Considering whether The "Marinicki" (QBD 29 July [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 655) adds anything new to present case law on safe ports The definition of a safe port “a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can  reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to a danger, which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship.. ”  The Eastern City  [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep. The Marinicki  QBD 29 July [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 655: By a charter party on an amended NYPE form dated Dec 24 1999 the Owners chartered the vessel for one time charter trip via safe port from Vancouver to Indonesia.  The charterers ordered the vessel to proceed to Jakarta on 9/02/2000.  It was common ground that on an occasion prior to the vessel’s arrival at her discharge berth in Jakarta she sustained serious bottom damage, which breached her number 1 and 2 starboard ballast tanks. The Owners claimed that the damage was caused by an underwater obstruction located just to the north of the breakwater and within the dredged channel, which constituted the designated route into and out of Jakarta.  The charterers argued that the damage occurred when the vessel ran over her own anchor on some occasion prior to entry into the port of Jakarta. Belinda Bucknall QC sitting as deputy Judge found that the owners “..discharged their burden of proof of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the vessel was damaged by some underwater obstacle a little to the north of the breakwater ..”.  The Court found that the Owners were not able to establish when the object came to rest in the channel and thus went on to consider whether the port was unsafe because there was no system in place to check and/or monitor the safety of the channel to the port and/or to warn traffic using the channel of any such danger as might exist.  The Court found that there was no buoy to mark