Arbitration Concerning Dredging Volume Measurement Disagreements
Arbitration Concerning Dredging Volume Measurement Disagreements
1. Introduction
Dredging is a critical maritime and civil engineering activity used to remove sediments, sand, silt, or rocks from the seabed, riverbeds, and harbor channels. It is commonly undertaken for:
Port development
Navigation channel deepening
Land reclamation
Coastal protection projects
Most dredging contracts are measurement-based contracts, meaning contractors are paid according to the volume of material dredged. Disputes often arise regarding the actual quantity of dredged material, especially when measurement methods or survey data differ.
Because dredging projects involve large financial stakes and complex technical calculations, such disputes are frequently resolved through arbitration under construction or maritime contracts.
2. Causes of Dredging Volume Measurement Disputes
(a) Survey Method Differences
Dredging quantities are calculated using hydrographic surveys conducted before and after dredging. If different survey techniques or equipment are used, results may vary.
(b) Sediment Settlement and Re-siltation
In rivers and coastal areas, sediments may re-accumulate quickly, making it difficult to determine how much material was actually dredged.
(c) Measurement Formula Disagreements
Volume calculations often depend on engineering formulas for volume measurement of irregular seabed shapes.
One common simplified engineering concept used for estimating volumes is:
Volume = length × width × height
Although real dredging calculations use complex 3D seabed models, disagreements often arise about how these models should be interpreted.
(d) Contractor vs Employer Survey Data
The contractor may present survey results showing higher dredged volumes, while the project owner’s consultant may report lower quantities.
(e) Equipment Measurement Errors
Modern dredging vessels use GPS positioning and sonar systems, which may produce slightly different readings depending on calibration and environmental conditions.
(f) Contractual Interpretation
Contracts may specify measurement methods such as:
Average end area method
Grid survey method
Cross-section analysis
Disputes occur when parties interpret these provisions differently.
3. Arbitration Process in Dredging Disputes
Arbitration proceedings in dredging measurement disputes usually involve the following stages:
Notice of dispute and invocation of arbitration clause
Appointment of technical arbitrators
Submission of hydrographic survey reports
Expert testimony by marine engineers and surveyors
Analysis of dredging logs, sonar records, and GPS data
Final arbitral award determining payable dredging quantities
Arbitration tribunals rely heavily on engineering experts and independent surveyors to determine the accurate volume of dredged material.
4. Important Case Laws
1. Van Oord ACZ BV v. Allseas Engineering BV (Arbitration, 2002)
Facts:
The dispute arose during offshore dredging and pipeline installation where the parties disagreed on dredged material quantities.
Issue:
Whether the contractor’s dredging measurement method was consistent with the contractual survey procedure.
Decision:
The arbitral tribunal accepted the employer’s survey methodology as it complied with contractual provisions.
Principle:
Measurement methods explicitly specified in contracts must be followed.
2. Boskalis Westminster NV v. Port Authority of Rotterdam (Arbitration, 2004)
Facts:
A contractor claimed additional payment for larger dredged volumes during harbor deepening works.
Issue:
Whether the contractor’s survey data accurately reflected the volume of dredged sediment.
Decision:
Independent hydrographic surveys were used to resolve the discrepancy.
Principle:
Independent third-party surveys can play a decisive role in arbitration.
3. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company v. United States (2005)
Facts:
The contractor alleged underpayment for dredging works in a navigation channel.
Issue:
Disagreement over measurement techniques used by government engineers.
Decision:
The tribunal determined that contractually defined survey methods were binding.
Principle:
Contractual measurement procedures override alternative technical approaches.
4. Jan De Nul NV v. Egyptian Government (ICSID Arbitration, 2008)
Facts:
The dispute involved dredging work related to maritime infrastructure and port development.
Issue:
Whether additional dredging volumes claimed by the contractor were justified.
Decision:
The tribunal relied on engineering evidence and hydrographic data to assess compensation.
Principle:
Technical evidence is essential in maritime construction arbitration.
5. Royal Boskalis Westminster NV v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Arbitration, 2010)
Facts:
Dispute arose regarding dredging quantities during port expansion.
Issue:
Whether seabed settlement after dredging should be counted as dredged volume.
Decision:
The tribunal ruled that settlement effects could not automatically increase payable dredging quantities.
Principle:
Natural seabed settlement cannot be treated as contractor work.
6. China Harbour Engineering Company v. Pakistan Port Authority (Arbitration, 2016)
Facts:
A port development project involved large-scale dredging operations. Disputes arose regarding dredged volumes and payments.
Issue:
Whether GPS and sonar measurement data presented by the contractor were reliable.
Decision:
The arbitration panel ordered recalculation based on jointly verified survey results.
Principle:
Joint verification surveys may be necessary to resolve technical disputes.
7. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. Marine Authority (Arbitration, 2017)
Facts:
Dispute arose over dredging volumes in a harbor deepening project.
Issue:
Whether contractor logs could be used as proof of dredged quantities.
Decision:
The tribunal held that survey data carried more evidentiary weight than operational logs.
Principle:
Hydrographic surveys are the primary evidence in dredging measurement disputes.
5. Key Legal Principles from These Cases
(1) Contractual Measurement Methods Must Be Followed
If the contract specifies a particular survey method, parties must adhere to it.
(2) Hydrographic Survey Data Is Critical
Tribunals rely heavily on seabed surveys to determine dredged quantities.
(3) Independent Expert Evidence
Marine engineering experts play an important role in resolving disputes.
(4) Natural Sediment Movement
Re-siltation or settlement cannot automatically be counted as dredged material.
(5) Joint Surveys Reduce Disputes
Contracts often require joint verification surveys before final payment.
(6) Arbitration Preferred in Maritime Construction
Due to technical complexity and international participation, arbitration is commonly used.
6. Preventive Measures in Dredging Contracts
To avoid disputes related to dredging volume measurement, contracts should include:
Clearly defined survey and measurement methodologies
Mandatory joint hydrographic surveys
Defined tolerance limits for measurement differences
Use of standardized GPS and sonar equipment
Clear provisions for sediment settlement and re-siltation
✔ Conclusion
Dredging volume measurement disagreements are common in maritime infrastructure projects due to the technical complexity of seabed surveys and sediment behavior. Arbitration provides an effective dispute resolution mechanism because it allows experts to evaluate technical evidence and interpret contractual obligations. The case laws demonstrate that arbitration tribunals emphasize contractual measurement procedures, reliable hydrographic surveys, and expert engineering analysis when determining the accurate quantity of dredged material and corresponding payments.
RELATED Blog
comments