提供全部文件的重要性-兼评The“Adventure”案
日期:2017-10-13 阅读:1071


  【摘要】船东如果想找租家索赔滞期费,通常情况下,必须向租家提供事实记录(SOF)及准备就绪通知书(NOR)。但如果租约额外要求船东需提供“all supporting documents”的话,船东仅需提供基本的还是必须提供全部的支持文件?本文通过对The“Adventure”案的分析来说说这方面的问题。

  【关键词】All、全部文件、滞期费、索赔

  我们错过了Mansfield伯爵,Halsbury伯爵及Chitty LJ的时代;也错过了KennedyLJ, Scrutton LJ, Denning勋爵,Reid勋爵,Diplock勋爵,Mustill勋爵的时代;但好在今天,我们处在了Clarke勋爵,Mance勋爵,Sumption勋爵,Kerr勋爵及其他一众法官的时代,我们有幸领略他们的旷世风采。提起一壶浊酒,再看上几页他们的判决,可慰尽多少平生事。

  当这些耳熟能详的大法官渐渐退出历史舞台之后,留下的那些脍炙人口的经典判例,是给我们最好的财富。英国作为判例法国家,在经历数百年的风雨洗礼,伦敦为世界仲裁中心的地位至今仍无法撼动。如果无特殊情况,法官们一般情况下不会做出与先例相反的判决,因为受先例的约束。这些上议院/贵族院大法官的判决,具有莫大的影响力;贵族院的每一个最新判决,例如不久前的The “Ocean Victory”案,在全世界范围内都会得到从事法律事务人员的广泛关注。不同于大陆法系,这些大法官的判决,大法官的观点将具有法律效力,大法官本身就是法律的制定者。

  在开始本篇之前,有必要了解一下什么是“Common Law”。参《Black's Law Dictionary》,在这本权威的法律术语词典中,对于“Common Law”的解释如下:

  Commonlaw. As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

  In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments. The "common law" is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution. People v. Rehman, 253 C.A.2d 1 19, 61 Cal. Rptr. 65, 85.

  It consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. Bishop v.U. S.,D.C.Tex., 334 F.Supp. 415,418.

  As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. Calif. Civil Code, Section 22.2,provides that the "common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State."

  In a broad sense, "common law" may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation whichis of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.

  For Federal common law, see that title.

  As a compound adjective "common-law" is understood as contrasted with or opposed to "statutory," and sometimes also to "equitable"or to "criminal."

  大体意思就是说,与立法机关颁布的法定法规不同,普通法包括与政府和人身和财产安全有关的原则和行为准则的一部分,这些原则和行为规则完全取决于古代的习俗和习俗,或从法院的判决书和法令中得到确认。一般而言,这是通过司法裁决制定和得出的法律体系,不同于立法机关。它包括适用于政府的这些原则,使用和行动规则以及对立法机关意愿的明确而积极的声明而不依赖权力的人员和财产的安全。与教会法不同,是由纯粹的世俗法庭管理的判例制度。在广义上,“判例法”可以指定任何国家或民族的正面法律,法律理论和古老习俗的一部分,普遍适用,因此标明特殊或地方规则或习俗。作为一个复合形容词“判例法”与“大陆法系”相反,有时也称为“衡平法”。

  法律博大精深,因此想研究透彻,没有个几十年工夫完全行不通。也许再学30年,待到白发苍苍,那时候可能可以和前头提到的大法官比划几招,但这是后话了;现在能做的就是向前辈学习。

  又参《Black'sLaw Dictionary》,其中关于“general law”的解释如下:

  General Law that is neither local nor confined in application to particular persons. Even if there is only one person or entity to which a given law applies when enacted, it is general law if it purports to apply to all persons or places of a specified class throughout the jurisdiction. — Also termed general statute; law of ageneral nature.

  一般法既不局限于也不局限于适用于特定人士。在颁布时,即使只有一个特定法律适用的个人或实体;如果它旨在适用于整个管辖范围内的指定类别的所有人员或地点,则是一般法律;也称为一般法规,一般性的法律。

  鉴于通常所理解的“Common Law”和“Equity Law”为并列关系,而“General Law”包含范围更具普遍性。因此为了更好地理解,将“GeneralLaw”译为普通法,“Common Law”译为判例法,“EquityLaw”译为衡平法似乎更恰当一些。当然了大家都这么说,那common law为普通法,也没什么错。长久以来约束而形成的这些法律,其目的是为了确保当事人平等地享有租约下赋予的权利与义务,而不是让某一方凌驾于法律之上。法官需要做的就是依据租约的约定,尽可能地作出公平公正的判决。类似于《UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights 》第7条所说的,所有人在法律面前人人平等,有权不受歧视地享有平等的法律保护。不管你是一流船东还是名不经传的小租家,都平等地享有租约下的各种权利义务。

  All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

  如前文提到的,这些大法官所做的判决对后面的法官有约束力;换句话说就是法官所说的成了可以依赖的法律,在航运实务中,碰到问题,可以直接引援法官所说的来批驳对方观点,用判例来压对方。这也是为什么每篇文章都必带有判例的主要原因,法官的原话本身就具有法律效力。

  现在回到正文,在普通法下,船东必须递交有效的NOR给租家或租家代理人,其它额外的当事方视租约具体情况而定。如Donaldson法官在The“Timna”案所说的,没有人能够说,只要船长递交了NOR,装卸时间就可以起算,船东就能够索赔滞期费。

  No one should be ableto say “if one the master had given notice of readiness, laytime would have begun and the owners would now be able to claim demurrage.”

  船东如果想要索赔滞期费,那么至少有两个前提,一是船长或船东已经向租家或其代理人递交了有效的NOR,也就是说准备就绪的通知,必须通知到租家或其代理人以便可以触发装卸时间开始起算;二是完货后,船东必须向租家提供事实记录(SOF)以用来计算滞期费,那种C.Q.D条款及包干的合同除外。NOR及SOF这两个是最基本的能支撑滞期费索赔的证明文件。但是如果在租约中约定,船东必须提供“all supporting documents”,全部的支持性文件,如果船东未提供,而仅仅是提供一些基本必需的证明文件,那么是否影响索赔呢?接下来就来来看看The “Adventure”案。

  一、基本案情

  Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd(以下简称“船东”)在2011年6月5日以BPVoy4的租约格式,将Adventure轮(以下简称“该轮”)租给 Fal Shipping Co. Ltd(以下简称“租家”)。租约规定装卸货可用时间为3.5天,但是该轮在装港Sitra和卸港PortSudan总共花了25天5小时36分钟,最终船东找租家索赔21天13小时48分钟的滞期费。

  在Sitra港关于延误或暂停的抗议有记录在港口日志中,入港许可也已记录在事实记录里;但是在PortSudan未发现此记录。关于入港许可,租约的6.3.3条明确规定,NOR只有在船长提交NOR后6个小时内获得入港许才有效。

  船东在2011年8月5日给租家发了364,873.78美金的发票及提供了在Sitra和Port Sundan的装卸时间滞期费计算;在Sitra的事实记录+4封抗议书+NOR+泵油记录;在PortSudan的事实记录+4封抗议书+完货空舱证书。

  租约的相关条款如下:

  Demurrage rate :USD 17,000 PDPR

  LAYTIME :TTL 84 Hrs SHINC

  BPVOY4

  6. Notice of Readiness ("NOR")

  6.3 Not with standing tender of a valid NOR by the Vessel such NOR shall not be effective, or become effective, for the purposes of calculating laytime, or if the Vessel is on demurrage, demurrage unless and until the following conditions have been met

  6.3.2 in the case of the Vessel not berthing upon arrival and being instructed to anchor, she has completed anchoring at Anchorage where the vessels of her type customarily anchored at the port or, if she has been instructed to wait, she has reached the are with in the port where vessels of her type customarily wait; and

  6.3.3 free practique has been granted or is granted within six (6) hours of the Master tendering NOR. If free practique is not granted within six (6) hours of the Master tendering NOR, through no fault of Owners, Agents, or those onboard the Vessel, the Master shall issue a protest in writing ("NOP") to the port authority and the facility at the port ("Terminal") failing which lay time or, if the Vessel is on demurrage, demurrage shall only commence when free practique has been granted;

  7. Laytime/Demurrage

  7.1 Charterers shall be allowed the number of hours stated in Section 1Part 1 together with any period of additional laytime arising under Clause 7.3.1,as laytime for loading and discharging and for any other purposes of Charterers in accordance with the provisions of this Charter.

  7.4 Charterers shall pay demurrage at the rate stated in Section J or PART1 per running day, and pro rate for part of a running day, for all time that loading and discharging and other time counting as laytime exceeds laytime under this Clause 7. If, however, demurrage is incurred by reason of the causes specified in Clause 17, the rate of demurrage shall be reduced to one-half of the rate stated in section J of PART 1 per running day, or pro rata for part of a running day, for demurrage so incurred.

  19. PART A. LOADING AND DISCHARGE OF CARGO

  19.2 The cargo shall be pumped into the Vessel at the expense and risk of Charterers and pumped out of the Vessel at the expense and risk of Owners, in each case only as far as the Vessel's manifold….

  19.3 Owners undertake that:-

  19.3.1 the Vessel shall load cargo at the maximum safe rate and in any event shall load a full cargo within a maximum period of twenty-four (24) hours, or pro-rate in the case of a part cargo, provided always that the cargo is capable of being supplied within such time; and

  19.3.2 the Vessel shall discharge cargo at the maximum safe rate and in any event shall, in the case of cargoes of one or more segregated grades/parcels discharged concurrently or consecutively, discharge a full cargo within twenty-four (24 hours, or pro-rata in the case of a partcargo, or shall maintain a minimum discharge pressure of seven (7) bar at the Vessel's manifold throughout the bulk discharge provided always that the cargois capable of being received within such time or at such pressure. If restrictions are imposed by the Terminal during discharge, or if physical attributesor the Terminal restrict the discharge rate or pressure, owners shall only be relieved of the aforesaid obligation for the period and to the extent such restrictions or attributes impede the discharge rate or pressure. The Terminal shall have the right to gauge discharge pressure. The Terminal shall have the right to gauge discharge pressure at the Vessel's manifold.

  19.4 Any additional time used as a result of the inability of the Vessel to discharge the full cargo within twenty-four (24) hours, or pro rata in the case of a part cargo, or to maintain a minimum discharge or failure by the Vessel to meet any lesser performance required pursuant to a restriction imposed by the Terminal, shall be for Owners' account and shall not count as laytime or, if the Vessel is on demurrage, as demurrage.

  19.6 If the full cargo cannot be delivered to the Vessel at the rate requested by the Master or within the time allowed in Clause 19.3.1or if the Terminal is unable to receive the full cargo within twenty-four (24)hours or at a discharge pressure of seven (7) bar measured at the Vessel's manifold, the Master shall present a Note of Protest ("NOP") to a Terminal representative detailing any Terminal restrictions and/or deficienciesas soon as they are imposed and/or become apparent and shall use all reasonable endeavours to have the NOP signed by the Terminal representative. If the Masteris unable to obtain a signature from the Terminal representative he shall present a further NOP recording the failure of the Terminal representative to sign the original NOP. In the case of restrictions imposed by the Terminal or arising from physical attributes of the Terminal, the Master shall ensure that such restrictions are clearly recorded in the Vessel's Pumping Log.

  19.7 No claim by Owners in respect of additional time used in the cargo operations carried out under this Clause 19 shall be considered by Charterers unless it is accompanied by the following supporting documentation:-

  19.7.1 the Vessel's Pumping Log signed by a senior officer of the Vessel and a Terminal representative showing at hourly intervals the pressure maintained at the Vessel's manifold throughout the cargo operations; and

  19.7.2 copies of all NOPs issued, or received, by the Master in connection with the cargo operations; and

  19.7.3 copies of all other documentation maintained by those on board the Vessel or by the Terminal in connection with the cargo operations

  If vessel ordered to evacuate terminal or load/discharge place due tovessel's inability to load/discharge cargo in accordance with load/pumping warranty as above, then all related time, expenses and or damages incurred by charterers shall be on owners account. Laytime shall not count till vessel again all fast at berth/terminal.

  …..

  20. Claims Time Bar

  20.1 Charterers shall be discharged and released from all liability in respect of any claim for demurrage, deviation or detention which Owners may have under this Charter unless a claim in writing has been presented to Charterers, together with all supporting documentation substantiating each and every constituent part of the claim, within ninety (90) days of the completion of discharge of the cargo carried hereunder."
  
  二、争议的主要焦点

  针对船东的滞期费索赔,租家争辩说,船东主要的滞期费索赔并没有附上所有必要的能支撑证明其索赔的文件,而且由于船东提交这些证明文件的时候,90天的期限已经过去,因此船东的滞期费索赔已过时效。

  法庭经过查证后认定,依据租约第19.7条及20条规定,船东未提供在抗议书中所提到的港口日志及作业时间记录表;该轮船长的手稿笔记,在Port Sudan已经通过VHF获得入港许可。法庭最终裁定船东未遵守租约19.7条,导致索赔部分时效;未遵守租约20.1条,滞期费索赔全部时效。

  船东不服此裁决,提出以下5个法律问题,并获得上诉许可。这五个问题涉及法庭对第19.7条和第20.1条的适用含义和效力的解释。

  针对第19.7条有以下4个法律问题:

  问题1:租约第19.7.3条,是否要求船东提供滞期费索赔并附带所有文件,这些在仲裁中所需要披露以确定他们的水平及在装货或卸货过程中的时间计算?如果是这样,那么第19.7.3条是否强加给船东一个合同下的责任义务,在首次提出索赔时就披露其拥有和控制的所有相关文件,而不是到开始正常仲裁程序中才披露?

  问题2:对于第19.7.2条的恰当的解释,是否是租家首先要求对其它的抗议书举证责任感到满意,而不是船东提供了滞期费索赔,然后船东负有法律举证责任去证明这些是否定的?

  问题3:是否第19.7.3条要求船东在索赔滞期的时候,需给租家提供那些船东所拥有的文件副本,而那些即未建立也未保存在船上?

  问题4:对于第19.7.3条的恰当的解释,那些与船舶和货物操作相关是否是一次性文件,且在“那些文件由船方保存于货物操作相关”的范围内?

  问题5:对于第20.1条的恰当的解释,是否滞期费索赔的“所有支持性文件,证实每个及每一个索赔的组成部分”,其不属于BPVoy4租约第19条下所说的货物操作的“额外时间”,要求船东提供所有相关的支持性问题件,或仅需提供必需的支持性文件?

  在听证会之前,双方对于第二个问题达成共识,不再出现,因为租家接受法庭不依赖没有进一步的抗议通知书来对抗船东。双方对于问题3也达成共识,租家接受了该问题的答案为否。关于在第19.7.3条下,与是否需要披露带有手稿笔记的电邮的问题,双方都接受,这并不需要,因为这些记录保存在岸方而不是船上。

  三、高等法院判决

  Question 1:"Does Clause 19.7.3 require owners to provide with their demurrage claim copies of all documents which the owners would be required to disclose in an arbitration reference to determine whether their claim that time counts during loading or discharging operations.If so, does Clause 19.7.3 thereby impose on the owners a contractual obligationto disclose all relevant documents in its possession and control when the claim is first made rather than waiting for disclosure to take place in the normal course of an arbitration reference?"

  在第一个问题上,法庭在他们其中第38段的理由里认为,从抗议书中可以看出,正如仲裁员所期望的那样,港口日志和作业时间记录表已经在该轮上保存,这些清楚地包含了相关条目。至少这些文件应该附在201年8月5日的电邮中。在该轮船长的证词中,船长表示在其7月22日的电邮中,入港许可已经通过VHF被告之已经获得。在法庭看来,这是另一个问题件,依据第19.7.3条的要求应该被附再8月5日的电邮中,但并没有。在这种情况下,法庭得出结论,裁定船东未遵守合同第19.7条规定,在索赔滞期费的时候应该同时提供那些所有类目所要求的证明文件。

  船东对于法庭的这些理由,提出了以下疑义。

  (1)法庭的这种做法与提升清晰度和确定性的目的相违背,因为船东会疑问,对于滞期费索赔,到底他们需要披露什么样的证明文件,尤其是:

  (i)仲裁提交或法庭诉讼中可披露文件的范围将由诉状中规定的当事人的案件确定。诉状确定和界定双方争议的问题,从而确定哪些文件可以披露。

  (ii) 如果这样,在索赔开始之前,船东不可能进行披露

  (2)从实际角度出发来看,法庭对于条款的解释会给船东造成沉重的负担。

  (i)不仅仅要求船东他们提供常规附加在滞期费索赔(NORs,SOF,NOP,泵油记录)这类文件的副本,而且要求船东他们每次与船员进行调查以确保提供了所有文件。

  (ii)关于法庭的解释,这将包括文件,例如粗略的副本文件,船员的个人笔记本,以及船上发送或接收的任何与装货或卸货作业有关的任何文件的电子邮件。

  高等法院的Hamblen法官认为,船东的这些批评是强有力的。披露的义务可能比仅仅是“支持文件”要广泛得多,而且要求比这样的条款所预期的要严格得多。此外,要求披露什么,根据不同的仲裁规则和仲裁与法院之间的不同而有所不同。根据相同规则进行的不同仲裁程序也可能有所不同。因此,Hamblen法官他认为,这个条款的目的不可能是为了给船东施加这样一个深远的和潜在的不可行的责任义务;对于第一个问题的,法官给出了否定的答复。

  I consider that there is forcein these criticisms. The obligation of disclosure is likely to go far wider than merely "supporting documentation" and require a search which is considerably more rigorous than that contemplated by a clause such as this.Further, what disclosure requires may vary as between different arbitration rules and as between arbitration and court. It may also vary between different arbitration proceedings conducted under the same rules. In my judgment the clause cannot have been intended to impose such a far reaching and potentially unworkable obligation on the owners.

  I would accordingly answer Question 1 "No".

  Question 4:"On a proper construction of Clause 19.7.3 are 'one-off' documents, which are generated by the vessel in connection with the cargo operations, within the scope of "documentation maintained by those on board the Vessel… in connection with the cargo operations…"?

  对于第四个问题,Hamblen法官给出了下列与第19.7.3相关的初步意见:

  (1)条款的上下文是提供与船东有关追加货物装卸货物的索赔的文件。其重点是装卸作业,为什么实际装卸货时间会要比条款规定的时间更长。

  (2)第19.7.1及19.7.2条所提到的特定文档均是指具体涉及装货卸货操作的作业。

  (3)在上下文中解释,第19.7.3条很可能是总结性规定,类似在第19.7.1和第19.7.2条款下所覆盖文件记录。如法庭已经观察到,不同的船舶和不同的码头不一定都保持相同类型的记录,而且在任何特定情况下,租约的起草人都不可能明确指出哪些类别的文件与船东的滞期费有关。

  转到考虑第19.7.3条,该条款与事实背景下相违背,只要在本情况下相关的文件必须被与“与货物操作关联”及“由那些在该船舶保持”这些措辞有关。在Hamblen法官他看来,这意味着船上与货物运作有关的同期记录。泵油记录是这样一个文件最明显的例子,但有些船舶可能保留类似但不同的记录。

  船东表示,这意味着与“一次性”文件相比的定期更新的文件将与BPVoy范本及以前版本BPVoy3范本中的措辞进行比较,BPVoy3范本提到“任何船舶自己制作的文件”,并提请注意租家自己在仲裁中的呈件,即”保留“是指”持续存在/编纂类型的记录,以证明一系列交易,或一段时间的活动”,这与一次性文件形成对照,例如仅仅是为了滞期费索赔而产生的事实陈述。

  Hamblen法官他认为,这种做法有一些力量以及作为一般性指导而不是作为定义可能有所帮助,船舶与货物运行有关的同时记录通常将保持在持续的基础上,但不一定如此。

  Hamblen法官认为,关于这种情况下的港口日志和作业时间记录表是否是这种记录,这将是法庭裁定的一个问题。如果他对第五个问题上作出对船东有利的判决,他会将这个问题交还法庭,以便根据有关该条的含义的指引作出裁决。在这种情况下,Hamblen法官不建议以这个方式回答这个问题,而是仅提供如上所述。

  Question 5:"On a proper construction of Clause 20.1, does "all supporting documentation substantiating each and every constituent part of the claim" for a claim for demurrage which is not "additional time" for cargo operations within the meaning of Clause 19 of the BPVoy4 form charterparty equire owners to provide all relevant supporting documentation, or only 'essential' supporting documentation?"

  对于第五个问题,法庭在其第41,42段理由中,裁定认为,尽管一些支持性文件是在90天内提出的,但这并不是全部。特别是该轮的港口日志和作业时间记录表完全没有提供,而这些是依租约第20.1条双方都同意的;船东滞期费索赔不成立,即租家免除及解除其对于船东滞期费索赔的所用责任义务。

  It follows from what we have said above that although some of the supporting documentation was presented within the 90 day period, not all of it was. In particular, "ADVENTURE's" port log and time sheets were not presented at all and the e-mail from the master dated 22nd July 2011 on which Captain Karalexis had written in manuscript the information that free practique had been granted at Sitra was not presented in time. The consequence is the one which the partiesagreed in clause 20. I should follow, namely that FAL are discharged and released from all liability in respect of Kassiopi's claim for demurrage; see The "EagleValencia" [2010] 2 Lloyds Rep257 at 264 where the Court of Appeal held that where an invalid notice of readiness was presented in time and a valid notice of readiness was presented out of time, the claim for demurrage was extinguished in accordance with the terms of the charterparty in that case.

  对于仲裁庭的第42段裁决理由,船东主张仲裁庭错误地理解第20.1条的解释,仅仅是需要提供必要的支持性文件,即通常认为的NOR及SOF,而这些文件已经提供。船东引援Longmore勋爵在The “Eagle Valencia”案中的判决,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。

  But an essential document in support of every demurrage claim is the notice of readiness and, if the only notice 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).

  船东继续引援Tomlinson勋爵在The“Abqaiq”案中的陈词,在目前情况下,并不缺少必要的文件,所有支持性文件与其说是每一个文件倒不如说是所有那些必要的文件。

  Hamblen法官认为,在The “Eagle Valencia”案中,Longmore勋爵只是简单地说明该NOR是一个必不可少的文件,他并不是说只有必要的文件需要提交。同样地,在The“Abqaiq”案中,Tomlinson勋爵所说的在那种情况下,第20.1条款所需要的文件已经提交,在这个意义上已经提交所有必要的文件,但是他并没有确定这些条款中的具体要求。如何去判断需要提交什么样的文件,在Tomlinson的判决中最有帮助的是如下,在客观上将会或能给租家去证明每个及每一部分索赔的,也即意味他们拥有这些他们所需要的事实材料,以便确定船东的索赔是有根据的。在该案中,能够满足这些要求的,这类文件由如下:

  (1) a summary demurrage report, plus detailed demurrage reports for Freeport and Singapore;(2) notice of readiness, port log, statement of facts and Master's letters of protest for Freeport;and (3) notice of readiness, statement of facts, discharging log, timesheet, Master's letter of protest and pumping log for Singapore.

  应当注意这些文件包括港口日志及作业时间记录表。

  Hamblen法官认为,依据租约第20.1条,如法庭所裁定与索赔相关的,当在装港和卸港船东已获得可用的时候,船东不仅仅要求提供支持性文件,而是所有文件,例如港口日志及作业时间记录表。在本案中,由抗议书依赖的事实明确证明是指在港口日志/作业时间记录表中记录的延迟和暂停。这些很显然是索赔的支持性文件。Hamblen法官认为无论如何,它们是包含事实材料的主要文件,应提供给租家,以便他们能够确信船东的该索赔是有根据的,符合该条款的目的。

  UnderClause 20.1 the Owners are not merely to provide "supporting documentation" but "all" such documentation. Where the Owners have available documentation from the load and discharge ports such as port logs and time sheets those are, as theTribunal found, "relevant" to the claim made. In the present case that is specifically borne out by the fact that the Letters of Protest reliedupon refer to delays and stoppages recorded in the port log/timesheets. As suchthey are clearly supporting documentation for the claim made. In any event I consider they are primary documents containing factual material which should bemade available to the Charterers so that they may satisfy themselves that the claim is well founded, consistent with the purpose of the clause.

  Hamblen法官他同意法庭的裁决,需提交港口日志和作业时间记录表,不管对于必须提交手稿说明的电子邮件是否有疑问。在大多数情况下,这种二类文件不是那么需要。然而,在本案中,获得入港许可对于开始和正确计算装卸货时间是重要的,在Port Sudan港的文件中并没有记录这一点(与Sitra在SOF已记录相反)。在这种情况下,可能会被视为支持性文件,如船东所认为及法庭所裁定的。

  I accordingly agree with the Tribunal's conclusion that the port logs and timesheets were required to be presented. Whether the email with the manuscript note had to be presented is open to more doubt.In most cases secondary documentation of this kind would not be so required.However, in this case the time when free practique was granted was important to the commencement and proper calculation of laytime and there was no record in the documentation provided of when it was granted at Port Sudan (in contrast to Sitra where it was recorded in the Statement of Facts). In such circumstancesit probably is to be regarded as a supporting document, as the Owners so treated it and the Tribunal so found.

  法庭裁定认为,船东未遵守租约第20.1条所带来的结果是,索赔全部失效,因此船东索赔滞期费不成立,不管在第19.7条下索赔是否部分失效。

  Hamblen法官认为,如果有必要对这个问题进行判决的话,他认为《Voyage Charter》中的16.21(4)是最好的解释:如果与索赔的一部分有关的所需文件不完整,则船东可能不会被禁止恢复索赔的另一部分,两部分是不相关的。

  对于第五个问题,Hamblen法官最终认为,按第20.1条要求,不限于提供必要的支持性文件,应该按前述的来解释。判法庭对于船东没有按租约要求提供全部的支持性文件从而导致船东滞期费索赔失效的裁决正确,船东上诉被驳回。

  If it had been necessary to determine this question I would have held that this is the preferable construction and that the general position is as stated in Voyage Chartersat 16.21 (4):

  "If the required documentation relating to one part of the claim is incomplete the owner will probably not be barred from recovery of another part of the claim, where the two parts are unrelated".

  My answer to Question 5 is accordingly that Clause 20.1 is not limited to a requirement to provide"essential" supporting documentation only and that it is to be construed in the manner outlined above. I also conclude that the Tribunal was correct to find that all supporting documentation was not provided as required by the Clause with the consequence that the claim for demurrage is time barred.

  For the reasons outlined above the Tribunal was correct to find that the Owners' claim for demurrage was time barred and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

  总结:

  本案对于船东而言,似乎显得非常不公平,因为仅仅是没有及时提供港口日志和作业时间记录表而被判滞期费索赔失效。通常理解下,滞期费索赔仅需要提供必要的证明文件比如SOF及NOR即可,但是Hamblen法官认为,仲裁庭的裁决正确,依据租约第20.1条,“together with all supporting documents”该措辞明确,船东不仅仅要求提供必要的支持性文件,而是所有文件,包括港口日志及作业时间记录表。

  参之前说过的The“Sabrewing”案中,同一个的条款,但措辞为“together with supporting documentation”,这里只是说支持性文件,而没有说所有的支持性文件。因此在本案中,Hamblen法官支持仲裁庭的裁决,租约起草者在该措辞中加了“all”,那么其目的性明确,必须得提供全部的支持性文件,而不是船东所主张的必要的文件。船东因为这个失误而导致滞期费索赔被驳回。

  现在回过头来,再去看看“all”到底是什么意思,参《Black's Law Dictionary》的如下解释:

  Meansthe whole of-used with a singular noun or pronoun, and referring to amount,quantity, extent, duration, quality, or degree. The whole number or sum of-used collectively, with a plural noun or pronoun expressing an aggregate. Every member of individual component of; each one of-used with a plural noun. In thissense, all is used generically and distributively.

  "All" refers rather to the aggregate under which the individuals are subsumed than to the individuals themselves.

  即指全部使用单数名词或代词,并参考数量,数量,程度,持续时间,质量或程度。整体数字或总和,与复数名词或代词共同使用。每个成员的单个组成部分,每个使用复数名词。在这个意义上,所有这些都被普遍和分布地使用。“全部”是指个人被纳入个人本身的总和。

  类似的有“any”,如果在租约条款中加入了该词语,比如“any claims”,“any risks”,“any breach”或“any causes”等等,如果一方违反了,那么另一方将有权解除其所有的责任和义务;虽然这里的any会有限制性解释。

  因此,在执行租约的过程中,务必重视合同中的每一个措辞,哪怕一个标点符号。如之前说过的,两个租约下的停租条款,仅仅是因为标点符合差异,结果却完全相反,一个是在海盗劫持期间,租家有权停租;一个是租家无权停租,还得继续支付租金。租约措辞的严谨性,法官对租约解释的严格性在这些案中体现得淋漓尽致,这也与最高法院近几年来对于合约解释的做法相一致,因此务必引起足够的重视。

  最后,以Sumption勋爵在牛津大学的演讲中的一段话最为本文的结尾。

  Moreover, judges’ notions of common sense tend to be moulded by their idea of fairness. But fairness has nothing to do with commercial contracts. The parties enter into them in a spirit of competitive co-operation, with a view to serving their own interest.Commercial parties can be most unfair and entirely unreasonable, if they can get away with it.

  法官的常识概念倾向于公平理念,但是公平和商业合同无关。双方本着竞争合作的精神,都是为了维护自己的利益。商业可能是最不公平和完全不合理的,如果他们可以承受的话。

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号 航运佬)
智慧如你,不想发表一点想法吗 ~
海运圈聚焦客户端
扫描下载
海运圈最好的资讯平台
网站地图
关注我们
  • 新浪微博