《装卸时间与滞期费》第3章-装卸时间的起算-连载19

2019-01-14887
  《装卸时间与滞期费》第6版

  CHAPTER 3 第3章

  Commencement of laytime

  装卸时间的起算

  3.111 A slightly different question arose in London Arbitration 17/97. The vessel concerned was chartered on a berth charter and was carrying a number of different parcels of cargo for different shippers/charterers. On arrival at the discharge port, she berthed at a berth where the cargo could have been discharged. On berthing, notice of readiness was given. However the following morning the ship shifted to another berth where the cargo was actually discharged. The charterers submitted that the shift had been arranged by or on behalf of the owners to suit the convenience of other cargo and therefore claimed the vessel was not effectively at their disposal until arrival in the second berth. Whilst the tribunal had some sympathy with the charterers, they pointed out that the charter had a whether in berth or not (WIBON) provision and that shifting time was expressly excluded, which clearly envisaged that notice could be tendered before the vessel reached the discharging berth. Although the charter made no provision for shifting berths, the tribunal held that there was no basis upon which the shifting of the vessel could invalidate a previously valid notice of readiness.

  3.111在报道的伦敦仲裁1997年第17号案是一个稍微不同的争议问题。有关船舶是以泊位租船合同出租并载运不同的托运人/承租人很多不同批次的货物。在到达卸货港时,她挂靠了一个泊位,货物本应该可以在此卸下。在靠泊时也递交了准备就绪通知书。然而,第二天早上船舶却要转移到另一实际真正卸货的泊位。承租人提议移泊的安排是通过或代表船东并为了其它货物的方便,因此主张直到抵达第2个泊位之前船舶并没有在其有效的支配之下。虽然仲裁庭有点同情承租人,但他们指出,租船合同定明有‘无论靠泊与否’的条文和移泊时间明文规定不计,这明显可以想象到在船舶抵达卸货泊位之前是可以递交通知书的。虽然租船合同对移泊没有规定,仲裁庭裁决就移泊而言,这没有理论基础能够致使原先递交的有效的准备就绪通知书失效。

  3.112 A different issue relating to the meaning of ‘‘immediate and effective disposition of the charterer’’ arose in London Arbitration 7/01. The ship in question arrived in the port and tendered notice of readiness. However, there was a significant delay in berthing because the owners had not put the agents in funds. The charterers said that, because the port expenses had not been paid, the vessel was not in a position to proceed to a berth and consequently had not reached a position within the port where she was at their immediate and effective disposition. The tribunal agreed. The notice provision was not linked to the agents being put in funds. However, the tribunal held that time did not run during the period of delay.

  3.112就有关‘在承租人的立即马上和有效的支配下’的含义产生了的不同的争议,在报道的伦敦仲裁2001年第7号案。所争议的船舶到达港内并递交了准备就绪通知书。然而,因为船东没有支付给(印度)代理港口使费导致严重的延迟不能靠泊。承租人说,由于尚未支付港口使费,船舶不是停泊在直接驶抵泊位的地方,而且最终也没有到达‘他们立即马上和有效地支配船舶’港内某一地点。仲裁庭表示认同。虽然,递交通知书的条文与支付代理港口使费并没有联系,仲裁庭裁定在这延迟期间时间不能起算。

  3.113 A different sort of challenge as to what was meant by ‘‘at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer’’ was made in The Kyzikos, based not on the geographical position of the vessel, but on its inability to get into berth because of weather.

  3.113另一种难题是在The Kyzikos案中产生的关于什么是‘在承租人的立即马上和有效的支配下’的问题。它不是基于有关船舶的地理位置,而是由于天气的原因导致该轮无能力靠泊。

  3.114 On arrival at Houston, the vessel anchored because of fog. She made a second attempt to get into berth, but was again forced to anchor. In the High Court, having held that a WIBON provision did not protect owners against delay due to weather, Webster J said:

  Finally, even if contrary to my conclusion the ‘‘Wibon’’ provision has the effect of converting a berth charter to a port charter, I would conclude that the vessel was an arrived ship at the port within the meaning of Lord Reid’s test in The Johanna Oldendorff, until she left her second anchorage there, because she was not until that time ‘‘at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterers’’, even though, as the arbitrator found, she was not being used for the owners’ purpose.

  3.114船舶在抵达休斯顿港时由于浓雾而不得不锚泊。虽然她又再次努力,但是结果又一次被迫去锚泊。在髙等法院,判定‘无论靠泊与否’的条款并不能保护船东免于承担因天气原因所造成的延迟责任。Webster法官说:

  总之,即使与我的结论相反,‘无论靠泊与否’的条文具有能使泊位租船合同转变成港口租船合同的作用,但是我仍然认为,根据The Johanna Oldendorff案Reid勋爵所确立的准则的含义,直到该轮离开第2个锚地时她才成为抵达船,这是因为,直到那时,她还不是‘处于承租人立即马上和有效地支配之下’,甚至于,如仲裁员们所认定的那样,她也不是被用于服务船东的利益。

  3.115 Commenting on this in the Court of Appeal, Lloyd LJ said:

  I do not believe that the Reid test was intended to introduce a new factor into the equation. It is true that Lord Reid speaks of a vessel’s geographical position being of secondary importance. But it is still a position which he has in mind. If she is in the place where waiting ships usually lie, then she will normally be in that position. In exceptional or extraordinary cases, the proof of which would lie on the charterers, she may be required to be at some other place. But nothing in Lord Reid’s speech suggests that if she is where waiting ships usually lie she may, nevertheless, not be at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterers because of the weather.

  3.115针对这一点,上诉法院的Lloyd大法官说:

  我并不相信Reid准则的用意是在方程式中引入一个新的参数。Reid勋爵的本意是将船舶所处地理位置的重要性放在第二位,但是它仍是一个应予考虑的位置。如果船舶所处的地方是她通常的等泊地,那么,她就是处在正常的位置上。除非在特殊或异常的情况下,可以要求船舶处于某一别的地方,但承租人此时负有举证责任。然而,在Reid勋爵的讲话中丝毫没有提及,如果船舶处于通常等泊的地方,会因为天气的原因她仍然可能不在承租人的立即马上而有效的控制之下。

  3.116 The case subsequently went to the House of Lords, which restored the judgment of the High Court on the WIBON point, which had been reversed by the Court of Appeal, but the House of Lords did not consider it necessary to consider the point of whether weather could affect whether the vessel was ‘‘at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterers’’. The law as it stands is therefore that declared by the Court of Appeal, namely that weather does not affect the readiness of the vessel.

  3.116后来此案又打到上议院。上议院恢复了曾经被上诉法院否定的高等法院基于‘无论靠泊与否’观点的做出的判决。但是上议院认为没有必要考虑天气是否会影响‘承租人立即马上有效地支配船舶’的问题。因此,这项法律正如它所呈现的那样,已由上诉法院宣布,即:天气情况并不影响船舶的准备就绪。
  

  《装卸时间与滞期费》购买链接(点击可购买)

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 魏长庚船长(微信号CaptWei)