从The “Sabrewing”案看时效条款的严格解释

2017-09-24814
  
  【摘要】在航运实务及法律争议处理过程中,很多时候会涉及到时效问题,最典型的就是海牙规则对于承运人责任的时效约定,除非从货物交付之日或应交付之日起一年内提出诉讼,承运人和船舶在任何情况下都免除对灭失或损害所负的一切责任。这方面的的时效问题,在油轮租约中尤为常见,本文将首先通过对The “Sabrewing”案的分析来说说时效方面的问题。

  【关键词】Time-bar、索赔、时效、滞期费

  近期碰到一个有点意思的案子,一程租合同,约定滞期费及运费尾款如果有,租家需在完货后30天内结算,但有两前提,一是船东必须正确无误、真实完成货物交付;二是船东必须提供运费发票及滞期费计算,事实记录和签字的NOR。因装港压港,产生金额较大的滞期费,该二船东在卸完货后就迫不及待地采取行动,非法扣货以此来逼租家确认所谓的装港滞期费。而此时正本提单已经到收货人手里:收货人手持正本提单,但二船东却不放货。

  某经纪善意忠告,该二船东一直以来就这么做,租家不同意肯定不行。但事实情况是该二船东及船长一直未发NOR给租家,完货后也一直未提供NOR。撇开租约条款,想要索赔滞期费,必然要提供SOF(事实记录)及NOR(准备就绪通知书),这是基本常识问题。在要求二船东提供后,现在见证奇迹的时刻到了:在递交NOR的时候船舶仍然在航;而租约要求船舶必须抵达或者靠泊后才能递交NOR,那么显然该NOR是无效的NOR!在之前的文章里,已经多次提到无效NOR的严重性问题,尽管递交条件在事后变得成熟,一无效的NOR的仍然不会自动变成有效的NOR;而如果没有有效的NOR,则无法开始LAYTIME计算,就算是开始装卸货,也无法起算;除非是租家存在弃权或禁止翻供。

  这里的30天,通常情况下不被认为是一个时效问题,而仅仅是认为航次在卸完货后30天内结束;也就是说理论上租约终止的日期,无需责任义务实际上已经履行与否;而如果有时效条款,则从这个时间点开始起算。这点可以参X v.Y案中,Burton法官的如下陈词:

  Termination must be the date when the last of the primary obligation under the Charter Party is due to be performed, not when it actually is performed.

  如果需要一个争议处理时效,那么需在租约中额外以清晰明确的言辞来规定一个时效条款,类似于油轮租约中如BP VOY3中的第23条;或如同海牙规则第三条第6点所说,除非从货物交付之日或应交付之日起一年内提出诉讼,承运人和船舶在任何情况下都免除对灭失或损害所负的一切责任。

  In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability inrespect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

  那么接下来就来就来看看The“Sabrewing”案。

  一、基本案情

  在2005年7月18日,Waterfront ShippingCompany Limited(以下简称“”“船东”)将Sabrewing轮(以下简称“该轮”)以BP VOY3的租约样本程租给Trafigura AG(以下简称“租家”)。根据租船合同的规定,租家安排该轮去执行从纽约装载无铅汽油到温哥华卸的航次任务。该轮于2005年7月18日抵达纽约,虽然该轮描述的载重量为49,323吨,满载货量为38,215.513吨,租家接受该轮的满载货量。在2005年7月22日至24日期间,允许装卸时间为84小时,但在装港所用的时间为118.683小时,所以在离开纽约时,该船已经滞期了34小时和41分钟。

  该轮然后驶往加拿大温哥华,该船于2005年8月16日0600抵达温哥华,并递交NOR。但由于泊位被占,该轮于1318在锚地抛锚等泊,装卸时间在当天的6个小时后,即1918开始起算。由于在装港已经使用了84小时的可用时间,因此该轮立即进入滞期。

  在8月14日的0706到0830,该轮从锚地移到泊位,依据租约第20(a)条,该移泊时间并不计算滞期时间。此外,根据第20(b)条,2005年8月15日1435时至16时40分之间的时间由于垫片损坏,因此也并不算滞期时间。在8月16日1330加油管解开,卸货完毕,时间开始停算;因此在卸货港总共用了86小时43分钟。

  在装港和卸港总时间为205小时24分钟,因此,总滞期时间为121小时24分钟。以每天23,000美元的滞期费(佣金减去1.25%),欠船东114.887.40美元的余额,即滞期费。

  鉴于该船该航次为满载航次,第16条规定该轮应在24小时内卸完货,或在岸边设施允许的情况下,在该轮加油站(加油管接口)那应该保持100 psig的最低卸货压力。根据卸货港的记录,该轮于8月14日的1205开始卸货,在16日的1115卸完货,总共卸货时间为47小时10分钟。

  根据租船合同第23条提出滞期费索赔申请的90期限,在2005年11月14日(卸完货后90天)到期。

  在2005年10月26日左右,通过经纪人,租家收到船东索赔滞期费的副本,以及船东认为可支持他们索赔的各种证明文件。

  在2005年11月4日左右,通过经纪人,租家再次收到船东提供的进一步的文件,并附言:“参滞期费索赔,我们现附上该航次的泵油记录。”。但是,所附的文件并不是:

  i)如他们表面所描述的泵油记录;

  ii)由船舶负责人员签署;

  iii)由码头或租家的代表签字;要么

  iv)全部都签字。

  不过与此同时,大约在2005年10月25日,租家通过第三方取得了关于在温哥华卸货时该轮的卸货记录。Certispec Services Inc(以下简称“Certispec”)是卸货港的货物检验员。为了简易判决申请的目的,租家承认,Certispec是租家他们的代理人。Certispec船舶的卸货记录据称在船舶的加油站有记录压力。它是Certispec公司的抬头纸,由Certispec签署。它包含插入船舶名称和由船长签名的空格;但是,这些空格留空,船方并未签署。

  合同的有关条款如下:

  Recap

  Laydays commencing: July 19, 2005

  Laydays cancelling: July 21, 2005

  Demurrage: USD23,000 PDPR

  Laytime: 84 hours SHINC

  

  13. Owners undertake that the Vessel is equipped with a fully functional Crude Oil Washing System and that the officers and crew are properly qualified by way of certification for, and experiencedin, the operation of such System.

  

  For all such crude oil washing the period for discharge specified in Clause 16 shall be increased from 24 to 30 hours prorata thereof in the case of a part cargo. Any additional time taken for discharge and crude oil washing shall not count as laytime or, if the Vessel ison demurrage, as demurrage.

  

  16. Owners shall undertake that the Vessel shall discharge a full cargo, as defined here under, within 24 hours, or prorata thereof in respect of a part cargo, from the commencement of pumping or that the Vessel shall maintain an average discharge pressure of 100 psig at the Vessel's manifold throughout the period of discharge except when stripping provided that the shore receiving facilities are capable of accepting discharge of the cargo within such time or at such pressure. The shore receiving facilities shall have the right to gauge discharge pressure at the Vessel's manifold.

  Any additional time used owing to the inability of the Vessel to discharge the cargo within 24 hours or 30 hours, as the case may be, or such shorter period as may be applicable in the case of apart cargo, or to maintain a average discharge pressure of 100 psig at theVessel's manifold throughout the discharge except when stripping shall be for Owners' account and shall not count as laytime or, if the Vessel is on demurrage, as demurrage. If the shore receiving terminal facilities are unable to accept discharge of the cargo within the afore mentioned time or at the afore mentioned discharge pressure the Master shall present the shore receiving terminal with a Note of Protest forthwith, and in any event prior to the Vessel's departure from the berth, and shall use all reasonable endeavours to have such Note of Protest countersigned on behalf of the shore receiving terminal in the absence of which counter signature the Master shall present a further Note of Protest to the shore receiving terminal.

  For the purpose of this Clause, a full cargo shall mean the quantity referred to in Clause 3 or the Bill of Lading quantity,whichever is the greater.

  Charterers will not consider any claim by Owners for additional time used in the foregoing circumstances in the absence of the provision by Owners of the following documentation:-

  (a) an hourly pumping log, signed by are sponsible officer of the Vessel and a terminal or Charterers' representative,showing the pressure maintained at the manifold throughout discharge and, in the absence of a signature from a terminal or Charterers' representative, a Note of Protest;

  (b) copies of all Notes of Protest issued or received by the Vessel in relation to the discharge in question; and

  (c) copies of any other documentation generated by the Vessel or by the shore receiving terminal relevant to the discharge in question.

  

  20. Time shall not count against laytime or,if the Vessel is on demurrage, for demurrage where spent or lost: -

  

  (b) due, whether directly or indirectly, to breakdown, in efficiency or other cause attributable to the Vessel and/or Owners, including inability of the Vessel to pump out the cargo at the rateindicated in Clause 16 after taking account of any variations in back pressure;

  

  22. Charterers shall pay demurrage at the rate of US$ … per running day and pro rata for part of a running day for alltime that loading and discharging and any other time counting as laytime exceeds the laytime specified in Clause 18.

  23. Charterers shall be discharged and released from allliability in respect of any claim for demurrage which Owners may have under this Charter unless aclaim in writing has been presented to Charterers together with supporting documentation substantiating each and every constituent part of the claim within 90 days of the completion of discharge of the cargo carried hereunder.

  

  55. The construction, validity and performance of this Charter shall be governed by English Law. The High Court in London shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute which may arise out of this Charter.

  二、争议焦点

  租家的代表律师,Michael Ashcroft先生认为,本案出现以下问题,请求法院根据本听证会目的商定的事实作出简要裁定:

  i)问题1 – 租约的真正解释,依据租约第23条,船东是否有义务在2005年11月14日之前向租家提供签署的泵油记录,作为支持滞期费索赔的支持文件的一部分?

  a)签署的泵油记录:

  i)船上的负责人员

  ii)由码头或租家的代表;要么

  b)在码头或租家的代表没有签字的情况下:

  i)由该轮的负责人员签署的泵油记录;和

  ii)关于码头或租家的代表在那些泵油记录上没有签名的抗议说明?

  租家主张这个问题的答案是“是”。

  ii)问题2:如果第一个问题的答案是“是”,租约的真正意图,船东在2005年11月14日之前未能提供所需文件的效果如何?这就产生了两个分问题:

  a)首先,是否未遵守需提供由船东签署的泵油记录是最低限度的要求?因此在法律上并不相关?

  租家主张,这个子问题的答案是“否”。

  b)第二,如果未遵守不是最低限度,是否有可能将索赔拆分成多部分,以致只有部分索赔是过期失效的?

  租家主张,这个子问题的答案是“不”,结果是整个索赔都过期失效。

  iii)问题3:概述,依据本租约第23条的原则问题,是否无用论可以适用,以免除船东需提供由码头或租家的代表签署的泵油记录?

  租家认为,这个问题的答案是“否”。

  iv)问题4:如果第三个问题的答案是“是”,在本案中,无用论是否有助于船东,因为由Certispec所提供的船舶卸货记录不是由船东或船东的代表所签署?

  租家主张,这个问题的答案是“不”。

  Gloster法官被告知,双方之间确实存在其他事实问题,这些问题不适合作简要的裁定,而且这可能必须随后才能决定,这取决于他对上述四个问题的判决或方法。因此,例如,船东提供的支持滞期费用索赔的无签署的“泵油记录”可能并不记录船舶在其加油站(加油管接口)的压力。这个问题需要事实和可能性的专家来调查。如果这些文件没有记录船舶在加油站(加油管接口)的压力,租家就会争辩说,这是进一步的理由,认为它们是有缺陷的(与缺少签名无关),结果是索赔是过期失效的。但是,为了在法官面前的听证会,当事人双方都同意,假定那些关于船舶加油站压力的记录都是准确的。其次,关于Certispec船舶卸货记录是否包含船东有义务提供的任何泵油记录中应包含的完全相同的数据可能会有一个问题。Certispec是否属于租家的代理/代表,也可能存在问题。如果数据不同,或者如果Certispec不是承租人的代理人/代理人,租船人希望就此提出另一个理由,作为法律原则,即使适用的“无效原则”对于船东也没有事实帮助。第三,船东建议,泵油记录实际上可能是以他们的名义签署的,因此在这方面也出现了另一个事实问题。

  虽然在这种情况下的争议金额很小,但Gloster法官被告知,与上述问题相关的原则问题对市场很重要。BP Voy3这个租约范本使用范围广泛。如本案中的一些贸易公司,包括被告人租家,在此租约范本的基础上定期进行交易。Gloster法官被告知,在本案中提出的问题类型已经出现在一些伦敦的仲裁中,其中包括最近的一个。Ashcroft和船东的代表律师CharlesKimmins都参与过。在其他情况下,相对较大的数额显然与这种情况相同或大致相同。

  滞期费的时效条款,如果给予效力那么必须清晰明确不含糊,双方律师都承认这一公共点。因此,如果对这件事情有任何疑问,应该以这种方式解决歧义,不要阻止追究其他合法的要求。如Lloyd, Slade及Griffiths勋爵在PeraShipping Corporation v Petroship SA ("The Pera") [1985]案中所说。但是,时效条款中的措词必须具有普通和自然的意义,时效条款的规定是或类似于限制条款。因此,适用于豁免条款的特别严格的解释原则可能不适用于时效条款。参Lewison的,合同的解释,第二版11.15段。只有如果这个词的意思如此精细地平衡,反对意见的规则才能被用来作为最后的手段,以使对方的不同的规则被采用是有利于船东。见Mira Oil Resources of Tortola v Bocimar,"The Obo Venture" [1999] 2案,Colman法官在第104段所说。

  It was common ground between counsel that a demurrage time-bar clause must be clear and unambiguous if effect is to be given to it. Thus, if there is any residual doubt about the matter, the ambiguity is to be resolved in such a way as not to prevent an otherwise legitimate claim from being pursued; see Pera Shipping Corporation v Petroship SA("The Pera") [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 103 CA at 106 per Lloyd LJ,and at 108 per Slade and Griffiths LJJ. However, the words in a time-bar provision must be given their ordinary and natural meaning. A time-bar provision is, or is closely analogous to, a limitation clause. Thus, the especially exacting principles of construction that apply to exemption clauses probably do not apply to time-bar provisions; see Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts, 2nd Edition paragraph 11.15. The contra proferentem rule is only invoked as a last resort if the meaning of thewords is so finely balanced that the contrapreferentem rule should be applied in favour of Owners; see Mira Oil Resources of Tortola v Bocimar,"The Obo Venture" [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 101 per Colman J at104.

  权威显示,各方有义务仔细及严格遵守本行业内众所周知的滞期费时效条款,其重要性也适用于包含签署文件的要求。如Bingham法官在The “Oltenia”[1982]案中的如下陈词:

  这个条款的商业意图似乎是船东在卸完货后一个短的时间内作出的,因此索赔是可以调查的,如果可能解决,而事实仍记忆犹新。只有当程租人拥有了事实材料,该事实材料是他们所要求的为了去确定索赔是否很好地确立,然后才能实现这一目标。我不能将“所有可用的支持文件”一词视为不明确的:支持船东索赔责任的文件当然包括在内,但将是与总额有关的文件,正如医生的法案将是支持人身伤害赔偿索赔的文件一样。船东不会因为,作为一个常识性问题,而被禁止对所呈递的索赔及时进行实际更正(正如他们对第12(A)段中的要求所做的那样)),也没有对先前提出的索赔提出不同的法律标签,但是我认为,船东执行索赔已被关闭,如果它的证明文件(但须符合最低限度例外)没有及时被提出。真实的情况是,起草这个条款会给法律起草人一点点自豪感,但显然不是法律草拟人员的工作,这是不开展复杂的法律解释的好理由。一个可能的,尽管严格的解释,任何索赔的提出都有保留所有索赔的效果,没有任何表现出热情的船东的律师所接受,而是与荒谬的接触。第24条在我的判决及我的解释直接并不冲突:索赔可能被引入仲裁,即使它们原本不是仲裁的主体,但是如果没有遵守M2条款的话,承租人将有一抗辩。

  The commercial intention underlying this clause seems to me plainly tohave been to ensure that claims were made by the owners within a short periodof final discharge so that the claims could be investigated and if possibleresolved while the facts were still fresh (cf Metalimex Foreign Trade Corp v Eugenie Maritime Co Ltd [1962] 1Lloyd's Rep 378 at 386 per McNair J). This object could only be achieved if thecharterers were put in possession of the factual material which they requiredin order to satisfy themselves whether the claims were well founded or not. Icannot regard the expression "all available supporting documents" asin any way ambiguous: documents supporting the owners' claim on liability wouldof course be included, but so would a document in relation to quantum only,just as a doctor's bill would be a document supporting a claim for damages forpersonal injury. The owners would not, as a matter of common sense, be debarredfrom making factual corrections to claims presented in time (as they have doneto the claim in para 12(A)), nor from putting a different legal label on aclaim previously presented, but the owners are in my view shut out from enforcing a claim the substance of which and the supporting documents of which(subject always to de minimisexceptions) have not been presented in time. It is true that the drafting ofthe clause would give a legal draftsman little cause for pride, but it was obviously not the work of a legal draftsman and that is a good reason for not embarking on any sophisticated legal exegesis. One possible, though strict,interpretation, that the presentation of any claim has the effect of preservingall claims, was not embraced by [counsel for the owners] with any show of enthusiasm, and indeed it borders on the absurd. Clause 24 is not in my judgment inconsistent with my construction: claims could be introduced into anarbitration even though they had not originally been the subject of the arbitration, but the charterers would have a defence if cl M2 had not been complied with.

  依Hallgarten QC法官在The “Yellow Star”[2002]案中的说法,这些条款的商业目的也是要达到最终目的。

  三、高等法院判决

  Question 1 - On a true construction of the charterparty, were Ownersobliged to provide signed pumping logs to Charterers prior to 14 November 2005,as part of the supporting documentation under clause 23 necessary to supportthe demurrage claim made in this action?

  对于争议的第一个焦点问题,船东的代表律师Kimmins罗列了大约10个理由,但是高等法院的法官Gloster认为,在主要问题上(即作为第16条和第23条的恰当解释问题,船东的索赔是否全部被过期失效,或是因为未能提供签署的泵油记录的部分索赔)租家的论据是首选的。从第16条的明文看来,显而易见的是,无论船舶是否需要超过24小时的时间来卸货,争议会立即出现,当船东是否遵守了其他条款的替代义务以保持100psig的平均压力。因此,如果这艘船已经花了大约47个小时来卸货,如果该轮保持了所需的平均压力,那么滞期只会是24小时之外的时间。在这种情况下,在24小时以上期间的任何滞期费申索是“额外时间”的索赔。在这里,船东的滞期索赔包括45小时卸货(2小时5分钟,因为破损的垫片正确地被排除在外)的索赔。事实上,唯一可以就“额外时间”提出的索赔是滞期费的索赔。

  法官Gloster认为,船东所辩称的额外的时间仅仅适用于第16条的目的,如果船舶违反了船舶的保证,这之间并没有逻辑关系。这是商业上的荒谬,如有需要,船东对于那些引他们违反泵油保证的额外的时间没有什么可索赔的。同样地,船东的论据也没有给法官他留下深刻的印象,他们辩称并不需要提供文件来对抗租家预期的抗辩。如租家的代表律师Ashcroft指出的,责任在船东身上,去提供恰当的文件以支撑他们的索赔。除非他们提供泵油记录,否则在卸货时间超过24小时的情况下,如第16条明确规定,则无法去判断他们对于额外时间的索赔。

  法官Gloster他并不接受船东进一步的论据,认为第16条至第23条之间没有任何联系。第16条补充第23条的规定,已经非常清楚租家没有义务考虑额外时间的滞期费索赔如果超过了24小时,除非船东能有效地证明,他们没有违反租约16(a)-(c)条所要求的泵油保证,是码头泊位的过错。因此为了第23条的目的,第16条确定了一些必要的“证明文件”。

  法官Gloster认为,这样的解释与商业意义和确定性是一致的。滞期费时效条款的全部目的是,船东必须及时提供所有必要的文件,以便租家考虑船东的滞期费索赔。船东律师Kimmins先生的现实难题是,船东可能会遇到在第16条(c)中确定在90天内内提供文件,但这理论超过了实际。如果码头泊位没有制作与卸货相关的文件,船东将非常困难,没有义务去提供,相反除了递交抗议书。该条款不会被解释为强加一个责任到船东身上,去提供一文件而这在现实中90天内是不可能从码头那获得的。

  Such an interpretation is consistent with commercial sense and certainty. The whole purpose of demurrage time bars is that Charterers are provided promptly with all the documents necessary in orderto consider Owners' demurrage claim.

  因此,法官Gloster认为,问题1的答案是“是”,他的结论也得到一些仲裁判决的支持。

  Accordingly, in my judgment, the answer toquestion 1 is "Yes". I am supported in this conclusion by certainarbitral decisions; see, for example, TheDivine Star SMA 2883 (16 July 1992); and London Arbitration 8/01 (LMLN560); and also by certain textbooks: see, for example, Lloyd's Practical Shipping Guides, Laytime and Demurrage in the OilIndustry (Edkins and Dunkley) page 71; Voyage Charters, 3rdEdition paragraph 60.35 – 60.38,although it is fair to say that some arbitral decisions have been to contraryeffect.

  Question 2, sub-issue (a): Was Owners' failure to provide signed pumpinglogs by 14 November 2005 de minimis and therefore legally irrelevant?

  在第二个问题上,船东的代表律师Kimmins先生主张,即使船东违反了泵油保证,并且根据租约第23条有义务在90天内提供船东签署的泵油记录,缺乏船东的签名是微不足道的,因此船东不受时效条款限制。而关于租家的代表没有签名,他有不同的论点,法官Gloster他稍后再提。船东律师争辩说,在这种性质的时效条款规定,文件要求是服从的最低限度原则,并依赖伦敦仲裁判例21/98及The“Oltenia”案。换句话说,如果不履行提供特定文件的义务是微不足道的,那么这种失败可能不会导致索赔失效。

  就租家的代表没有签名而言,船东的代表Kimmins先生认为,2007年7月17日星期二,Charterers披露了据他们从当地的代理人那里收到的泵油记录,这些记录是由Certispec签署的。假设Certispec是租家他们的代理人,那么租家在90天内,确实收到了租家他们的代表签署的泵油记录。他依赖于这方面的徒劳原则(参见下面的问题3),并且认为,如果遗失的文件实际上已经提供给租家,尽管不同的来源,船东不应该被认为索赔已失效。因此,Kimmins先生主张,租家的案件仅限于船东没有签署泵油记录的投诉。他断言,即使是这样,也受到一些疑问,因为船东提供的日志的一些页面似乎可能在右上角有一些签名。他告诉法官Gloster,船东正在调查他们在90天限期内提供的记录是否事实上是由他们签署的。但即使船东的签名失踪,Kimmins争辩说,这一缺陷是微不足道的。鉴于船东提供明显的船舶文件-泵油记录(实际上租家的情况是,他们从油泵控制间里得来),他主张,船东未在文件上签字是没有多大意义的,它不能导致租家任何损害,而事实上,如果需要船东现在可以签署文件。

  但是法官Gloster拒绝了船东关于最低限度原则的辩解,以便船东能够免除他们未遵守责任去提供由船东签署的泵油记录。法官Gloster认为,存在真正的商业目的及重要性,要求一份签署的泵油记录,以支持在这些情况下为超过24小时,即额外泵油时间索赔提供依据,以证明他们一直保持在整个卸货过程中所需的平均压力,及该过错在码头一方。船舶的负责人员的签署显然是重要的,是要表明这样的人已经准备把他的名字签署在文件上,以确认其正确性,验证,并证明它的出处。

  I reject Owners' argument in relation to the application of the de minimis principle to excuse their non-compliance with the obligation to provide pumping logs signed by Owners. In my judgment, there is a real commercial purpose and importance in requiring asigned pumping log to support a claim in these circumstances for additional pumping time in excess of 24 hours, i.e. to prove that they had maintained the required average pressure throughout the discharge and that the fault lay withthe terminal. The signature of a responsible officer of the Vessel was obviously important to show that such a person was prepared to put his name to the document to confirm its accuracy, to authenticate it and to prove itsprovenance.

  同样的论点也适用,要么租家的代表或码头的代表的签名(或他们的缺席,有关的抗议书),假设,徒劳的原则并不适用本案的目的。法官Gloster不认为没有任何这些签名是琐碎的或无关紧要的。法官Gloster也借此认为,除了在非常特殊的情况(但这里不存在),其他最低限度原则不应被应用到一文件(如我所判),而该文件是合同明确要求提供的,这显然是相关的。

  The same arguments would also apply, to the signatures of either a charterer's representative or a terminal representative (or in their absence,relevant notices of protest), on the assumption, for present purposes that the futility principle does not apply. I do not consider that the absence of any ofthese signatures was trifling or insignificant. I also take the view that,other than in very special circumstances (which do not exist here), the de minimis principle should not be applied to a document that (as I have held) is expressly required to be produced by the contract and is plainly relevant.

  Question 2, sub-issue (a): Was Owners' failure to provide signed pumping logs by 14 November 2005 de minimis and therefore legally irrelevant?

  在这个标题下,船东未能提供签字的泵油记录所带来的后果是什么?船东的代表律师Kimmins,主张如下:

  i) 首先,他主张,只有关于“额外使用的时间”的滞期费索赔才失效。如果整个滞期费索赔都过期失效的话这将是非常不公平的。他主张时效条款应该以如下方式运作。法院将不得不计算当船舶完成卸货,如果她没有违反泵油保证,船东将有权对本船在那个时间内完成卸货的基础上,索赔滞期费。任何额外用于卸货的时间将是额外使用的时间,这部分将失效。Kimmins主张这种分析与HHJ Knight QC法官在The “Minerva”中的判决相一致:

  “虽然我的裁决意味着,在Marsaxlokk滞期费索赔过期失效,但它并不得出全部的滞期费索赔都过期失效。我看不出有什么理由诠释租约第13条,该条意味着船东只能提交一个索赔,虽然索赔可包括与装载和卸货范围内的多个港口。我接受Kimmins先生提交的内容即i)提供了索赔的份额可以被分解成(如他们在本案中)可以识别和量化的多个有效的索赔。

  While my ruling means that the claim fordemurrage at Marsaxlokk is time-barred, it does not follow that the totality of the demurrage claim is time-barred. I can see no justification for construingcl. L.13 as meaning that an owner can only submit one claim, although the claimmay include claims relating to loading and a range of discharge ports. I acceptMr. Kimmins' submissions that i) provided the constituent parts of the claimcan be broken down (as they can in this case) valid claims can be identifiedand quantified.

  ii)其次,他提出,“额外使用的时间”的索赔是滞期费索赔的一个单独和可分割的部分。如果,例如,有关索赔的一部分如一个文件不是由码头签字,就不能理智地建议,滞期费全部索赔都过期失效。

  iii) 退一步或替代性,他提出,起码,船东将有权获得在装港的滞期费,这与HHJ Knight QC法官在The “Minerva”中的判决相一致。

  法官Gloster认为,但是,根据第23条的特定的措辞及事实,在本案中,船东仅仅提出了一个合成的滞期费索赔,这也意味着Kimmins先生的辩解必须被拒绝,尽管它的初始浅表吸引力。第23条要求船东呈递“一个索赔需在卸完货90天内以书面形式提出”,连同支持性文件来构成索赔的每一个组成部分。除非这样的索赔,连同支持性文件,在相关期限内提出,租家将解除“所有关于任何滞期费索赔的责任”,即不是由有关的文件所支持的索赔的不仅是该特定组成部分。因此,如果像在这里,只有一个合成的滞期费索赔,船东关于整个滞期费索赔都是过期失效的,尽管由于没有文件仅涉及索赔中的一个组成部分。从索赔详情,发票和证明文件中可以清楚地看出,在本案中只有一个单一的滞期费索赔。

  In my judgment, however, the particular wording of clause 23 and the fact that, in the present case, only one compositeclaim for demurrage was made by Owners, means that Mr. Kimmins' argumenthas to be rejected, despite its initial superficial attraction. Clause 23required Owners to present "a claim in writing" (my emphasis)within 90 days of discharge of cargo, "together with supporting documentation substantiating each and every constituent part of the claim"(my emphasis). Unless such a claim, with supporting documentation, is presented within the relevant time period, Charterers are released "from allliability in respect of any claim for demurrage", i.e. not merely that particular constituent part of the claim that is not supported by relevant documentation. Accordingly, if, as here, only one composite claim for demurrage was made, Owners are time-barred in respect of the entirety of the claim,notwithstanding that the absence of documents only relates to one constituent part of the claim. It is clear from the Particulars of Claim, the invoice andthe supporting documents, that only one single claim for demurrage was made inthe present case.

  法官Gloster认为,The “Minerva”中的判决对他并没有约束力。在任何情况下,基于它的事实可以辩说是可区分的,这不仅是因为相关的时效条款的措辞比23条明确规定要少得多,而且还因为法官认为已经提出了多于一个的滞期费索赔,关于装港和两个不同的卸港。

  因此,法官Gloster再次判船东在这点上,整个滞期费索赔超过时效。

  Accordingly, I hold against Owners on this point and conclude that the entirety of the claim for demurrage is time barred.

  Question 3: in the abstract, can the futility principle apply as a matterof principle in the context of clause 23 of the present charterparty?

  Question 4: if the futility principle can, in the abstract, apply to aclause such as clause 23, can it apply on the (assumed) facts of this case?

  法官Gloster将这两个问题放在一起处理,如他早前的解释,与最低限度原则相关,要求提供由船东或代表船东所签署的泵油记录,这些并不严格地发生需要裁决,虽然,从理论上说,他们可以这样假如事实上船东已经签署了该记录。

  船东的代表律师Kimmins先生提出,船东可以依赖徒劳原则,免除船东需在90天的期限内去提供由租家的代表(Certispec)签署的泵油记录。他争辩说,如果代表租家签署的记录是在其期间由代理人(而不是船东)制作的,那么船东就不应该被禁止。他所依据的原则是,法律从来没有强迫一个人去做那些是无用的或不必要的事。参Barrett Bros (Taxis) Ltd v Davies Lickiss andMilestone Motor Policies at Lloyd's, Third Parties [1966] 1 WLR 1334 at 1338:

  The lawnever compels a person to do something which is useless or unnecessary.

  这一原则可以说明如下:例如,如果索赔人没有履行特定的合同要求,但是在履行该要求对任何一方没有任何价值的情况下,则该要求将是徒劳的,而这项索赔不会被禁止。他认为,租家没有权利忽视他们所拥有的文件,其证明了索赔。时效条款背后的目的是确保租家有足够的文件来评估索赔,无论文件是由船东或其他人提供给租家都应该没有区别。他进一步指出,船东无权依靠第三方向租家提供的文件,这绝对不能是绝对的原则。他举个例子说明,租家的经理正在考虑船东提供的文件,并注意到一个泵油记录丢失了,但事实上,该索赔经理可以向他提供船东最近从当地的代理人收到的丢失的泵油记录。Kimmins建议,在这种情况下,该经理不能理智地忽略该问题,并认为船东的索赔已过期失效。他认为,在本案中,事实上,由Certispec签署的问题件租家是否收到虽然未知,但实际上,租家已经确认了他们已经向船东提供披露了所有在90天内从其它来源取得的文件。他指出,在这种情况下,不能说船东依赖无用轮就没有胜诉的真正前景。因此他辩称,船东应该给予无条件获得追求索赔的许可。

  法官Gloster认为,船东有关这两个问题3和4的主张应该被拒绝。虽然他不想去那么远,认为无用原则在条款中永远不能在适当的情况下适用,如第16及23条。在本案中,如他已判决,船东有义务提供由租家或租家的代表签署的泵油记录(以确认其当时已同意,及记录的准确性)。法官Gloster认为没有适用该原则的任何余地。

  In my judgment, Owners' submissions in relation to both Questions 3 and 4 should be rejected. Whilst I would not want to go so far as to hold that the futility principle could never apply in appropriate circumstances to clausessuch as clauses 16 and 23, in the present case, where Owners are, as I have held, obliged to provide pumping logs countersigned by Charterers or Charterers' representatives (to confirm their contemporaneous agreement to the accuracy of the logs) I see no room for the application of the principle. A similar approach was taken in The Yellow Star (supra) at641, paragraph 5, and in The Minerva(supra) at 12, paragraph 3.

  如租家代表律师Aschroft所主张的,上诉院在Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd vAlcatel Submarine Networks Ltd [1999]案中的判决,也强烈反对在现行情况下适用无用原则。一个滞期费的时效条款的商业目的是,需要船东在很短的时间内提交所有证明文件,是为了确保其确定性,以确保对于租家而言在早期阶段索赔是什么及船东所依赖支持它的文件是什么是清楚的,让他们可以采取步骤,是适当回应,还是去调查它。租家被告之这是很重要的,在正式和某些方面,船东的索赔是什么,以及船东所依赖的文件,以便去支撑其索赔。

  As Mr. Ashcroft submitted, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd [1999]2 Lloyd's Rep 423 also militates strongly against the application of the futility principle in the present context. The commercial purpose of a demurrage time-bar clause, requiring Owners to submit all supporting documents within a short time period, is to ensure certainty, to ensure that it is clearto Charterers at an early stage what the claim is and what documents are reliedupon by Owners in support of it, so that they may take such steps as areappropriate to respond to, or investigate, it. It is important for Charterersto be told, in formal and certain terms, what Owners' claim is, and what documents Owners are relying upon in order to support that claim; see in particular paragraph 90-91 of the judgment of Stewart-Smith LJ at 441.

  在这种情况下,滞期费的时效条款的一个重要的商业目的是确保,船东已经提供给租家一系列文件,让其足以供租家他们考虑(无需任何抵押的调查,因此,无需对第三方收到的其他文件做任何查核),以评估船东每个及索赔的每一部分。法官Gloster认为,那就是类似的,运用无用原则是致命的:租家有权只看船东所提供的文件,单独参照文件及时作出确定,船东索赔是否被完全支持或者是超过了时限。因此,法官Gloster认为,本案,如同Senate Electrical案,与Kimmins所引援的Barrett Bros案,很容易区分。

  An important commercial purpose of the demurrage time-bar clauses in thiscase was to ensure that Charterers were presented with a package of documentsby Owners that was sufficient in itself for them to consider (without the needfor any collateral investigation and, therefore, without the need to make anycheck of other documents received from third parties) in order to evaluate eachand every part of Owners' claim. In my judgment, that is similarly fatal to theapplication of the futility principle: Charterers were entitled to look only atthe documents supplied by Owners and to determine promptly, by reference tothose documents alone, whether or not the Owners' claim was fully supported orwas time-barred. Thus, in my judgment, the present case, like Senate Electrical, is readilydistinguishable from Barrett Bros(supra), relied on byMr.Kimmins.

  此外,如果假设对船东有利的情况,Certispec他们船舶的卸货记录包含了所有船东在泵油记录中所应该提供的数据,记录上缺少船东的签名,确认文件内容的准确性意味着,在本案的事实情况下,无用论原则不能适用所有情况。没有依据说这是“无用的和不必要的”要求船东提供他们证实的文件,由船方负责的高级人员所签署的泵油记录。因此,法官Gloster不认为,租家在90天内收到Certispec的关于船舶卸货记录的事实(即2005年11月14日之前)对于时效的辩解有帮助。

  因此,法官Gloster判,租家作为被告有权简要判决,船东全部的滞期费索赔已过时效。

  Moreover, and upon the assumption in Owners' favour that the Certispecvessel discharge record contained all the data that should have been providedby Owners in a vessel's pumping log, the absence of Owners' signature on the logs, confirming the accuracy of the content of the documents means that, on the facts of this case, the futility principle cannot apply in any event. On nobasis can it be said that it was "useless and unnecessary" to require Owners to provide a document in which they confirmed, by the signature of aresponsible Vessel's officer, the pumping performance of the Vessel.Accordingly, I do not regard the fact that Charterers received the Certispecvessel discharge record within the 90 day period (i.e. prior to 14 November2005) as of assistance in relation to the arguments on the time bar.

  Accordingly, in my judgment, Charterers, as defendants are entitled tosummary judgment on the whole of Owners' claim for demurrage because it wastime barred.

  总结:

  本案所涉及的几个焦点都是围绕租约第23条所展开,针对该特定条款,其描述如下:

  Charterers shall bedischarged and released from all liability in respect of any claim for demurrage which Owners may haveunder this Charter unless aclaim in writing has been presented to Charterers together withsupporting documentation substantiating each and every constituent part of theclaim within 90 days of the completion of discharge of the cargo carried hereunder.

  即,对于船东根据本合同可能有的任何滞期费索赔,租家将解除和免除其责任,除非在卸完货后90天内以书面形式向租家提出索赔,连同呈交能够证实每个及该索赔的每一部分的支持证明文件。

  该轮于2005年8月16日卸完货,按租约第23条所规定的,时效期限为完货后90天,也就是2005年11月14日。船东在10月26日左右也提供了各种证明文件,提出了滞期费索赔申请。然而,与租约第16条及20条的要求相反,船东未能提供所要求的,高级船员签字或码头或租家的代理人签字确认的泵油记录。法官Gloster认为,船东未能提供签字确认的泵油记录在本案中是致命的。

  针对特定的条款及措辞,法官Gloster认为,第23条明确说明仅仅是一个合成的索赔,如果船东未能提供可证实每个及索赔的每一部分的证明文件,则租家将解除任何索赔及所有的责任。所谓的最低限度及无用论原则在本案中并不适用。滞期费的时效条款的一个重要的商业目的是确保,船东已经提供给租家一系列文件,让其足以供租家他们考虑,以评估船东每个及索赔的每一部分。不仅仅卸港的滞期费索赔不被支持,船东整个滞期费索赔都被法官Gloster判超过时效。

  该案的判决在遵循租约,对特定条款、特定措辞方面的解释有着非常严格的要求,乃对时效条款严格解释的著名判例。虽然在之后的案里,如The “Eternity”案,The “Abqaiq”案中法官并未遵循此严格解释,但每个案的具体情况并不一样。虽然本案的判决虽然看起来不尽人情,但笔者认为,本案的判决并无问题,严格遵循租约相关条款,提供准确无误的证明文件是进行滞期费索赔的前提条件。

  如果,本案中,租约的第23条,“a claim inwriting has been presented”修改为了“claims in writing have been presented”;或者船东把他们的滞期费索赔,拆分成多个,仅仅就与泵油记录无关,没有争议的部分向租家提出滞期费索赔;或者拆开多个以后,分开找租家索赔,相信会是另外一种判决,因此法律并不禁止船东找租家追偿各种各样的索赔。。

  滞期费的时效条款的重要的商业目的就是,船东必须在一定的时间内提供租约所要求的完整的能过支撑其索赔的证明文件,要不过了时效后租家将无需负责。最后,为了避免不确定性,在执行过程中务必仔细,严格遵守租约相关条款的规定。

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号 航运佬)