CHAPTER 3 第3章
Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算
3.464 The second case was The Sea Queen, a decision of Saville J. Here the delay was due to non-availability of tugs and bad weather. The same argument as in the previous case was put forward together with a suggestion that the word ‘‘reachable’’ was descriptive of the berth in the sense that the berth remained reachable, albeit the vessel could not for the time being reach it, and ﬁnally that the charterers’ duty was to procure a berth which the vessel proceeding normally would be able to reach. By ‘‘proceeding normally’’ was meant, it was suggested, in good weather and with tugs. None of these arguments, however, found favour with the judge, who was not prepared to restrict the meaning of reachable in any of the ways suggested.
3.464第二个案子是The Sea Queen，由Saville法官做出的判决。该案的延迟是由于没有合适的拖轮及恶劣天气。同以往案例一样，提出是同样的观点并认为‘可靠泊’是描述性的词语，其含义是泊位始终保持可靠的情形，即使船舶暂时还不能到达，所以，最终，承租人的义务就是为正常驶入的船舶提供能够靠泊的泊位（就此点，承租人败诉）。还建议，‘正常驶入’意思是指天气良好，又有拖轮。不过，这些观点均未得到法官的认同，无论何种方式的建言，法官并不想对可靠泊的含义做任何限制。
3.465 The third and last case to be decided was The Fjordaas where again there was an absence of tugs and bad weather, this time together with a prohibition on night navigation. The arguments put forward were the same and again rejected, this time by Steyn J, who said in relation to the physical obstruction argument:
In my judgment the distinction between physical causes of obstruction and non physical causes rendering a designated place unreachable is not supported by the language of the contract or common sense; it is in conﬂict with the reasoning in The Laura Prima; and it is insupportable on the interpretation given to that provision in The President Brand. Quite independently of authority I believe it to be wrong.
依我看，致使所指定的地点不能靠泊的原因是有形的障碍还是无形的障碍之间的区别，并不是以合同的措词或者人们的常识来支撑（在该案，仲裁员试图以导致不能靠泊的事实并看当时是否有无空泊位进行区分和判定胜负，有时根本分不开，例如坏天气导致港口拥挤）；它同The Laura Prima案中理由的有冲突，按照The President Brand案中对该条文的解释，它也是不合理的。完全不受先例约束，我认为这样的区别是错误的。(不管什么情况，泊位空闲与否，只要靠不了，承租人好像都难逃责任)
 Palm Shipping Inc v. Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (The Sea Queen)  1 Lloyd’s Rep 500.
 K/S Arnt J Moerland v. Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (The Fjordaas)  1 Lloyd’s Rep 336.
 Ibid., at p. 342.