Detention at Sulina: Legal Risks and Charterers’ Liability under English Law
3 April, 2026
209
As of today, vessels call at the ports of Great Odesa (Odesa, Chornomorsk, and Pivdennyi) via a temporary maritime corridor established by Ukraine in the north-western part of the Black Sea.
In practice, vessel movements effectively commence from the anchorage area near Sulina (Romania). Vessels proceed through the Black Sea and wait at the Sulina anchorage, where a queue for transit through the Sulina Canal is formed. Such queues can be substantial — at times reaching dozens or even over 100 vessels.
Once their turn arrives, vessels take a pilot, transit the Sulina Canal with convoy under continuous monitoring by the Ukrainian Navy, and proceed to their designated port of destination.
However, a key risk for shipowners remains prolonged delays at the Sulina anchorage, which may last from several hours to several months.
Case Study: Delay Due to Cargo Unavailability
Recently, a shipowner approached our team with the following case.
The vessel arrived at the Sulina anchorage and duly tendered its Notice of Arrival (NOA). However, due to the charterer’s failure to:
- ensure cargo readiness,
- prepare shipping documentation, and
- complete customs formalities,
the vessel’s berthing was repeatedly postponed and ultimately did not take place. As a result, the parties were forced to terminate the charterparty.
Our task was to protect the shipowner’s interests, as the delay exceeded one month and was caused solely by the charterer’s acts and/or omissions.
In this article, we examine the key legal aspects of such situations from the perspective of English law, which is traditionally applicable to voyage charters.
Charterer’s Obligation to Provide Cargo
Under English law, the charterer’s obligation to provide cargo is a fundamental element of a voyage charter party.
This obligation is particularly significant where the availability of cargo constitutes a precondition for the vessel being permitted to proceed to the loading port.
Failure to comply with this obligation, including:
- failure to supply cargo,
- absence of instructions, or
- lack of proper documentation,
constitutes a breach entitling the shipowner to claim demurrage or damages for detention, including consequential losses.
For instance, under a berth charter, where a vessel is denied access to a berth due to the charterer’s failure to have the full cargo available, the charterer is liable for the resulting delay (see Owners of Panaghis Vergottis v William Cory & Sons (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 64; Samuel Crawford Hogarth and others v Cory Brothers & Co Ltd (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 464).
A similar approach applies where laytime cannot commence due to the charterer’s failure to arrange pre-loading operations or complete necessary documentation. In such cases, the shipowner’s remedy lies in a claim for detention damages, as confirmed in The Mass Glory [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244.
The situation is further complicated by specific requirements of Ukrainian law. In particular, Order No. 108 of the Operational Strategic Group of Forces “Odesa” requires verification of terminal readiness to receive and handle vessels, while the applicable port Code of Customs expressly allows refusal of berthing in the absence of cargo documentation or a full cargo parcel.
Accordingly, cargo readiness is a prerequisite for obtaining permission for a vessel to enter the port.
Detention as the Primary Compensation Mechanism
In voyage charters, demurrage typically covers delays, but only after a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR) has been tendered and laytime has commenced.
In the Sulina context, the situation differs.
Typical charterparty clauses provide, for example:
“time counting at Sulina\commence upon vessel’s arrival to Sulina anchorage area and/or customary waiting place or anchorage and tendered NOA.”
Accordingly:
- time spent at Sulina often does not qualify as laytime,
- and is instead treated as detention.
As a general rule, detention constitutes unliquidated damages.
However, parties often link detention to the demurrage rate, although shipowners may seek to recover higher actual losses if properly evidenced.
Thus, each day of delay at Sulina may result in significant financial exposure for charterers.
Weather Conditions and Canal Closures
Weather conditions represent a separate category of risk.
In practice, agents frequently report: “Due to bad weather conditions in Sulina port … Sulina Channel is declared closed since …”
Such circumstances may prevent convoy movements and extend delays.
The key issue, however, is whether such time counts towards detention.
This depends on:
- the terms of the charterparty,
- the wording of applicable exceptions, and
- the availability of official confirmation of the closure.
It is important to note that under English law, exceptions are construed narrowly and must be strictly proven by the party relying on them.
Conclusion
The situation with delays at Sulina clearly demonstrates that modern maritime operations in the Black Sea require not only commercial awareness but also robust legal preparedness. In such circumstances, proper structuring of contractual arrangements, along with timely recording of delay-related events and the preparation of a solid evidentiary record, becomes critically important.
Our team continuously monitors developments in the Black Sea region, works with up-to-date English law practice, and effectively protects the interests of both shipowners and charterers, particularly in disputes arising out of vessel delays at Sulina.
