PSC Inspection Campaign: container stowage concerns

The unique aspects of container stowage  

The stowage of containers is distinct from the stowage of other cargoes, as several factors need to be taken into account across many thousands of different containers being loaded at any one time, to ensure stowage is safe. Those factors include: 

• The verified gross weights of the containers, and their position in the stow (for example, ensuring no "heavies over lights")

• The cumulative stack weights on deck and compliance with the maximum weight limitations of the hatchcovers

• Tier heights and bridge visibility requirements

• For dangerous goods covered by the IMDG Code, ensuring their position in the stow is compliant with the requirements of the Code in terms of e.g., incompatible cargoes, exposure to heat from bunker tanks

• Compliance with the Vessel's CSM, ensuring that the lashings and fittings are able to withstand the different forces which the Vessel and stack is likely to encounter on the voyage

• Operational considerations, to enable the most efficient port calls with the smallest number of restows

• Reefer containers and the need for these to be plugged in to available electrical outlets when laden

• Stability issues and weight distribution

Because of the complexity of container loading operations, stowage planning is almost always completed with the assistance of some kind of software programme, which can take the form of lashing software, stowage software, and/or stability calculators. The IMO is currently developing performance standards for lashing software and permitting such software to be used as a supplement to the CSM, with the work expected to be completed at the next CCC meeting (CCC 12), scheduled for 14 - 18 September 2026.

Vessels contracted for construction after 1 July 2025, and classed by an IACS member, will already be subject to IACS UR C6 and UR C7, setting out requirements for lashing software and certification of container securing systems. 

Contractual division of responsibility between owners and charterers 

The position at common law is that responsibility for stowage of cargo rests with the ship owner. The common law position is frequently amended by contract to transfer responsibility for stowage to the charterer. Clear words are needed to transfer responsibility for the proper performance of stowage operations, and not just the responsibility to pay or arrange for those operations.

An example of such clear wording is the unamended clause 8 of the NYPE form, which is frequently used in the container trade. The obligation placed on charterers is to carry out the stowage operations with due care, and if damage occurs because of a failure to do so, they are prima facie liable for that damage. Charterers may delegate the task of (but not the responsibility for) stowage to stevedores, and if they do they are under an implied obligation to appoint competent stevedores.

In principle, the contractual allocation of responsibility under the NYPE is clear. However, the application of charterparty terms is often not so simple when tested against the practical realities of the shipping industry. A frequent question that arises is what if the stowage proposed by the charterers is so unsuitable that if left unchecked it would render the vessel unseaworthy - does the Master have an obligation to intervene? The dividing line between owner's and charterer's responsibilities for stowage has been determined in a series of judgments starting with Court Line v Canadian Transport Company Ltd [1940] 67 Ll.L.Rep. 161.

In that case the House of Lords held that the words "under the supervision of the Captain" in clause 8 of the NYPE did not operate to transfer responsibility back to owners. Further, the words do not impose upon the Master an obligation to intervene, but instead simply make express a right that he would have had in any event. If he did exercise that right to intervene, and the intervention caused the bad stowage which in turn caused the loss, then the owners might be liable. However, the existence of the right "has no effect whatever in relieving the charterers of the primary duty to stow safely".

In his judgment, Lord Porter opined that owners may also be liable for poor stowage where the stowage carried out by or on behalf of the charterers impacted the vessel's stability and rendered her unseaworthy, and the adverse impact on the Vessel's stability was not known to the charterers. This argument was developed further in The Imvros [1999] 1 LLR 848, a case which again concerned responsibility for safe loading under the NYPE form. The Vessel loaded a cargo of timber on deck, part of which was lost overboard during heavy weather resulting in damage to the Vessel. 

There were several bespoke clauses in the charterparty which referred to stowage being carried out by charterers "to the master's satisfaction", and owners were also under an obligation as to seaworthiness. Charterers argued that these clauses taken together meant that owners had "an overriding duty to intervene to prevent the vessel from sailing in an unseaworthy condition". This argument was emphatically rejected by Justice Langley, who held that a right to be satisfied or to supervise stowage did not qualify charterers' obligations, which in any event included an express obligation to ensure that stowage on deck did not impair the seaworthiness of the vessel.

Invariably, a stowage plan prepared by the charterer or his agents will be sent to the Vessel to review. Does the act of reviewing, correcting or suggesting changes to a stowage plan constitute an "intervention" of the kind which acts to transfer responsibility back to Owners? In CSAV v MS ER Hamburg [2006] EWHC 483 (Comm), the Court rejected this argument, upholding an arbitration award that found that "the mere fact of reviewing the stowage plan and requesting a change, which request would be assessed by the central planner in the light of the cargoes to be loaded further along the route, did not in any way limit the Charterers' right to control the stowage". 

In contrast to the NYPE the division of responsibility set out in BOXTIME, the BIMCO standard form time charter party for container, is not quite as clear. Under the BOXTIME, charterers are responsible for all stevedoring operations including stowing and lashing, and are also subject to an obligation to ensure "that stowage is effected in accordance with the requirements of this Charter Party and that stack and tier weights and lashing gear break loads are not exceeded". Taken together, these clauses likely effect a transfer of responsibility for loading and stowage from owners to the charterers. In line with the NYPE, the BOXTIME also provides that "the Master shall supervise the stevedores...and ensure that all lashings are regularly checked whilst at sea, weather permitting". However, in clause 19 which governs "Owners' Responsibilities / Liabilities" it provides: 

"(a) Containers and Goods: The Owners shall be liable for loss, damage or expense in respect of containers and goods arising or resulting from: 

(v) their failure to exercise due diligence to ensure that at the commencement of the voyage the lashings are executed correctly and serviced during the voyage;" 

This wording suggests that the Master's right to supervise is extended under the BOXTIME to a qualified duty to do so, at least for claims "in respect of containers and goods" which arise from incorrect lashing. Precisely what is required for an owner to exercise "due diligence to ensure that at the commencement of the voyage the lashings are executed correctly" is unclear, as is the reconciliation of this clause with charterer's primary responsibility for stowage and lashing. Unfortunately, there is no case law on the BOXTIME form to act as a guide. A careful consideration of this clause within the context of the charterparty as a whole, in addition to a close analysis of the evidence of how stowage and lashing was performed and what caused the loss, will be required.

It is notable that the BOXTIME form does not incorporate the Inter-Club Agreement which would otherwise provide a separate regime for the apportionment of liability for cargo claims as between owners and charterers, without the need for a detailed assessment of respective faults.

Responsibility for the losses resulting from a stow collapse  

Losses arising from a stow collapse can be significant - they can include crew injury, liability to the bill of lading holders, damage to the vessel, and if the loss occurs in shallow or nearshore waters, the costs of locating and recovering the lost containers. As of 1 January 2026, amendments to SOLAS require masters of container vessels to report the loss of freight containers "by appropriate means without delay and to the fullest extent possible to ships in the vicinity, to the nearest coastal State, and also to the flag State". Similar obligations apply for a master who observes freight containers drifting at sea.

Whilst stow collapses remain a frustratingly common occurrence, the question of who is responsible does not lend itself to an easy answer, as responsibility will depend on the terms of the specific charterparty and the specific factual circumstances of the loss. In our experience, there will often be competing factual and expert evidence as to the effective cause of the collapse and whether this was the initial failure to properly stow the cargo (often charterers' responsibility), or a failure of the Vessel in respect of stability, maintenance of fittings, or heavy weather.

Appointing an expert at the outset to provide an objective assessment of the most probable cause is therefore vital. It is also important for owners to properly record discussions regarding the stowage plan and its execution and any changes to that plan, routing decisions taken to seek to avoid heavy weather, actions taken to protect cargo during heavy weather, and the implementation of heavy weather procedures and guidelines.

Practical tips 

If you are an owner entering into a charterparty now for a rotation that will likely include calls at ports within the purview of the Paris and Tokyo MOUs, you may wish to consider the following: 

• Ensuring crew familiarisation and training includes the CSM, and that this is fully documented either in your own records or those of your third-party manager

• Ensuring that your charterparty terms are clear on which party is responsible for providing and maintaining portable lashing equipment, and if it is the Charterers, including an express indemnity for any losses arising from a failure to comply with this obligation

• Reviewing, and if necessary revising, your heavy weather guidelines, and ensuring crew and third-party managers are well-versed in the details of the guidelines, as well as the kinds of weather and forecasts which trigger their use

For owners trading outside of these areas, the heightened risk of extreme weather events from climate change and the upcoming strong El Niño season also places renewed importance on stable and secure cargo stowage, and similar considerations will apply.