ASBATANKVOY evidence: review a cargo-retention allegation

Key takeaways

• Identify the precise allegation before gathering a general cargo file.
• Keep quantity, condition and technical explanation as separate evidence questions.
• Link each record to its observation point and responsible source.
• Refer technical conclusions and contractual entitlement to the appropriate specialists.

Define the allegation accurately

A party may allege that cargo remained aboard after discharge, question the quantity delivered or dispute the treatment of material identified in a particular record. These concerns can overlap, but they are not identical.

Ask the claimant to state what is asserted and what consequence it seeks. The preparer then needs the relevant ASBATANKVOY edition, recap and riders, including the actual wording relied on. Check the current text with the contractual reviewer rather than assuming a standard cargo-retention rule applies.

BIMCO's tanker charter workshop treats cargo retention, shortage, contamination and evidence as distinct review subjects. That distinction is useful when organising the questions, without importing a conclusion from one subject into another.

Separate observations from interpretation

Identify what each document actually records. Does it describe a measured quantity, an observation of material, a proposed technical explanation or a commercial assertion? A later claim summary may combine all of these, while the underlying sources support only part of the statement.

Record where and when the observation was made and by whom. The reviewer needs to understand whether different documents concern the same stage of the operation. A record made before completion cannot be treated as though it necessarily describes the final position.

Do not supply a technical classification to make the evidence fit the claim. Questions about the nature of remaining material or the practicability of its removal belong to qualified assessment. The coordinator can obtain the relevant reports and clarify their scope, but should not make an engineering or cargo-quality conclusion.

Build a retention evidence matrix

The matrix should direct the reviewer to the underlying material. It should not become a substitute report that strips away qualifications or makes disputed observations look agreed.

Reconcile quantity differences before drawing a conclusion

Cargo figures may differ in description, units, timing or basis. Identify those differences first. A numerical mismatch can be real without proving the particular explanation advanced by a party.

Ask the responsible source to explain any correction or conversion used. The preparer should not select an adjustment merely because it narrows the gap. If technical analysis is required, retain the assumptions and qualifications supplied by the qualified reviewer.

Also distinguish a difference in the evidence from a difference in the contractual treatment. The parties may agree what a report says while disputing what follows under the charter. A clear file should preserve that distinction so the legal review does not repeatedly reopen a factual question already understood.

Preserve the discharge sequence

The chronology should show the relevant stages of the operation and the source of each material event. Include the communications necessary to understand a reported interruption or completion, while avoiding a catalogue of unrelated messages.

Where an explanation was supplied later, identify it as later commentary rather than a contemporaneous observation. Both may be useful, but the reviewer should know which is which. A polished narrative should not make the evidence appear more immediate or certain than it is.

The coordinator should not reconstruct technical operating parameters from assumptions. Obtain the appropriate records through the authorised channel and refer their interpretation to qualified parties. The commercial file needs reliable evidence, not a speculative technical account written to support a preferred position.

Fictional case: a quantity gap is treated as proof of retention

A fictional tanker voyage produces differing cargo figures in the closing documents. A commercial claim describes the whole difference as retained cargo and seeks a corresponding financial adjustment.

During preparation, the coordinator asks which record establishes the material said to remain aboard and when that observation was made. The file contains a quantity difference and a separate observation, but the connection between them has not been explained by a qualified source.

The team obtains the relevant clarification and presents the factual and contractual questions separately. The authorised reviewers can then assess the allegation without assuming that every discrepancy has the same cause. The case does not decide liability; it shows why a claim needs an evidence chain rather than a convenient label.

Keep claim preparation separate from account adjustment

A complete review file does not itself authorise a deduction or payment. The principal's responsible advisers and decision-makers must assess the actual contractual position and available response.

If the parties discuss a commercial resolution, record the scope of that discussion through authorised channels. Do not allow a provisional amount in a working sheet to appear as an accepted settlement. Likewise, an administrative correction to a document should not be described as agreement with every allegation built on it.

The finance team should receive an understandable instruction supported by the appropriate authority. It should not be expected to decide a technical cargo question from the presence of a claim amount in an account.

Make evidence requests specific and timely

Ask for the missing observation, explanation or source record that would answer the defined question. A request for all discharge documents may generate volume without resolving the relevant gap.

Preserve material while the people involved can still explain it, and ask the contractual adviser to identify applicable submission requirements. Do not assume that a general correspondence exchange satisfies every notice or claim condition in the actual agreement.

The final preparation note should state the allegation, agreed facts, unresolved technical questions and contractual issue requiring decision. A reviewer should be able to understand the next step without rebuilding the entire cargo history.

Common mistakes

A quantity difference can be mislabeled as retained cargo without supporting analysis. Other errors include treating an interim observation as the final position, removing report qualifications and converting a claim into an account adjustment before review. Keep the observation, technical explanation and contractual consequence distinct.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.

Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.

Explore Zeaclub

Explore Zeaclub