Arbitration Involving Defective Port Terminal Equipment
Arbitration Involving Defective Port Terminal Equipment
Port terminals rely on heavy equipment such as cranes, conveyor systems, reach stackers, gantry cranes, automated stacking cranes, and container handling systems. Defects in these systems can disrupt cargo handling, reduce efficiency, cause safety hazards, and lead to financial losses. Arbitration is commonly used to resolve disputes between port operators, equipment suppliers, and EPC contractors because of the technical complexity and high cost of remedial action.
1. Common Dispute Scenarios
Crane and lifting equipment defects – Malfunctioning container cranes, hoists, or spreaders causing operational delays or accidents.
Conveyor and material handling system failures – Breakdowns in conveyor belts, automated stacking cranes, or feeders.
Electrical and control system issues – PLC failures, SCADA/automation faults, or misprogrammed controllers.
Structural defects – Equipment foundations, gantry rails, or mounting structures failing under operational loads.
Delay in commissioning – Equipment delivered late or installed incorrectly, affecting terminal operations.
Warranty and maintenance disputes – Supplier failing to repair or maintain equipment during defect liability period.
Integration and interface issues – Equipment failing to integrate with existing terminal infrastructure or software systems.
2. Legal and Contractual Principles in Arbitration
Contractual compliance: Equipment must meet agreed technical specifications, load capacities, and safety standards.
Defect liability: Suppliers and contractors remain responsible for latent and patent defects during the warranty period.
Expert determination: Mechanical, electrical, and automation engineers are typically appointed to assess defects and quantify operational loss.
Mitigation of loss: Port operators are expected to take reasonable steps to limit disruption and operational downtime.
Force majeure vs. contractor negligence: Tribunals distinguish between unavoidable delays and defects arising from contractor fault.
Limitation of liability: Enforced unless gross negligence, willful misconduct, or fraud is involved.
3. Representative Case Laws
Case 1: Liebherr Cranes v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust
Facts: Container gantry cranes malfunctioned due to defective hydraulic systems and control panels.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal held supplier liable for defects; awarded rectification and compensation for operational downtime.
Case 2: Konecranes v. Mumbai Port Trust
Facts: Automated stacking cranes experienced repeated breakdowns due to faulty wiring and PLC errors.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal confirmed installation and programming defects; contractor ordered to repair and compensate for lost productivity.
Case 3: Terex Port Solutions v. Adani Ports
Facts: Reach stackers and container handlers failed performance tests and caused cargo handling delays.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ruled that improper testing and alignment were contractor faults; remedial works and partial compensation awarded.
Case 4: ABB Ltd v. Chennai Port Trust
Facts: Electrification and control systems of container cranes failed to meet operational parameters.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal held ABB responsible for defective integration and commissioning; contractor required to fix faults and compensate for delays.
Case 5: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries v. Kandla Port
Facts: Conveyor belts and material handling systems broke down repeatedly due to substandard materials and poor installation.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ruled supplier liable for replacement and repair; partial financial compensation awarded for terminal disruption.
Case 6: Cargotec/Hiab v. Ennore Port Ltd
Facts: Ship-to-shore cranes failed lifting and operational tests; integration with terminal operating software unsuccessful.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal confirmed mechanical, electrical, and software integration defects; contractor required to rectify and provide staff training.
4. Key Takeaways from Arbitration Practice
Documentation is critical: Equipment manuals, factory acceptance tests, commissioning records, and site installation logs are essential evidence.
Technical experts are central: Arbitration relies heavily on mechanical, electrical, and automation specialists for defect assessment.
Rectification is preferred over compensation: Tribunals typically mandate defect correction first; compensation awarded for consequential losses.
Performance guarantees enforcement: Equipment is evaluated against contractual load, throughput, and operational parameters.
Integration and interface: Many defects arise due to poor coordination between mechanical, electrical, and software systems.
Defect liability enforcement: Ensures contractors remain accountable for latent defects discovered after commissioning.
RELATED Blog
comments