Shell & BP South African Petroleum Refineries (Pty) Ltd and Others v Osborne Panama SA

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Howard J
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1980
• Citation: 1980 (3) SA 653 (D)
• Court: Durban and Coast Local Division

Howard, J.:

This action arises out of a collision which took place on 8 February 1976 between the defendant's ship Olympic Action and the single point mooring buoy (the "SBM") in the sea off Durban. It is agreed that as A a result of the collision the plaintiffs, who are the joint owners of the SBM, suffered damages in an amount of R246 063,09.

The main claim is that of the three plaintiffs jointly for payment of the said amount of R246 063,09. It is founded on allegations to the effect that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant's servants in navigating Olympic Action, in that they:

(a)

caused or permitted the ship to approach the SBM at B too high a speed;

(b)

failed sufficiently to appreciate the velocity of or make allowance for a northerly current in the vicinity of the SBM;

(c)

caused or permitted an attempt to be made to bring C the ship to a position for mooring by putting her helm hard to port, in circumstances in which it was not safe to do so;

(d)

failed so to manage the ship as to avoid the collision when by the exercise of reasonable care they could have done so.

There is a further claim by the second plaintiff for a declaratory order D that the defendant is liable to it in an amount still to be determined in respect of demurrage. This claim is based on allegations to the effect that:

(a)

Vessels intending to discharge their cargo of oil at the SBM take their turn according to a procedure for continuous consecutive berthing of vessels at the SBM;

(b)

on 9 February 1976 the tanker Mobil Petroleum was a E vessel intending to discharge its cargo of oil at the SBM;

(c)

the Mobil Petroleum was on charter to the second plaintiff from Mobil Shipping and Transportation Co Ltd, on terms which rendered the second plaintiff liable to that company for demurrage;

(d)

at all material times the defendant knew or ought F reasonably to have known

(i)

of the said procedure for continuous consecutive berthing of vessels at the SBM;

(ii)

that there would be vessels waiting their G turn in accordance with the said procedure;

(iii)

that a collision with the SBM would probably cause delays to such vessels;

(iv)

that some of the said vessels would be under charter; and

(v)

that the charterers of such vessels would be liable for demurrage in respect of any such delay.

H It is common cause that Mobil Petroleum was on charter to the second plaintiff under a voyage charter party and contract of affreightment which rendered the second plaintiff liable as aforesaid for demurrage arising from delay caused by damage to the SBM. Mobil Petroleum was not in the vicinity of the SBM when the collision occurred. She arrived the following day to take her place in the queue after the tanker Donax, and it is not disputed that the discharge of her cargo of oil was delayed on account of the collision.

Howard J

It is common cause that the diagram at p 3 of the Sapref booklet (p 66 of the agreed bundle of documents) accurately depicts the dimensions of the A SBM, its general layout and situation. The photograph at p 7 of the booklet shows the portion of the SBM that is visible on the surface and gives a fair impression of its situation in relation to the shore. It is clear from the evidence that ships such as Olympic Action have ample room within which to manoeuvre around the SBM. Olympic Action is a tanker B described as a VLCC (very large crude carrier) with a dead weight of 219 254 long tons, length of 1 036 ft and draught of 63½ ft. The photograph of Olympic Action (exh 4) gives one an idea of her great size, and the silhouettes (exhs 1 and 2) illustrate her size in comparison to that of the SBM.

One of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, Capt Preston, described the C procedure which should be followed in mooring a VLCC at the SBM. His evidence relative to the procedure was not challenged or contradicted and I accept it.

After stopping to allow the pilot and the mate from the service vessel to come aboard the procedure is to bring the ship to a point about two miles D distant from the SBM, at which point the ship is lined up on a course parallel to the floating hoses. The reason for this is that the ship should approach the SBM against the prevailing current, and the hoses afford the best available indication of the direction of the current because they stream out with the current. The evidence is that the current in the vicinity of the SBM is very strong and almost invariably runs E parallel to the coast, ie in a north easterly or south westerly direction. Capt Preston had experience of other sub-currents in the vicinity of the SBM...