Skip to main content

Legal issues arising from the Japanese earthquake

I have had numerous friends in the business approach me for my views on the effect the earthquake, and resulting tsunami, has had on the ports and coastlines of Japan. While I cannot imagine the human cost of this disaster and the impact to the Japanese economy, I would imagine that there was and will be, widespread repercussions for the shipping industry. Some of these I see briefly are as follows:

Safe port issues

Shipowners may be reluctant to call at particular Japanese ports in case they have become unsafe. This will require a review of the relevant charter party terms before deciding on which course of action to take. Where a charterparty has a safe port warranty, the warranty will be prospective. In other words, at the time of nomination, the port should be prospectively safe to approach, use and depart from for the period of the ship's likely visit to that port. In the case of time charters containing a safe port warranty, where the Japanese port was nominated prior to the earthquake but the port is likely to have become unsafe by the time the ship is due to load or discharge there, the time charterer may be obliged to give new voyage orders, so long as the ship can effectively comply with those new orders. In the case of a voyage charter, the position is less clear and a detailed review of the terms of the charter party will need to be undertaken before reaching any conclusions.

Frustration/force majeure

In the case of supervening events, the charter party may contain a provision that allocates such risk. Where there is such a provision but it does not expressly cover the earthquake/tsunami situation, then one or other of the parties might seek to rely on frustration of the contract.

Depending on the choice of law provision, it may be difficult to prove that the contract has been frustrated. Under English law, for example, the party alleging frustration will have the burden to prove that circumstances have changed to such a radical extent since the contract was concluded that the contractual obligation in question can  no longer be performed or if performed, would be very different to the obligation originally contracted for.

If looking at force majeure, an exception such as "Act of God" would arguably apply. However again, the relevant provision and circumstances would have to be analyzed before concluding whether or not there was a force majeure event.


The charter party will need to be consulted to see whether it contains a liberty clause which allows the ship to deviate to a different port. The shipowner does have an implied right to deviate in order to avoid danger to the ship, cargo or those on board. Thus, where radiation is the concern, such risk will have to be analyzed based on the facts faced by the shipowner at the time the decision is to be taken.


The congestion at Japanese ports that will have resulted from the disaster means that any ships already at Japanese ports, or due to call there, are likely to experience delays in loading or discharging their cargoes. Time charterers may seek to argue that the ship is off hire in such circumstances but, generally speaking, hire will continue to run unless the charter party is frustrated or the ship is ordered to an alternative port pursuant to any relevant charter party terms. However, the wording of the off hire clause in the charter party will need to be reviewed carefully.

This is an extremely short overview of the type of legal issues that may arise as a result of the Japanese earthquake. This is not legal advice. If you have any questions regarding this issue or any other involving shipping, you may reach me at or through LinkedIn at


Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean.
Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship that calls o…

Maritime Law--Tour Boat Captain Implicated in Tragedy Off Nicaragua

As reported in the Daily Business Review on January 25, 2016, Nicaragua's police, army and navy will investigate the captain of a tourist boat and his assistant for the deaths of 13 Costa Rican passengers killed on January 23rd when the vessel capsized in bad weather. The Reina del Caribe, Spanish for "Caribbean Queen," was carrying 33 people when it went down Saturday amid rain and strong winds as it ferried between the Corn Islands, a popular tourist destination, off Nicaragua's Caribbean coast. The Daily Business Review article can be accessed here=> Daily Business Review article.

The government clarified on the 24th that the boat was carrying 25 Costa Ricans, two Americans, two British citizens, a Brazilian and three Nicaraguans. Previous reports had said there were 32 people on board, including four Americans. All the dead were Costa Ricans.

Nicaragua's naval commander for the southern Caribbean region said the boat's captain was detained because the …

Maritime Law--Lawsuits Filed Over RCCL's "Storm Cruise"

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd ("RCCL") faces lawsuits by passengers accusing the company of negligently endangering their lives by letting Anthem of the Seas sail into a February 7, 2016 storm.  One class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami specifically states that RCCL should be required to pay punitive damages to passengers on its ship for "knowingly sailing directly into" a strong winter storm with 120-mph winds. It is also alleged that people aboard the ship were "subjected to hours of sheer terror as the gigantic cruise ship was battered by hurricane-force winds and more than 30-foot waves."

The vessel reportedly encountered 100 mph winds and 30-foot waves, and RCCL said the storm was more severe than expected. RCCL later turned the ship around, and it returned to New Jersey on February 10. Anthem of the Seas’ port azipod reportedly burnt through “all four clutches” during the storm. RCCL reported four minor injuries among more than 6,000 p…