{"id":100435,"date":"2026-07-31T07:55:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-31T05:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ru.law\/?p=100435"},"modified":"2026-07-27T11:04:25","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T09:04:25","slug":"detention-gebuehren-abwehren","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ru.law\/en\/detention-gebuehren-abwehren\/","title":{"rendered":"Detention fees for late container returns \u2013 how to defend yourself against claims from shipping companies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Burden of proof, lump-sum claims and objections under tort law regarding the return of empty containers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If a container is returned late, shipping companies demand detention fees that can quickly reach substantial amounts. These charges are often flat-rate, poorly substantiated, or based on delays beyond your control. Rogert & Ulbrich reviews the evidence and the clause itself and defends against excessive detention demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Detention in the narrower sense \u2013 what the shipping company is charging for here<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Demurrage and detention are often confused, but they refer to different phases. Detention, strictly speaking, begins after the container has left the terminal. It covers the extended use of the shipping company's equipment until the empty container is returned to its designated depot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two points in time are crucial for the calculation: the end of the release period and the actual return time. These points are often unclear in disputes, and this is precisely where the defense lies. Unlike demurrage, which concerns the storage space in the port, detention concerns the availability of the container itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An overview of our consulting services transport and forwarding law<\/a> You can find it on our service page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Received a detention invoice? First, clarify when the release period ended and when the container was actually returned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal basis: Conditions of carriage as general terms and conditions.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Detention claims are not based on law, but on the shipping company's terms and conditions of carriage. These are general terms and conditions and, insofar as German law is applicable, are subject to judicial review of their content. Therefore, even in commercial transactions, they are not effective in every respect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before disputing the amount, it is therefore essential to clarify whether the terms were effectively incorporated and which law applies. We discuss the classification as payment or liquidated damages and the review of standard terms and conditions in detail in our article on when shipping companies' demurrage clauses are invalid. The principles outlined there apply accordingly to detention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unsure whether the shipping company's terms and conditions even apply? Have the terms and conditions and applicable law reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burden of proof: Who has to prove what?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An often overlooked factor is the burden of proof. Whoever asserts a claim must demonstrate and prove its prerequisites. For the shipping company, this means that it must prove the start of the detention, the expiry of the release period, and, above all, the actual return date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The exact date of return is often disputed. The decisive factor is proof of return to the depot, such as an interchange receipt, a depot receipt, or the corresponding gate documentation. If the shipping company's information differs from your own documentation, the claim is contestable, either in principle or in amount. Properly documenting your return eliminates the basis for excessive claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the shipping company dispute your return date? Secure the interchange receipt and the deposit slip and have the evidence reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lump sum claims and the control of terms and conditions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Detention is typically billed as a tiered daily rate per container. If these rates are classified as liquidated damages, they are fully subject to review. The crucial question then becomes whether the lump sum exceeds the damage that could normally be expected and whether proof of lesser damage is admissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n