Civil Law and Port Infrastructure Damage Claims in Europe

1. Introduction

Port infrastructure damage claims arise when ships, port users, contractors, cargo interests, harbour authorities, or other parties suffer loss because port infrastructure is damaged, defective, inadequately maintained, improperly operated, or struck by a vessel.

Typical infrastructure includes:

quays and quay walls;

berths;

jetties;

piers;

breakwaters;

locks;

docks;

cranes;

fenders;

mooring equipment;

navigation aids;

dredged channels;

port roads and rail connections;

pipelines and terminals;

offshore loading facilities.

A typical claim may arise when:

A vessel strikes a quay → the quay is damaged → the port closes the berth → repair costs and business losses arise → liability must be allocated between vessel, pilot, port authority, terminal operator and contractors.

European law does not provide one unified civil-liability code for all port infrastructure damage. Claims are generally governed by a combination of:

national civil/tort law;

maritime law;

contract and charterparty law;

port regulations;

pilotage law;

international maritime conventions;

EU jurisdiction and transport rules;

insurance and limitation rules.

The case law therefore comes from several European jurisdictions. Some authorities below are direct port-infrastructure cases, while others are important maritime analogies.

2. Main Categories of Port Infrastructure Damage

A. Vessel-to-quay collision

Examples:

ship hits quay wall;

ship damages berth;

vessel damages jetty;

vessel strikes lock.

Potential claimant:

Port authority / terminal owner

Potential defendant:

Shipowner / operator / charterer / pilot

B. Defective port infrastructure

Examples:

inadequate quay strength;

defective fender system;

insufficient depth;

defective mooring arrangement;

unsafe berth;

inadequate breakwater.

Here the shipowner may argue:

“The port was unsafe.”

The port authority may respond:

“The vessel failed to navigate properly.”

This creates a causation and allocation-of-fault dispute.

3. Safe-Port Obligation

In commercial shipping, a charterparty may contain a safe-port undertaking.

The basic concept is that the charterer must nominate a port that the vessel can safely reach, use and leave, subject to the contractual formulation.

A port can be unsafe because of:

physical defects;

inadequate depth;

dangerous navigation;

abnormal local conditions;

inadequate infrastructure.

A leading European authority is:

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd

UK Supreme Court, [2017] UKSC 35

The case concerned the Ocean Victory and the safety of Kashima port.

The Supreme Court considered whether the port was unsafe and whether the relevant conditions amounted to an abnormal occurrence. The earlier trial court had found the port unsafe and awarded substantial damages, but the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court ultimately rejected the relevant safe-port claim on the contractual facts. (Bailii)

Importance

The case shows that:

Not every difficult or dangerous port condition amounts to legal “unsafety”.

The court must examine:

the contractual undertaking;

the nature of the danger;

foreseeability;

abnormality;

causation;

the precise losses claimed.

4. Port Infrastructure Damage and Vessel Collision

Where a vessel physically damages infrastructure, ordinary maritime collision principles become important.

The basic questions are:

Was the vessel navigated negligently?

Was the pilot negligent?

Was the port infrastructure defective?

Was there a failure of maintenance?

Was the damage foreseeable?

Were navigation rules breached?

Was the infrastructure operator itself at fault?

Should liability be divided?

5. Case 1 — Pressos Compania Naviera SA v Belgium

ECtHR Grand Chamber, Application No. 17849/91, judgment 20 November 1995

This is one of the most important European authorities for port-related maritime liability.

Facts

The case concerned numerous maritime casualties involving ships in Belgian and Dutch waters.

Several cases involved alleged negligence by Belgian pilots.

The underlying litigation included:

collisions;

damage to ships;

damage to berths;

damage to quay walls;

damage to locks;

claims against shipowners;

claims against Belgian authorities;

claims against pilotage organisations.

The Strasbourg Court's factual record specifically identifies cases involving damage to a berth, quay wall, berthing facilities and locks. (Bailii)

Legal issue

Belgium subsequently enacted legislation affecting the liability of pilots, raising questions concerning existing civil claims.

ECtHR principle

The Court treated established claims for damages arising from maritime accidents as possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The case therefore demonstrates that:

An accrued maritime damages claim can itself constitute a protected economic interest.

Importance for port infrastructure

This is particularly relevant where:

a ship damages a port;

a port owner obtains a damages claim;

the State subsequently changes liability rules;

legislation retrospectively removes or reduces an established claim.

Exam point

Pressos is not simply a negligence case. Its greatest European-law importance concerns the protection of accrued civil claims as property.

6. Case 2 — Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd

UK Supreme Court, [2017] UKSC 35 — The Ocean Victory

Facts

The vessel Ocean Victory was ordered to leave Kashima port during severe weather and was unable to safely manoeuvre out. The vessel grounded and was eventually lost.

The litigation involved:

safe-port obligations;

port characteristics;

weather;

navigation;

contractual risk allocation;

causation;

damages.

The trial judge had found Kashima unsafe and awarded approximately US$88.5 million for the vessel's value, together with other losses, but the higher courts reversed the relevant finding of breach. (Bailii)

Importance

The case is valuable for port infrastructure disputes because it demonstrates that courts must carefully distinguish:

Permanent physical defect

from

temporary/adverse operational conditions

and determine whether the particular risk falls within the contractual safe-port undertaking.

Rule

A port is not legally unsafe merely because a vessel encounters a difficult condition.

The precise contractual and factual circumstances matter.

7. Case 3 — Pressos: Quay and Lock Damage

The Pressos litigation deserves separate treatment because its factual record contains several examples of exactly the type of infrastructure damage relevant here.

The record includes:

a vessel damaging a berth;

a vessel damaging a quay wall;

major damage to berthing facilities;

damage to locks;

claims by port owners and municipalities;

claims against shipowners, pilots and the State. (Bailii)

Legal importance

These facts illustrate the typical multi-party structure of a port infrastructure claim:

Shipowner ↔ Pilot ↔ Port Authority ↔ Infrastructure Owner ↔ Municipality ↔ Insurer

A single casualty may therefore generate several interconnected proceedings.

8. Case 4 — Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd

Court of Appeal of England and Wales, [2026] EWCA Civ 251

Facts

The case concerned a collision between the bulk carriers KIVELI and AFINA I off the southern coast of Greece on 13 March 2021.

The collision caused substantial damage to both vessels. The High Court had apportioned liability:

KIVELI — 80%

AFINA I — 20%

The Court of Appeal considered the collision rules and apportionment of fault. (Bailii)

Importance

Although the collision occurred at sea rather than inside a port, it is useful for port-infrastructure claims because a vessel striking a quay or port installation requires the court to determine:

navigation fault;

breach of COLREGs;

causation;

relative fault;

apportionment.

The case demonstrates that maritime liability is not necessarily all-or-nothing.

Application

Suppose:

Vessel A incorrectly approaches a berth, but the berth's fender system is also defective.

A court may need to determine the relative contribution of each cause.

9. Case 5 — Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer

Court of Appeal of England and Wales, [2021] EWCA Civ 1585

Facts

Storm Emma struck Holyhead Marina in March 2018.

The marina's pontoons were severely damaged and approximately 89 vessels were damaged.

The marina sought to limit its liability under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

The defendants argued, among other things, that:

the marina was not entitled to the claimed limitation;

the marina's design/construction/maintenance were defective;

the damage resulted from the marina's own reckless conduct. (Bailii)

Importance

This is an important infrastructure-damage authority because it concerns the interaction between:

port/marina infrastructure;

defective design;

maintenance;

extreme weather;

multiple damaged vessels;

statutory limitation of liability.

Principle

A port or marina operator's potential liability cannot be examined solely by asking:

“Was there a storm?”

The court may have to examine:

Was the infrastructure reasonably designed and maintained for foreseeable conditions?

10. Case 6 — Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer, High Court

[2020] EWHC 1750 (Admlty)

The first-instance decision provides particularly useful detail.

Facts

The marina experienced a catastrophic breakdown of its pontoons during Storm Emma.

Expert evidence raised questions concerning:

design;

construction;

maintenance;

exposure to north-easterly conditions;

structural adequacy.

Approximately 89 craft were damaged and claims were estimated at around £5 million. (Bailii)

Legal issue

One major issue was whether the marina qualified for statutory limitation under section 191 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

Importance

This illustrates a major principle:

Port infrastructure liability and limitation of liability must be analysed together.

A claimant may establish negligence or infrastructure failure, yet the defendant may invoke a statutory or Convention-based limitation regime.

11. Case 7 — Krysia Maritime Inc v Intership Ltd

High Court (Admiralty Division), [2008] EWHC 1880 (Admlty)

Facts

The case concerned the vessel Krysia, whose propeller became fouled by a rope and wire associated with a fender arrangement on another vessel.

The claimant sought damages for the resulting vessel damage. (Bailii)

Importance

Although not a quay-wall case, it illustrates an important port/berthing principle:

Fendering and mooring arrangements can themselves become sources of maritime liability.

A port infrastructure claim may therefore involve not only fixed structures but also:

fenders;

mooring systems;

ropes;

floating structures;

pontoons;

berth equipment.

Relevance

Where a port provides or controls equipment used during berthing, the court may have to determine:

who supplied it;

who maintained it;

whether it was defective;

whether the vessel used it correctly;

whether the defect caused the casualty.

12. Case 8 — The “Solong” / “Stena Immaculate”

High Court (Admiralty), [2026] EWHC 1211 (Admlty)

Facts

On 10 March 2025, the container vessel Solong collided with the tanker Stena Immaculate near the Humber.

The tanker was carrying more than 220,000 barrels of jet fuel.

The litigation involves extensive questions of:

collision liability;

limitation;

loss and damage;

cargo;

vessel damage;

Article 4 of the 1976 Limitation Convention. (Bailii)

Importance

This is not a port-wall case and should be treated as a maritime collision analogy.

Its significance for port infrastructure claims lies in the treatment of:

vessel fault;

navigation;

causation;

limitation;

substantial property damage.

13. Case 9 — ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG v Lokomotion

CJEU, C-500/20, judgment 14 July 2022

This is a rail infrastructure rather than port case, so it should be treated as an analogy.

Principle

The CJEU interpreted the COTIF/CUI rules governing infrastructure-manager liability.

Article 8(1)(b) of the CUI provides liability for loss or damage to property caused during use of the infrastructure and originating in the infrastructure. The Court interpreted this liability narrowly and held that replacement-locomotive leasing costs were not themselves “loss of or damage to property.” (EUR-Lex)

Importance for port infrastructure

The reasoning is useful by analogy:

Where a special infrastructure-liability regime applies, courts may distinguish physical property damage from consequential economic loss.

This distinction is highly relevant to port claims.

For example:

Physical loss

damaged quay;

destroyed crane;

damaged fender.

Consequential economic loss

lost berth income;

vessel waiting costs;

lost terminal business;

replacement equipment;

delay losses.

Whether the latter are recoverable depends on the applicable legal regime.

14. Case 10 — Rina SpA and Ente Registro Italiano Navale

CJEU, C-641/18, judgment 7 May 2020

Facts

The case arose from the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio'98 in the Red Sea.

The claimants sought compensation from RINA companies for economic and non-economic losses connected with the sinking.

The CJEU considered jurisdictional questions concerning civil claims against classification societies and the scope of immunity-related arguments. (EUR-Lex)

Importance

Port infrastructure disputes can similarly involve entities performing regulatory or quasi-public functions, such as:

port authorities;

classification bodies;

harbour masters;

pilotage authorities;

maritime administrations.

The case illustrates the importance of asking:

Is the defendant acting as a private commercial actor or exercising public authority?

That distinction can affect jurisdiction and immunity.

15. Port Authority Liability

A port authority can potentially face liability for:

defective quay;

inadequate maintenance;

unsafe navigation channel;

incorrect navigational information;

defective berth;

unsafe mooring arrangements;

failure to maintain infrastructure;

negligent pilotage services;

failure to warn about known hazards.

But liability depends strongly on national law.

A port authority may have:

public-law functions;

commercial functions;

statutory powers;

contractual relationships with users.

Therefore, its liability cannot automatically be treated as ordinary private negligence.

16. Shipowner Liability

A shipowner may be liable where infrastructure damage results from:

negligent navigation;

excessive speed;

inadequate lookout;

improper manoeuvring;

failure to follow pilot instructions where legally relevant;

defective equipment;

failure to maintain propulsion/steering systems;

failure to comply with COLREGs.

The KIVELI/AFINA I litigation demonstrates the importance of analysing the precise navigational conduct and allocating responsibility between vessels. (Bailii)

17. Pilot Liability

Pilotage is particularly important in port infrastructure cases.

A vessel may have:

master;

bridge team;

compulsory pilot;

tug;

harbour control.

If a vessel damages a quay while under pilotage, possible defendants can include:

shipowner;

operator;

pilot;

pilotage company;

harbour authority.

The Pressos litigation demonstrates how claims arising from maritime casualties can involve precisely this combination of shipowners, pilots and State authorities. (Bailii)

18. Tug Liability

Tugs can also become defendants.

Example:

A tug assists a container vessel into a berth. The tug applies excessive force and the vessel strikes the quay.

The legal analysis may involve:

tug contract;

towage terms;

negligence;

pilot instructions;

master's responsibility;

causation;

contribution between defendants.

19. Defective Port Infrastructure

A port may itself be liable if infrastructure was defective.

Examples:

Defective quay

Structural weakness causes collapse.

Defective fender

Fender fails during normal berthing.

Insufficient depth

A vessel grounds because the channel is materially shallower than represented.

Defective lock

A lock gate fails and damages the vessel.

Inadequate breakwater

Failure creates unsafe conditions.

The claimant generally needs to establish:

Defect → foreseeable risk → breach → causation → damage

20. Safe Port vs Defective Port

These concepts should not be confused.

Safe-port claim

Usually arises from a contractual undertaking, often in a charterparty.

Question:

Was the nominated port safe under the relevant contractual standard?

Defective-infrastructure claim

Usually concerns:

Was the infrastructure itself negligently designed, constructed, maintained or operated?

A single accident can involve both.

21. Causation

Causation is often complicated.

Example:

Vessel approaches berth too quickly + fender system is defective + strong wind occurs → vessel strikes quay.

Possible causes:

vessel's speed;

wind;

defective fender;

pilot instructions;

berth design.

A court must decide:

whether each factor contributed;

whether one was the dominant cause;

whether liability should be apportioned;

whether contractual exclusions apply.

22. Foreseeability

Port operators are not necessarily insurers against every accident.

The relevant question is often whether the particular damage was reasonably foreseeable under the applicable legal standard.

For example:

Ordinary storm

If a port routinely experiences severe storms, infrastructure may need to be designed accordingly.

Exceptional event

An extraordinary event may alter the legal analysis.

The Holyhead Marina litigation demonstrates why evidence concerning the frequency and foreseeability of extreme weather can become important. (Bailii)

23. Physical Damage vs Consequential Loss

This distinction is extremely important.

Physical damage

broken quay;

destroyed crane;

damaged lock;

damaged vessel;

destroyed fender.

Consequential loss

repair costs;

loss of use;

business interruption;

lost port fees;

substitute berth expenses;

vessel delay;

additional fuel;

contractual penalties.

Some special liability regimes distinguish sharply between these categories.

The CJEU's interpretation of CUI Article 8(1)(b) illustrates this approach: physical property damage was treated differently from costs incurred because damaged equipment was unavailable. (EUR-Lex)

24. Economic Loss

A port may claim:

“The quay was closed for three months and we lost €10 million in port revenue.”

That claim is not necessarily treated the same way as:

“The vessel physically damaged the quay, costing €4 million to repair.”

The second is direct property damage.

The first may be consequential economic loss and may face additional requirements or limitations under national law or applicable conventions.

25. Limitation of Liability

Maritime law contains several limitation regimes.

Potentially relevant instruments include:

1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims;

1996 Protocol;

national implementation legislation;

special port legislation;

contractual limitation clauses.

Holyhead Marina v Farrer demonstrates how a marina or port operator can invoke statutory limitation in connection with damage to vessels. (Bailii)

A claimant must therefore ask:

Even if liability is established, can the defendant legally limit the amount payable?

26. When Limitation May Be Lost

Under the Limitation Convention framework, limitation may be unavailable in cases involving:

personal acts or omissions;

intent to cause loss;

recklessness;

knowledge that the loss would probably result.

The exact statutory and Convention wording must be examined.

This issue was raised in the Holyhead Marina litigation. (Bailii)

27. Port Infrastructure Insurance

Port infrastructure claims frequently involve:

property insurance;

marine hull insurance;

P&I insurance;

liability insurance;

business-interruption insurance.

After payment, an insurer may exercise subrogation rights.

Thus, the claimant may appear to be an insurer rather than the original port owner.

Pressos illustrates the importance of insurance interests in maritime civil claims. (Bailii)

28. Multiple Defendants

A major port accident may involve:

Port authority + terminal operator + shipowner + charterer + pilot + tug company + contractor + insurer

The court may have to determine:

primary responsibility;

contributory negligence;

contractual indemnities;

contribution;

joint/several liability;

limitation.

The exact consequences differ between jurisdictions.

29. Port Infrastructure Contract Claims

Many port disputes are contractual.

Examples:

Terminal contract

A terminal agrees to provide a berth.

Construction contract

A contractor builds a quay.

Maintenance contract

A contractor maintains fenders.

Dredging contract

A contractor maintains channel depth.

Pilotage contract

A pilot provides navigation services.

A defect may therefore create:

contract claim + tort/delict claim + maritime claim.

30. Construction and Design Liability

Suppose a newly constructed quay collapses.

Possible defendants include:

designer;

engineering consultant;

construction contractor;

port authority;

maintenance contractor.

Issues include:

design specifications;

structural calculations;

construction standards;

inspection;

acceptance;

latent defects;

limitation periods;

professional negligence.

31. Environmental Damage

Port infrastructure accidents can also cause:

oil spills;

chemical leakage;

fuel contamination;

damage to marine ecosystems;

dredging-related environmental harm.

The applicable international and national environmental-liability regimes may create additional obligations.

A port claim may therefore involve:

property damage + environmental damage + clean-up costs + economic loss.

32. Jurisdiction

Cross-border port accidents create difficult jurisdictional questions.

Example:

Greek vessel + Italian port + Dutch shipowner + German insurer.

The parties may dispute:

where the claim must be filed;

which country's law applies;

whether an arbitration clause applies;

whether the port authority enjoys immunity;

whether the insurer can be sued directly.

EU jurisdictional rules and maritime conventions may interact with national law.

33. Public Authority vs Commercial Operator

A port authority can perform both:

Public functions

navigation regulation;

harbour safety;

licensing;

public infrastructure management.

Commercial functions

leasing berths;

terminal operations;

charging port fees;

providing services.

This distinction may affect:

immunity;

jurisdiction;

applicable law;

standard of liability.

The CJEU's reasoning in Rina demonstrates why the nature of the defendant's activity can matter when civil proceedings are brought against entities connected with maritime regulation. (EUR-Lex)

34. Evidence

Strong evidence in a port infrastructure case can include:

AIS records

VDR recordings

CCTV

Port-control communications

Pilot reports

Harbour-master reports

Tide records

Weather records

Hydrographic surveys

Structural-engineering reports

Quay design documents

Maintenance records

Fender inspection records

Vessel engine records

Tug logs

Photographs

Repair invoices

Previous incident reports

Particularly important

AIS + VDR + pilot records + structural expert evidence can allow a court to reconstruct the casualty.

35. Damage Assessment

The claimant may seek:

Direct property damage

repair;

replacement;

reconstruction.

Loss of use

closed berth;

unavailable crane;

unavailable lock.

Business interruption

lost port revenue;

lost terminal revenue.

Vessel-related loss

repair;

off-hire;

delay.

Emergency costs

salvage;

temporary works;

debris removal.

The recoverability of each category depends on the governing law and applicable contractual/conventional regime.

36. Defences

A port or infrastructure owner may argue:

1. No defect

The infrastructure complied with applicable standards.

2. No causation

The vessel's negligence caused the damage.

3. Extraordinary event

The accident resulted from an exceptional natural event.

4. Contributory negligence

The vessel, pilot or claimant contributed to the accident.

5. Contractual exclusion

The contract limits liability.

6. Limitation Convention

The defendant's liability is legally capped.

7. Time bar

The claim was brought too late.

37. Shipowner Defences

The shipowner may argue:

defective berth;

inaccurate depth information;

negligent pilot;

inadequate tug;

unsafe port;

defective fender;

unexpected weather;

harbour-control error.

The Ocean Victory litigation illustrates how the contractual concept of port safety can become central when a vessel encounters dangerous port conditions. (Bailii)

38. Comparative Case Table

39. Most Important Direct Authorities

For an examination specifically asking about port infrastructure damage, prioritise:

1. Pressos Compania Naviera v Belgium

For:

maritime casualties;

quay/berth/lock damage;

pilot liability;

State responsibility;

accrued damages claims.

2. Ocean Victory

For:

safe port;

port conditions;

contractual allocation of maritime risk.

3. Holyhead Marina v Farrer

For:

defective infrastructure;

design;

maintenance;

extreme weather;

limitation.

4. Krysia Maritime v Intership

For:

berthing equipment;

fenders;

physical maritime damage.

Then use Kiveli/Afina I and Solong/Stena Immaculate for modern collision and fault-allocation principles.

40. Simple Hypothetical

Suppose a 50,000-tonne vessel enters a European port.

The pilot orders the vessel to turn.

The vessel turns too late and strikes a quay.

The quay suffers €8 million of structural damage.

The port closes the berth for six months and claims another €5 million in lost revenue.

The legal analysis should be:

Step 1 — Identify the infrastructure

Quay + fenders + berth.

Step 2 — Identify the actors

shipowner;

master;

pilot;

pilotage company;

port authority;

terminal operator.

Step 3 — Determine the cause

Was the damage caused by:

vessel navigation;

pilot negligence;

defective quay;

defective fender;

inadequate depth?

Step 4 — Determine applicable law

national maritime/civil law;

contractual terms;

international maritime conventions;

port regulations.

Step 5 — Determine recoverable loss

€8m physical repair;

€5m lost revenue.

The two categories may be treated differently.

Step 6 — Examine limitation

Can the liable party invoke a maritime limitation regime?

Step 7 — Allocate responsibility

For example:

Vessel 70% + port defect 20% + pilot 10%

The exact allocation would depend on the applicable law and evidence; this is merely an illustration.

41. Key Legal Principles

Principle 1

Port infrastructure damage is governed by a mixture of national civil law, maritime law, contract and international conventions.

Principle 2

A vessel that damages a quay can be liable for physical property damage where the applicable fault and causation requirements are satisfied.

Principle 3

A defective port can itself contribute to a maritime casualty.

Principle 4

Safe-port obligations and infrastructure-defect claims are related but legally distinct.

Principle 5

Pilot negligence can create a separate layer of responsibility.

Principle 6

Physical damage and consequential economic loss should be analysed separately.

Principle 7

Liability can be divided between vessel, pilot, port authority and infrastructure operator.

Principle 8

Maritime limitation regimes can substantially restrict the amount recoverable.

Principle 9

Extreme weather does not automatically eliminate infrastructure liability; design and foreseeability remain relevant.

Principle 10

An accrued civil claim may itself receive property protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as illustrated by Pressos. (ECHR-KS)

42. Exam Formula

Remember:

P–D–C–F–L–D–R

P = Port infrastructure
D = Duty
C = Causation
F = Fault
L = Loss
D = Defences/limitation
R = Remedy

For a vessel-quay accident:

Vessel → Pilot → Port → Infrastructure → Fault → Causation → Damage → Apportionment → Limitation → Compensation

43. Conclusion

Port infrastructure damage litigation in Europe is a multi-layered maritime civil-liability problem. The claimant must usually identify the responsible actor, establish the applicable legal duty, prove causation and quantify recoverable loss, while the defendant may invoke contributory negligence, contractual allocation of risk, statutory limitation or international maritime conventions.

The strongest authorities demonstrate different aspects of the problem. Pressos Compania Naviera v Belgium is especially significant because its underlying maritime casualties included damage to berths, quay walls, berthing facilities and locks, while the ECtHR treated established tort claims arising from maritime accidents as protected economic interests. (Bailii)

Ocean Victory provides the major safe-port analysis; Holyhead Marina v Farrer illustrates defective infrastructure, extreme weather and limitation; Krysia Maritime is useful for berthing/fender equipment; and Kiveli/Afina I provides a modern example of detailed collision-fault apportionment. (Bailii)

The central examination proposition is:

A port infrastructure damage claim requires separate analysis of the condition of the infrastructure, the conduct of the vessel and pilot, causation, the categories of loss, contractual and statutory allocation of risk, and any applicable maritime limitation regime.