《装卸时间与滞期费》第3章-装卸时间的起算-连载50

　　CHAPTER 3 第3章

　　Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算

　　Congestion due to charterer’s other commitments

　　由于承租人的其他应尽义务造成的拥挤

　　3.373 The principle was stated by Gorell Barnes J in Ogmore v. Borner in the following terms:

　　. . . if the charterers have other vessels which they have to discharge, and have arranged to discharge, in the dock before the vessel which by the charter is to proceed to the dock and by the practice of the port will not be admitted into the dock while the charterers have the other vessels in the way, the charterers do prevent the shipowners from performing their contract until the charterers have cleared away the impediments.

　　3.373这—原则是由Gorell Barnes法官在Ogmore v. Borner案中是所阐述的，如下：

　　……如果按照租船合同，在该船舶要驶入码头靠泊之前，承租人还有另外船舶必须要卸，并且已经安排了卸货，导致这个泊位被占据着。这时，根据港口惯例，当承租人已有其他船舶安排时，是不允许后来的船舶进港靠泊的，那么，直到承租人排除这种障碍，否则他就是阻止了船东履约。

　　3.374 However, this is subject to two limitations which much reduce its importance. The first of these is that it only applies where the other vessels are under charter to the same charterer. It does not apply where the shipowner is claiming from a charterer who has sold the cargo to a consignee and the available berths are all occupied by vessels under charter to different charterers, but which are discharging cargo for the same consignee. In the same vein, it does not apply where the cargo has been sold to a consignee, who for his own business purposes chooses to give a berth first to vessels arriving later, where the claim is against the charterer, notwithstanding that the charterer could have pressed for an earlier berth under the contract of sale with the consignee.

　　3.374不过，这一原因受两方面的限制，从而降低了它的重要性。第一就是它仅适用于同一承租人所租用的别的船舶；它不适用于那种船东正在诉讼的承租人已将该批货物卖给了一个收货人，并且泊位是被其他不同的承租人租用的船舶占用着的情况，尽管这所卸的货物是同一个收货人的。同样道理，当向承租人索赔时，它也不适用于货物已卖给了一个收货人，他按自己的商业需要选择安排后到的船先行靠泊的情况，尽管承租人本应该能够根据买卖合同向收货人施压要求尽早靠泊。

　　3.375 It does, however, apply where the limitation is not that of the port authority but of the charterers themselves. Thus, in Aktieselskabet Inglewood v. Millar’s Karri and Jarrah Forests Ltd, a vessel was ordered to Fremantle to load. On arrival, the vessel was unable to proceed to the jetty to which she was ordered by the charterers because all the four practicable berths were occupied, three of them by ships, which the charterers were loading. The loading of these ships could apparently have been completed at an anchorage and, indeed, this was the normal practice, presumably because the depth of water alongside was restricted. In the circumstances, Kennedy J held that it was the charterer’s own obligations which prevented the ship with which he was concerned from becoming an Arrived ship. He put the point this way:

　　If a ship is prevented from going to the loading place, which the charterer has the right to name, by obstacles caused by the charterer or in consequence of the engagements of the charterer, the lay days commence to count as soon as the ship is ready to load, and would, but for such obstacles or engagements, begin to load at that place.

　　3.375然而，该原则适用于所谓的限制是承租人本身，而非港口当局所造成的情况。因此，在 Aktieselskabet Inglewood v. Millar’s Karriand Jarrah Forests Ltd案，船舶按照指示前往澳大利亚的Fremantle港装货，抵达后，该轮不能直接靠舶承租人所指示的突堤码头，因为该港可用的4个泊位均被占用，其中有三个是因该承租人正在为船舶装货。这几条船本来是可以在锚地完成此项装货作业的，而这的确又是该港通常的习惯做法，这可能是因为码头边沿的水深受限制的缘故。在这种情况下，Kennedy法官判定这是承租人本身的义务未履行而阻止了该轮不能成为抵达船。其观点是：

　　如果某轮由于承租人造成的障碍或其措施安排不力的结果而不能直接抵达他有权指定的装货地点，那么，装卸时间从该轮准备就绪时即应起算，而且，要不是受承租人阻碍的话，该轮早就可以在该指定地点开始装货了。
　　

　　《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）