2017-11-16
841 
【摘要】在航运实务中，经常碰到因受限于港口的吃水，船舶并不能满载，尤其是澳大利亚的港口。船舶具体靠泊哪个泊位，以及发货人安排船舶的离港时间对于船舶最终的装货量影响巨大。在这种情况下，因吃水限制导致亏舱，谁该为此承担责任？本文通过The“Johnny K”一案的介绍来说明这个问题。
【关键词】小潮、亏舱、发货人、港口当局
在之前安全港口方面的文章中有提到关于澳大利亚港口因吃水限制导致的亏舱费问题，建议可以从安全港口的角度入手去找租家索赔亏舱费。参The “Archimidis”案， Ventspils港的航道因淤泥问题导致水尺减少，最终导致少装货。仲裁庭认为租家有两种选择可以继续装到最低货量90,000吨，一是根据租约，安排在锚地继续装货；二是船舶呆在泊位等待航道疏浚后，继续装货。但租家并未作此安排而选择安排船舶离港。最高法院的Clarke勋爵最终接受船东上诉，判租家得为亏舱费负责。
从The“Archimidis”案可以看出，如果租家想避免被索赔亏舱费，那么应该采取足够的措施去避免违约。回到澳大利亚的港口，情况似乎是类似的；如果仅仅是因为港口某个时间的吃水问题导致了船舶少装货，租家没有安排船舶继续呆在泊位上等待下一个合适的潮水，依据The“Archimidis”案的原则可以得出，那么租家的这种安排将构成违约，从而得为亏舱费负责。
接下来就来看看The“Johnny K”案。
一、基本案情
Pentonville Shipping Ltd(以下简称“船东”)派Johnny K轮到澳大利亚的丹皮尔港或黑德兰港(有9个货舱的好望角型散货船，以下简称“该轮”)去执行TransfieldShipping Inc的BHPB货载，最终租家指定黑德兰为装货港。货量为170,000吨，10%或多或少，船东有选择权。
该轮于2003年9月29日凌晨抵达黑德兰港，并提交准备就绪通知。在抵达黑德兰港时，船长要求的货量达到17.27万吨，在10%的容差量范围之内。但因为港口压港，船舶并未直接靠泊，而是等到2003年10月1日才靠泊开始装货，在这个时候，依据合约，可用的装货时间已经用完，在开始装货前船舶已经进入了滞期。
在黑德兰港口的潮汐周期(tide cycle)中，该轮被安排在了在大潮（springtide）和小潮(neaptide)之间的某个阶段，完货开航。最终该轮只装了156,855吨货物，比船长预配的少了15,845吨。实际上，该轮也是在2003年10月3日凌晨的趁高潮离港的，但是如果等到下一个高潮需要等较长时间。
船东要求租家支付少装的15,845吨货的亏舱费，连同其它小额滞期费计算争议，船东最终向租家索赔134,682.59美元。
二、仲裁庭裁决
伦敦的两名海事仲裁员ChistopherMoss及JohnSchofield（以下简称“仲裁员”）经过调查发现，停泊延误的原因是港口正常拥挤，黑德兰港有五个泊位，但只有两个适合该轮大小的船可以装货，MountNewman A和B泊位。这两个泊位和另外一个泊位都是由作为货物托运人的BHPB控制的。仲裁员没有发现该轮在她面前停靠的任何船只到达的证据。相反，他们发现托运人似乎尽了一切努力来尽快安排该轮靠泊，可能是因为他们意识到，由于装载的货物数量受限，船只有可能正赶上小潮。
船长预配的全部货物可能可以装下，在2003年10月2日凌晨的时候，这艘船可以装到合同上满载货物离港。因此，如果她在装卸时间内装完了货物，她可以满载离港航行。
仲裁员发现，为了使用这两个泊位中的任何一个泊位，必须先停泊一个这样大小的船舶，以便当她满载时，可以直接出海。仲裁员还发现，几乎完全满载的船舶不可能离开码头，停泊在港内或港外的某个地方，然后返回MountNewman的一个泊位，继续装货，一旦潮水周期变得有利就完成装货。原因是因为该轮无法在重新靠泊之前掉头。她只能在空载的状态下才能掉头靠泊，在装载或几乎完全装满之后无处可掉头。
仲裁员在其第22段理由中记载，在提交的索赔文件中，船东说，租家在装满全部指定数量的货物之前，命令该船驶航。他们还记录，租家否认这一点，说这艘船已被港务当局要求由开航离港，船东已经问租家是否希望船舶留在泊位算他们的时间和费用，直到满载，否则船将开航，他们将索赔亏舱费。最后，仲裁员在答复意见书中记录，船东接受，该轮已被码头/港口当局命令离开泊位。
最终仲裁员认定离港开航的命令是码头/港口当局下达的，因此租家无需为此负责。船东不服仲裁员的裁定，上诉。
三、高等法院判决
为支持和反对批准上诉许可而提出的证据引发了一场辩论，在仲裁中争辩说无论船东是否还争辩无论究竟是由谁来给予命令要求离开泊位，租家应该为此命令负责。书面意见清楚表明，船东确实采取了这一点，正如Cooke法官在批准上诉时所说的。
Tomlinson法官认为，不幸的是，仲裁员还没有就停泊的命令问题作出准确的调查。如他已经提到，在他们的理由的第三段，他们发现装货船的泊位是由托运人BHPB控制的。仲裁员在其理由第2段中发现，“船舶按照码头/港口当局的命令（见下文第22段）航行，装载了大约156,855吨货物，而指定数量为172,700吨。仲裁员在其理由第22段中记录，在提交的答复中，船东们接受，船舶已被命令由码头/港务当局离开泊位。仲裁员没有确定与终端或终端当局不同的港务局，但在第24,28,33和54段中，他们不同地记录了撤离泊位（第24段）或起航命令的指示（第28,33和54）是由港务局给的。Tomlinson法官认为这不太可能是指两个单独的命令。基于他已经提出的理由，可能是因为船舶实际上无法返回停靠位置而撤离泊位的命令无异于启航。虽然仲裁员没有找到任何发现，但人们仍然期望有一个独特的港务局，这就是所谓的黑德兰港务局。事实上，由于租船人反对申请上诉申请的证据显示，港务局拥有和经营位于内港内的五个不受BHPB控制的两个泊位。
For the reasons which I have already set out it may be that an order tovacate the berth was tantamount to an order to sail since the vessel would in fact be unable to return to the berth. Although the arbitrators make nofinding, there is as one would expect a distinct port authority which is called, unsurprisingly, Port Hedland PortAuthority. In fact, as evidence filed by the charterers in opposition to the application for leave to appeal shows, the port authority owns and operates the two berths of five situated within the inner harbour which are not controlledby BHP.
仲裁员在其理由的第51段中认为，船舶有必要航行以避免被盗窃。第24段是一个关键的段落，Tomlinson法官全面阐述：无论如何，我们并不认为承租人可以对港务局撤离的指示负责，而且在当天结束的时候才是船舶航行的真正原因。即使他们想（从商业的角度来看，他们想要阻止使用可能占用这种规模的船舶的两个泊位之一是不切实际的），租船人不可能违背港务局。
In any event, we do not think that the Charterers can be held liable for the instruction to vacate the berth given by the port authorities and that at the end of the day was the real reason for the vessel sailing. Even had they wanted to (and from a commercial perspective, it would have been unrealistic for them to want to block the use of one of the only two berths that could take ships of this size) the Charterers could not have prevailed against the wishes of the port authorities.
Tomlinson法官认为仲裁员理由的第24段在某些方面令人费解。表面上看，第二句中“他们”和“他们”是指租船人。港口当局为什么应该对这个与码头经营者不同的事情感兴趣呢？Tomlinson法官认为有一个原因，是安全的。在港口有一艘船，如果在下次涨潮时不能离港，可能是不可接受的。然而，Tomlinson法官认为这是他的猜测，无论如何可能与仲裁员在其原因第20段中的结论不一致，即船舶可能已经完全载入泊位，等待下一个高潮的潮汐。他不确定这个发现是否包含在内容中，以及是否可以观察泊位上可用的水深。租家的代表律师Kenny先生认为港口当局可能有兴趣维持港口船舶的吞吐量，以最大限度地提高港口拖轮和装卸工人的有偿就业。这是他的猜测。无论如何，仲裁员没有发现港口当局提供拖船或装卸工人，Tomlinson法官不知道这个立场是什么。
Paragraph 24 of the arbitrators' Reasons is in some respects puzzling. On the face of it the reference to "they" and "them" in the second sentence is a reference to the charterers. It is not immediately obvious to me why the port authorities should have had an interest in the matter distinct from that of the operators of the terminal. One reason could I suppose be safety – it might not be acceptable to have a vessel in the port in a condition in which she could not if required leave on the next high tide. However that is speculation on my part and may in any event be inconsistent with the arbitrators' finding at paragraph 20 of their Reasons that the vessel could have remained at the berth fully laden waiting for the next spring tides. I am not sure whether this finding embraces within it what would be permitted as well as being an observation upon the available depth of water at the berth. Mr Kenny for the charterer ssuggested that the port authority might have an interest in maintaining through put of vessels in the port so as to maximise the paid employment of their tugs and stevedores and other facilities at the port. That is speculationon his part. In any event there is no finding by the arbitrators that the port authority provides tugs or stevedores and I do not know what the position is.
简而言之，Tomlinson法官认为仲裁员没有明确和一致地表明开航命令是由谁发出的。除了发现有必要避免船舶遭遇小潮以外，也没有理由发出命令。因此，没有发现命令的真正原因是出于商业目的，不愿在三个星期内停泊和占用泊位，与码头经营者有所区别的，有与履行行政职能有关的理由，要求船舶离开码头和港口。
In short there is no clearly and consistently expressed finding by the arbitrators on the question by whom the order to sailwas given. There is also no reason found for the giving of the order over and above the finding that it was necessary to avoid the vessel becoming neaped. Thus it is neither found that the real reason underlying the order was a commercially motivated desire not to have the berth blocked and unusable for three weeks nor that the port authority, as distinct from the terminal operator, had reasons connected with the discharge of its administrative functions for requiring the vessel to leave the berth and the port.
仲裁员裁决的其余有关段落如下：
23. Had she remained at the berth, loading could have been completed within a matter of hours (and would have been completed, since we are satisfied that despite what the Owners say, there was no shortage of cargo) and with completion of loading, demurrage would have ceased. In the absence of any breach by the Charterers of the safe berth warranty, the cost of the subsequent delay would prima facie have fallen to the Owners, as would any liability to the owners of the berth in continuing to occupy it after loading had been completed.
28. We accept of course that the charter provides for the Owners to specify that up to 10% more or less cargo above the basic in take be loaded and that the Master asked for 172,700 mt, that is 1.59% above the basic figure. Clearly as we have indicated above, the reason why the nominated cargo was not loaded was because had it been, the vessel would have been unable to sail for approximately 3 weeks and it was the Owners' responsibility to ensure that the quantity of cargo they sought could be loaded. In any event, as we have already pointed out, it was the port authorities that ordered the vessel to sail.
29. We do not believe that the charterers can be blamed in this instance for the failure to load the quantity originally sought by the Master.
31. We do not believe that there was a failure by the charterers, or those for whom they are responsible, to make a full cargo available for loading, either when the vessel became an arrived ship or subsequently. That it was not loaded within the allowed laytime (indeed loading did not commence until after demurrage began) does not give to any remedy other than the payment of demurrage.
32. We were referred at some length to the well known case of Aktieselskabet Reidarv. Arcos Ltd [1926] 25 L1.1.Rep. 513, a decision of the Court of Appeal and the principles enunciatedtherein.
33. Suffice to say, we are satisfied that that case remains good law.Whether to bring themselves within those principles, the Owners must demonstratea separate breach of some other contractual provision other than the obligation to load the intended cargo within the agreed laytime or simply that the Owners must show that they have suffered two distinct heads of damage, the second being of a separate type, which was not covered by the demurrage rate, is in this case academic. However it is viewed, the loss said to have been suffered by the Owners, other than the delay which is covered by the demurrage provision, did not arise from any fault on the part of the charterers. At the end of the day, the order to sail was given by the port authorities and the Charterers cannot be blamed for that decision."
Tomlinson法官认为根据这些调查结果和讨论，仲裁员拒绝了船东关于亏舱/损害赔偿的要求。在Tomlinson法官看来，他们这样做的理由是，他们并不认为船东在这方面的损失是由租船人违反合同造成的。他们认为，船东的损失是由码头/港务当局的命令造成的。
船东提出了两个基本的上诉理由。他们说，仲裁员必须按照上诉法院在AktieselskabetReidar v Arcos Ltd案的裁决，认定租方有责任支付类似亏舱费或损害赔偿金。他们还说，如果仲裁员这样做的话，他们错误地认为，租船人对泊位/港口当局的命令没有负责，因为船舶装货的泊位由托运人控制。在船东的代表律师MissClark为船东提出的这些论点中，仲裁员没有正确回答因果关系问题。如果他们这样做了，如她主张的，他们会发现，开航的命令本身是由于租船人在允许的时间内未能装载货物造成的。关于第二个问题，她提出，显然推断船舶被命令离开，以便不堵塞泊位。MissClark指出，仲裁人认为，租船人没有成功地认为托运人的装货条款被纳入租船合同。这些条款规定，正如仲裁员在其原因第51段中所发现的那样，如果在本案中，船舶有必要开航以避免被小潮，则装载终端可以停止装载。这样做往往表明，MissClark提出，开航的命令是一个商业性的启发性决定，而不是港口当局在通常行使行政职能时所做的。
Those terms provide, as the arbitrators find at paragraph 51 of their Reasons, that the loading terminal may cease loading if,as in the present case, it is necessary that the vessel sail to avoid being neaped.That tends to suggest, submits Miss Clark, that the order to sail was acommercially inspired decision, not something done by the port authority in the ordinary exercise of its administrative functions.
租家的代表律师Kenny先生承租人承认，如果开航的命令实际上是由托运人BHPB提供的，那么仲裁员的裁决就不能成立。不过，他表示，仲裁员使用“terminal”一词往往意味着托运人或港务局。事实上，仲裁员发现，这个命令是由港务局发出的。
Mr Kenny for the charterers accepted that if the order to sail had in fact been given by the shippers, BHP, then the arbitrators' award cannot stand. However, he submitted, the use of the word "terminal" by the arbitrators was apt to mean either the shippers or the port authority. The arbitrators in fact found, so he submitted, that the order was given by the port authority.
租家的代表律师Kenny先生继续说，可以以其他理由维持裁决，因为即使开船的命令是租船人所负责的，但船东的损失也是自己违约所致未能保持船舶可以装满全部货物，或者因为他们违反合同规定黑德兰港是船舶可以安全履行船东义务的地方。这些论点中的第一个至少是仲裁员发现该船被命令离开的发起人。Tomlinson法官认为租家代表律师Kenny先生的第二个论点是错误的，即使船东这样做，也没有违反。由于仲裁员在其理由第2段中记录的是，并没有暗示允许在泊位上等待三周的要求会使租船合同的商业目的受挫。仲裁员在其理由的第23段中指出，这种延误的代价初步已经降到了船东的身上，因为支付滞期费的义务已经停止了，尽管仲裁员没有明确说明，滞期费条款代表了船东唯一的补救途径，就是因租船人违反租船合同而未能在允许的装卸时间内装载而造成的时间损失。
The first of these arguments founders at least upon the arbitrators'finding that the vessel was ordered to leave. The second argument is in myjudgment misconceived. Even if the owners did so warrant, there was no breach.As the arbitrators record at paragraph 2 of their Reasons there was and is nosuggestion that a requirement to wait for three weeks at the berth, had thatbeen permitted, would have frustrated the commercial purpose of thecharterparty. The arbitrators point out in paragraph 23 of their Reasons thatthe cost of such delay would prima facie have fallen to the account of theowners, since the obligation to pay demurrage would have ceased and, althoughthe arbitrators do not expressly say so, the demurrage code represented theowners' only avenue of redress so far as concerned loss of time consequent uponthe charterers' breach of charterparty in failing to load within the permittedlaytime.
Tomlinson法官认为，Reidar vArcos案的裁决不是对船东争议的有利的判决。在那种情况下，船舶等待是没有问题的，除非她能够抵达英国港口，而且在10月30日以前就已经被命令了，直到次年夏天，船长才能载运全部货物，这是非法的。没有任何迹象表明，冬天在天使长时间等待的情况有可能还是明智的。如果出现这个问题，无疑会发现这样的做法会妨碍租船合同的商业目的。关于Reidarv Arcos案判决的真实比例，多年来一直存在争议。Tomlinson法官认为也许最全面的讨论可以在Richco International Ltd v. Alfred C ToepferInternational GMBH ，The“Bonde”案中的Potter法官的判决中找到。就像仲裁人一样，Tomlinson法官认为这个辩论是为了目前的学术目的。在Reidarv Arcos案中，有人认为，如果租船人按约定的价格装船，那么在10月30日或之前，船上的全部指定货物将在足够的时间内装上，以便船舶能够到达联合王国的一个港口。至少有两个分析是可能的。一个分析是，租船人未按约定的速度装船的违规行为导致船舶没有装满货物就开航。另一个分析是，租船人在这方面的违约行为使其无权履行其独立承担全部完整货物的义务。没有一个分析是没有任何的因果关系的困难，船舶不能合法运载更多的货物，也没有建议，她应该等到可以，所以它不能成功地争辩说，这是船东的行为没有等待满载货物，造成损失。
On neither analysis is there any difficulty ofcausation – the vessel could not lawfully have carried more cargo nor was itsuggested that she should wait until she could, and so it could not successfullybe argued that it was the act of the owners in sailing without waiting for afull cargo to be loaded which gave rise to the loss.
Tomlinson法官认为在这种情况下，如果承租人以合同约定的速度装载货物，船舶可以装载指定货物并立即开航。然而，仲裁员已经有效地发现，租船人在这方面的违规行为并没有导致船只不能装载指定的货物。他们已经发现，船东未能按指定数量装载的原因是由谁来要求开航的，这是仲裁员接触到的结论。Tomlinson法官认为此判断显然是正确的。如果她在泊位上等了一段时间，船舶本来可以装载指定的数量，这个时间不会让租约受挫。仲裁员在其理由的第21段中记录说，不建议这种做法会使租船合同受挫。仲裁员在第20段中发现，该船可能停留在等待下一个春季潮汐的泊位。没有发现在任何情况下都不允许船舶留下。船舶没有提供全部货物的情况下航行的原因，是因为她不得再继续在泊位停留三个星期，以便使她能够满载和以这个数量开航。基于这些原因，船东依靠Reidarv. Arcos案，Tomlinson法官认为是错误的。没有按规定费率装船的违约者被发现没有造成船东相关损失。此外，租船人在这方面的违约行为并未发现其无力装载全面完整的货物。
The reason why the vessel sailed without the full cargo nominated isbecause she was not allowed to remain at the berth for the further three weekswhich would be required in order to enable her both to load and to sail withthat quantity. For these reasons the owners' reliance upon Reidarv. Arcosis in my judgment misplaced. The charterers' breach in failing to load at therequired rate has been found not to have caused the owners the relevant loss.Further, the charterers' breach in this respect has not been found to have putit out of their power to load a full and complete cargo.
然而事实上，Tomlinson法官认为仍然是租家有合同义务提供和装载全部指定货物。船东合约下的责任需补充的是需要提供船舶以便装载此指定货物。租家确实有充足的货物可用于装载，货物没有装满的原因是船东没有长时间停留在泊位上。但是，如果离开的命令可适当地归属于租家，那么是租家阻止了船东履行合同义务。在这种情况下，承租人有合同义务，不能阻止船东履行合同义务，承租人无法解决亏舱索赔或未能装载全部完整货物的损害赔偿，因违约他们阻止船东使船舶能够装载全部货物。毫无疑问，为什么租家律师Kenny先生承认，如果托运人发出开航命令，这个裁决就不能成立。然而，这一让步的逻辑是，如果开航的命令是船东和承租人之间，该命令是承租人负责或以另一种方式他们承担责任的，那么船东的主张必须成功。
However the fact remains that the charterers had a contractual duty bothto provide and to load the full nominated cargo. That was complemented by theowners' contractual duty to make the vessel available to receive on board thefull nominated cargo. The charterers did have a full cargo available forloading. The reason why a full cargo was not loaded is that the owners did notremain at the berth long enough to receive it. However if the order to leavethe berth is properly to be attributed to the charterers, then it is thecharterers who have prevented the owners from fulfilling their contractualobligation. In that situation, the charterers having a contractual obligationnot to prevent the owners from fulfilling their contractual obligation, thecharterers have no answer to the claim for deadfreight, or for damages forfailure to load a full and complete cargo, because in breach of contract theyprevented the owners from making the vessel available to receive a full cargo. That is no doubt why Mr Kenny concedes that the award cannot stand if the order to sail was given by the shippers. However the logic underlying that concession is that the owners'claim must succeed if the order to sail is an order for which, as between owners and charterers, charterers are responsible, or to put it another way is an order which is to be attributed to them.
在Tomlinson法官看来，仲裁员在处理租船人反诉的问题，这不是他直接关心的，其第54段理由的内容如下：传统的观点认为，选择了一个具体的数字，船长有义务装载这个数字。但在目前情况下，船长肯定没有拒绝装载更多的货物，他被港务局要求开航的命令而阻止了。在这种程度上，船东说他们没有违反合同，并且不负责全部指定的装货量。同样的，我们认为承租人对船舶不承担责任，我们同样认为船东对承运人没有承担责任，不承担指定数量的责任。因此，港口当局的指示造成的任何损失，必须放下。因此，租船人的反诉不成立。
Conventional wisdom has it that having elected to carry a specific figure,the Master is obliged to load that quantity. However in the present case, theMaster certainly did not refuse to load more cargo. He was prevented from doingso by the orders of the port authorities to sail. To that extent, the Ownersare right when they say they committed no breach of charter and were notresponsible for the full nominated quantity of being loaded. In the same way,we have held that the Charterers are not liable to the Owners for theconsequence of the vessel being ordered to sail, we similarly hold that the Ownersare not liable to the Charterers for the failure to load the nominatedquantity. It follows that any loss resulting from the port authorities'instructions, must lie where it falls. Consequently the Charterers'counterclaim fails.
Tomlinson法官认为，这表明本案的关键问题是，开航的命令是否是租船人负责的命令，哪个命令是归于他们的命令。在三个众所周知的案例中讨论这了这个问题。
This demonstrates that the critical issue in the case was, in my judgment, whether the order to sail was an order for which the charterers were responsible orwhich was to be attributed to them. The considerations which inform a decisionon such an issue are discussed in a well known trilogy of cases Cosmar Compania Naviera S.A. v. Total Transport Corp. "TheIsabelle" (Robert Goff J) affirmedby the Court of Appeal without additional reasons [1984]; Mediolanum ShippingCo. v. Japan Lines Ltd "The Mediolanum" [1984] (C.A.) and Newa Linev. Erechthion Shipping Co. S.A. "The Erechthion" [1987], Staughton J.
仲裁员第24段理由明确表示认定，租船人不能为撤离港口当局泊位的指示承担责任。仲裁员可能认为这并不是承租人所负责的命令，但Tomlinson法官认为这两个概念并不相同。如他已经指出，尽管本段提到港口当局作出的命令，仲裁员并没有明确和一致地表示，事实上是由谁来要求开航的。此外，正如他已经指出，原因第24段有一些令人费解的特点。仲裁员在其理由第33段中说，船东的损失不是由于租方的任何过错而引起的，而且租方也不能因此而被指责。Tomlinson法官他不确定这是否反映了正确的方法。船东的损失同样可以说是没有他们自己的任何过错，因为仲裁员的确在第54段中有效地认定了。问题不在于是否可以将租船人的决定归咎于谁的决定，而是决定这个决定是否属于两个缔约方之间的决定，归咎于他们还是由他们负责。
With respect I am not sure that that reflects the correct approach either.The owners' loss could equally be said to have arisen without any fault ontheir part, as indeed the arbitrators effectively observe at paragraph 54 oftheir Reasons. The question is not whether the charterers can be blamed for thedecision by whomsoever it was made but rather whether that decision is onewhich, as between the two contracting parties, is to be attributed to them orfor which they are responsible.
Tomlinson法官认为尽管仲裁员在四个地方提到港口当局已经下达了航行命令，但是他们也有两次提到码头/港务当局发出的有关命令，使这个职位混淆不清。此外，港口当局可能已经下达了命令，这本身并不是决定租船人是否负责的命令的问题。这个命令可能是受到托运人的启发，尽管实际上是由港务局授予的。如果命令实际上是由码头给出的，如果码头指的是BHPB，那么承认裁决不能成立，原因是这是租船人所负责的命令。
Although the arbitrators refer in four places to theorder to sail having been given by the port authorities the position isconfused by their also referring on two occasions to the relevant order asemanating from the terminal/port authorities. Furthermore the fact that theorder may have been given by the port authority is not in itself determinativeof the question whether it is an order for which the charterers areresponsible. The order mayfor example have been inspired by the shippers although in fact given by theport authority. If the order was in fact given by the terminal and if by theterminal is meant BHP then it is conceded that the award cannot stand, thereason being that that would be an order for which the charterers are responsible.
反对批准上诉许可的租家认为，在仲裁员面前，没有任何人指出托运人需为离开泊位的命令负责，而不是港务局。因此这也是“the tribunaldid not make any factual findings as to whether it was the shippers or whetherit was the Port who had given that order”，仲裁庭并没有就是否是托运人或是否已经下达离开港口的命令作出任何实际调查结果的原因。参Clive Aston的见证声明第21（2）段。在同一份证人声明第20段中，Aston先生说，在申请许可上诉之前，船东从来没有提出一个论点，那就是托运人下了离开泊位的命令，或者这个命令代表承租人发出的。Tomlinson法官认为后者这个问题当然不正确。在Cooke法官批准上诉时，他注意到，船东显然在他们的书面陈述中认为，租船人对托运人/码头/港口当局的行为负责。Tomlinson法官有些不情愿地认为，仲裁员可能没有回答这个问题。如果他们自己回答这个问题的话，他们可能没有正确地引用正确的意见，正如他在上文第27段末尾提到的三个案例所讨论的那样。无论如何，他们的理由并不清楚，他们为什么是这么裁决的。
With some reluctance I have come to the conclusionthat the arbitrators may not have addressed themselves to this question. Ifthey did address themselves to this question, they may not have directedthemselves correctly by reference to the appropriate considerations, asdiscussed in the trilogy of cases to which I made reference at the end ofparagraph 27 above. At all events, it is not clear from their Reasons that theyhave done so.
Tomlinson法官认为，各方可能希望提出的任何进一步的论点，他认为适当的做法是，应该根据1996年“仲裁法”第69（7）（c）条行使他的权力，根据法院的判决，仲裁员可以根据这一裁决决定部分判决，即他们驳回了船东的亏舱/损害赔偿索赔，予以发还仲裁员重新考虑此部分裁决。Tomlinson法官认为这样做当然应该使本案变得更加清晰，虽然有两位经验丰富的仲裁员会很好理解，他们完全可以达到与他们最初达成的相同的最终结论。
Subject to any further argument which the parties maywish to advance in the light of my conclusions I believe that the appropriatecourse is that I should exercise my power under s.69(7)(c) of the ArbitrationAct 1996 to remit to the arbitrators for reconsideration in the light of thecourt's determination that part of their award wherein they dismissed theowners' claim for deadfreight/damages together of course with such parts oftheir award as to costs which are consequential upon their dismissal of theowners' claim. In so doing I should of course make it clear, although two suchexperienced arbitrators will well understand, that it is perfectly open to themto reach the same ultimate conclusion as that to which they first came.
总结：
在本案中，The“Johnny K”轮原本计划装在172,700吨货在2003年10月2日趁高潮的时候开航离港，但因为装货问题导致推迟到3日才离港，而此时已经错过容易满载吃水的潮水，虽然该轮在3日的时候还是趁当日的高潮离港开航，但是仅仅装载了156,855吨货，比预计少装了15,845吨。
仲裁员认为船舶离港开航的命令是码头/港口当局下达的，因此租家无需承担责任。但是高等法院的Tomlinson法官认为，仲裁员认定事实并不十分清楚；如租家律师Kenny所承认的，如果该命令是发货人BHPB要求的，那么仲裁员的裁决将不成立，租家将因此需要为少装货的亏舱费负责。最终，Tomlinson法官发还（remit）仲裁员的裁决给仲裁员，予以重新认定。
现在回到现实中来，尤其是黑德兰港口，发货人BHPB拥有并控制了众多泊位。对于港口当局而言，占据泊位的船是A还是B，区别都不大；但对于发货人而言，影响巨大，因为涉及到出货量及其它在锚地等泊船舶的滞期费计算问题。
因此从一正常、合理的人士角度看，如果船舶呆在泊位等下一个合适的高潮以便多装货，仅仅于发货人自身的利益有关系。依据The“Archimidis”案,Clarke勋爵的观点以及本案中Tomlinson法官的观点，如果是发货人BHPB自己要求船舶离港，那么租家将得为亏舱负责。租家如果不想承担亏舱费，可以选择安排船舶继续呆在泊位，等待下一个合适的高潮以便船舶能够装载预计的最大货量。
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
