严格遵守租约要求的重要性—评The“Eagle Valencia”案

2017-10-081378

【摘要】在程租合同下,船东都想让租家来承担因为各种原因导致的延误风险;而租家则通过各种手段,如通过租约条款来转嫁风险。通常情况下,不管是在泊位租约还是在港口租约下,递交有效的NOR都是开始起算Laytime的前提条件之一;而很多时候将获得Free Pratique列明为NOR有效性的条件之一。本文通过对The“Eagle Valencia”案的分析来说说未及时获得Free Pratique而导致NOR无效,NOR无效导致索赔失效的致命性问题。

【关键词】NOR、Free Pratique、入港许可、滞期费
 
一个多世纪以来,船东试图让租家对装卸港口造成延误负责;他们为了达到这个目的,通常就在租约中间插入众所周知的条款,例如“等待泊位的时间损失计算装货/卸货时间”或要求港口或泊位在抵达时,可直接到达或无障碍可抵达。前者类似于“time lost in waiting for berth to count as laytime”,后者类似于 “portor berth to be reachable on arrival”。很多时候说时间就是生命,但对于船东而言,时间很显然是金钱,在船舶有限的服务时间内都是为了尽可能地赚取最大的利润。因此如果装货或卸货时间的超过了租约规定许可的时间,通常会规定租家应支付滞期费。为了允许的装卸货时间可以顺利开始起算,船东通常必须给租家或其代理人提供准备就绪的通知(NOR),表明船舶已经准备就绪可以开始装货或卸货(视情况而定)。

在油轮租约下,通常规定,在船舶准备就绪,船长或船东递交书面的NOR给租家或他们的代理,同时需在6个小时内获得入港许可(free pratique),此NOR才变得有效,装卸货时间才可以开始起算。相反,如果未能在6个小时内,则此NOR无效。

当然,订约自由,当事人双方对于这个free pratique的要求可以很自由地加入租约而成为NOR有效的条件之一,不管是在递交NOR之前必须获得还是递交之后6个小时内必须获得。如果碰到某些港口无法提前取得电子检疫,非得等船舶靠码头后,当地卫检官员上船检查之后才能获得这个入港许可,那么这种情况下,船东将承担巨大的风险。

严格来说,一艘船在抵达装货或卸货港的时候,除非且直到港口当局(除其他外)已经确信船舶没有传染病,船员可以随意与岸边接触;要不然将不能说该船舶已准备就绪。这意味着船方必须获得“Free Pratique”,即无疫入港许可,在本文中简称为“入港许可”。

那么所先来了解一下,“FreePratique”的定义,参《Voyage Charter》第4版,15A.48,著者引援Pan Cargo Shipping Corp. v.United States, (S.D.N.Y. 1964)案的解释,其定义如下:

No vessel may communicate with the shore in a foreign port, in the sense of persons leaving the vessel or coming abroad the vessel or loading or unloading cargo or taking on stores, without prior permission of the shore authorities. The grant of this permission is usually under the authority of medical officers, the danger normally apprehended being contagious diseases among passengers or crew. The permission itself is generally called "pratique" or "free pratique".

任何船舶在外国港口,不得在获得港口当局事先许可的情况下,与岸方联系,尤其是人员离开船舶或上船,或装货或卸货或上物料。授予此许可通常由医务人员授权,通常被认为是乘客或船员中的传染病的危险。许可本身一般被称为“疫情”或“无疫入港许可”。

Longmore勋爵在The“EagleValencia”案中,认为“Free Pratique”是一种艺术术语。在亚洲在线海事中心在线发布的一个海事字典中定义,也可在Google上查得:

Official permission from the port health authorities that the ship is without infectious disease or plague and the crew is allowed to make physical contact with shore; otherwise the ship may be required to wait at quarantine anchorage for clearance.

港口卫生当局的正式许可,船舶没有传染病或瘟疫,船员被允许与岸上接触;否则船舶可能被要求在检疫锚地等待清关。

在《Laytime and Demurrage》-Chapter3-Commencement of laytime:

3.189 Free pratiqueand quarantine说到如下,也引援了Longmore勋爵所说。

These two terms are in one sense opposites in that a ship that is refused free pratique may have quarantine restrictions imposed upon her. Pratique is a permission or licence granted by the port medical authorities to a vessel upon arrival from a foreign port for her crewto go ashore and for local people to go on board. In The Eagle Valencia,Longmore LJ said this about “Free Pratique”:

The term "free pratique" is something of a term of art. It is defined in one maritime dictionary published on line by Asia's on line Maritime Centre, and available on Google as:-

"official permission from the port health authorities that the ship is without infectious disease or plague and the crew is allowed to make physical contact with shore; otherwise the ship maybe required to wait at quarantine anchorage for clearance."
 
从以上可以看出,“入港许可”的概念涉及或至少与许可的“授予”一致。目前入港许可的授予很可能是一种形式的东西,需要入港许可,在普通法下,并不会阻止NOR的递交,如The “Delian Spirit”案。但当事人当然可以,在他们的合同中,作出其他相反规定,例如Shell Voy 5额外的条款中,列明装卸货时间在获得入港许可后6个小时开始起算。
 
接下来就来看看The“Eagle Valencia”案,船舶未在6小内获得此入港许可,导致NOR无效;而船东在索赔滞期费的时候又未提供有效的NOR,从而导致索赔不成立所带来的致命性问题。
 
一、基本案情

AET INC LIMITED(以下简称“船东”)在2006年12月18日以Shell Voy 5的租约范本,将Eagle Valencia轮(以下简称“该轮”),租给ARCADIA PETROLEUM LIMITED(以下简称“租家”),租约约定滞期费为60,000USD每天按比例计算,装卸货时间为96小时。

在2007年1月15日的1148,该轮抵意向的第二装港Escravos,并递交NOR。1月16日0730,港口当局相关代表上船,在0830该轮获得入港许可。

1月16日的1539,该轮船长发了一封邮件,说船舶已经准备就绪可以装货,但不损害之前递交NOR的有效性。

1月16日1553,该轮船长又发了一封电邮,说入港许可在0830已经获得。

1月19日1354,该轮离开锚地前往泊位靠泊装货。

1月19日1542靠好,2100开始装货;21日的0830装完货;最终该轮于2月11日卸完货。
租约的相关条款如下:

II.13 (1) Subject to the provisions of Clauses 13(3) and 14, …
(a)

[13.1.a1] Time at each loading or discharging port shall commence to run 6 hours after the vessel is in all respects ready to load or discharge and written notice thereof has been tendered by the master or Owners' agents to Charterers or their agents or the vessel is securely moored at the specified loading or discharging berth whichever first occurs.

[13.1.a2] However, if the vessel does not proceed immediately to such berth time shall commence to run 6 hours after (i) the vessel is lying in the area where she was ordered to wait or, in the absence of any such specific order, in a usual waiting area and (ii) written notice of readiness has been tendered and (iii) the specified berth is accessible.

[13.1.a3] A loading or discharging berth shall be deemed inaccessible only for so long as the vessel is or would be prevented from proceeding to it by tidal conditions, awaiting daylight, pilot or tugs, or port traffic control requirements (except those requirements resulting from the unavailability ofsuch berth or of the cargo).
...

(3) Notwithstanding anything else in this Clause 13, if Charterers start loading or discharging the vessel before time would otherwise start to run under this charter, time shall run from commencement of such loading ordischarging.

(4) For the purposes of this Clause 13 and of clause 14 "time"shall mean laytime or time counting for demurrage, as the case may be.

II.15 (1) Charterers shall pay demurrage at the rate specified in PartI(J).
...
Demurrage shall be paid per running day or pro rata for part thereof forall time which, under the provisions of this charter, counts against laytime orfor demurrage and which exceeds the laytime specified in Part I(I). Charterers' liability for exceeding the laytime shall be absolute … .

(3) Owners shall notify Charterers within 60 days after completion of discharge if demurrage has been incurred and any demurrage claim shall be fully and correctly documented,and received by Charterers, within 90 days after completion of discharge. If Owners fail to give notice of or to submit any such claim with documentation, as required herein, within the limits aforesaid, Charterers' liability for such demurrage shall be extinguished
 
22. Clearance Clause
[22.1] If Owners fail
(A) to obtain Customs clearance; and/or
(B) free pratique; and/or
(C) to have onboard all papers/certificates required to perform this Charter,
either within the 6 hours after Notice of Readiness originally tendered orwhen time would otherwise normally commence under this Charter, then theOriginal Notice of Readiness shall not be valid.
[22.2] A Notice of Readiness may only be tendered when Customs clearanceand/or free pratique has been granted and/or all papers/certificates requiredare in order in accordance with relevant authorities requirements.
[22.3] Laytime or demurrage, if on demurrage, would then commence inaccordance with the terms of this Charter.
[22.4] All time, costs and expenses as a result of delays due to any ofthe foregoing shall be for Owners' account.
[22.5] The presentation of the notice of readiness and the commencement oflaytime shall not be invalid where the authorities do not grant free pratiqueor customs Clearance at the anchorage or other place but clear the vessel whenshe berths.
[22.6] Under theseconditions the NOR would be valid unless the timely clearance of the vessel forcustoms or free pratique is caused by the fault of the vessel.

二、争议的主要焦点

船东辩称,装卸时间在Escravos 递交NOR后6小时开始起算,他们递交了准备就绪通知书,即在5月15日的1748。在2007年3月8日,根据第15条,他们转发他们的索赔与支撑其滞期费计算的证明文件。租家并没有反应,直到2007年8月21日,但在此时,租家以依据租约第22条,入港许可并未在6个小时内获得,断言装卸时间不能开始起算,直到船舶在1月19日1542靠泊码头后。

他们在Walker法官面前的听证会上保持这一立场,依赖20.1条款规定认为NOR无效;而船东依赖20.5条,认为NOR并非无效。直到大约两周前,值得赞赏的是,船东意识到,如果租家所坚持的第22.1条适用于,那么他们可以根据第22.2条再递交(新的NOR也许已经递交)。他们申请暂缓以便修改其提出这一索赔指控的意见,但是租家反对说,船东在60天内没有提出任何此类替代性索赔的通知,在卸完货后90天内也未提供全部的文件,因此根据租约第15条,索赔应被取消。

 基于租约第22.5条,如果入港许可在靠泊前已经获得,那么初始的NOR并非无效,法庭维持船东的滞期费索赔。法庭允许船东通过修改方式指控他们的替代索赔,虽然他不需要判定这个替代案件是否可行,但他认为不是因为提交的文件没有完全或正确地确定该替代性的索赔。
 
三、高等法院判决
 
Validity of Notice of Readiness of 15th January

关于在1月15日递交的NOR有效性问题,法官在第55段理由认为,如果在22.5“when she berths”这个短语排除了在靠泊前清关,这是荒谬的。但是高等法院Longmore勋爵认为,他很难认同。第22条整个关于入港许可的解释与第13条是不同的立场安排。否则,根本不会有一个特别的附加条款。如果在根据22.5在靠泊之前,在任何时间给予的准备就绪的通知是有效的,那么很难看出第13条将如何被改变。

Longmore勋爵认为,正如他所看到的,第13条中没有任何内容可以阻止在没有入港许可的情况下递交NOR(这反映了普通法的立场,如果入港许可预期是一种形式)。依据对未能一词的辩解,Longmore勋爵认为他将得出:依据第22.1规定,如果在递交NOR后的6小时内获得入港许可,则第13条将继续执行;但是如果递交NOR后在6小时内没有获得入港许可(因此可能不如预期的正式程序),则初始的NOR无效。然而,这并不阻止一旦获得入港许可后再递交新的NOR,并且在递交新的NOR后6个小时开始起算装卸时间。在到那个时间点之前,可预见的成本和费用将由船东自己承担。这是一个非常可行的方案,虽然不如第13条那般对船东有利,但至少允许他们在递交新的NOR,6个小时后开始起算装卸货时间。如果港口仍然拥挤,即使开始时间晚于第13条所设想的时间,装卸时间仍然会累积。

As I see it, nothing in clause 13 prevents a notice of readiness beingtendered in the absence of free pratique (which reflects the common lawposition if free pratique is expected to be a formality). Subject to anargument on the word "fail" to which I will come, SAC 22.1 providesthat clause 13 will continue to govern if free pratique is granted within 6hours of the tender of notice of readiness; but if it is not granted (and isthus, perhaps, less of a formality than expected) within 6 hours of the noticeof readiness, then the "original" notice of readiness is not to bevalid. That will not,however, prevent a fresh notice of readiness from being tendered once free pratique has been granted (SAC 22.2) and time will then run after 6 hours from the tender of that fresh notice of readiness (SAC 22.3). Up to thatpoint in time, costs and expenses will (as one would expect) be for Owners'account (SAC 22.4). This is an eminently workable scheme and, although not sofavourable to Owners as clause 13, at least allows them to start the laytime clock 6 hours after such fresh notice of readiness is tendered. If the portremains congested, laytime will still accrue, although it has started somewhatlater than envisaged by clause 13.
    
Longmore勋爵认为,船东处于不利地位的唯一情况是,只有当船舶靠泊后才能获得入港许可。可能会发生这种情况,因为这是港口的做法,或其他任何原因,只有在船舶实际靠泊后他们才上船检查,才会批准入港许可。如果在这种情况下,那个唯一船东所能够递交的NOR无效,则船东他们(不公平地)承担了第13条规定的拥挤的风险。因此第22.5条就发挥作用,因为它规定,在这种情况下,原始的NOR不是无效的,而是根据租约的条款生效,除非第22.6条延迟在某种程度上是船东的过错。

Longmore勋爵认为,这是一个完全可以理解和可行的方案,它不要求(正如法官认为的那样,第54段理由),当事人各方去调查和解决港口的做法到底是什么。这取决于实际发生的情况,即是否入港许可在实际上是在靠泊后才能获得,无论什么原因;不管任何种类的任何调查。

船东的代表律师Aschroft表示,这是一个非商业性的解释,如果可能的话应该避免。但 Longmore勋爵认为,在他看来似乎是合理和可行的,而且很可能是双方的意图。船东律师所中意的第22.5条的解释,“when she berths”应为解读为“at latest when she berths”,及忽略了在“do notgrant free pratique at the anchorage”中的“not”。船东律师指出,唯一严重的非商业性结果是船东可能根据第22.4条对租家的费用负责。即使这样做是正确的(也就是说没有必要决定这个问题),这不能影响到第22.5条的解释。此外,在船东的解释中,第22条如何以任何方式改变第二部分第13条也是非常困难的。

Ashcroft先生还有一点。他认为,就入港许可而言,依据第22.1条,只有船东被告知他们未能获得入港许可,才使原来的NOR失效。Longmore勋爵认为,据他所知,关于这个辩解,租约起草者是一个故意的,“获得”一词适用于清关,但不适用于入港许可,以便船东以某种方式不得不被告之未能获得(在某种意义上说,据推测,该船没有“通过”入港许可的要求)。这是第22.1条勉强的解释。首先,“fail”这个词经常用来描述一个没有出现的情况。它不仅限于失败的意思,如考试或测试。第二,入港许可不是一个可以失败的考试。这是从第 22.2条和22.5条显而易见的,前面引用的定义被授予或不授予。如果船东申请入港许可,就不会滥用语言,说船东未获得入港许可,直到被授予。下面没有争论,

Ashcroft先生坦率地承认,直到他看到已经把第22条的实质纳入租约第13条的新的Shelly Voy6之后,他才发现了这一点。在“free pratique”之前插入“to obtain”这个词,以符合关于清关的规定。虽然Shelly Voy6不能指导Shelly Voy5的真正解释,但Longmore勋爵认同,第22.1条的措辞被采纳,运用于在初始NOR递交之后6个小时内未获得入港许可的情况。。

Longmore勋爵认为,他更倾向于采纳租家关于第22条的解释,不同意法庭意见,判:因为在初始NOR递交后的6个小时内未获得入港许可,依据第22.1条,该NOR无效。但同时认为,有必要考虑船东是否可以依赖随后的电邮以支撑他们的替代索赔,在电子邮件发送后6个小时可以开始装卸时间计算。

I therefore prefer Charterers' construction of SAC 22 and, in disagreementwith the judge, would hold that, since free pratique was granted more than 6hours after the "original" notice of readiness was tendered, thatnotice of readiness was rendered invalid by SAC 22.1. It is, therefore,necessary to consider whether Owners can rely on the subsequent e-mails of15.39 and 15.53 on 16th January in support of an alternative case that laytime began to run 6 hours after the times those e-mails were sent.
 
Owners’ alternative case
 
Longmore勋爵认为,没有法定要求,NOR必须以任何规定的形式。它只是声明一艘船准备就绪可以装货或卸货(视情况而定),但必须准确说明该船舶已准备就绪。除非合同另有说明,否则不需要任何别的。Shellvoy租约第二部分第13.1.a1段提到的唯一额外要求是通知应以书面形式。

There is no legal requirement that a notice of readiness has to be in any prescribed form. It has merely to be a statement that a vessel is ready to load or discharge as the case may be and it must be accurate in stating that the vesselis so ready. Unless the contract says otherwise,nothing else is required. The only additional requirement mentioned in 13.1.a1of Shellvoy Part 2 is that the notice should be in writing.

在1月16日1539,该轮船长发的,显然是一个书面文件。如下:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE NOTICE OF READINESS TENDERED ON 15-JAN-07 ON ARRIVAL

Please be informed that M. T. "Eagle Valencia" arrived and anchored at Escravos terminal,Nigeriaat11.48 hrs local time on 15-Jan-07 and is ready in all respects to load a parcel of Escravos Crude Oil as per terms, conditions and exceptions of the relevant Charter party.

Please accept Notice of readiness tendered at11.48 Hrs local time on 15-Jan-07.
Agents R. I. C:Please inform all parties concerned.

对于这封电子邮件,Longmore勋爵认为其真正的意图是,声明船舶在各个方面已经准备就绪可以装载这票原油。在勋爵他看来,这足以构成第22.2条中所要求的NOR。这是一个事实,即它并不损害在2007年1月15日递交的NOR的利益。真实的情况是这封电邮还要求租家接受初始的NOR,这是对船舶在各个方面都已经准备就绪的声明的补充,而不是贬损的形式。

On its true construction this e-mail stated that the vessel was in all respects ready to load a parcel of crude oil. That, to my mind, suffices for it to constitute a notice of readiness within SAC 22.2. That is confirmed by the fact that it is "without prejudice to the original notice of readiness of15th January". It is true that the e-mail also asks the Charterers to accept the original notice of readiness but that is in additionto, not a detraction from, the statement that the vessel is ready in all respects.

Longmore勋爵认为,可以公平地说,在1月15日递交的,抬头为“准备就绪通知书”的是标准格式的NOR,但是这封电邮并不是标准形式。很可能船东也不认为他是在递交一个新的NOR。但是,这些考虑都是无关紧要的,在Longmore勋爵看来,这封电邮的真正意图是,这是一个新的NOR。

对于同一天,在1553发送的第二封电子邮件,只是指出在当天0830的时候获得了入港许可。Longmore勋爵认为他不会将其解释为第三个NOR,这并不重要。更令人担忧的问题是租家是否可以依靠Shellvoy 5租约第二部分第15(3)条,特别是规定如果船东没有在90天内提交“full and correctly”的任何滞期费索赔,那么租家的任何此类索赔的责任将被终止。与Shellvoy 5第15(3)条类似的条款经常发生在租船合同中,这种一定程度的诉讼在一审中,而在律师知悉的情况下,不会出现在上诉法院。

Longmore勋爵认为,在航次结束时应立即出示滞期费索赔,这显然是重要的,因为双方都希望在合理可能的情况下尽快进行最终结算,因为如果在装货港或卸货港必须进行事实调查的话,应该在头脑适度新鲜的时候完成。不过,尽管船东立即在30天内(而不是合同允许的60天)完成索赔申请,但仍然可以看出该条款的恶劣性质;租家置之不理,直到超过90天才提出,根据第22.1条,船东依赖的证明其索赔的NOR是无效的。在那个时候,船东立即根据第22.2条提供替代的文件,如租约第15(3)条所要求的有效的NOR去避免索赔被取消,但船东去证明替代的索赔此时为时已晚。租家的代表律师Corall QC提供了非常的多的事实证明,船东在听证会的前几天才提出了替代方案,如果索赔在任何情况下都已经被取消了,那么这一点将不可避免。

It is obviously important that demurrage claims be made promptly at the end of a voyage both because both parties will wish to have a final accounting as soon as reasonably possible and because, if any factual investigation has to be made at either the loading or thedischarging port, it should be done while minds are moderately fresh.

船东的代表律师Ashcroft主张,船东的滞期费索赔已经在60天内通知,并且已经提供了完全的文件。在文件不正确的情况下,所需要的只是一个小小的修正,去依赖一个新的NOR,而这无疑在船舶还在锚地等待装货的时候已经发送给租家。此外,这是一项只会减少索赔额的修正,租约第15(3)是否旨在消灭另一个较小(但正确)的索赔?

租家的代表律师Croall主张,如果正确的文件在90天内已经提供,但是在这种情况下,已经提供的错误的问题件,对滞期费索赔经行修正显然没有问题。但是依据租约第15(3)天,在90天内船东并没有给租家发任何新的NOR。船东没有提出替代(或替代)的滞期费索赔;没有提交任何替代装卸时间陈述;也没有任何替代发票;租家如何知道他们为了履行其真实责任而必须支付什么?

Mr Croall submitted that there would be no question of resisting an amendment to a demurrage claim if the right documentation had been produced within 90 days but in this case the wrong documentation had been produced. No fresh notice of readiness had been sent to Charterers pursuant to clause 15(3) within 90 days or at all. No alternative (or substitute) claim for demurrage had been submitted; no alternative laytime statement had been submitted; nor had any alternative invoice; how could Charterers know what they had to pay in order to discharge their true liability?

作为回应,船东的代表律师Ashcroft表示,一旦租家认为初始的NOR依据第22条是无效的,从而剥夺船东只能预期出现的替代性索赔是不公平的。船长或即他的船东,都不能给予期望能够立即考虑复杂合同文件的所有不同的互相限制条款,以便在卸货完成后90天内能够提交所有可能的替代性索赔文件。Longmore勋爵认为,这个考虑(即使是正确的),但也不是决定性的。

关于NOR有效性的争议绝非罕见,在那些情况下,如Donaldson法官在The “Timna”案中所说的,在这种情况下,发一个NOR并且要发这样的通知是很好的工作规则,以便律师介入的时候,没有人能够说“如果船长发了NOR,装卸时间将能够开始起算,且船东现在就能够索赔滞期费。”

It is a good working rule in such situations to givenotice of readiness and to go on giving such notices in order that, when later the lawyers are brought in, no one should be able to say "If only themaster had given notice of readiness, laytime would have begun and the owners would now be able to claim demurrage.

在本案中,实际的情况下,船长认为明智的做法是,在16日发送了两封电子邮件。如前面所讨论的事实表明,船长采纳了Dondldson法官的理由的推理。在这种情况下,如果船东要索赔滞期费,在提交索赔的基础上,包括替代的NOR,并未不合理预期这些可以是合法相关的。

也许值得注意的是,初始NOR的形式在租家接受那有一条划线。如果租家在接受了NOR,当它在递交的时候,或者在递交后6个小时,禁止翻供的辩解可能适用。但就目前而言,“accepted”一词已经被删除,取而代之的是有人在19日的1304“received”,当时船舶离开锚地并开始移到泊位的时刻。无论这个陈述的确切意义如何,对于船长及船东来说,租家不会(无论何种原因)同意,在初始NOR递交6个小时后装卸时间可以开始起算。

It is perhaps also worth noting that the form of the original notice of readiness had a line on which it was to be noted when it was accepted by Charterers. Had Charterers accepted the notice of readiness when itwas given (or 6 hours after it was given), estoppel arguments might beavailable. As it is in the present case, the word "accepted" has beendeleted; someone has substituted the word "received" timed at 13.04hours on 19th January, the moment when the vessel left its anchorage and started shifting to the berth. Whatever the precise significance of this statement, it must have been clear to the Master and his Owners that Charterers were not (for whatever reason) going to agree that time would start to run from 6 hours after the original notice of readiness had been tendered.

参照某些一审当局,但对不同措辞的条款作出的判决并不一定能给予一般性帮助。Longmore勋爵认为他单从Bingham法官在The “Oltenia”案中,一些非常有用的批注,具有不同但类似的措辞子句相连接。船东不会因为常理而被禁止对及时提出的索赔进行实际更正,也不会对以前提出的索赔提出不同的法律标签,但船东在我看来,无法执行索赔,如果其实质内容及其支持文件(始终为最小例外)未及时提交。

The owners would not, as a matterof common sense be debarred from making factual corrections to claims presentedin time … nor from putting a different legal label on a claim 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 deminimis exceptions) have not been presented in time.

在本案中,可以公平地说船东索赔的实质内容已经及时提交的,因为总是很清楚,如他们所声称的,在没有泊位的情况下,船舶在Escravos已经等泊了好几天时间。但是,Longmore勋爵认为支持每一个滞期费索赔的重要文件就是NOR,如果所提交的唯一一个NOR依据合同是无效的NOR,则该索赔按租约第15(3)条不能被视为已经提供完全正确的文件。这并不一定是要说,替代性的装卸时间声明和发票总是必须要提交,以避免替代索赔被取消,而只是说根据该条款,必须包含一个有效的NOR。租家要求这样的NOR,或希望船东提供这样的NOR并非不合理。

But an essential document in support of every demurrage claim is the notice of readiness and, if the onlynotice of readiness submitted is a contractually invalid notice, the claim cannot be said to be "fully and correctly documented" within the wording of clause 15(3). That is not necessarily to say that alternative laytime statements and invoices would always have to be submitted to avoid the extinction of an alternative claim but merely to say that the documents to be submitted pursuant to the clause must include a valid notice of readiness. It is not unreasonable for charterers to require such a notice nor is it unreasonable to expect owners to supply it.

最终,Longmore勋爵判,依据租约第15(3)条,船东的替代滞期费索赔被取消,由于船东他们主要的索赔不成立,因此允许租家上诉并作出对租家有利的判决。
It must follow that Owners' alternative claim for demurrage has been extinguished pursuant to clause 15(3) of the charterparty. Since their primary claim must also fail, I would allow this appeal and enter judgment for the Charterers.
 
总结:

如之前所说的The“Sabrewing”案一样,本案也在遵循合同条款的严格解释。该轮在1月15日1148递交NOR的时候,并未获得入港许可;而该许可在16日0830,港口当局的人员上船检查后才获得。Longmore勋爵不同意法庭的观点,认为依据租约条款,在NOR递交后6 给小时内,未获得入港许可,因此该NOR无效。

针对在16日1539及1553,该轮船长发的两封电邮,Longmore勋爵认为,NOR在法律上并没有严格规定要求必须是以什么样的格式,但必须是船舶在各个方面都已经准备就绪的声明,因此可以认为船长在1539所发的邮件符合租约要求,可被认为是一个新的NOR。

但是依旧租约要求,船东在递交其滞期费索赔的时候,所提供唯一的初始的NOR,因为船舶未在6个小时内获得入港许可而被认为无效,因此船东索赔不成立。Longmore勋爵认为支持每一个滞期费索赔的重要文件就是NOR,如果所提交的唯一一个NOR依据合同是无效的NOR,则该索赔按租约第15(3)条不能被视为已经提供完全正确的文件。这并不一定是要说,替代性的装卸时间声明和发票总是必须要提交,以避免替代索赔被取消,而只是说根据该条款,必须包含一个有效的NOR。租家要求这样的NOR,或希望船东提供这样的NOR并非不合理。

船东因为未按租约要求提供一个有效的NOR,导致滞期费索赔超过时效而失效;船东想额外提供新的NOR以支撑其替代索赔也不被支持,最终租家上诉被许可,高等法院作出了对租家有利的判决。

由于滞期费索赔的时效条款在事实上改变了普通法下6年索赔时效的规定,在订约自由的前提下,法官在解释租约相关条文的时候会采取非常严格的解释。又如在The “Adventure”案中,船东未提供所有支持性文件(all supporting docsuments)而被判索赔不成立。

众多的判例表明,如果合同中已经约定了时效,那么一旦一方违反了合同要求,法院将不会考虑结果是否会受到影响。当然针对此类滞期费索赔的时效条款,条文的内容,其本身要非常清晰明确。如之前说过的The “Li Hai”案一样,发撤船通知,必须讲明租家未在48小时内安排支付租金,船东将撤船。因此这种时效条款,不仅要说明船东必须在什么时间内提交滞期费索赔所需要的支持证明文件及发票,还必须讲明如果船东未如此做时的后果,比如索赔失效。

最后,以Sumption勋爵2017年5月8日在牛津大学所做的演说中提到的,Mustill勋爵在判决中具有相当分量的,如下这段话作为本文的结尾:

“I believe”, he said(p 384), “that most expressions do have a natural meaning, in the sense of their primary meaning in ordinary speech. Certainly, there are occasions where direct recourse to such a meaning is inappropriate. Thus, the word may come from a specialist vocabulary and have no significance in ordinary speech. Or it mayhave one meaning in common speech and another in a specialist vocabulary; and the content may show that the author of the document in which it appears intended it to be understood in the latter sense. Subject to this, however, the inquiry will start, and usually finish, by asking what is the ordinary meaning of the words used.”

我相信,绝大多数的措辞,在正常对话中的主要意义上,都有其自然含义。当然,有时候直接诉诸此种意思是不合适的。因此,这个词语可能来自于专业词典,在日常对话中并没有什么意义。或者,这个词语在日常对话中是一种含义,而在专业词典中又是另一种含义。
 
写于2017.10.02

海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号 航运佬)