss of hire was assessed by reference to the relevant voyage’s equivalent daily charter rate, adjusted for uncertainty. Travel and subsistence expenses were recoverable. The superintendent’s time was recoverable on the basis of probable loss of revenue, not merely because salary had been paid. A 1 per cent allowance for business disruption and management time was allowed as a proportionate approximation of revenue loss.
5. The claim succeeded in respect of the Bird Port damage. The claimant failed to prove that separate indentations near frames 11 and 12 were caused at Bird Port. Counsel were directed to calculate recoverable damages in accordance with the findings.