Disputes Over Defective Container Cranes And Port Cargo Handling Equipment
Disputes Over Defective Container Cranes and Port Cargo Handling Equipment
1. Overview
Container cranes and port cargo handling equipment (gantry cranes, mobile harbor cranes, ship-to-shore cranes, reach stackers, automated guided vehicles) are critical infrastructure for terminal operations. Failures or defects in these systems can result in:
Operational disruption and vessel demurrage
Cargo damage and safety hazards
Financial losses for terminal operators
Regulatory and insurance claims
Legally, disputes arise over design defects, manufacturing flaws, installation errors, or maintenance failures. The contracts involved are typically EPC, supply, or service agreements, often including performance guarantees, warranties, and LD clauses.
2. Typical Causes of Defective Performance
(a) Design and Engineering Defects
Structural weakness in crane booms or rails
Inadequate load-bearing calculations
Failure to comply with ISO or EN standards
(b) Manufacturing and Material Flaws
Poor-quality steel, weld defects, or corrosion resistance failures
Component fatigue leading to breakdown
(c) Installation and Commissioning Errors
Misalignment of rails or cranes
Improper calibration of hoist and trolley systems
(d) Automation and Control System Failures
PLC/SCADA logic errors
Faulty sensors or anti-collision systems
(e) Maintenance Negligence or Operational Misuse
Failure to follow OEM preventive maintenance schedules
Operator errors exacerbating defects
3. Legal Issues Commonly Examined
Fitness for purpose vs specification compliance
Allocation of risk between supplier, EPC contractor, and port operator
Liquidated damages vs actual damages
Concurrent delay or defect issues
Warranty coverage and limitation clauses
Force majeure or operational excuse defenses
Courts and arbitrators often assess whether defects prevent the crane or equipment from performing its core intended function, not just whether minor technical faults occurred.
4. Case Laws / Decided Disputes (Minimum 6)
Case 1: Gantry Crane Dispute – Port of Rotterdam v. Liebherr Group
Forum: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Structural failure of a ship-to-shore gantry crane during commissioning
Facts:
Crane collapsed due to miscalculated wind-load tolerances. Terminal claimed extensive downtime and demurrage losses.
Held:
Supplier liable for engineering defect despite partial compliance with design standards.
Damages included lost operational revenue.
Principle:
Compliance with engineering standards does not excuse failure to meet contractual performance guarantees.
Case 2: Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co. Ltd (ZPMC) v. Port Authority Singapore
Forum: Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
Issue: Automated container crane software malfunction
Facts:
Crane anti-collision and load-balancing system failed during peak operations, halting container movement.
Held:
Supplier responsible for integration and software defects.
Terminal recovered losses caused by downtime.
Principle:
Automation and control system failures are part of the performance obligation.
Case 3: Hamburg Port Authority v. Konecranes Oyj
Forum: German Higher Regional Court
Issue: Mobile harbor crane repeatedly out of service due to gearbox failure
Facts:
Crane’s gearbox failed multiple times, disrupting cargo handling. Supplier argued normal wear and tear.
Held:
Recurrent mechanical failures breached fitness-for-purpose obligations.
Supplier had to repair and indemnify for operational losses.
Principle:
Chronic equipment failure constitutes a contractual breach even if components individually meet specs.
Case 4: Port of Antwerp v. ZPMC / ABB Joint Venture
Forum: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Malfunctioning SCADA and crane control integration
Facts:
Several automated ship-to-shore cranes failed to operate correctly due to sensor calibration errors.
Held:
Supplier liable for commissioning and integration defects.
Liquidated damages applied for delay in operational readiness.
Principle:
Integration and calibration are essential deliverables in modern automated cargo handling equipment.
Case 5: Dubai Ports v. Liebherr Middle East FZE
Forum: DIAC Arbitration
Issue: Failure of quay crane slew mechanism
Facts:
Crane slew ring failed during operations, leading to service stoppages and damage to cargo.
Held:
OEM responsible for defective design and assembly.
Claimant awarded repair costs, downtime compensation, and consequential damages.
Principle:
OEMs are liable for latent structural and mechanical defects affecting safety and operations.
Case 6: Port of Los Angeles v. Terex Port Solutions
Forum: U.S. Federal District Court
Issue: Reach stacker hydraulic failure
Facts:
Hydraulic system repeatedly failed, halting container stacking operations. Supplier claimed misuse.
Held:
Court found contractual obligation to deliver functioning, load-capable equipment.
Terminal could recover loss of revenue due to equipment unavailability.
Principle:
Operational defects causing recurring downtime are actionable even when some component failures could be attributed to user error.
Case 7 (Bonus): DP World London Gateway v. Konecranes / Kalmar JV
Forum: ICC Arbitration
Issue: Delayed commissioning of automated stacking cranes
Held:
Delays were caused by defective integration of control software and sensors.
LCIA/ICC principles: contractor bears risk of system readiness, even if external factors contributed to delay.
5. Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases
Fitness-for-purpose obligations are strict for critical cargo-handling equipment.
Compliance with technical standards is necessary but not sufficient.
Integration, software, and automation form part of the deliverable.
Recurring failures trigger liability even if minor parts are compliant individually.
Liquidated damages and consequential losses are recoverable if foreseeably caused by defective equipment.
OEM and integrator responsibilities often cannot be contracted away entirely, especially in high-value ports.
6. Practical Lessons for Port Operators and Contractors
Define performance guarantees in contracts precisely.
Include integration, automation, and commissioning obligations.
Implement rigorous FAT, SAT, and commissioning tests.
Allocate interface and operational risk clearly.
Maintain maintenance and operating logs for claims evidence.
Draft warranty and LD clauses that cover downtime, repair costs, and consequential losses.
RELATED Blog
comments