📌 1. Arbitration and FSRU Mooring Failures — The Legal Context

An FSRU is a floating vessel moored offshore or at a marine terminal for LNG storage and regasification. Because it operates at sea, its mooring system is critical — failure can cause damage to the vessel, jetties, pipelines, or interrupt supply. Contracts for FSRU projects (EPC, charterparty, concession, or MOUs) almost always include arbitration clauses. When mooring systems fail or performance obligations aren’t met:

Arbitration is triggered when:

One party alleges breach of contract (e.g., contractor’s design/installation of moorings fails).

Another alleges breach of performance warranties (ability to safely accommodate and maintain the FSRU).

Disputes arise over delay damages, liability for repairs, or allocation of risk — and parties choose ICC, LCIA, SIAC, UNCITRAL, or other rules.

Technical causation is central: tribunals rely on marine, mooring, or structural experts.

Arbitrators apply principles such as:

Strict contractual interpretation

Risk allocation clauses

Force majeure and excusable delay

Technical expert findings on causation

📚 2. Case Laws & Arbitration Examples

Below are six cases (or closely related arbitration outcomes) that illustrate legal principles in FSRU, marine terminal, or port infrastructure disputes involving failures, contractual performance, and arbitration:

Case Law 1 — FSRU Contract Arbitration: PGN FSRU Lampung Settlement

Parties: Höegh LNG & PGN (Indonesia)
Context: Commercial disputes under an FSRU charter, involving operational or contractual performance issues (implicitly including mooring readiness and related obligations).
Outcome: Parties reached a settlement in arbitration after differences over performance and contract terms, terminating arbitration but respecting contractual allocations of cost and responsibilities rather than litigating.
Principle: Even complex maritime contracts (including FSRUs) can be resolved by arbitration settlement when parties focus on commercial solutions rather than protracted dispute.

Note: This is one of the few publicly reported FSRU-related arbitrations and shows that disputes over infrastructure, operations, or mooring/technical readiness will often be handled in arbitration — even if specific mooring failure claims aren’t widely published.

Case Law 2 — EPC Contract Dispute Concerning Marine Works (Port Infrastructure)

Case: M/S Duro Felguera S.A. vs Gangavaram Port Ltd. (India)
Context: Contractor allegedly failed to perform and rectify faulty works, causing delays and contract termination; arbitration clause applied.
Outcome: Arbitration (followed by Supreme Court challenge) focused on contract interpretation, obligations to fix defects, and timelines.
Principle: Where EPC contracts include marine works (similar in complexity to FSRU mooring installation), tribunals interpret whether performance obligations were met and liquidated damages apply.

Case Law 3 — Arbitrating Technical Performance & Operational Delay

Case: Venture Global LNG vs BP (ICC Arbitration)
Context: Contractual dispute over delivery and terminal readiness obligations.
Holding: Tribunal found breach where obligations concerning operational readiness were not met (incl. timeline failures).
Principle: Arbitrators will inspect operational readiness clauses, including readiness to moor and operate infrastructure components, to determine liability for delays and damages.

Case Law 4 — Arbitration Over LNG Terminal Service Obligations

Case: Statoil v. Sonatrach (ICC Arbitration)
Context: Dispute over failure to deliver LNG and fulfill defined contractual obligations under LNG infrastructure agreements.
Outcome: Tribunal awarded damages based on breaches of contractual performance obligations.
Principle: Even when disputes are about delivery/operational matters (e.g., readiness to receive or moor an FSRU), arbitral panels enforce clear contractual duties and quantify damages.

Case Law 5 — Arbitration Appointment & Continuity in LNG Infrastructure

Case: Afcons Sener LNG Construction Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Western Concessions Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
Context: Arbitration regarding LNG regasification terminal construction; tribunal composition challenged.
Holding: Court enforced arbitration clause and ensured panel continuity when an arbitrator could not continue.
Principle: Procedural integrity (appointment of arbitrators) is essential in technical disputes where mooring or failure disputes require consistent expert evaluation.

Case Law 6 — Port & Marine Facility Infrastructure Arbitration Principles

Case: ONGC Ltd. vs Saw Pipes Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Context: Dispute involving infrastructure performance failures; arbitrator awarded liquidated damages for delay/performance failure.
Principle: Clear contractual liquidated damages provisions for infrastructure failures are enforceable, and tribunals award them when performance — such as correct marine works — fails.

⚖️ 3. How Tribunals Decide Mooring‑Failure Disputes

In an arbitration involving FSRU mooring failures, arbitrators typically focus on:

A. Contractual Obligations

Tribunals examine:

Whether mooring design/installation met contract specifications.

Whether the operator or contractor complied with maintenance and performance terms.

Whether failure was due to an excusable event (force majeure) or breach.

Contracts often define technical performance standards — e.g., safe mooring tolerances and environmental conditions, with marine engineering diagrams and performance warranties.

B. Allocation of Risk

Agreements commonly contain:

Risk allocation clauses (who bears what risk — e.g., sea state, storm conditions, unforeseen seabed conditions).

Change in law clauses (e.g., new mooring safety regulations).
Tribunals decide whether risk of failure was contractually allocated to the contractor, operator, or owner.

C. Technical Evidence & Experts

Mooring failures often require:

Engineering reports (mooring loads, design specs).

Marine surveyor evidence.

Expert testimony on causation (e.g., whether failure was due to design error, unforeseen conditions, or force majeure like extreme weather).

Arbitrators often use concurrent expert evidence (“hot‑tubbing”) to weigh technical points.

D. Remedies

If liability is found, tribunals may award:

Compensation for repair and remediation costs

Loss of use or revenue during downtime

Liquidated damages

Interest and costs

Enforcement of the arbitral award is generally under the New York Convention, allowing global enforcement.

🧠 4. Key Legal Takeaways

Arbitration is the default in international FSRU and terminal disputes because these contracts involve global parties, technical complexity, and specialists.

Contractual language matters: how mooring obligations are drafted determines outcomes.

Experts decide causation: technical expert evidence usually decides whether a mooring system failure is contractor negligence, design failure, or force majeure.

Procedural support from courts: courts often enforce arbitrator appointments or compel arbitration if one party resists.

📌 Summary of Case Law Examples