BIMCO has recently revised its widely used War Risks clauses for time and voyage charterparties. Taking this opportunity, and considering the recent geopolitical tensions, the Club is pleased to provide this update to Members by addressing the recent changes to the BIMCO War Risk clauses and Members’ rights/obligations under the amended clauses; as well as providing a timely reminder for the need for adequate safe ports and berths clauses that mitigate such risks.
Updates to CONWARTIME 2025 and VOYWAR 2025
According to BIMCO, the revisions to the War Risks Clauses were necessary “as a result of the geopolitical developments, changes in trading practices and increased demands for transparency in relation to additional premiums and payment of crew bonuses”. Some of the updated provisions appear more “charterer friendly” and require a greater deal of transparency from owners in terms of seeking reimbursement from the charterers. However, other updated provisions appear more “owner friendly” which includes, among others, increasing the ambit of “insurance costs” and broadening the vessel’s discretion to act on real-time security advisories from naval coalitions or flag states.
There are several changes to the CONWARTIME 2025 and VOYWAR 2025, that are common to both clauses. Those include:
- Sub-clauses a (i) & (ii) of both now include definitions of “area” and “insurance costs”. “Insurance costs” now include kidnap and ransom insurance which owners additionally may take prior to entering a war risk area.
- Sub-clause (d) in CONWARTIME 2025 and sub-clause (e) in VOYWAR 2025 require owners to demonstrate that owners have used “reasonable endeavours to obtain appropriate cover and terms (including premium)” when seeking reimbursement from charterers under the war risk clauses. Unlike in the 2013 version where owners had to demonstrate that the additional premium had been reasonably incurred, owners are now required to show that the additional premium itself was reasonably incurred (i.e. an additional obligation on owners).
- Sub-clause (d) in CONWARTIME 2025 and sub-clause (e) of VOYWAR 2025 now obligate owners to notify charterers of the insurance costs “as soon as practicable and, if possible, before the Vessel enters an Area exposed to War Risks”.
- Sub-clauses (f) of both uses the term “whatsoever” in the vessel’s liberty “to comply with all orders, directions, recommendations or advice whatsoever”. This implies that a broad range of instructions or guidance given to the vessel will fall under the ambit of this clause for the vessel to comply with, even if such instructions or guidance cannot be described as “orders, directions, recommendations or advice.”
The following changes apply exclusively to CONWARTIME 2025:
- Sub-clause (d) in CONWARTIME 2025 makes clear that charterers are only obliged to pay the “insurance costs” net of/after accounting for “any applicable discount or benefit received for that voyage (such as any no claims bonus)”.
- Sub-clause (f) of CONWARTIME 2025 specifies that the vessel remains on hire throughout the period of occurrence of an event under (f).
- Sub-clause (f) (vi) now allows the vessel to sail in convoy when transiting through an “Area” exposed to War Risks.
- Sub-clause (g) of CONWARTIME 2025 extends the time permitted for charterers to issue new orders for a safe port to 72 hours, once owners request an alternative port due to War Risks and the master or owners refuse to proceed to the original port.
- Sub-clause (e) of CONWARTIME 2025 requires owners to prove payment of bonuses to crew due to vessel being exposed to War Risks by means of “Owners’ invoice together with signed receipt by the crew members or written confirmation from the crew managers of such payment”.
Finally, the below changes relate only to VOYWAR 2025:
- Sub-clause (d) in VOYWAR 2025 removed the requirement for the vessel to have travelled an additional 100 miles for owners to be entitled to additional freight in the event that an alternative route was taken between load port and discharge port due to War Risks. Under this clause of VOYWAR 2025, the adjusted freight is now “based on the estimated time and/or expenses incurred or saved as a result of that alternative route, as documented by the Owners”.
- Sub-clause (d) in VOYWAR 2025 also requires charterers to pay adjusted freight “within seven (7) calendar days of the later of (1) receipt of the Owners’ debit or credit invoice (as applicable) with supporting documents and (2) the bills of lading being issued”.
- Sub-clause (d) also provides owners with a lien on the cargo for adjusted freight.
Safe port in the context of geopolitical risks
The possibility that a port or berth to which a vessel has been ordered may be alleged to be “unsafe” from a legal perspective is often linked to dangers associated with War Risks. If a vessel suffers damage whilst entering, staying at or departing from a port, then subject to the circumstances of the matter in which the vessel was damaged, a claim for unsafe port might arise. Under English law, the definition of a safe port is as follows:
“A port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it, and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship…”
As per The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 and re-affirmed by the UK Supreme Court in The Ocean Victory [2017] UKSC 35.
Should geopolitical risks materialise and render a port unsafe,, if the characteristics of the port made the port prospectively safe at the time of nomination, and if the unsafety arose after a vessel’s arrival and was due to an unexpected and abnormal event, there would likely be no breach of the safe port warranty, as has been held on the facts of The Evia (No.2) [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 307 (H.L.) (at p. 315 and 319). The unexpected and abnormal event in The Evia (No. 2) was the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 causing the port of Basrah in Iraq to become unsafe. However, The Evia (No.2) also established that the safe port obligation may give rise to a secondary duty: if the charterer comes to the knowledge that the nominated port has become unsafe, they must issue fresh instructions either not to proceed there or, if the vessel is already in port and it is still possible, to leave promptly, unless it is too late to do so (The Evia (No.2), at p. 319 – 320).
Members may refer to the Club’s existing safe ports guide for a more complete discussion on safe ports.
Conclusion
In conclusion, amid rising geopolitical tensions, BIMCO’s updated CONWARTIME 2025 and VOYWAR 2025 clauses are timely. Terrorist violence and kidnapping in the Red Sea, the war in the Black Sea region and ongoing piracy threats in West African waters have sharply increased operational and insurance risks for owners and charterers.
Under both forms, the requirement for owners to demonstrate reasonable endeavours in obtaining appropriate cover and terms (including premium), and to notify charterers of insurance costs as soon as practicable are especially relevant in volatile theatres like the Red Sea and in the Black Sea, where threats can arise with little notice. The vessel now has broader discretion to act on real-time security advisories from naval coalitions or flag States—critical in these threat-heavy regions. The inclusion of kidnap and ransom insurance under “insurance costs reflects the growing threat of crew abduction in these regions and underscores the need for such cover. The 72-hour window extension for charterers to nominate a new safe port if owners refuse the original port due to war risks under CONWARTIME 2025 addresses sudden port closures like those in the Red Sea and Black Sea. It also allows convoy sailing in war zones and confirms vessels remain on hire during such events, ensuring owners’ earnings continue. VOYWAR 2025 removes the 100-mile threshold for freight, now determined by the time and/or costs incurred or saved through alternative routes —this would be relevant for Red Sea and Black Sea detours. It also requires charterers to pay within seven days and grants owners a lien on cargo, strengthening their security.
We would therefore encourage Members to incorporate the new BIMCO clauses, wherever possible and also encourage Members to be mindful of the risks surrounding the nomination of ports in unstable areas.
We hope that this information is helpful for Members. Please note that the above update is not meant to be used as legal advice, rather an update to Members. If Members have any queries or any areas of particular concern, then independent external advice should be sought. Alternatively, Members may be entitled to some initial legal advice free of charge, from a select panel of external lawyers under the Club’s Legal Advice Benefit . If Members wish to take advantage of this benefit, please contact the Claims team to discuss.
This article has been authored with contribution from Hill Dickinson LLP.