精彩海运视频，极具深度的专栏文章和海量的市场分析报告，以及指数、油价和气象信息

　　《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

　　3.397 He therefore held:

　　. . . in the present case, time did not begin to run until the vessel was berthed, because it was not, before that time, waiting for a berth to become available, ready (so far as it was concerned) to unload.

　　3.397然而，他判定：

　　……在本案中，在船舶靠泊之前装卸时间不能起算（船东败诉，最后上议院也支持），因为，在此之前，它并不是在等待空闲的泊位，并未做好卸货的准备（就其本身而言）。

　　3.398 In the Court of Appeal, the principal judgment, with which both other members of the court agreed, was given by Lloyd LJ, who, in addition to the other cases mentioned, also cited The Shackleford where Buckley LJ had said that there was no difference between himself and Roskill LJ in the views they had expressed in The Johanna Oldendorff, as had previously been suggested in that case and again by Webster J in the present case. Reversing the decision of the High Court, Lloyd LJ said:

　　I do not doubt that the reason why the provision was originally included in berth charters was to cater for the case where the port is congested and a berth unavailable. But there is nothing in the wording of the provision which limits its operation to such a case. The wording is quite general. Notice of Readiness may be given whether in berth or not. Ex hypothesi, therefore, Notice of Readiness may be given before the vessel has reached its contractual destination.

　　3.398在上诉法院，由Lloyd大法官给出主要的判词，其他2名大法官也认同，另外并提到了其它案例，也援引了Buckley大法官在The Shackleford案中所说的：即他自己（Buckley）是与The Johanna Oldendorff案中Roskill大法官表述的观点没有分歧，他（Roskill）的这个观点在上文已经提到过（3.391段），并且在该案Webster法官又一次提到了它（3.395段）。Lloyd大法官推翻了高等法院Webster的判决，他说：

　　我毫不怀疑最初在泊位租船合同中加入这种条款的理由是迎合港口拥挤没有空闲泊位的情况。但，该条款的措辞并没有对其适用于这种情况加以任何的限制。其措辞是相当普通的。不论靠泊与否都可以递交准备就绪通知书。因此，由此假设，船舶在抵达合同指定的目的地之前是可以递交准备就绪通知书。

　　3.399 The principal speech in the House of Lords was that of Lord Brandon, who summarised the issues thus:

　　The views have been advanced, at each stage of the proceedings, with regard to the meaning of the phrase ‘‘whether in berth or not’’ in a berth charterparty. One view, put forward by the charterers and accepted by Mr Justice Webster, is that the phrase covers cases where the reason for the ship not being in berth is that no berth is available but does not cover cases where a berth is available and the only reason why the ship cannot proceed to it is that she is prevented by bad weather such as fog. The other view, put forward by the owners and accepted by the arbitrator and the Court of Appeal, is that the phrase covers cases where a ship is unable to proceed to a berth either because none is available or because, although a berth is available, the ship is prevented by bad weather, such as fog, from proceeding to it.

　　3.399在上议院，主要发言是由Brandon勋爵作出的，他对问题总结如下：

　　在泊位租船合同中‘不论靠泊与否’这一短语含义，在每一级的诉讼中，都提出这两种观点。一种观点是，承租人提出的并为Webster法官所接受的，即它只适用于不能靠泊的原因是由于没有泊位可用，但不包括泊位空闲可用，而船舶不能靠泊的唯一原因是受天气如大雾阻止的情况。另一观点是，船东提出的并为仲裁员及上诉法院所接受的，即该短语不仅包括因无空闲泊位而不能靠泊的情况，也包括泊位空闲，如大雾这样的坏天气，阻止船舶靠泊的情况。
　　