HT-2023-000321 - [2025] EWHC 1764 (TCC)

Viking Link is a 1400MW high voltage direct current electricity link which transports power between the United Kingdom and Denmark, from one country to the other depending on supply and demand, connecting at Bicker Fen substation in Lincolnshire and Revsing substation in southern Jutland, Denmark. Viking Link is approximately 765 km long. It is said to be the longest land and subsea electricity cable in the world, and has the capacity to transport enough electricity for up to 2.5 million UK homes. This case concerns the burial or embedment of several kilometres of electrical and fibreoptic interconnector cable in the seabed immediately off a long stretch of sandy beach called Henne Strand or Houstrup Strand on the west coast of Jutland.

The Claimant, Pharos Offshore Group Limited (‘Pharos’) is a provider of subsea equipment, offshore personnel hire, and engineering consultancy services to the offshore oil, gas and renewable energy markets. The Defendant, Keynvor Morlift Limited (‘KML’) is a marine contractor. In circumstances more fully described below, Pharos provided the jet trenching equipment and personnel to operate the equipment to KML, which was itself engaged as a contractor to Prysmian Powerlink Srl (‘Prysmian’) to undertake various services in connection with a section of the bundled electricity cable which had been laid as part of the construction of Viking Link. Among the services which KML had been subcontracted by Prysmian to provide was carrying out the burial or embedment of the majority of this section of the cable, to a depth of 2m, together with various other associated services (“the Embedment Works”). Central to the equipment supplied by Pharos was a remotely operated underwater jet trenching vehicle, sometimes referred to as a TROV (a tracked remotely operated vehicle), referred to as the UTV-670.

Jet trenching involves the jetting of the seabed using seawater pumped at high pressure from the UTV-670, which moves along the route of, and astride, the cable, while jetting the seabed immediately next to the cable. Seawater is pumped onto and into the seabed through an array of nozzles along a pipe or “sword” attached to the undercarriage of the UTV-670. When deployed in use, the sword is extended down towards the seabed, rotating about its front or top end. The seawater which is pumped through the nozzles along the length of the underside of the sword “liquidises” the seabed to the depth to which the sword has been extended, and a further array of nozzles along the side of the sword propels seawater laterally towards the cable. A trench is thereby formed in the seabed, to the side of and beneath the cable. The cable settles under its own weight into the bottom of the trench. As the UTV-670 moves on, the seabed material is left to settle back into the trench on top of the cable.

There is a dispute about whether, in this case, there was a contractually binding commencement/mobilisation date. KML says that there was, and that it was 9 June 2022. There is no dispute that the UTV-670 and some associated equipment was refused permission for temporary export by the National Clearance Hub between 6 and 17 June. The equipment arrived on 20 June 2022. The works were not complete, through to and including demobilisation, until 17 August 2022. There were significant periods of downtime, due to weather and sea-state conditions, due to the difficulties encountered in particular in (but not limited to) the nearshore where slopes in excess of 15^o were encountered, and due to various operational and technical issues. The causes of the downtime, and legal responsibility for the delays attributable to those causes, lies at the heart of the dispute between the parties.

Pharos delivered 6 invoices to KML dated between 5 May 2022 and 31 August 2022 totalling £918,471.79 including VAT. There is no dispute that, of this, £135,048 has been paid. Pharos claims the balance, together with statutory interest. KML contends that the UTV-670 and associated services were not supplied in accordance with its specification and/or the agreement, causing loss and damage to KML. It contends that the maximum sum to which Pharos should have been entitled (but for KML’s claimed set off and Counterclaim) was £274,742.05 (ex VAT). KML claims between £1,217,806.86 and £1,434,049.50 in respect of additional vessel/spread hire, harbour fees by way of damages and/or liquidated damages of £185,280.