Pretoria - A Korean shipping company is suing the South African Weather Service for not issuing a warning in time of severe weather.
The bad weather resulted in the company’s vessel breaking loose from where it was moored at Durban Harbour and colliding with another vessel.
In papers issued in the Durban High Court, the Korea Shipping Corporation is claiming millions in damages, following the damage to both vessels.
It was in 2017 when there was severe weather in the Port of Durban and the vessel, SM New York, broke free of her mooring at her berth at the container terminal.
The other vessel, MSC Ines, also broke free of its mooring, and the ships collided. The plaintiffs are Korea Shipping Corporation, the bareboat charterer of SM New York and the owner of Korea Tonnage.
Their claims are founded on the alleged breach of the SA Weather Service’s statutory duties to provide “public good services” to all South Africans. That, the company said, included warning ships of gales, storms and tropical storms, by broadcasting radio messages and weather bulletins suitable for shipping, containing data of waves.
It said the weather service was obliged to issue early “severe weather warnings” in respect of severe weather over South Africa.
“Severe weather” is defined in the law as “an extreme meteorological event or phenomenon” which represents a real hazard to human life or property, and has the potential to cause damage, serious social disruption, loss of human life, or economic loss.
The plaintiffs said that in addition to the statutory duties, the weatherman owed them a duty of care to warn them in time of any severe weather brewing.
That, the applicant said, was vital as the owners and operators of ships relied on such timeous notice to enable them to take steps to prevent or minimise the risk of damage to their property during severe weather, by ensuring ships remained safely moored.
The company said an early weather warning would not only have ensured that the vessels were adequately moored, but it would also have allow for sufficient time to start their engines and ensure that they had the means of self-propulsion and adequate self-navigation to exit the port in advance.
The plaintiffs said that would also assure that they had sufficient time to call upon the assistance of tugs, pilot boats, radio services and other facilities and services at the port.
They said that if that had been done, the vessel would not have broken free from her mooring and the plaintiffs would not have suffered damages.
The weather service, on the other hand, denied liability, asking the court not to entertain the claim on a technical ground, as it argued that it was an organ of state and said that the vessel owners should have first given notice before it issued summons.
The second exception it raised was that there was no duty of care owed by the weather service to the plaintiffs. In addition, the entity said, it could not be proved that the vessels that collided after breaking loose from the mooring was as a result of the weather service not issuing a warning in time.
The court, however, turned down the exceptions as argued by the weather service, and gave the vessel’s owners the green light to go ahead with their claim. The legal tussle is due back in court at a date which is still to be determined.
Pretoria News