Arbitration Involving Ship Navigation System Software Errors
I. Typical Factual Scenarios
Navigation software disputes typically arise in the following contexts:
ECDIS malfunction
Incorrect chart overlay
Failure to update Notices to Mariners
Safety contour misconfiguration
Autopilot or integrated bridge system errors
Incorrect waypoint calculation
Software latency
Sensor fusion misinterpretation
GPS spoofing or signal loss
Incorrect positional data
Failure of redundancy systems
AI-assisted route optimization failure
Weather miscalculation
Under-keel clearance misjudgment
Cybersecurity breach
Malware corrupting navigation database
Resulting incidents include:
Grounding
Collision
Hull damage
Cargo loss
Environmental spill
Loss of hire
II. Core Legal Issues in Arbitration
1. Fitness for Purpose vs Compliance with Standards
Navigation system vendors often argue compliance with IMO, SOLAS, or IEC standards. Claimants argue that compliance is insufficient if the system failed in its intended function.
Leading Authority
MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd
Compliance with industry standards does not displace a fitness-for-purpose obligation.
Relevant where navigation software complied with IEC 61174 but failed operationally.
Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle & Partners
Reliance on professional expertise may imply fitness for purpose.
2. Seaworthiness and Due Diligence
Under maritime law, vessels must be seaworthy at the commencement of voyage.
McFadden v Blue Star Line
Established classic seaworthiness principles.
A defective navigation system may render vessel unseaworthy.
The Eurasian Dream
Addressed bridge management and navigational negligence.
Applied where crew failed to properly configure or monitor ECDIS.
Arbitral tribunals examine:
Was software defect latent?
Was proper training provided?
Did owner exercise due diligence before voyage?
3. Burden of Proof in Cargo Damage
When navigation errors lead to grounding and cargo damage:
Volcafe Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA
Carrier must prove reasonable care to rely on defenses.
Relevant in cases involving reliance on defective navigation software.
4. Software Defects and Limitation Clauses
Navigation systems are frequently supplied under contracts containing:
Liability caps
Exclusion of consequential loss
Time-bar provisions
Exclusion for indirect losses
St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd
Limitation clauses in software contracts subject to reasonableness.
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
Commercial risk allocation upheld if clearly drafted.
Tribunals examine:
Whether limitation applies to catastrophic navigation failure
Whether gross negligence invalidates caps
Whether pollution liability is excluded
5. Causation and Human Intervention
Navigation disputes frequently involve mixed causes:
Software miscalculation
Crew misinterpretation
Failure to cross-check radar
Improper lookout
The Oropesa
Chain-of-causation doctrine in maritime collision cases.
Galoo Ltd v Bright Grahame Murray
“But for” causation test.
Tribunals determine:
Would grounding have occurred absent software defect?
Did crew negligence break causation chain?
Was software merely a contributing factor?
6. Misrepresentation and System Capability Claims
Marketing claims about:
“Collision-proof routing”
“Autonomous safe navigation”
“Real-time hazard detection”
If these prove inaccurate, claims may arise for misrepresentation.
Derry v Peek
Foundational authority on fraudulent misrepresentation.
III. Regulatory Overlay
Relevant frameworks often considered in arbitration:
SOLAS Chapter V
IMO ECDIS performance standards
ISM Code (Safety Management)
Flag-state certification
Failure to properly maintain software updates or patches may constitute breach of safety management obligations.
IV. Evidentiary Challenges
Navigation arbitrations rely heavily on:
Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) downloads
ECDIS log history
AIS playback
Radar overlay records
Bridge audio recordings
Software version history
Independent experts reconstruct:
Positioning error margins
Chart datum mismatches
Sensor fusion logic
Route algorithm outputs
V. Damages in Navigation Software Arbitration
Damages may include:
Hull repair costs
Cargo loss
Salvage expenses
Pollution cleanup
Loss of hire
Regulatory fines
Reputational harm
Key issues:
Direct vs consequential loss
Limitation under maritime conventions
Insurance subrogation claims
VI. Insurance and Subrogation Dynamics
Disputes often involve:
Hull & Machinery insurers
P&I Clubs
Cargo insurers
Software vendor professional indemnity insurers
Subrogated claims against navigation software suppliers are increasingly common after major groundings.
VII. Emerging Issues in Autonomous Shipping
As maritime industry advances toward autonomous vessels:
AI decision-making accountability
Machine learning “black box” logic
Sensor redundancy obligations
Cybersecurity under IMO 2021 guidelines
Tribunals may face novel questions:
Who bears risk of algorithmic decision errors?
Does autonomous navigation alter seaworthiness standards?
Are classification societies liable for software certification?
VIII. Strategic Considerations
Claimant (Shipowner / Cargo Interest)
Emphasize fitness-for-purpose warranties
Demonstrate reliance on vendor expertise
Use expert reconstruction of navigational event
Challenge exclusion clauses
Respondent (Software Vendor)
Prove compliance with IMO/IEC standards
Demonstrate crew negligence or misuse
Invoke limitation clauses
Argue intervening causation
IX. Conclusion
Arbitration involving ship navigation system software errors lies at the convergence of:
Maritime law
Software liability principles
Contract interpretation
Seaworthiness doctrine
Commercial risk allocation
Tribunals draw heavily from authorities such as MT Højgaard, Volcafe, St Albans, and The Oropesa when assessing:
Fitness obligations
Causation
Burden of proof
Enforceability of liability caps
As vessels become increasingly digitized, arbitral jurisprudence continues adapting traditional maritime principles to complex software-driven navigation ecosystems.
RELATED Blog
comments