Standardising Survey Contracts for International Maritime Operations: The Case for Uniform Cross-Border Frameworks
Water, an indispensable resource for sustenance and transportation, has always been central to human existence. While road transport remains the most accessible means of movement, a significant portion of the goods that sustain and enhance life is conveyed across oceans and seas through maritime transport.
Maritime transport is the movement of goods and people across waterways, using ships and other vessels[1]. It is the backbone of international trade and the global economy. Over 80% of the volume of international trade in goods is carried by sea, and the percentage is even higher for most developing countries[2]. When we think of maritime transportation, it facilitates the carrying of resources, raw materials and manufactured goods, which billions of people depend on for their livelihoods. With so much riding on this industry, the safety and efficiency of vessels, by which it actually operates, cannot be left to chance, and there are systems in place to make sure of that.
Among the many systems in place is Marine surveying, “it is the inspection, assessment, and analysis of ships, cargo, and maritime structures to ensure they meet safety, legal, and regulatory standards[3]”. For the orderly and safe conduct of trade, the maritime sector, like every other industry, operates within a framework of rules and regulations, most notably the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)[4]. Marine surveying is a key to enforcing these conventions. It provides the evidence needed to issue regulatory certificates and helps decide how risk is shared between shipowners, insurers, charterers, and cargo owners.
In practice, the survey system is built around five main types that are used regularly throughout a ship’s life: initial, periodic, renewal, special, and annual surveys. The annual survey is carried out every year and focuses on checking the ship’s general condition, including the hull, safety equipment, and key systems, to make sure it is still safe and compliant. The special survey, usually done every five years, is more detailed and involves a full inspection of the ship’s structure and machinery, especially for older vessels. An initial survey is performed upon construction or registration to confirm compliance with applicable design and safety standards. Periodic surveys at prescribed intervals verify continued compliance. Renewal surveys are required upon the expiry of certificates. Additional surveys may arise following significant repairs, modifications, or maritime incidents.
While international conventions have successfully harmonized the technical standards governing maritime safety, the contractual and procedural frameworks for marine surveys remain fragmented across jurisdictions, resulting in inconsistencies that hinder the efficiency and reliability of cross-border maritime operations. The international nature of maritime operations leaves open a wide range of issues to arise. A single voyage may involve multiple jurisdictions, with a vessel registered in one country, owned in another, chartered in a third, insured elsewhere, and surveyed in yet another location. This complexity exposes the lack of uniformity in survey contracts.
Unlike other maritime agreements like charterparties and bills of lading, which use standard formats, survey contracts are usually made case by case without a fixed structure. They are governed by domestic laws that vary significantly across jurisdictions. Even classification societies, while providing standard terms, do not offer uniformity across the industry. This lack of standardisation creates legal uncertainty. The absence of a globally recognised contractual framework means that similar survey engagements may produce different legal outcomes depending on the jurisdiction involved. Consequently, cross-border surveying becomes inefficient and unpredictable.
The lack of uniformity in marine surveying automatically means that variation in survey quality is inevitable. While some jurisdictions maintain rigorous standards, others may apply less stringent procedures. There are flag states where limited resources and distance between administrative centres and key shipping areas make proper physical inspections difficult. As a result, authorities sometimes rely on remote methods, including telephone confirmations, instead of on-site surveys. For example, in Tanzania, travelling to Mwanza on Lake Victoria to inspect vessels can be costly in both time and money. This often leads to a practice where verbal assurances are accepted that identified defects have been rectified. Similar reliance on telephone-based surveys has also been observed in Malawi and Mozambique.[5] Such approaches, while practical in the circumstances, undermine the integrity of the survey process and highlight the broader risks posed by the absence of standardized procedures in cross-border maritime operations.
Another major consequence of the absence of uniform survey contracts is the uncertainty surrounding liability for negligent surveys. Where a surveyor fails to identify critical issues such as structural defects, faulty safety equipment, or risks of cargo contamination, and damage later occurs, it is often unclear who should bear responsibility. This uncertainty arises because different parties may rely on different legal bases. A shipowner may argue that the surveyor breached the terms of the contract by failing to exercise reasonable professional care, while cargo owners or insurers may claim that they relied on the survey report in making commercial decisions, thereby creating a duty of care under tort law[6].
In the Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd case, during a voyage, a ship developed a hull crack. The shipowner asked its classification society to inspect the damage. The ship later sank, resulting in cargo loss valued at USD 17.6 million. The claimant sought to recover part of the loss from the classification society. The claim succeeded at first instance, but was overturned on appeal. The House of Lords held that a duty of care did not exist to the claimant by the classification society. Another UK case, Pacific Associates v Baxter established that classification societies and their surveyors may owe duties to third parties in certain conditions[7]. These decisions, whilst instructive, are confined to English law and do not bind courts in other jurisdictions, where survey liability may be assessed under materially different legal principles[8].
Liability disputes arising from survey engagements frequently give rise to Conflict of Laws questions. Determining the competent court, the applicable substantive law, and the recognition of any resulting judgment involves an analysis of multiple connecting factors, the domicile of the parties, the place of performance of the survey, the location of damage, and the terms of any choice of court or governing law clause[9]. In the absence of express contractual provisions, these questions generate significant litigation costs and uncertainty. Forum shopping, the practice of commencing proceedings in the jurisdiction perceived as most favourable, may produce inconsistent judicial outcomes and undermine the predictability on which commercial parties rely when allocating risk[10]. Parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions is a recognised phenomenon in complex maritime disputes and imposes considerable burden on both parties and courts.
Another issue is that countries do not always accept survey results from elsewhere. Even though international rules set common standards, port authorities can still inspect ships again and may reject earlier surveys. This leads to repeated inspections, delays, and higher costs for shipowners. If survey contracts do not clearly state where their results are valid, disputes can arise over whether a survey done in one country is acceptable in another.
The maritime industry possesses a well-established tradition of voluntary contractual standardisation. The Baltic and International Maritime Council (‘BIMCO’) has, over several decades, developed a suite of widely adopted standard form agreements governing vessel chartering, ship management, and maritime services[11]. These instruments, including the GENCON charterparty, the BIMCHEMVOY voyage charter, and the SHIPMAN ship management agreement, demonstrate that voluntary harmonisation, developed through industry collaboration and accepted by commercial actors on the basis of how useful it is for everyone , can achieve widespread adoption.[12]
A BIMCO-style standard survey contract, developed in consultation with the International Association of Classification Societies (‘IACS’), marine insurers, and shipowner associations, would represent a proportionate solution to the legal deficiencies identified above. Such an instrument would not displace national contract law but would provide a predictable and internationally recognised framework within which survey disputes could be resolved. That standard survey contract must contain certain key elements:
I. Scope and Methodology: a standardised contract should clearly define the scope of inspection specifying whether the survey is a condition survey, a regulatory compliance survey, a damage survey, or a pre-purchase survey and the technical methodology to be applied. Reference to IACS procedural requirements[13] and IMO survey guidelines[14] would ensure alignment with internationally recognised standards while preserving flexibility for parties to agree bespoke technical specifications.
II. Professional Standard of Care: the contract should specify the professional standard to which the surveyor is held, incorporating by reference applicable IACS requirements and industry codes of practice. A clear articulation of the standard of care reduces the risk of disputes after the fact regarding the adequacy of the inspection and provides a benchmark against which professional conduct can be assessed in litigation or arbitration.
III. Liability and Limitation: balanced liability provisions should allocate risk proportionately between the surveyor and the commissioning party. It is acceptable to set reasonable financial limits on liability, like in similar professional services, as long as they do not remove responsibility for failing to meet the required standard of care.[15] Gross negligence or wilful misconduct should in all cases remain actionable notwithstanding any contractual limitation.
IV. Dispute Resolution and International Arbitration: given the international nature of maritime operations, a standard clause providing for arbitration is strongly preferable to litigation before national courts.
V. Governing Law and Cross-Border Recognition. A standardised contract should contain an express governing law clause and provisions addressing the recognition of the survey report in foreign jurisdictions. Recognition clauses might provide that the report is presumed accurate and complete absent manifest error, reducing the scope for collateral challenges in port state control proceedings or subsequent commercial disputes.
The use of standard survey contracts makes things easier and clearer for everyone in the shipping industry. It cuts down on complicated negotiations, shows exactly what surveyors are responsible for, and makes it easier to understand potential risks. Shipowners, insurers, and regulators can trust that these surveys will be accepted internationally, making the whole process smoother, more reliable and more predictable.
Conclusion
The increasing complexity of international maritime operations underscores the need for greater uniformity in the contractual frameworks governing marine surveys. While international conventions have largely succeeded in harmonising technical and safety standards, the absence of a standardised contractual structure for survey engagements continues to create legal uncertainty, inconsistency in practice, and inefficiencies in cross-border trade. This fragmentation affects not only the reliability of survey outcomes but also the allocation of risk and liability among shipowners, insurers, cargo interests, and surveyors.
A universally accepted survey contract, modelled along the lines of established BIMCO standard forms, would significantly enhance predictability, reduce transactional friction, and promote uniform standards of professional conduct across jurisdictions. By clearly defining the scope of work, applicable standards of care, liability regimes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and governing law, such a framework would bridge the gap between technical regulation and contractual practice in the maritime sector.
Ultimately, the adoption of standardized cross-border survey contracts would strengthen confidence in marine survey reports, minimise disputes arising from jurisdictional divergences, and improve the efficiency of international shipping operations. In a sector where time, certainty, and risk allocation are critical, contractual harmonisation is a practical necessity for the continued stability and growth of global maritime commerce.
[1] Windward, ‘What is Maritime Transport?’ (Windward AI, 2024) https://windward.ai/glossary/what-is-maritime-transport/ accessed 1 April 2026.
[2] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Review of Maritime Transport 2023 (UNCTAD, 2023) 3–4.
[3] What is Marine Surveying? Kent Offshore
[4]https://www.nautilusshipping.com/news-and-insights/different-types-of-ship-surveys-a-complete-guide
[5] Tasiyana Wisdom Tengananwo Kamanga, ‘Development and implementation of uniform safety standards for inland waterways vessels and non-convention craft in Africa : the case of the Southern African Development Community (SADC)’ 2002.
[6] Marc Huybrechts, ‘Marine Surveyor Liability in Cross-Border Disputes’ (2018) 24 Journal of International Maritime Law 313, 317–319.
[7] Maritime Surveyor Fault and Compensation Rights
[8] The Nicholas H (n 16); Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 1071 (CA).
[9] Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ L351/1 (‘Brussels I Recast’), art 25; UNCLOS (n 7), art 97.
[10] Adrian Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press 2008) 183–185; Mukherjee and Brownrigg (n 11) 209.
[11] BIMCO, Standard Conditions for the Engagement of Consultants (BIMCO, 2018); see also Bill Delly, ‘Standardised Maritime Contracts and Legal Harmonisation’ (2020) 26 Journal of International Maritime Law 178, 181–183.
[12] BIMCO, Standard Conditions for the Engagement of Consultants (BIMCO, 2018); see also Bill Delly, ‘Standardised Maritime Contracts and Legal Harmonisation’ (2020) 26 Journal of International Maritime Law 178, 181–183.
[13] International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), Procedural Requirements for Classification Surveys (IACS, Req. No. 47, 2023) para 2–4.
[14] SOLAS (n 1), Chapter I, Regulation 19; IMO Assembly Resolution A.1138(31) (n 6), para 4.1.
[15] IACS (n 24), para 5; cf MARPOL (n 2), Annex VI, Reg 5A.