Date of publication: 15 October 2026
Sergey Nedelko, Attorney at Law, Counsel, Head of Odesa Office
Source: Ukrainian Law Firms 2026
Despite the regular shelling of both port infrastructure and merchant shipping, the Ukrainian maritime corridor continues to operate reliably: the ports of Odesa, Chornomorsk and Pivdennyi are receiving vessels in what is close to a normal tempo. Yet the realities of war continue to dictate their own terms for shipping. Due to security risks and the high cost of insurance, sending modern tonnage into Ukrainian ports is often too hazardous and commercially unjustified. As a result, the fleet actually calling at these ports consists, for the most part, of aged and worn-out vessels.
Risk Overview
Operating old vessels brings technical risks that can translate directly into commercial losses for the cargo owner. A loss of watertight integrity in the holds and hatch covers is a common cause of wetting damage, particularly to moisture-sensitive goods carried in bulk. Worn lashings and securing arrangements likewise increase the likelihood of cargo damage, especially in heavy weather. Defective equipment raises, in turn, the risk that the vessel will be detained by Port State Control (PSC) inspectors, disrupting delivery schedules and giving rise to demurrage disputes.
Faults in the ballast system and wear to the hull are a frequent source of cargo shortage disputes, because they distort the accuracy of the vessel’s draught readings. Consequently, any calculation of cargo quantity by a draft survey (that is, by the change in the vessel’s draught) carries a risk for owners and cargo interests alike. Where the quantity entered in the bill of lading was fixed by weighbridge at the load port but determined by draft survey at destination – or vice versa – the vessel’s technical margins of error can indicate a shortage that does not, in reality, exist. Such measurements, therefore, almost invariably become a matter of dispute between cargo owner and shipowner, and it is the latter who may face claims over the cargo’s condition in carriage, even where the ship’s seals remained intact and the holds watertight on completion of the voyage.
The draft survey is, in any event, a relatively imprecise method of ascertaining weight even on a modern vessel, since its accuracy is affected by weather conditions, the structural particularities of the hull and the human factor. The imprecision of a draft survey is expressly recognized in clause 5 of the GAFTA Weighing Rules No. 123.
Practical Steps to Minimize the Risks
- Commission an independent cargo survey at the load / discharge ports (if technically possible). The condition of the cargo, the holds and the watertight integrity of the hatches should be recorded before loading begins. The surveyor’s report will serve as the principal evidence in any future claim for damage to, or shortage of, cargo.
- For dry-bulk and liquid cargoes, insist on determining the weight by weighbridge or shore-based measuring equipment, rather than by a draft survey alone. It is this figure that should be entered in the bill of lading, together with an appropriate remark as to the method by which it was established.
- Record any discrepancy immediately: if the weight obtained by a draft survey diverges from the shore-scale figures as early as the loading stage, that is grounds for issuing a letter of protest.
What to Do Where Cargo Is Damaged or Shortage Discovered
To respond swiftly and to protect the right to recover its losses, Ukrainian legislation affords the cargo owner two sequential instruments:
- Detention of the vessel by the harbor master. The harbor master may detain a vessel for 72 hours where there is a maritime claim against the shipowner. This is a rapid, out-of-court instrument that buys time to apply to the court for arrest while the vessel is still physically in port.
- Arrest of the vessel by the court. The next step is an application to the commercial court to arrest the vessel as security for the maritime claim. The arrest is imposed by a court ruling and holds the vessel in port until the shipowner provides adequate security – a bank guarantee or a deposit into the court’s account – although our experience shows that these forms of security carry a whole series of drawbacks and hidden pitfalls. Regrettably, the international market standard – releasing a vessel against a P&I Club Letter of Undertaking – has no statutory basis in Ukraine, so that its acceptance turns on the willingness of the arrest applicant.
For the shipowner, both the detention and the arrest of the vessel operate as a powerful incentive to settle the dispute quickly, since prolonged detention of the vessel usually costs considerably more than the sum claimed. At the same time, a strict procedural deadline must be borne in mind: within 30 days of the arrest being imposed, the substantive claim must be filed – before the competent court or arbitrarily tribunal – failing which the arrest will be lifted.
Both instruments are effective only where the groundwork is laid quickly. It is the timely assembly of the evidential base that determines whether they succeed in practice.
What Case Law Shows
Formally, in order to arrest a vessel it is enough to state to the court the amount and substance of the maritime claim, together with the known particulars of the ship that is calling at, or berthed in, a Ukrainian port. The law requires no detailed proof of the merits of the claim at this stage – a position confirmed by the settled case law of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The evidence of a maritime claim that it is advisable to submit includes, in particular:
- proof of title to the cargo and of its value (bills of lading, invoices, supply contracts and SWIFT bank statements confirming payment for the goods);
- evidence of the damages quantum (for example, surveyors’ reports, laboratory analyses and the claims brought against the cargo owner by its own counterparties);
- where unseaworthiness is relied upon – PSC reports recording the technical deficiencies, along with records of the vessel’s detention at other ports on account of its unseaworthy condition.
Shipowners’ defenses tend to rest on a familiar set of arguments. The assertion that the cargo was damaged before loading, or by reason of its own inherent nature, is treated by the courts as premature, since those matters fail to be examined at the trial on the merits. Reliance on the integrity of the hold seals and on the absence of any access to the cargo is rejected on the same grounds. Finally, attempts to deny the existence of a right of claim on the basis that there is no direct contractual relationship with the shipowner – where the consignee is not a party to the charterparty – are defeated by the bill of lading itself, which confers on its lawful holder a direct right to assert a maritime claim.
Counter-Security: A Power of the Court, Not a Guarantee for the Shipowner
The shipowner may ask the court to require the applicant to deposit funds to cover the losses that the arrest might cause; where granted, this can strengthen the shipowner’s hand in negotiating a settlement and securing the vessel’s prompt release. In practice, however, courts largely refuse such applications, owing to the demanding standard they apply to the supporting evidence.
An agent’s disbursement account setting out the estimated cost of the detention is regarded merely as a forecast, and not as proof of an actual loss or of any liability incurred. Operating costs in port – agency, towage and pilotage services and security – tend to be treated by the courts as a consequence of the vessel’s presence in port as such, rather than of the arrest, which breaks the chain of causation. The applicant (mostly registered owners) must, moreover, prove its own expenditure: where the agent was nominated by the commercial manager, the costs of that third party may not be treated as the applicant’s loss. Finally, the courts may dismiss such applications where the shipowner has failed to demonstrate the claimant’s insolvency, or any other circumstances that would, in practice, make it difficult to recover the funds should the claim ultimately fail.
Conclusion
An ageing fleet is a fact of life for as long as the full-scale war continues, and the practices of peacetime can no longer be relied upon. Effective protection begins before the incident: a sound survey, shore-side weighing and an accurate bill of lading make it possible to deploy both the out-of-court and the procedural mechanisms without delay – saving considerable time and substantial funds. And where the dispute cannot be settled, the procedural mechanisms of Ukrainian law make it possible to obtain proper security for the maritime claim in support of commercial arbitration, affording a genuine prospect of enforcing the tribunal’s award.
