Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc (The Mary Lou): QBD 1981

Mustill J considered a charterparty which provided that the vessel was to ‘proceed to one or two safe berths one safe port US Gulf (excluding Brownsville) New Orleans/Ama/Reserve/Myrtle Grove/Destrehan counting as one port . . ‘ He said: ‘The charterers also drew attention to the specific reference to New Orleans as a permissible loading port. This does show, I agree, that the making of a passage up the Mississippi River was regarded as a possible element of the voyage. If the river had attributes which made it permanently unsafe, or if it was known to be unsafe at the time of the charter, then the naming of the port might have been enough to nullify the requirement, added to the printed form, that the loading port would be safe. But this was not the case, and it is entirely consistent with the wording of the clause to say that the owners agreed that the ship would visit the named ports if, but only if, they proved to be safe at the material time.’
Mustill J referred to long waves and northerly gale winds as being ‘at least foreseeable’.


Mustill J


[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
CitedGard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641391