2017-04-14
1381 【关键词】海盗、GOA、苏禄海、停租
沉寂了多年的亚丁湾海盗近期又开始活跃，近期接连发生了4其海盗袭击事件。参相关报道，中国海军护航编队玉林舰在收到英国海上贸易组织通报说MVOS 35轮遭到海盗劫持，立即向其高速机动；8日午夜时分，玉林舰抵达被劫货船附近海域，立即采取舰艇绕行、舰载直升机绕飞等方式，使用高倍望远镜、红外设备等观察手段查明情况，并与船员取得联系，确认所有船员均在安全舱躲避，但船上海盗活动情况不明。9日凌晨，玉林舰发起营救行动，16名特战队员在我海军舰载机空中掩护下乘小艇陆续登上OS35号，迅速将19名船员解救出安全舱，目前船上19名船员均已置于中国海军的安全保护之下。
另参印度海军4月9日报告，4月8日傍晚MV OS 35轮，遭海盗袭击并登船，印度的海军舰艇Mumbai号， Tarkash号，Trishul号及Aditya号参与了营救，最终成功击退海盗，19名菲律宾船员最终获救。当然印度的报道可能失真。
Somali piratesattacked and boarded a Foreign Merchant Vessel MV OS 35 (Tuvalu registeredvessel) in the Gulf of Aden late night on 08 April 2017, the Indian Navalforces reports.
The United KingdomMaritime Trade Operations piracy watchdog announced that it had received areport from a vessel under attack and possibly boarded off the coast ofwar-ravaged Yemen. A security source at the Puntland Marine PoliceForce further said the vessel was Tuvalu-flagged and is known as OS35.
Subsequently, IndianNavy ships Mumbai, Tarkash, Trishul and Aditya proceeding on deployment to theMediterranean and passing through the Gulf of Aden, responded to the call andrapidly closed the merchant vessel by the early hours of 09 April 2017. TheIndian warships established contact with the Captain of the merchant vessel,who along with the crew had locked themselves in a strong room on board(citadel), as per standard operating procedure.
An Indian Navyhelicopter undertook aerial reconnaissance of the merchant vessel at night, andat sunrise, to sanitize the upper decks of the merchant ship and ascertain thelocation of pirates, if still on board. Emboldened by Indian Navy’s helicoptercover, and on receiving the ‘All clear signal’ that no pirates were visible onthe upper decks, some crew members gradually emerged from the strong room andcarried out a search of the ship and ascertained that the pirates had fled theship at night. Subsequently, in a show of international maritime cooperationagainst piracy, a boarding party from the nearby Chinese Navy ship went onboard the merchant ship, while the Indian Naval helicopter provided air coverfor the operation.
It has beenestablished that all 19 Filipino crew members are safe. The Captain of themerchant vessel profusely thanked the Indian Naval ships for their response andfor providing air cover.
Recently, pirateshijacked the Salama 1off the coast of Somalia, the fourth pirate attackincident in the region through 2017. The attack followed afterthe Indian Fishing Dhow CASAYRII attack, another Dhow Al Kaushar incident andthe MT ARIS 13 piracy attack.
另据MAST报告，4月3日，在UTC时间05:30，13:30：10N - 043：03E，红海也门穆哈西南方向15海里左右，商船报告被6艘分别载有5名人员的浅蓝色小艇跟随，小艇带有梯子和钩子。船上拉响警报，武装警卫在桥梁上占据了位置。2-3分钟后，可疑的小船离开了，商船最终安全。如下图，现在海盗势力范围也延伸到红海地区。
而在东南亚，苏禄海区海盗近年来也异常猖獗。自去年8月份开始，该区域不断发生针对小型船舶、游艇及商船的一系列攻击船舶与绑架船员的海盗行为。这些海盗行为都与当地一个名为阿布沙耶夫（Abu Sayyaf）的恐怖组织有关，该组织专门经营着一个绑架与勒索网络并且最近宣誓与所谓的伊斯兰国家结成同盟。依据当地政府军事情报，该组织目前手上仍劫持着31位人质，其中就包括2月份在苏禄海区域（Sulu Sea）商船上被绑架的6名越南船员。
2016年在苏禄海区发生的一些比较严重的海盗袭击、登船、劫持、杀害船员的事件，如下图所示：
苏禄海区已经成为另一个索马里。
目前，为防该区域“索马里式海盗”袭击行为不断上涨，菲律宾、马来西亚和印度尼西亚三国近日共同宣布，将在5月份开启苏禄海区域（Sulu Sea）的联合海军巡航。三国已在情报共享与联合海军巡航上达成一致。菲律宾国防部长讲到：“现在菲律宾面临的头号威胁就是阿布沙耶夫（Abu Sayyaf）及其他极端组织，这些劫持与绑架案件将使全球都感到不安。”
UK P&I CLUB建议会员不断关注该区域局势的发展情况并做好船舶应对措施。
可以参其如下通函：
Tri-Nation agreement to CombatPiracy in the Sulu Sea
It has been announced this weekthat as of May 2017 Philippines, Malaysia & Indonesia will launch jointpiracy patrols in waters of the Sulu Sea.
Since August last year there has been a risein the amount of kidnappings and assaults on local small craft, internationalpleasure craft and smaller international trading vessels operating in the area.This has been linked to the local terrorist organisation, Abu Sayyaf, who run akidnap-for-ransom network and have recently pledged their alliance to so calledIslamic State. They currently hold over 31 hostages, including six Vietnameseseafarers taken from their vessel off southern Philippines last month,according to local military intelligence.
To prevent the rise of “Somalia-type” piracyin the area the three nations have agreed on intelligence sharing andpatrolling of the area. The Defence Secretary of the Philippines has beenquoted as saying “…Abu Sayyaf and other extremist groups are the Philippines’top security threat…the kidnappings are embarrassing to the whole world…”
Members are to be aware of the current anddeveloping situation in the area and prepare their vessels accordingly.
据不完全统计，往来澳大利亚及在印尼装煤炭的船舶，及其它各类船舶每年穿行于苏禄海区域的船舶超过10万艘次。鉴于海盗风险加剧，已经有船舶选择绕过海盗高风险区，取道菲律宾东部再行北上；或者南下的时候也选择过菲律宾东部。如下图：
也有船东选择安排武装护卫上船，费用约1万美金左右。那么问题来了，船长是否有权利选择绕航？或者说船东是否有权利不过海盗危险区？谁又该为此额外的绕航时间及油耗损失或者安排武装护卫买单？如果万一不幸船舶被海盗劫持了，租家是否有权利停租呢？
在回答这些疑问之前，先来看看[2011] EWHC 2862 (Comm)- The “Triton Lark”案。
基本案情：
在该案中，原船东Triton Navigation BV 在2006年7月14日将船Triton Lark （该轮2005年建造，5个舱带吊，夏季载重吨56,025，设计速度约14节。）以修改过带有附加条款的NYPE租约格式租给KlavenessChartering，租约中已经并入CONWARTIME2004，其内容和CONWARTIME1993一致。
依据联营协议，Klaveness将船以相同的租约条款租给Bulkhandling Handymax AS（以下简称“二船东”）；在2008年8月29日，船东将船以NYPE租约格式租给了PacificBasin IHX Limted(以下简称“租家”)，而租家又以GENCON租约格式租给K & S Kali GmbH，执行一个从汉堡装44,000吨碳酸钾到湛江卸的程租航次，租约中包含了VOYWAR2004条款，其内容和CONWARTIME1993一致。
船东和租家的租约中，第8条、第75条及对应的CONWARTIME1993(期租租约战争险条款)规定如下：
Clause 8:
"The Captain shall prosecute his voyageswith due despatch and…shall be under the orders and directions of theCharterers as regards employment and agency…"
Clause 75:
"BIMCO Standard War Risk Clause forTime Charters, 1993
Code Name: CONWARTTIME 1993
(1) Forthe purpose of this Clause, the words:
(a)"Owners" shall include the shipowners, bareboat charterers, disponentowners, managers or other operators who are charged with the management of theVessel, and the Master; and
(b) 'WarRisks' shall include any war (whether actual or threatened), act of war, civilwar, hostilities, revolution, rebellion, civil commotion, warlike operations,the laying of mines (whether actual or reported), acts of piracy, acts ofterrorists, acts of hostility or malicious damage, blockades (whether imposedagainst all vessels or imposed selectively against vessels of certain flags orownership, or against certain cargoes or crews or otherwise howsoever), by anyperson, body, terrorist or political group, or the Government of any statewhatsoever, which, in the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners,may be dangerous or are likely to be or to become dangerous to the Vessel, hercargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel.
(2) TheVessel, unless the written consent of the Owners be first obtained, shall notbe ordered to or required to continue to or through, any port, place, area orzone (whether of land or sea) or any waterway or canal, where it appears thatthe Vessel, her cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel, in thereasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, may be, or are likely tobe, exposed to War Risks. Should the Vessel be within any such place asaforesaid, which only become dangerous, or is likely to be or to becomedangerous, after her entry into it, she shall be at liberty to leave it.
(3) TheVessel shall not be required to load contraband cargo, or to pass through anyblockade, whether such blockade be imposed on all vessels, or is imposedselectively in any way whatsoever against vessels of certain flags orownership, or against certain cargoes or crews or otherwise howsoever, or toproceed to an area where she shall be subject, or is likely to be subject to abelligerent right of search and/or confiscation.
(4)
(a) TheOwners may effect war risks insurance in respect of the Hull and Machinery ofthe Vessel and their other interests (including, but not limited to, loss ofearnings and detention, the crew and their Protection and Indemnity Risks), andthe premiums and/or calls thereof shall be for their account.
(b) If theUnderwriters of such insurance should require payment of premiums and/or callsbecause, pursuant to the Charterers' orders, the Vessel is within, or is due toenter and remain within, any area or areas which are specified by suchUnderwriters as being subject to additional premiums because of War Risks, thensuch premiums and/or calls shall be reimbursed by the Charterers to the Ownersat the same time as the next payment of hire is due.
(5) If theOwners become liable under the terms of employment to pay to the crew any bonusor additional wages in respect of sailing into an area which is dangerous inthe manner defined by the said terms, then such bonus or additional wages shallbe reimbursed to the Owners by the Charterers at the same time as the nextpayment of hire is due.
(6) TheVessel shall have liberty : -
(a) tocomply with all orders, directions, recommendations, or advice as to departure,arrival, routes, sailing in convoy, ports of call, stoppages, destinations,discharge of cargo, delivery, or in any other way whatsoever, which are givenby the Government of the Nation under whose flag the Vessel sails, or otherGovernment to whose laws the Owners are subject, or any other Government, bodyor group whatsoever acting with the power to compel compliance with theirorders or directions;
(b) tocomply with the order, directions or recommendations of any war risksunderwriters who have the authority to give the same under the terms of the warrisks insurance;
(c) tocomply with the terms of any resolution of the Security Council of the UnitedNations, any directives of the European Community, the effective orders of anyother Supranational body which has the right to issue and give the same, andwith national laws aimed at enforcing the same to which the Owners are subject,and to obey the orders and directions of those who are charged with theirenforcement;
(d) todivert and discharge at any other port any cargo or part thereof which mayrender the Vessel liable to confiscation as a contraband carrier;
(e) todivert and call at any other port to change the crew or any part thereof or otherpersons on board the Vessel when there is reason to believe that they may besubject to internment, imprisonment or other sanctions.
(7) If inaccordance with their rights under the foregoing provisions of this Clause, theOwners shall refuse to proceed to the loading or discharging ports, or anyoneor more of them, they shall immediately inform the Charterers. No cargo shallbe discharged at any alternative port without first giving the Charterersnotice of the Owners' intention to do so and requesting them to nominate a safeport for such discharge. Failing such nomination by the Charterers within 48hours of the receipt of such notice and request, the Owners may discharge thecargo at any safe port of their own choice.
(8) If incompliance with any of the provisions of sub-clauses (2) to (7) of this Clauseanything is done or not done, such shall not be deemed a deviation, but shallbe considered as due fulfilment of this Charter Party.
在2008年11月7日，租家发邮件给船长，通知将从汉堡装碳酸钾到湛江卸。同一天，原船东发邮件给二船东声称，如果选择最短的路线，过苏伊士运河，船舶将不得不过亚丁湾（GOA,Gulf of Aden），但是海盗问题并没有解决；要求二船东提供航线计划及对海盗的看法。二船东将邮件转发给租家，并加上2008年10月28日已经有4此海盗袭击事件；虽然其中三次并未成功，但第四次海盗成功登船并劫持了船舶，船员被当作人质被带到索马里不知名的地方。
在11月8日，租家回复二船东说，该船航次任务已定，执行从汉堡装货到湛江卸，想安排船舶过亚丁湾；同时说海盗袭击只是发生在高危险区，而在欧盟的安全通道北部，没有船舶在夜间遭受过袭击；而且遭受袭击的只是那些干舷较低，船舶较慢的船舶，在过亚丁湾275条船才可能有1条船被袭击，几率很小。
在同一天，原船东询问二船东，是否有别的船也执行过亚丁湾的任务，二船东答复说没有，同时附上MARAD的通函，采取必要的防范措施可以减少海盗袭击的风险，二船东认为过亚丁湾是安全的。
原船东要求航线需该道过好望角，二船东发如下邮件给租家，船舶和船员面临很严重海盗袭击风险，鉴于亚丁湾的海盗风险，依据租约75条，不接受租家要求。
"In accordance with clause 75 ofgoverning c/p and in view of the fact that pirates risk in Gulf of Aqaba isstill large we can not accept Charterers’ request which will expose vessel andcrew members on board to serious risk of pirates attack."
租家答复说在亚丁湾已经加强了海军力量，而且欧盟也停工了足够的安全和支持，说在过去6个月，租家也过亚丁湾，但从来没出事。当然，租家说会去和他们下家协商看看能不能同意过好望角。
在11月12日，原船东提出5个条件，如果租家接受的话就同意过亚丁湾。其中第4个条件是加派一位船长，费用由租家承担；第5个条件是如果被海盗劫持了，租家赔偿船东租金损失。二船东把此条件转给了租家。
在11月13日，原船东转给二船东一份报告，说有一散货船虽然在12日的时候安全通过亚丁湾，但在10日的时候遭受海盗袭击，该轮船长认为如果干舷较低且船上低于15节将是非常危险的。
11月14日，船从汉堡装完货开航。租家拒绝二船东转发的原船东提出的第4个几第5个条件。之后几方继续协商但都坚持各自的观点，互不让步。
11月17日，船长发邮件给原船东，表达了船员对于过亚丁湾的焦虑，请求过好望角。同时说将于18日1100抵达过苏伊士/亚丁湾 和过好望角的转向点。二船东安排了在直布罗陀加油。
11月18日，原船东发了两封邮件给二船东，第一封说Odfiell现在已经安排他们的船舶过好望角；第二封说Triton Eagle轮虽然远在索马里550海里外，但是发现有高速小艇从它的母船下来，Triton Eagle轮通过快速装向最终摆脱了海盗袭击。在该日晚些时候，原船东发邮件要求二船东指示船长过好望角；二船东发了如下邮件给租家说，鉴于目前的情况，原船东拒绝过亚丁湾，依租约75条第2点，目前没有取得船东书面同意，因此租家需要重新发指示。他们将保留所有的权利。
Reference previous exchanges head ownershave now stated that given the prevailing situation and pursuant to theprovisions of CONWARTIME they refuse to proceed to and transit the Gulf ofAden. They "insist Charterers to instruct the vessel to proceed to disportvia Cape of Good Hope." In the light of the above it is plain that ownerswritten consent as required by cl 75(2) has not been obtained and thatalternative orders must be given. Please provide these forthwith. We reserveall our rights.
在11月19日，租家回复说他们的指示保持不变，当日晚些时候，原船东发邮件给二船东，转发了IMB（ International Maritime Bureau） 关于18日的航行警告：
All ships are strongly advised to maintaina strict 24 hours visual and radar watch even though they are in the maritimeSecurity Corridor in the Gulf of Aden. Early assessment /detection will allowships to take evasive measures to prevent boarding and request for assistance.
在同一天，二船东也收到了11月11-17日的海盗周报，发生7起海盗袭击，其中2起针对散货船但没有成功。
Gulf of Aden/Red Sea: Somali piratesare now targeting vessels in the northern Somali coast in the Gulf of Aden.These pirates are now firing automatic weapons and Rocket Propelled Grenades(RPG) in an attempt to board and hijack vessels. Once the attack is successfuland the vessel hijacked, the pirates sail towards the Somali coast and thereafterdemand a ransom for the release of the vessel and crew. All vessels transitingthe area are advised to take additional precautionary measures and maintainstrict 24 hours radar and anti piracy watch using all available means. Watchkeeping crews should look out for small suspicious boats converging on vessel.Early sighting and accurate assessment will allow Master to increase speed andmanoeuvre to escape pirates and at the same time request various Authorities/Agenciesfor assistance.
在11月19日1537，原船东发邮件给二船东如下邮件：
Owners understand Charterers gaveinstructions to the Master to proceed to Suez and via GOA after Gibraltarnotwithstanding Owners clear refusal to go into the GOA area. Charterers shouldbe aware that it is Owners' and master's responsibility to select the quickestand safest route for the carriage of the present cargo to China. The only saferoute is round the Cape. Owners are not prepared to go via GOA, it ismanifestly unsafe. Owners are therefore proceeding round the Cape.
在11月20日0450，船舶在直布罗陀加完油开航，船长发了如下邮件给相关方，说船舶将选择安全的路线，过好望角到湛江。
This is to inform all concerned partiesthat as per instructions from our owners, Triton Navigation BV, MV Triton Larkwill take safe route from Gibraltar via Cape of Good Hope to disport Zhanjiang,PR China.
租家发邮件给二船东，声称由于船舶选择过好望角，所有额外的燃油费及其它额外的费用都由二船东自己负责承担。
在仲裁中，二船东找租家索赔未付租金，租家找二船东反索赔绕航的时间损失及燃油费用等共462,221.40美元。
仲裁裁决：
仲裁庭认为在2008年11月的时候海盗风险已经远高于8月份的时候；依据船长的电邮，仲裁员认为他们从商业问题上比人道主义观点更接近问题。船东关心的是确保自己的船舶不受任何可能的劫持的危险，因此而带来的压力，干扰以及可能相关费用，船东于是提出了五个条件，但租家没有接受。仲裁庭认为依据相关的信息资料，可以让他们认定过亚丁湾存在严重的海盗袭击风险；最终认定依据CONWARTIME1993，二船东可以拒绝租家过亚丁湾的要求，因为过亚丁湾不被许可二船东也没有责任义务把船开到苏伊士或者在直布罗陀等待合法的指示，选择过好望角并没有产生绕航，因此二船东获得此索赔额。
Thearbitrators concluded that Bulkhandling were entitled to refuse to obey theorder to proceed to China via Suez and the Gulf of Aden pursuant to CONWARTIME1993, Bulkhandling were notobliged to have the vessel proceed to Suez (because that was prohibitedby CONWARTIME 1993) or wait at Gibraltar until a lawful orderwas given (because that was not commercially realistic); see paragraph 105 ofthe Reasons. Thus there was no deviation in proceeding via the Cape of GoodHope; see paragraph 107 of the Reasons. Bulkhandling were therefore awarded theagreed sum of US$462,221.40.
裁定额外的费用及时间损失由租家自己承担。
但租家抗辩说裁决在法律上引援错误，对这一裁决提出上诉。
争议的主要的地方是关于CONWARTIME1993 第2款的理解及解释:
(2) TheVessel, unless the written consent of the Owners be first obtained, shall notbe ordered to or required to continue to or through, any port, place, area orzone (whether of land or sea) or any waterway or canal, where it appears thatthe Vessel, her cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel, in thereasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, may be, or are likely tobe, exposed to War Risks. Should the Vessel be within any such place asaforesaid, which only become dangerous, or is likely to be or to becomedangerous, after her entry into it, she shall be at liberty to leave it.
（除非事先取得船东的书面同意，否则船舶无义务进入或被要求继续驶向或经由任何由船长和/或船东的合理判断可能有，或可能是，暴露于战争威胁的港口、地点、地区或区域（不顾是陆地还是海上）或航道或运河，无论该风险是否在租约生效时已存在或生效后出现。如果船舶驶入前文所述仅变得危险或可能变危险的地点，进入后船舶可自由驶离。）
尤其是以下三点：
i) “可能”一词的含义
ii) 船东合理的判断
iii) 对该条款是否赋予船东自由决定权，如有，是否船东须在行使前作适当查询？租家认为仲裁员对此理解有误，以及仲裁在过好望角没有产生绕航上的认定。
i) the meaning of the words "maybe";
ii) the reasonable judgment of the owners;
iii) whether the clause gives the owners adiscretion and if so whether they are obliged to make proper enquiries beforeexercising it.
Pacific have further submittedthat the arbitrators erred in law in holding that the passage round the Cape ofGood Hope was not a deviation.
第一次商业法庭裁决：
关于CONWARTIME 1933(期租租约战争险条款)的历史：
虽然原因不同，双方都接受，认为法院可以适当考虑BIMCO在1993年7月28发的第6号通函，为什么要起草CONWARTIME1993。该通函解释说，在1993使用的战争风险条款已起草多年前，在某些方面过时，不适合当代条件。1991年，第一次海湾战争之后，就决定修改CONWARTIME和VOYWAR 1950战争险条款，有以下优先权：
i)船长负责船舶、船员和船上其他人员的安全，以及货物的安全。如果可能的话，船长必须让他们远离危险，并且必须提供他这样做的工具。
ii)这些工具必须仔细考虑所有三个方面的利益，必须是什么是合理的必要，让船长做他的工作。他们必须是公平的，并且没有机会从灾难中获得经济利益。
iii)过去30年的经验，必须制定这样的条款，就像他们的前辈在他们的时间，反映了当代世界。特别是，船旗不再是一个可靠的指南，问题必须考虑到有关船舶，船员和货物。
i) The master is responsible for thesafety of the ship, crew and other persons on board, and for its cargo. He mustkeep them out of harm's way, if possible, and he must be given the tools to doso.
ii) These tools must have careful regardto all three interests, and must be no more than what are reasonably necessaryto allow the master to do his job. They must be fair, and there must be noopportunity for making financial gain out of what is a disaster to theadventure.
iii) The experiences of the last 30 yearsmust be drawn upon to produce Clauses which, like their predecessors did intheir time, reflect the contemporary world. In particular, the vessel's flag isno longer a reliable guide; the problem has to be considered as concerning avessel, a crew and a cargo.
BIMCO委员会于1993年5月31日在新加坡正式通过新草案。
这里提到的工具，现实中有很多，比如带刺刀的安全网，或可通电的安全网；防弹衣、防弹头盔、安全舱、高压水枪及其它一些可行的爆炸物，通讯工具等等。想要求船舶过危险区的租家，必须去提供这些必须的防海盗工具或器械；或者要求船东去安排，以便船舶能够充分武装起来，降低风险系数。
法官Teare对于租家提出的三个主要问题作了如下陈述：
第一个法律问题：“可能，或可能是，暴露于战争风险中”是什么意思？（The meaning of "may be, orare likely to be, exposed to War Risks"）
首先，针对CONWARTIME1993第1条（b）解释的战争风险，显然acts of piracy 海盗行为也属于战争风险…船长和/或船东基于合理判断认为可能或可能变的对船舶、货物、船员或其他在船人员产生的威胁。第2条规定在何种情况下租家能对于有战争风险的给予指示，船舶也无义务进入或被要求继续驶向或经由任何由船长和/或船东的合理判断可能有战争威胁的港口、地点、地区或区域或航道或运河，无论该风险是否在租约生效时已存在或生效后出现。如果船舶驶入前文所述仅变得危险或可能便危险的地点，进入后船舶可自由驶离。对于海盗行为两条结合起来就是：
The vessel shall not be ordered to …..anyplace….where it appears that the Vessel, her cargo, crew or other persons onboard the Vessel, in the reasonable judgment of the Master and/or the Owners,may be, or are likely to be, exposed to acts of piracy ….which, in thereasonable judgment of the Master and/or the Owners, may be dangerous or arelikely to be or to become dangerous to the Vessel, her cargo, crew or otherpersons on board the Vessel.
因此，船东或船东必须基于合理的判断，第一，船舶、货物或船员可能、或可能会、暴露于海盗行为；第二，这种海盗行为可能是危险的或可能变成危险的。
Thus the master or owners mustform a reasonable judgment, first, that the vessel, her cargo or crew may be,or are likely to be, exposed to acts of piracy and second, that such acts of piracymay be dangerous or are likely to be or to become dangerous.
这个上诉最重要的问题是，第2条中“可能，或可能是，暴露在战争风险”的确切含义。之所以会出现困难，是因为他们没有明确说明风险程度必须是什么。是否有足够的可能性，船舶将暴露于海盗行为中？这艘船将有可能暴露于海盗行为中吗？或是足够的，有一个真正的可能性（这可能是不到一个偶然的机会），该船舶将暴露于海盗行为中？或必须有一个强大或实质的可能性，一个真正的风险或是一个非常严重的风险，该船舶将暴露于海盗行为中？
考虑到订立该条款的真实意图，法官Teare认为租家依航次任务指示船上是一项在租约下非常重要的权利，任何对该权利的限制必须清楚地表达。第2条没有要求船长或船东必须做出合理的判断，该船可能、或可能会被海盗袭击。它要求船长或船东基于合理的判断，该船舶可能或可能暴露于海盗行为中。暴露于海盗行为中意味着该船舶受到海盗风险或被打开的海盗危险。因此，问题是船长或船东必须显示何种程度的可能性或，使该船只遭受海盗行为的可能性。法官不认为这个短语“可能是，或可能会暴露在战争风险”可以合理地解释为要求两个不同程度的可能性或概率必须显示，一个是由短语“可能”和另一个短语“可能是”。这样的解释会或可能混淆，该条款的目的是实施，而不是由律师，而是由船长或船东负责船舶，船员和货物的安全。法官认为据他的判断，合理的解释是，“可能，或可能是，暴露在战争风险”的这词语是为了表达一个单一程度的可能性或概率。这词语的自然结构是“可能”是被理解为“可能是”。那“可能是”是什么意思？在CONWARTIME1993条款中，（起草者已经铭记船长对船舶、船员及货物的安全负责）法官不认为这词组会合理地理解当事人的要求，它是不是要求暴露于海盗风险需更大的可能性。船长或船东必须作出合理的判断，即船舶不易受到海盗行为的侵害，这一要求很难满足。然而，可能会有真正的危险，船舶将暴露于海盗行为，船长和船东将不可避免地进入该地区的风险。法官Teare不认为这是一个合理的建设性条款，旨在使船长保持船舶免受伤害的方式，尽管租家有这样一个重要的权利，以指示和使用该船舶。
鉴于该词语“likely to be”被解释为“很可能”，法官认为，当事人的意图是该船舶将暴露于海盗行为中的“真正的可能性”(real likelihood)。形容词“真正的”反映了基于证据的可能性，而不是基于推测的幻想可能性。虽然“真正的可能性”包括一个比不发生的可能性更大的事件，它也可以包含一个发生的几率小的事件。一个纯粹的可能性不包括在内，因为短语“可能是”暗示的可能性程度大于一个缺乏的可能性。“真正的可能性”所固有的概率是或可以反映在诸如“真正的危险”或“严重的可能性”等短语中。法官认为，“真实的可能性”应该理解为真正的危险的意义上。仲裁员认为，“可能，或可能是”暗示了船舶将暴露于严重的海盗风险。法官认为虽然他偏好的是一个真正的可能性的概念，因为它更紧密地反映了各方使用的语言，有可能很少，如果有的话，严重的风险和真正的可能性之间的差异。
It seems to me that thearbitrators understood "a serious risk" to be a risk of an importantevent, demanding of consideration. However, on my construction of the phrase"may be, or are likely to be", that phrase connoted a serious risk inthe sense of one of which it could be said that there was a real likelihood orreal danger that the vessel would be exposed to acts of piracy. There is adifference between the two which is neatly summed up by Mr. Nolan's contrastbetween a serious risk that an event will occur, in this case being exposed toacts of piracy, and a risk that a serious event, being exposed to acts ofpiracy, will occur.
The importance of the risk inthe sense of the harm it threatens is of course relevant to the definition of"War Risks" within sub-clause 1(b) of CONWARTIME1993. In the context of the present case the war risksare "acts of piracy ….which in the reasonable judgment of the Masterand/or the Owners, may bedangerous or are likely to be or become dangerous to the Vessel,her cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel" (emphasis added). Ifthe threatened harm is of a serious or important type then the qualifying testof dangerousness in clause 1(b) is likely to be satisfied. By contrast the phrase"may be, or are likely to be, exposed to War Risks" in sub-clause 2requires an assessment as to whether there is a real likelihood of the vesselbeing exposed to acts of piracy. Thus there is no requirement in sub-clause (2)to consider importance in the sense of the importance of the harm threatened byexposure to acts of piracy or in any other sense.
I have therefore reached theconclusion that although the arbitrators adopted the concept of a serious riskas expressing the meaning of "may be or are likely to be" (which itwould be difficult to say was the wrong legal test), they understood andapplied that test in a manner which was not warranted by the true constructionof the clause. They therefore erred in law.
法官在这serious risk的问题上，认为应该被理解为一个事件的发生有严重的风险（事件是指暴露在海盗行为中）：
a serious risk that an event will occur(in this case being exposed to acts of piracy) or；
但是仲裁员认为是一个严重的事件的发生有风险。
a risk that a serious event (beingexposed to acts of piracy) will occur.
第二个法律问题: 船东的判断是否合理？（Was the Owners judgment reasonable?）
法官Teare认为，如果他得出结论是，仲裁员对“可能，或可能会，暴露在战争风险中”的理解在法律上错误的，那么他必须遵循仲裁员的结论，二船东的合理判断在法律上也是错误的。
租家律师Nolan还有另外一点，他认为，法庭应该自问，船东是否合理地得出结论，那里确实有很严重的风险，他们的船将暴露在海盗行为中，而不是问船舶很可能被劫持的判断是是否是合理的。
船东律师Kenney认为，依第78和第96段，显而易见，仲裁员认为船东在事实上作出了合理判断。
法官认为，对仲裁员所列的理由的公正看法是，仲裁员认为船东在事实上做出了判断。他们说，该判断“是善意的行使”（见第97段的理由），所以他们必须得出结论，实际上做出了判断。虽然他们说，二船东所掌握的资料足以使他能得出结论，认为有严重的劫持风险（见第97段的理由）。法官也认为仲裁员他们依第96段的理由而做出确实有很大的劫持风险的裁决，而第97段是在解释为什么仲裁员作这个裁决是合理客观的。
因此，除了运用法律错误之外，法官不认为仲裁员还有任何别的错误。Mr. Nolan had a further point.Mr. Kenny said that it wasapparent from paragraphs 78 and 96 of the Reasons that the arbitrators heldthat the Owners did in fact make a reasonable judgment.
I consider that the fair readingof the arbitrators' Reasons is that the arbitrators concluded that the Ownersdid in fact make a judgment.
If, as I have concluded was thecase, the arbitrators were wrong in law as to their understanding of the phrase"may be, or are likely to be, exposed to War Risks" then it mustfollow that their conclusion that Bulkhandling formed a reasonable judgmentmust also be wrong in law.
Mr. Nolan had a further point.He submitted that the tribunal asked themselves whether the Owners could have reasonably concludedthat there was a serious risk that the vessel would be exposed to acts of piracyinstead of asking themselves whether the Owners' judgment that it was likelythat the vessel would be hijacked was reasonable.
Mr. Kenny said that it was apparent fromparagraphs 78 and 96 of the Reasons that the arbitrators held that the Ownersdid in fact make a reasonable judgment.
I consider that the fairreading of the arbitrators' Reasons is that the arbitrators concluded that theOwners did in fact make a judgment. They said the judgment "was exercisedin good faith" (see paragraph 97 of the Reasons) so that they must haveconcluded that there had in fact been a judgment. Whilst they said that theinformation in Mr. Mikkelsen's possession was "sufficient to enable him…to conclude that there was a serious risk of hijacking" (see paragraph 97of the Reasons) I also consider that they found that he did in fact concludethat there was a serious risk of hijacking because they refer to such aconclusion in paragraph 96 of the Reasons. The following paragraph 97 explainswhy they considered that such judgment was objectively reasonable.
I therefore do not considerthat there is any further error beyond the application of the wrong legal test.
中国有句俗话，越危险的地方越安全。在亚丁湾，有多国的海军舰队在不间断巡逻，护航；而且过往船只教多，相对那些远离亚丁湾，但没有军舰护航的区域，危险系数会小很多。就算发生海盗袭击事件，临近的海军力量也可以及时赶到现场施以援救。因此在这个问题上，法官认为仲裁员判断有误，二船东的判断也不合理。当然，如果干舷较低，速度较慢的船，而且也没有加入护航编队，那还是很危险的。
第三个法律问题：船东是否有义务去做合理的查询？（Was there a duty to makereasonable enquiries?）
租家律师Nolan表示，租家绿租家租如果合同分配给一方有权根据合同做出可能对双方产生影响的决定权，通常会暗示权力将以诚实，合理和不会任意或不经意的方式行使，进行任何必要的查询后。See SocimerInternational Bank v Standard Bank [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 558 at p.575, the Product Star (no.2) [19931 Lloyd's Rep. 397 at p.404and Government of Spain v North of England SS Co. (1938) 61Ll.L.Rep. 44 at p.58. 他进一步指出，仲裁员发现二船东的询问非常有限。
I was not persuaded that theline of cases to which reference was made applies in the present context. Teare法官并不认为租家律师提及的案件是适用于当前的情况。 Assuming that CONWARTIME 1993 conferred adiscretion or power on the Owners to make a decision which could effect bothparties there was no necessity to imply any term as to how that discretion orpower must be exercised because the clause said expressly that the Owner'sjudgment must be "reasonable".假设CONWARTIME1993赋予船东酌情决定权或权力作出可能对双方产生影响的决定，则无须暗示有关酌情决定权或权力必须行使的任何条款，因为该条款明确表示业主的判断必须是“合理”的。 The effect of that clause is that the Ownersmust make a judgment该条款的效力是船东所作出判断，它必须是真诚善意的；otherwise it would not be a judgment but adevice to obtain a financial ga
否则不会是一种判断，而是获得经济利益的手段。Further, the judgment reached mustbe objectively reasonable. 此外，所做的判断必须客观合理。船东如果希望确保其所做的判断是客观合理的，船东将会作出一切必要的查询。如果他没有任何查询，可能会得出结论，他没有真诚地做出判断。但是，如果他做出了他认为足够的调查，但在作出判断之前没有作出一切必要的查询，法官不认为如果事实上这样做是一个客观的合理判断，那么他的判断会被认为是不合理的，并且会被证明是如此必要的询问。An owner who wishes to ensure thathis judgment is objectively reasonable will make all necessary enquiries船
In the present case, althoughMr. Mikkelsen acted largely as a conduit between head owners and Pacific, thearbitrators held that "he had reasonably informed himself so as to be ableto form a judgement" (see paragraph 97 of the Reasons). 在这种情况下，尽管二船东的角色是原船东和租家之间的中间人，但仲裁员认为“他已经合理地通知自己以便能够作出判断”（见第97段理由）。 That suggests that the arbitrators consideredthat he made all necessary enquiries. 这表明仲裁员认为他做了一切必要的调查。However, what were necessaryenquiries depended upon the arbitrators' understanding of the phrase "maybe, or are likely to be, exposed to War Risks".但是，有必要的查询仅依赖于仲裁员对“可能或可能遭受战争风险”这一短语的理解。 If, as I consider to be the case,their understanding was in error then their conclusion that sufficientenquiries had been made must also be wrong in law.法官认为如果他也认为是这样，他们的理解是错误的，那么他们的结论就是有充分的查询也是错误的。However, that is not afurther error but merely a reflection of the first and only error.然而，这不是另一个错误，而只是第一个也是唯一错误的反映。
Mr. Nolan submitted that wherea contract allocates to one party a power to make decisions under the contractwhich may have an effect on both parties, a term will generally be implied thatthe power will be exercised honestly, rationally and not arbitrarily orcapriciously and after making any necessary enquiries; see Socimer International Bank v Standard Bank [2008]1 Lloyd's Rep. 558 at p. 575, the ProductStar (no.2) [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 397at p.404 and Government of Spainv North of England SS Co. (1938) 61 Ll.L.Rep. 44 at p.58. He furthersubmitted that the arbitrators had found that Mr. Mikkelsen had made verylimited enquires.
I was not persuaded that theline of cases to which reference was made applies in the present context.Assuming that CONWARTIME 1993 conferred adiscretion or power on the Owners to make a decision which could effect bothparties there was no necessity to imply any term as to how that discretion orpower must be exercised because the clause said expressly that the Owner'sjudgment must be "reasonable". The effect of that clause is that theOwners must make a judgment. It must be made in good faith; otherwise it wouldnot be a judgment but a device to obtain a financial gain. Further, thejudgment reached must be obj
ectively reasonable. An owner who wishesto ensure that his judgment is objectively reasonable will make all necessaryenquiries. If he makes no enquiries at all it may be concluded that he did notreach a judgment in good faith. But if he makes those enquiries which heconsiders sufficient but fails to make all necessary enquiries before reachinghis judgment I do not consider that his judgment will on that account be judgedunreasonable if in fact it was an objectively reasonable judgment and wouldhave been shown to be so had all necessary enquiries been made.
In the present case, althoughMr. Mikkelsen acted largely as a conduit between head owners and Pacific, thearbitrators held that "he had reasonably informed himself so as to be ableto form a judgement" (see paragraph 97 of the Reasons). That suggests thatthe arbitrators considered that he made all necessary enquiries. However, whatwere necessary enquiries depended upon the arbitrators' understanding of thephrase "may be, or are likely to be, exposed to War Risks". If, as Iconsider to be the case, their understanding was in error then their conclusionthat sufficient enquiries had been made must also be wrong in law. However,that is not a further error but merely a reflection of the first and only error.
对于这一个方面的问题，船东是否进行了合理的查询，笔者认为可以分为以下几个方面，第一是否对海盗风险进行了充分的评估？第二是否对护航编队的时间进行了查询？是否可以加入护航编队？第三对过往船只被海盗袭击的情况是否进行了统计分析？第四是否就可能安排武装护卫上船进行了必要的咨询？现实中，船东可以查核各国的海军舰队，比如中国，日本，韩国，印度，甚至欧盟的安全走廊通道，控制好速度以便加入合适的护航编队。船东也可以去咨询武装护卫，比如国内的华信中安，或MAST；东行可以在红海北纬18°-19°位置，西行的话可以在巴生港（Port Kelang）就安排武装人员上船以协助船舶顺利安全通过亚丁湾。当然安排武装护卫上船这里面还涉及到船旗国的问题，得先取得船旗国政府的许可。
第四个法律问题：船东是否有权指示船舶过好旺角到中国？（Were the Owners entitled toorder the vessel to proceed to China via the Cape of Good Hope?）
假设他在前三个问题上失败了，租家律师Nolan表示，船东没有权利命令船舶通过好望角到中国。租家唯一部分不被允许的指示The only part of Pacific's order that it wasnot entitled to give was that which required the vessel to transit the Gulf ofAden.租家是要求船舶过境亚丁湾；在穿过地中海到There was no danger from piratesin proceeding through the Mediterranean to Port Said at the northern entranceto the Suez Canal.苏伊士运河北入口的塞德港，都不会有海盗危险。 Thus the vessel was bound to continue throughthe Mediterranean from Gibraltar.因此，船舶需从直布罗陀继续穿过地中海。 (Mr. Nolan noted that the head owners, in anemail exchange with Bulkhandling on 19 November 2008, appeared to have acceptedthat this was so.) If that was wrong then the vessel was without orders and wasbound to wait for fresh orders at Gibralta（租家律师诺兰指出，2008年11月19日，原船东在与二船东的电子邮件交流中似乎已经接受了这样的看法。）如果这是错误的，那么这艘船没有指示，需在直布罗陀等待新的指示。依Sub-clause (8) ofCONWARTIME 1993 did not permit the vessel to proceed to China via the Cape ofGood HopeCONWARTIME 1993第（8）款规定，不允许该船通过好望角到中国，它只允许船舶拒绝遵守通过亚丁湾进行的命令；而绕道好望角违反了租家的指示。
The arbitrators considered thatproceeding to Suez was "prohibited" by CONWARTIME 1993 and that therewas no realistic likelihood that head owners would have changed their mind aboutproceeding through the G仲裁员认为，依据CONWARTIME1993进入苏伊士是被“禁止”的，而且原船东在改变通过亚丁湾的态度上并没有真正的可能性。船舶Waiting at Gibraltar was not"commercially realistic" and was in "no one's interest"船舶
在直布罗陀等待不是“商业上现实的”，并且对任何人都没有利益。租家律师Nolan说，法律上错误的第一个原因是，因为战争风险条款中没有任何条款禁止该船进入苏伊士；而第二个原因是，因为一艘船如何运营的，是租家作为承租人的问题，和二船东、仲裁员没有关系。Mr. Kenny recognised thatthe reasons why the arbitrators' conclusion that there was no deviation inproceeding via Cape of Good Hope was right in law required to be spelled out ina little more detail than the arbitrators had don
船东律师Kenny认识到，仲裁员得出结论认为，通过好望角进行审议并没有偏离的原因在法律上是必须比仲裁员所做的更详细的阐述。He made two submissions.他提交了两份。First, Pacific had given anorder as to the vessel's destination, China, and an order as to the route, viaSuez and the Gulf of Aden.首先，租家已经就船舶的目的地中国，及航线选择做出了指示。但是对于航线的指示是非法的，对于目的地的指示仍然合法的，二船东有尽力速遣的义务。指示船舶通过好望角已经履行该义务，并不是绕航。Second, he submitted thatsub-clause (8), which provided that anything done or not done in compliancewith sub-clause (2) shall not be deemed a deviation, meant that the decisionnot to proceed to Suez was something "not done" in compliance with,in the sense of pursuant to, sub-clause (2) and that the decision to proceedvia the Cape was something "done" in compliance with, in the sense ofpursuant to, sub-clause (2). 第二，他认为，第（8）款规定，根据第（2）款作出的或不做的任何事情不应被视为绕航，按照第（2）款的意义不进入苏伊士的决定意味着“不为”；根据第（2）款的意义，通过好望角的决定是“为”。 因此需选择为，过好望角。
法官认为不认为仲裁员的推理虽然简短，却揭示了法律的错误。As commercial arbitrators theyreached a firm conclusion on this part of the case expressed in terms whichthis court should be slow to overturn.作为商业仲裁员，他们就这一部分案件达成了一个坚定的裁决。 法官法官
认为他们的裁决可以参考CONWARTIME1993第8条，并参考二船东在执行到中国的航次重有尽力速遣的责任义务。在不可能达成一致意见，允许船舶过亚丁湾的情况下，航行到苏伊士运河，可能暴露于海盗行为之前，没有任何商业意义。In circumstances where thearbitrators held that there was no realistic likelihood that agreement wouldhave been reached permitting the vessel to transit the Gulf of Aden there wasno commercial purpose in proceeding to Suez, notwithstanding that the vesselcould have proceeded to Suez before being exposed to acts of piracy.仲裁员认为因此，二船东拒绝遵守租家的指示从直布罗陀开到苏伊士，是因为遵守第2条“为或不为”，不应该视为绕航而应视为租约的适当履行。而且，在租家已经指示船舶装载和运送货物到中国的情况下，但关于航线的指示是非法的；那么船舶决定过好望角到中国便不是没有遵从租家指示，这仅仅是在履行二船东在执行航次命令中尽力速遣之义务。
Upon theassumption that he lost on the first three issues Mr. Nolan submitted that theOwners were not in any event entitled to order the vessel to proceed to Chinavia the Cape of Good Hope. The only part of Pacific's order that it was notentitled to give was that which required the vessel to transit the Gulf ofAden. There was no danger from pirates in proceeding through the Mediterraneanto Port Said at the northern entrance to the Suez Canal. Thus the vessel wasbound to continue through the Mediterranean from Gibraltar. (Mr. Nolan notedthat the head owners, in an email exchange with Bulkhandling on 19 November2008, appeared to have accepted that this was so.) If that was wrong then thevessel was without orders and was bound to wait for fresh orders at Gibraltar.Sub-clause (8) of CONWARTIME 1993 did not permitthe vessel to proceed to China via the Cape of Good Hope. It only permitted thevessel to refuse to obey the order which had been given to proceed through theGulf of Aden. Proceeding via the Cape was contrary to Pacific's orders.
The arbitrators considered thatproceeding to Suez was "prohibited" by CONWARTIME 1993 and that there was no realistic likelihoodthat head owners would have changed their mind about proceeding through theGulf. Waiting at Gibraltar was not "commercially realistic" and wasin "no one's interest". Mr. Nolan said that the first reason waswrong in law because nothing in the war risks clause prohibited the vessel fromproceeding to Suez and that the second reason was wrong because how a vesselwas traded was a matter for Pacific as charterers and was not a matter forBulkhandling or indeed the arbitrators.
Mr. Kenny recognised that thereasons why the arbitrators' conclusion that there was no deviation inproceeding via Cape of Good Hope was right in law required to be spelled out ina little more detail than the arbitrators had done. He made two submissions.First, Pacific had given an order as to the vessel's destination, China, and anorder as to the route, via Suez and the Gulf of Aden. The order as to the routewas unlawful. The order as to the destination remained lawful and Bulkhandlingwere under a duty to prosecute the voyage with due despatch to China. That dutywas fulfilled by proceeding via the Cape of Good Hope. There was no deviation.Second, he submitted that sub-clause (8), which provided that anything done ornot done in compliance with sub-clause (2) shall not be deemed a deviation,meant that the decision not to proceed to Suez was something "notdone" in compliance with, in the sense of pursuant to, sub-clause (2) andthat the decision to proceed via the Cape was something "done" incompliance with, in the sense of pursuant to, sub-clause (2).
I am not persuaded that thearbitrators' reasoning, though brief, revealed an error of law. As commercialarbitrators they reached a firm conclusion on this part of the case expressedin terms which this court should be slow to overturn. I consider that theirdecision is explicable by reference to sub-clause 8 of CONWARTIME 1993 and by reference to Bulkhandling's duty toprosecute the voyage to China with due despatch. In circumstances where thearbitrators held that there was no realistic likelihood that agreement wouldhave been reached permitting the vessel to transit the Gulf of Aden there wasno commercial purpose in proceeding to Suez, notwithstanding that the vessel couldhave proceeded to Suez before being exposed to acts of piracy. The refusal ofBulkhandling to follow Pacific's order to proceed from Gibraltar to Suez wastherefore something "done or not done" in compliance with sub-clause2. Further, in circumstances where Pacific had ordered the vessel to load andcarry a cargo to China but where its order as to route was an order Pacific wasnot entitled to give, the vessel was not without orders and the decision toproceed to China via the Cape of Good Hope was in fulfilment of Bulkhandling'sduty to prosecute that voyage with due dispatch.
船东律师Kenny表示，即使仲裁员的方法是错误的，三百分之一被劫持的几率认为是很严重的风险；但如果仲裁员采取正确的评判，还是会做出一样的裁决。相反，租家的律师Nolan指出，三百分之一被劫持的几率不能被描述为严重的风险，无论如何，还需要评估是否有可行的措施能降低海盗风险，比如加入护航编队。
The court has no jurisdictionto make findings of fact on an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act1996. The facts must be found by the arbitrators. 法院根据“1996年仲裁法”第69条提出的上诉没有管辖权，事实必须由仲裁员查明。 It seems from the award that the arbitrators had evidencefrom experts and that steps to mitigate the risk of attack were discussed inevidence;从仲裁裁决中可以看出，仲裁员有来自专家的证据，并且有迹象讨论了减轻攻击风险的措施。 see paragraphs 48, 73, 86 and 93 of theReasons.见解释原因的第48,73,86和93段。In these circumstances I amminded to order that the award be remitted to the arbitrators to reconsider, inthe light of this judgment and having regard to the evidence adduced by theparties, the question whether, in the reasonable judgment of Bulkhandling,there was a "real likelihood", in the sense of a real danger, thatthe vessel would be exposed to acts of piracy在这种情况下，法官指出，根据这一判决，并考虑到当事人提出的证据，将裁决转交仲裁员重新考虑。主要问题是，依二船东的合理判断，是否有“真正的可能性”，真正的危险，该船将遭受海盗行为。 However, both counsel indicatedthat they would make further submissions as to the appropriate order to makeonce they had studied the terms of my judgment.但是，双方律师都指出，他们会在进一步研究法官的判决条件之后作出进一步的上诉。I shall therefore make noorder for a remission until after the parties have studied the terms of thisjudgment.因此，在各方研究这项判决的条款之前，法官不会作出回应。
Mr. Kenny submitted that evenif the arbitrator's approach was in error a 1 in 300 chance of being hijackedby pirates was a serious risk that the vessel would be exposed to acts ofpiracy and so if the arbitrators had applied the right test they would havedecided the case in the same way as they in fact did. By contrast Mr. Nolansubmitted that a risk of 1 in 300 cannot sensibly be described as a seriousrisk and in any event what also had to be assessed was the effect on the riskof such steps as were available to reduce the risk, for example by joining aconvoy.
The court has no jurisdictionto make findings of fact on an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act1996. The facts must be found by the arbitrators. It seems from the award thatthe arbitrators had evidence from experts and that steps to mitigate the riskof attack were discussed in evidence; see paragraphs 48, 73, 86 and 93 of theReasons. In these circumstances I am minded to order that the award be remittedto the arbitrators to reconsider, in the light of this judgment and havingregard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the question whether, in thereasonable judgment of Bulkhandling, there was a "real likelihood",in the sense of a real danger, that the vessel would be exposed to acts ofpiracy. However, both counsel indicated that they would make furthersubmissions as to the appropriate order to make once they had studied the termsof my judgment. I shall therefore make no order for a remission until after theparties have studied the terms of this judgment.
继续上诉，最后来到了高等法院。
法官Teare又继续解释了exposed to War Risks 及maybe, orare likely to be，a real likelihood的具体含义。认为exposed toWar Risks应该理解为exposure to acts of piracy means that the vessel is subject to therisk of piracy or is laid open to the danger of piracy，而risks则对应为danger。
I therefore consider that thephrase "exposed to War Risks" should properly be construed asreferring to a situation which is "dangerous". That is consistentwith the OED definition which I sought to paraphrase in my judgment but, moreimportantly, flows naturally from the wording of the clause read as a whole andthereby gives effect to the parties' intentions.
法官不认为对船东或船长是个很复杂的选择，因为按照第二条第二部分，如果船舶驶入前文所述仅变得危险或可能变危险的地点，进入后船舶可自由驶离。
Thus the questionto be addressed by an owner or master, when ordered to go to a place, iswhether there is a real likelihood that the vessel will be exposed to acts ofpiracy in the sense that the place will be dangerous on account of acts ofpiracy. I do not consider that such a test is too complexfor an owner or master to apply. The wording of the second part of clause(2) itself contemplates that the owner may have to address both likelihood anddangerousness: "Should the Vessel be within any suchplace as aforesaid, which only becomes dangerous, or is likely to be or to becomedangerous, after her entry into it, sheshall be at liberty to leave it" (emphasis added).
法官不接受租家律师的抗辩，租家抗辩说三百分之一的概率仅仅是微弱的可能性，但法官认为他不清楚租家是如何统计评估的，或者专家是如何统计这个案件的事实的。
This submissionmirrors the submission made by Mr. Nolan at the first hearing which I hadindicated that I was minded to reject; see paragraphs 61-62 of my judgmentwhere I noted that the arbitrators had evidence before them which may bear onthis issue. I am very reluctant to step into the arena of fact finding basedupon a simple statistic. Whilst a bare possibility is not a real likelihood(see paragraph 40 of my judgment) and whilst a statistic that the risk ofhijacking is 1 in 300 gives rise to an argument that such a risk is merely abare possibility I do not know how the statistic wasassessed or how the experts related that statistic to the facts of this case.All I know is that it was said to be "derived from contemporary materialand both experts' reports". In short, without knowing the evidence beforethe arbitrators, I am unable to say that the outcome of the remission isinevitable. Moreover, that same evidence will determine whether, if there is areal likelihood that the vessel would be exposed to acts of piracy in the Gulfof Aden, the degree of such likelihood and the gravity of the consequences tothe vessel, cargo and crew were such as to render the Gulf of Aden dangerousfor Triton Lark. It seems to me far moreappropriate that the arbitrators, as the fact finding tribunal with theevidence before them, should decide these issues. Both counsel urged me to givefurther guidance to the arbitrators but I do not consider that I can properlydo so without trespassing upon their fact finding responsibility. I thereforeconsider that the award should be remitted to the arbitrators.
法官最终要求把案件退还给仲裁员重新认定。在法官的判断及考虑到当事人提出的证据，是否，二船东作出了合理的判断，那里有真正的可能行，在亚丁湾船舶将暴露于海盗的危险之中。换句话简单点说，在二船东合理的判断下，在亚丁湾那里是有真正的可能性，由于海盗行为对于Triton Lark轮是危险的。
I shall order that the award beremitted to the arbitrators to reconsider, in the light of my judgment and havingregard to the evidence adduced by the parties, whether, in the reasonable judgment of Bulkhandling, there was areal likelihood that the vessel would be exposed to acts of piracy in the Gulfof Aden. In shorthand the question is whether, in thereasonable judgment of Bulkhandling, there was a real likelihood that the Gulfof Aden would, on account of acts of piracy, be dangerous to Triton Lark.
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
