In 2013 in The Ocean Victory,1 Teare J held that time charterers were in breach of the safe port clause, and that the breach had caused the total loss of the vessel. They had ordered Ocean Victory to Kashima in Japan, and the casualty had occurred as a result of a combination of “long waves” and very high northerly winds, not perhaps so rare in isolation, but certainly very rare in combination. The peril of long waves had persuaded the master to leave the port, in the course of which very strong headwinds, in the fairway, had led to Ocean Victory foundering against a breakwater. There was also a damages issue. The time charter was a sub-charterparty, and the principal action was by the (demise) head charterers against the defendant sub-charterers.2 The sub-charterers argued that the head charterers had suffered no loss, because a clause in the head charter requiring charterers to insure the hull was to be taken as a complete code,3 to the exclusion of other liability for damage to the ship. The argument was that, because the order to Kashima therefore occasioned the claimants no liability under the safe port clause in the head charter, there were no damages to be awarded, even if there was a breach of the sub-charter. Teare J rejected the sub-charterers’ argument.