《装卸时间与滞期费》第3章-装卸时间的起算-67

　　CHAPTER 3 第3章

　　Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算

　　3.426关于这种类型条款的司法审判历史是起源于North River Freighter Ltd v. President of India(The Radnor)案。该案所涉及的是一份泊位租船合同。在该案中，承租人主张根据金康租船合同中‘时间损失’条款的规定，在装货准备就绪通知书被递交之前装货时间不应开始起算。要求法院审理的唯一的法律问题就是他的这种主张是否正确。上诉法院推翻了McNair法官的判决，认为‘不正确’。针对这一点，Singleton 大法官如是说 ：

　　损失的时间应计入或追加到装货时间，是为了明确双方当事人所处的地位。我不能接受这一观点：即按照第67行中的词语，直到按照第17条款的规定递交通知书之前，并没有时间损失。

　　针对这一点，Diplock勋爵在The Darrah案中评论说：

　　实际上，对The Radnor一案判决的正确性是不容置疑的。在‘时间损失’条款下，这并没有意图需要递交通知书才能起算装卸时间。因为，如果是这样的话，那么，当初就是为泊位租船合同设计的这一条款反倒不适用于该合同了，这是因为在该泊位租船合同下，直到等泊时间结束以及船舶已经靠在泊位上以前，通知书是不可能递交的。

　　3.427 In the course of their judgments in The Radnor, both Singleton and Parker LJJ referred to the ‘‘time lost’’ provision being independent of the laytime clause and although the court never expressed any opinion on the way demurrage had been calculated in the original arbitration award, it had nevertheless been done on the basis that the laytime exceptions did not apply.

　　3.427在The Radnor—案的判决过程中，Singleton大法官和Parker大法官均提到‘时间损失’条款是独立于装卸时间条款以外的，而且，尽管法院对原仲裁裁决书中的滞期费的计算方法未发表意见，但是，依据装卸时间除外条款不适用（滞期），仲裁员还是对滞期费进行计算了。

　　3.428 The next case to consider the matter was Metals & Ropes Co Ltd v. Filia Compania Limitada (The Vastric), again a decision of McNair J. The dispute concerned whether periods of time which would have counted as laytime if a berth had been available should nevertheless count under the waiting time provision. It is clear that the judge would have liked to have approached the matter by determining how much worse off the shipowners were because a berth was not available to them and on that basis he concluded that only a small period of time had been lost because the remainder would not have counted for laytime had the vessel been in berth. Of that approach and conclusion, he said:

　　It seems to me that there is a very great commercial sense in that result.

　　However, he felt bound by the earlier Court of Appeal decision to hold that the period which would have been excluded from laytime if the vessel had been in berth must be allowed to count under the waiting time provision.

　　3.428随后一个有关这种争议的案子是Metals & Ropes Co Ltd v. Filia Compania Limitada (The Vastric)案，也是由 McNair 法官判决的。在该案中所争论的问题是：如有空闲泊位的情况下，本应计入装卸时间的期间根据等泊条款是否也应计入等泊损失的时间呢？显然，法官本应该首先考虑船东因无空闲泊位所受的遭受的恶劣境遇再做出判断，据此他得出结论：仅一小部分时间被损失掉了。因为，假如船舶已经靠妥泊位的话，其余的那部分时间也不会被计入装卸时间的。根据这一方法他总结道：

　　依我看，这一结论的商业意义甚为重要。

　　不过，他仍然认为应受早先上诉法院的判决的约束，判断：如果船舶靠妥泊位，由此而应从装卸时间中扣除的那部分时间，根据等泊时间条款反而应予以计入等泊损失的时间。
　　

　　《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）