International Transport Intermediaries Club (ITIC) has warned marine surveyors to document inspection instructions in writing after a US$30,000 grain cargo dispute triggered negligence allegations over tests that were never part of the agreed scope.
The dispute began when a marine surveyor was appointed by the seller of a grain cargo to conduct a joint survey at the load port. The buyer accepted the cargo and later resold it.
At the discharge port, the ultimate buyer and consignee alleged the cargo was off-spec due to the presence of ambrosia seed and other impurities. The grain was subsequently resold at a discount, prompting the original buyer to pursue recovery of US$30,000 in losses.
The buyer initially sought compensation from the seller before pursuing the seller’s appointed surveyor, alleging the joint survey had been conducted negligently because specific tests had not been carried out.
Following a review, ITIC said the claim had been misdirected.
The mutual found that the surveyor had acted within the scope of the instructions provided by the seller. It also said the buyer had appointed its own surveyor to attend the same joint survey under a different set of instructions.
According to ITIC, the seller’s surveyor owed no duty of care to the buyer, leaving no basis for legal action.
“This case shows how vulnerable marine surveyors can become when parties later assume that certain checks or tests should have been carried out, even where those tasks were never part of the agreed instructions. Once a cargo quality issue emerges further down the chain, there can be a temptation to look back at the original survey and try to attribute responsibility to it,” said Mark Brattman, claims director at ITIC.
The case follows other recent ITIC warnings involving documentation and contractual risks in maritime operations.
In November 2025, ITIC reported a dispute involving weekend port charges after a vessel discharge extended into Saturday, triggering a 150% stevedoring surcharge. The organisation found the ship agent had acted correctly because the charges had been disclosed in advance and the owner had not instructed the agent to avoid weekend operations.
In December 2025, ITIC also detailed a case in which a marine surveyor agreed to a US$70,000 settlement after relying on incorrect technical data provided by an uninsured subcontractor. ITIC said the lack of contractual protections limited the surveyor’s ability to recover losses.
“In cargo and commodities trades, disputes often arise after the commercial position has deteriorated and losses need to be allocated. Good documentation is one of the strongest protections available to surveyors. If a principal instructs you not to carry out a check that would ordinarily be expected in that trade, record that instruction and reflect it clearly in the report. It closes the door on assumptions before they become allegations,” Brattman said.
ITIC said marine surveyors should agree the scope of work in writing before inspections begin and ensure reports clearly state both what was tested and what fell outside agreed parameters.
