Ports face a far more complex decision than a simple yes or no when a vessel in distress requests refuge, TT Club has warned, calling for structured, risk-led frameworks to replace reactive responses to maritime casualties.
The leading global transport and logistics insurer published the guidance on June 3, arguing that a reflexive refusal to grant a place of refuge can be just as dangerous as accepting a stricken ship without appropriate controls. Pushing a hazard further offshore into less controlled environments can escalate rather than contain the risk.
"Effective coastal and port response is not a simple yes or no," said Harry Palmer, risk assessment manager at TT Club. "Success depends on thorough preparedness — having clear decision-making frameworks and established relationships so that under pressure, authorities are executing a proven plan rather than improvising. Ultimately, refuge is not about where the ship wants to go, it is about where the risk can be best managed."
TT Club stressed that refuge should not be conflated with berthing a vessel alongside a quay, which can introduce severe exposures to local infrastructure and communities. Options range from anchorage and sheltered waters to a managed offshore position, and ports are warned not to underestimate the operational demands of such events. A vessel granted refuge is rarely a short-term visitor and ports must prepare for incidents lasting weeks or months, with significant landside space required for damaged cargo, waste streams and quarantine zones. Cargo hazards compound the challenge, as seemingly benign materials can become highly volatile when wet or heated.
Shipboard fires represent the most acute scenario. Accepting a burning vessel risks transferring a high-heat, toxic hazard into a populated, infrastructure-dense environment. TT Club advised ports to engage early with local fire and rescue services to rehearse access routes, water supply and air monitoring well before any incident occurs.
The guidance arrives in the shadow of one of the most significant maritime casualty events in recent UK history.
In March 2025, the container ship Solong collided with the oil tanker Stena Immaculate approximately 14 nautical miles north-east of Spurn Head at the entrance to the Humber Estuary, with one crew member presumed dead. The MAIB's interim report found that neither ship had a dedicated lookout on the bridge. The Stena Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel at the time and was ultimately towed to a lay berth at the Port of Great Yarmouth following salvage operations.
The fire risk from cargo is also intensifying. Brokers are reporting a surge in policy exclusions related to lithium-ion battery fire risk, with some insurers shifting liability on to manufacturers as the marine insurance market overhauled contracts in response to the growing threat of EV fires aboard vessels. At a maritime safety conference in London in October 2024, the UK's Secretary of State's Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention (SOSREP) warned that bringing a ship into port is often the initial reaction when fire breaks out, but that the decision must be carefully evaluated to avoid endangering the wider population and disrupting port operations.
The guidance raises important questions about how liability is distributed when a port accepts a distressed vessel. The SOSREP role was created after the Sea Empress oil tanker disaster in 1996, when competing local, regional and national interests led to costly delays in decision-making. The role gives one individual ultimate authority to make operational and time-critical decisions in the overriding national interest, including the power to direct ships to places of refuge.
Crucially, the UK does not maintain a prescribed list of refuge locations; the MCA assesses potential options on a case-by-case basis before presenting them to SOSREP for a final decision.
On the insurance side, TT Club's own guidance noted that if a distressed ship causes commercial loss to a port, obtaining compensation beyond the damaged value of the vessel itself can prove difficult, as that sum may be very low. Courts have sought to balance the maritime interest in providing refuge against the need for adequate compensation for the risks and operational disruption involved.
There are no international conventions or mandatory regulations compelling a state to provide refuge. IMO resolutions promote preparedness, and EU member states are required to draw up plans for ships in distress, but the relevant directive stops short of imposing a legal obligation to act.
That regulatory gap makes voluntary preparedness, robust risk frameworks and adequate insurance limits all the more critical for UK ports operating in an increasingly complex casualty environment.
