您現在的位置:首頁 >> 綜合資料 >> 內容

淺析因船舶污底所造成的索賠問題

時間:2017/9/5 9:05:25 點擊:

  內容提示:船舶在港口長時間等泊,尤其是該港口處于熱帶水域區內,會造成船殼海生物污染,如果不安排清理的話,會造成主機負荷增大,航速下降,油耗增加。如果合同未列明此類風險的歸屬,那么由于這種船舶污底所造成的...
【摘要】船舶在港口長時間等泊,尤其是該港口處于熱帶水域區內,會造成船殼海生物污染,如果不安排清理的話,會造成主機負荷增大,航速下降,油耗增加。如果合同未列明此類風險的歸屬,那么由于這種船舶污底所造成的索賠,到底該由誰承擔呢?本文通過對幾個先例的簡單介紹來說明這方面的問題。
【關鍵詞】期租合同、船殼污染、默示索賠權、bottomfouling
今年3月份,曾經有一條散貨船“DL Marigold”在其船殼及水下部分發現有大量藤壺結垢和管蟲,被新西蘭的第一產業部(MPI-Ministry of PrimaryIndustries)強制要求離港,在清理干凈前不得再次進入新西蘭水域。據了解,這是新西蘭第一產業部首次以生物污染為由下令國際船舶離境。政府官員聲稱,這艘散貨船在新西蘭停留時間越長,外來海洋物種從船體脫離或產卵的可能性越大,因此他們將這種情況視為“嚴重污染”,不得不盡快下令船舶離港。
此外,根據新西蘭政府新的規定,從2018年5月起,所有進入新西蘭水域的國際船舶船殼必須保持清潔。在新規定生效前的過渡階段,第一產業部對存在嚴重生物結垢的船舶有權采取行動。
New rules will require all international vessels to arrive in New Zealand with a clean hull from May 2018. During the interim period, MPI can take action in cases of severe biofouling.
如果船舶受海生物污染了,則有可能被政府當局強制要求離港進行水下清理,這是政府官方方面的風險。而對于船東、租家而言,船殼受海生物污染了,如果不安排清理的話,會造成航行阻力增加,從而導致主機負荷增大,航速下降,油耗增加等問題。
危害船舶的海生物,其實有很多種,最常見的海生物常見的有藤壺(barnacles)、軟體生物(molluscs)及海蠣(Oyster);這兩種可能是造成船殼海生物污染的主要因素。在熱帶、亞熱帶海水溫度比較高的港口區域,如果船舶停泊時間超過兩個星期,將會造成海生物污染。當然這里還有別的環境因素影響,比如季節性帶來的水溫及水流影響,錨地水深,船殼油漆涂層好壞等也均會影響污染的嚴重程度。船舶部位不同,船殼海生物附著滋生程度不同;由于船舶不同位置的水動力性差異,特別容易受到海生物污染的部位是海底閥箱、螺旋槳等。
幾天前,曾有老友來咨詢這方面的問題,雖然之前關于這方面的有提過,包括期租合同下的默示索賠權,但還是感覺有必要作進一步澄清。內容大概是,船定了個2LLG,在伊朗某港口卸完貨后,又在伊朗某港口接著裝貨。開航后發現船舶速度下降,租家要索賠航速油耗損失;懷疑是在港時間太長,導致污底,但是在港時間又沒有超過合同規定的連續20天;要求租家一起做聯合水下檢驗,租家又不同意。
如果在合同中,并未列明這類的風險歸屬,那么應該由誰來安排清底呢?費用又該由誰來承擔呢?本文將通過對比一些先例,希望可以找到所需要的答案。

一、Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd. v Boneset Shipping Company Ltd.[2002]- The“Pamphilos”案
在該案中,船東在2000年1月28日將“Pamphilos”輪航次期租給租家,去執行租家從巴西的Sepetiba港(現在改名為Itaguai)裝鐵礦到保加利亞的Bourgas卸的航次任務。
該輪于2000年2月16日1830抵達Sepetiba,但因為港口擁擠,直到3月8日才靠上;3月11日1030裝完貨后前往位于黑海中的Bourgas港,于4月7日卸完貨;該輪最終于4月13日在希臘的Piraeus港還船給船東。
在4月6日,租家發給船東租金詳細計算單中,顯示從其安排租金的中扣下了航速油耗索賠額。船東最后對于此被扣部分,聲稱租家租金未付;同時以租家違反合同第4條,未能以與交船的時候一樣的良好秩序及狀況還船,找租家索賠安排水下檢驗清底的費用及時間損失。船東對于這些爭議,提起仲裁,找租家索賠損失。
合同的相關條款如下:
Capable of steaming, fully laden,throughout the period of this Charter Party under good weather conditions about 13.0 knots on a consumption of about 36 mt IFO (180) cst plus 2.5 mts MDO see cl 54.
Clause 1: That the Owners whilst on hire shall throughout the period of this Charter Party……keep the vessel in a thoroughly efficient state in hull,cargo spaces, machinery and equipment….. for and during the service.
Clause 4: that the Charterers shall pay for the use and hire of the Vessel at the rate of US$8,000…. daily, including overtime, or prorata less commission …. Plus US$140,000 gross Ballast Bonus ….. hire to continue until the time of the day of her re-delivery in like good order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to the Owners …. On dropping last sea pilots Piraeus port after bunkering …
仲裁員經過查證后,基于眾多理由,認定租家所謂的航速油耗索賠不成立。其中部分理由如下:
1.該船于1999年9月在希臘進干塢進行了維修,依防污涂料制造商他們的標準,該輪的船體根據需要進行了適當的清潔和噴涂防污油漆涂層。因為進干塢維修保養,噴涂工程花費巨大,仲裁員認為船東他們不會偷工減料,因此在1999年9月底時候,船體是干凈的并且沒有任何海洋生物。
2.從船級社的報告,要求對船底龍骨的任何壓痕或損壞進行修理,可以推斷出,修完船后沒有任何突發或壓痕可能會影響船舶速度。
3.船舶也用了能維持12個月的防污油漆對船殼進去噴涂,船東在采購和應用油漆方案時也都恪盡職守和遠見卓識地行事;所選購的油漆是行業中已知的自拋光涂層,是完全適用的也都是習慣的計劃。
4.在進完船塢和其在Sepetiba交船間的航行期間,船舶沒有表現不佳的記錄,除了別的以外,租家并沒有索賠航速油耗損失及扣減租金。
5.從船舶在從Piombino到Sepetiba通過Algeceris的空放航次的事實可以看出,船舶在船體,機械和設備中都保持完全有效的狀態,并且能夠符合在交船的時候速度和油耗的保證。
It was to be inferred from that fact and from the vessel's performance on the ballast approach voyage from Piombino to Sepetiba via Algeceris that the vessel had been kept in athoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery and equipment and was capable of complying with the speed and consumption warranty at the date of delivery.
6.在Piraeus還船,進行了水下清理之后,船舶的航速油耗表現大大改善。
The vessel's performance "improved dramatically" after underwater cleaning afloat at Piraeus following re-delivery under the time charter.
7.代表船東的專家證據是,記錄在機艙日志中的參數清楚地指出船體阻力增加,這只能歸因于船體受污染。
The expert evidence called on behalf of the owners was that the parameters recorded in the engine room logsclearly pointed to increased hull resistance which could only be attributed to fouling of the hull.
8.該輪在Sepetiba熱帶水域呆了24天,而該水域以易受海生物污染而聞名于世。
The vessel had spent a total of 24 days in warm tropical waters at Sepetiba Bay which were known to be notoriously conducive to marine fouling.
9.還船后,在Piraeus潛水員檢查的水下部件及檢查報告,污染海生物-藤壺的照片都是真實的。
基于以上一些理由,多數仲裁員認定污染由于船舶在Sepetiba港在港超時引起的,沒有證據顯示船舶在交船的時候航速油耗有問題,船舶剛剛進干塢進行了修理保養,對船殼也進行了噴涂防污染油漆涂層以保護,因此租家索賠航速油耗不正當。但同時認為租家沒有違反合同按照與交船的時候同樣良好秩序和狀況還船的義務,因為在沒有非正常事件的情況下,在剛進過干塢后船體立即或不久受污染是由于嚴格遵守租家的命令造成的,這種“職業危害”因此可歸于還船條款中的,“正常的磨損和消耗除外”。
The charterers were not in breach of their obligation to redeliver the vessel in like good order and condition because the fouling of the hull was, in the absence of an extraordinary event,such as serious fouling resulting from compliance with charterers' orders immediately or shortly after dry-docking, an 'occupational hazard' which therefore fell under the redelivery proviso 'ordinary wear and tear excepted' .
持反對意見的Moss仲裁員認為,船東未能解除船舶航速表現不佳是由于遵從租家指示造成的舉證責任;在Piraeus做的水下檢驗清理沒有另人滿意的證據;關于防污漆也沒有證據是否有廠家的特殊批準認可及通常的保證;并不另人滿意的檢查結果使得無法公平地評估租家的案件,有些海生物污染可能在抵達Sepetiba前就已經產生;船舶的主機或渦輪增壓器可能存在問題影響航速油耗,可能與在Sepetiba受污染并無關系。
租家主張,按1996年仲裁法第68(1)條中有一個嚴重的不規范行為影響訴訟或裁決,因為多數仲裁員并沒有按照第33條的規定,從而給租家他們造成實質性的不公平。
(1) The tribunal shall –
(a) act fairly and impartially as between the parties,giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent, and
公平及公正地對待當事人,給予各方當事人合理的機會陳述案件并抗辯對方當事人的陳述,及
(b) adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the particular case, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so as to provide a fair means for the resolution of the matters falling to be determined.
根據特定案件的具體情況采取合適的程序,避免不必要的延誤或開支,以對待決事項提供公平的解決方式。
(2) The tribunal shall comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it.
仲裁庭應在進行仲裁程序過程中,在其對程序和證據事項的決定中以及在行使授予它的所有其他權力時,都應該遵守一般義務。
商事法庭的Colman法官通過一系列分析,認為租家關于仲裁員的仲裁程序不規范這個主張是完全站不住腳的,并沒有嚴重的不規范或其它的。
The submission that these observations involve serious irregularity within the meaning of section 68 is, in my judgment, completely untenable.
There was therefore no irregularity serious or otherwise.
I further reject the submission that, even if none of these matters represented a serious irregularity, when taken in isolation, they do in aggregate amount to a serious irregularity. This argument is misconceived. Once it is concluded that none of the matters alone amount to an irregularity, it is logically untenable to derive an irregularity from those same matters in aggregate. Had I concluded that all of these matters taken separately represented an irregularity, albeit not a serious one, it is improbable that I should have concluded that there was an overall serious irregularity. However, it is not necessary to express a concluded view on this hypothesis.
Accordingly, the application under section 68 of the1996 Act is dismissed.
Colman法官認為雖然仲裁員未能完全認定造成船舶海生物污染的真正原因,但是經過查證后已經認定船東已經盡合理勤勉,合理地做好了防污油漆的噴涂,清理之后航速油耗大大改善;因此航速油耗的損失基本上是由于在Sepetiba等待時間過長造成的。雖然船東沒有要求租家參加聯合檢驗,只是單方面安排了該檢驗;在本案中,當事人雙方缺乏合作是被摒棄的,但這不會造成仲裁事實認定的完全不合理。多數仲裁員都以完全適當的方式,以他們自身的商業經驗,公平公正地對事實作出了認定。如果不鼓勵仲裁員此行為,那將是非常不可取的,完全違背1996年仲裁法的本意。
最終Colman法官判,租家不能主張航速油耗索賠;由于聽從租家的指示在港口等泊造成的污底是可歸于船舶的自然磨損和消耗,船東已經同意的風險,因此船東也不能主張租家的還船時的船舶狀況與交船不一致。
Accordingly, in my judgment, the decision of the arbitrators was not obviously wrong on any question of law and this application for leave to appeal therefore fails.

二、Action Navigation Incv Bottiglieri Navigation Spa [2005]- The “Kitsa”案
在該案中,船東在1999年11月17日將“Kitsa”輪,期租給租家,租期4-6個月,之后租期展到7-9個月。
在2000年3月2日,租家將該輪轉租給分租家,租約以NPYE格式;之后分租家在2000年3月20又將該輪轉租給分分租家,執行一個從南韓裝煤炭到印度Visakhapatnam港卸的航次任務,租約仍為修改過的NYPE格式。
該輪于2000年5月4日抵達Viskhapatnam卸港,但因延誤,在那呆了超過3個星期,導致了異常嚴重的污底。最終船東不得不在Portland, Dorset進行清底工作,花費了近18萬美金。因該污底是由于遵守租家合法的指示造成的,船東依賴租約賦予的默示索賠權,找租家索賠損失;同時主張在Portland的清底時間租家無權停租,找租家索賠此期間未付租金47,811美元。
船東對此提起仲裁;租家拒絕了船東的這些索賠,主張清理污底的費用不在租約規定的默示索賠權的賠償范圍之內;同時堅持清理污底期間船舶應該停租。租家聲稱他們是根據船舶的不足和其它事項找船東提出的索賠。
合同的一些主要條款如下,NPYE的標準合同,沒什么大變動。
1. That the Owners shall …… keep the vessel in a thoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery and equipment …… for and during the service.
4. …… hire to continue until the hour of the day of her redelivery in like good order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to the Owners ……
8. That the Captain shall prosecute his voyages with the utmost despatch, and shall render all customary assistance with ship's crew and equipment boats. The Captain (although appointed by the Owners) shall be under the orders and directions of the Charterers as regards employment and agency; and Charterers are to load, stow, secure and discharge and trim the cargo at their expense under the supervision of the Captain, who is to sign Bills of Lading for cargo as presented, in conformity with Mate's or Tally Clerk's receipts.
15. That inthe event of loss of time from deficiency and/or default of men or deficiency of stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment,included but not limited to strikes of Master,officers and crew,grounding,detention by average accidents to ship or cargo,drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom,or by any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost, and if upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defectinor breakdown of any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time solost,and the cost of any extra fuel consumed in consequence thereof, and all directly related extraexpenses shall be deducted from the hire.…….
[Note:Inthe preceding quotations, words or passages in italics represent amendments oradditions to the printed form. The following provisions were additional to those based upon the printed form.]
54."Deviation / Put Back
Should the vessel put back whilst on voyage by reason of breakdown of machinery, collision, stranding, fire or other accident or damage to the vessel, …… or by reason of the refusal of the Master,officers or crew to do their duties, or any Owners' matters, the payment of hire shall be suspended from the time of in efficiency in port or at sea until the vessel is again efficient in the same position or regain[s] a point of progress equivalent to that when the hire ceased hereunder. Bunkers consumed while the vessel is off-hire and all extra directly related expenses incurred during such period shall be for Owners' account.…"
仲裁員查證后認定,卸港在IWL的范圍內,也不在除外港口;延誤并沒有超出船東的合理預期,這個風險是船東在訂約的時候所接受的。仲裁員作出裁決的部分理由如下:
(a) 船殼或船底容易受污染是眾所周知的,如果船舶呆在溫暖的水域中超時不動的話,這甚至幾乎是可以確定的結果。在速度和油耗方面,嚴重的污染可能會嚴重影響船舶的性能。
(b) 租家要求該輪到Visakhapatnam卸貨,該港口處在IWL(協會保證區域限制)的范圍內,該指示合法;租家及其代理人除了該指示沒有發任何別的指示。
(c) 該輪在卸港停留了22天左右,造成重大污底。船東在波特蘭(2000年11月)對船舶的水下檢查所披露的污染程度,顯示污底嚴重影響船舶的性能。
(d) 如果該輪在卸港停留的時間比22天少,則可能沒有污底的情況發生。但在卸港所造成的延誤并沒有超過船東對于船舶在卸港卸貨可能花費的時間長度的合理預計。
(e) 當事人雙方為了他們的商業目的,都不希望在卸港造成延誤,即卸貨,然后離開。該船在卸港等待卸貨,,但這只是因為港口的作業方面的考慮,而不是出于任何其他原因。同時因為這艘船是不帶吊的,所以關于船舶的卸貨速度和方式一切主動權都在岸方手里。
(f) 在卸港發生這種污底的原因僅僅是該輪在那個時期,停留在有關港口的自然后果,這不是租家違反合同的結果。
仲裁員認為,由于這種航次任務安排而導致的污底風險不是本案的船東“不能被接受”的風險,仲裁員最終裁決,取決于本案的事實,船東沒有任何索賠可能成功。
32.Putting the matter not merely shortly, but also bluntly, we regard as wholly unrealistic any suggestion that the time actually spent by the vessel at Visak went beyond any reasonable expectation on the part of an owner of a vessel similar to the "Kitsa" as to how long his vessel might be required to spend there in the course of entirely ordinary employment to the sub-continent. In our view, the risk of fouling as a result of that employment was not a risk that the Owners in the present case "cannot be taken to have accepted" (The"Island Archon",above, at page 238). In our judgment, no claim could possibly succeed on the facts of the present case.
船東不服裁決,Langley法官對于以下兩個焦點問題,準許船東上訴。
(a) whether a time charterparty permitting the vessel to be traded within Institute Warranty Limits necessarily carries with it an assumption by the shipowner of all risks ordinarily incident at each port within those limits, such that the implied indemnity against the consequences of obeying charterers' lawful orders doesnot extend to the materialisation of risks peculiar to the particular port or class of ports, and
(b) whether time spent removing marine growth which had attached itself to the hull of the vessel in the course of service under the relevant charterparty amounted to time lost within the meaning of clause 15 of the charterparty.
上訴院的Aikens法官所先重申了一遍默示索賠權的基本原則,如船東所索賠的損失或費用必須與租家的指示之間存在直接的因果關系。
Before me it was common ground that, in general terms, there should be implied into the terms of this Charterparty a provision that requires the Charterers to indemnify the Shipowner against the consequences of complying with a Charterer's order as to the employment of the vessel. It was agreed that this implied right to an indemnity, or "implied indemnity" as it is often called, arises in this case by virtue of the express terms of clause 8 of the NYPE form and the wide trading limits within which the vessel can be employed under this Charterparty. It is to be implied either as being both reasonable and necessary for the business efficacy of the Charterparty or as a matter of law. The argument before me concerned the scope of this implied right to an indemnity. Both parties agreed that the scope must be determined asa matter of construction of the Charterparty, to be considered at the time it was concluded and taking account of the factual background against which the Charterparty was agreed by the Shipowners and Charterers. The parties also agreed that the issue of whether there was a right to an indemnity in this casemust depend on the particular facts as found by the arbitrators in their Reasons.In this regard counsel agreed that there must be a direct causal link between the order given and the loss or expense suffered for which the Owner claims an indemnity.
在經過一系列的分析之后,Aikens法官他接受租家律師Turner的主張,特定的損失或費用的風險在租賃期間是預見的或可預見的,這并不是決定該損失或費用是否在默示賠償范圍內的決定性因素。但是如在The“Island Archon”案中的判決,如果在契約締結的時候,船舶聽從租家的航次指示所發生的事故和費用的類型是無法預見的,那么這將是決定損失或費用是否屬于默示賠償范圍內的一個重要因素,特別是在該指示合法的情況下。
Aikens法官認為,在本案中,這種風險是指由于船舶遵從租家合法的航次任務指示,呆在溫暖的水域超過22天將遭受船體污染及船東將承擔隨后清污的費用。如我所見,仲裁員的結論是,“這種風險”是雙方在租約締結之時可以預見和預見的,那么鑒于上訴法院在“Island Archon”案中所采取的判決方式,仲裁員有權作出裁決,這種風險是船東在簽訂租約的時候所同意接受的風險。
In the present case "this type of risk" means the risk that the vessel will suffer hull –fouling because the vessel was inactive at a warm water port for 22 days as a result of a legitimate order as to employment by the Charterers and the risk that the Owners will suffer expense in hull – cleaning as a consequence. If, as I find,the arbitrators have concluded that "this type of risk" was one that was foreseeable and foreseen by both parties at the time the Charterparty was concluded, then, given the approach of the Court of Appeal in "The Island Archon", the arbitrators were entitled to conclude that "this type of risk" was one that the Owners agreed to accept at the time the Charterparty was made.
最終,Aikens法官認為,無論采用哪種方式,鑒于仲裁員的裁決,如他所說的,仲裁員都依法有權認定船東的清污費用不在租約規定的默示的賠償范圍之內。船東關于這點的上訴不被支持。
Whichever approach is adopted, given the arbitrators' conclusions as I read them, the arbitrators were entitled, on the law, to hold that the Owners' expenses of de –foulingwere outside the scope of the implied indemnity providedby the Charterparty.
關于第二點,清底時間是否有權停租的問題,Aikens法官認為,如果仲裁員以合同的第15條,那么仲裁員將不得不去推翻Mustill法官在The “Rijn”先例中所作的判決;顯然經驗豐富的仲裁員肯定考慮了這一點,因此Aikens法官認為仲裁員是以租約第54條的理由來判租家有權停租。租家的律師也承認,如果仲裁員的裁決不是基于合同第15條為由,那么他就不能質疑仲裁對于這個問題的裁決和所給的理由,因為上訴許可只是針對關于第15條的法律問題。
最終Aikens法官判船東關于這點的上訴必須不成立。
Mr Turner accepted that if the arbitrators' decision was not based on clause 15, then he could not challenge the Award and Reasons on this issue, because leave to appeal was only given ona point of law concerning clause 15.
Accordingly this part of the appeal must fail.

三、Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge SA [2016]-The “Coral Seas”案
在該案中,原來的船東在2006年11月2007年9月以NYPE46范本,將“Anny Petrakis”輪連續期租給了租家,租期約23-25個月;依2007年10月5日的協議,原來的船東將所有權轉給了本案中的船東,該輪也隨之改名為“CoralSeas”。
在11月8日,租家與分租家簽訂了一個1-2個重載航次的合同,分租家有選擇權,該合同為背靠背。
按分租家的航次安排,該輪于2008年1月4日到13日期間在巴西的Praia Mole港卸貨,完成一個重載航次。隨后前往Guaiba Island (GIT)裝貨,因港口擁擠,從1月14日一直等到2月10日才靠泊,最終于2月14日裝完貨。但在開航后,該輪的航速顯著下降,最終導致途中在3月14日不得不緊急掛靠雅加達添加燃油。
該輪于3月16日抵達新加坡,水下檢驗發現船底輕微受海生物污染,但是其螺旋槳受藤壺污染異常嚴重。清理了螺旋槳之后,該輪隨后開完卸港馬灣,完成了其第二個重載航次。
分租家之后以船東違反了租約第29條(b)款中的持續性航速保證為由,主張他們有權利就損害進行對沖,并以此理由從租金中扣減了航速油耗的索賠額;租家也以相同的理由在支付給船東的租金中作了對應的扣減。之后三方就此爭議提起仲裁。
合同的相關條款如下:
1. … whilst on hire …Owners shall … keep the vessel in a thoroughly efficient state in hull …machinery and equipment … for the service and all times during the currency ofthis Charter.
8. … the captain shall prosecute his voyages with the utmost despatch … The Captain ... shall be underthe orders and directions of the Charterers as regards employment and Agency …
Clause 29
(a) Vessel'sdescription… D Speed/consumption(expected as a new building)
About 14.5 knotsballast/about 14 knots laden on about 33.5 mts ISO 8217:2005 (E)RMG 380 plusabout 0.1 mts ISO 8217:2005 (e) DMA in good weather condition up to Beaufortscale four and Douglas sea state three and calm sea without adverse current … [in the case of thesub-charterparty the equivalent provision concluded "… up to BeaufortScale 4 and Douglas Sea State 3 with not current and/or negative influence ofswell (sic)"].
Plus:
Daily GeneratorConsumption about 2.5 mt at sea/about 2.0 mt (at sea/idle) ISO 8217:2005 (E)RMG380 …
All details about
All details are givenin good faith as per shipbuilders' plans and as a new building vessel can bedescribed.
[In the case of the sub-charterparty these details were simply followed by the words "Alldetails about"]
(b) Speed Clause
Throughout the currency of this Charter,Owners warrant that the vessel shall be capable of maintaining and shall maintain on all seapassages, from sea buoy to sea buoy, an average speed and consumption as stipulated in Clause 29(a) above, under fair weather condition not exceeding Beaufort force four and Douglas sea state three and not against adversecurrent. [In the case of the sub-charterparty the equivalent provision concluded"… not exceeding Beaufort Force 4 and Douglas Sea State 3 with not against adverse current (sic)"].
(c) Weather Routingand Speed/Consumption Deficiencies
Charterers may supplyOcean Routes advice to the Master[the sub-charterparty stated "May supplyOcean Routes or equivalent advice"] during voyages specified by theCharterers. The Master to comply with the reporting procedure of the routing service selected by Charterers ...
仲裁員經過查證后認定:
i) that the Vessel did not maintain the warranted speed,resulting in an increased length of voyage of 90.345 hours; (該輪未能維持保證的航速,導致了航次時間被延長了90.345小時)
ii) that the cause of the Vessel's reduced speed wa sunderwater fouling of the Vessel's hull and propeller by marine growth which developed during the Vessel's lengthy stay in tropical waters at Guaiba Island; (導致航速下降的原因是水下船殼部分及螺旋槳污染,原因是在GIT港熱帶水域長時間等泊使船底長了海生物)
iii) that the marine growth could not be regarded as unusual or unexpected, but constituted fair wear and tear incurred in the ordinary course of trading. (海生物的滋生不能認為是不尋常或不可預見的,相反可歸于在運營過程中正常的磨損和消耗)
仲裁員還進一步認定,租約第29條(b)款的正確解釋是,航速保證適用于所有的海上航次,包括那些在熱帶水域長時間等泊后的航次;而因船舶遵從租家合法指示的情況下所造成的船底污染導致航速油耗表現不佳,該風險將由各自租約下的船東承擔。
 The arbitrators further determined that, on a true construction of the charterparties, the speed warranty in clause 29(b) applied to all sea voyages, including those after a prolonged wait in tropical waters and that it was the Owners/HeadCharterers who had assumed the risk of a fall-off in performance as a result of bottom foulingconsequential upon compliance with the Head Charterers'/Sub Charterers' lawful orders.
此外,仲裁員澄清并認定船東并未違反租約第1條下維修保養船舶的責任義務。當事人均不服此裁決,認為仲裁員的法律觀點錯誤,提起上訴。
高等法院的Phillips法官首先重申了關于默示索賠權的兩個基本原理:
船東對于遵從了租家關于使用船舶的指示,因此而遭受損失,船東對租家享有默示索賠權,即使依據租約租家本來就有權利給予的該等指示,這是已完好確立的一般原理;但是,船東的這個索賠范圍并不能延伸至船東必然已經接受的,在航次中通常的風險,該原理也是公認的。
It is well established that as ageneral rule a shipowner has an implied right of indemnity against a time charterer in respect of the consequences of complying with the charterer's orders as to the employment of the ship, even if the orders were ones the charterer was contractually entitled to give. However, it is equally well established that such indemnity does not extend to the usual perils of the voyage in respect of which the owner must be taken to have accepted the risk.
Phillips法官認為,租約中的第29條(b)款的持續性履約保證其措辭清晰明確,基于以下幾個方面的理由,船東無法依賴默示索賠權找租家索賠損失。
i) 如上所述,由于租家的指示所引起任何風險,而這些風險在租約下船東并未假定要承擔的,則船東享有默示索賠權。因此沒有必要將此不尋常的和不可預見的污底所引起的后果解釋為保證條款的除外情況,該索賠權能以迂回的形式為船東在保證條款下提供抗辯。
i) As set out above, the Owners had animplied indemnity against any risks arising as a consequence of the Sub-Charterers' orders which the Owners had not assumed as part of the charter.It follows that there is simply no need to read into the warranty an exclusionfor such risks, including the consequences of unusual and unexpected fouling:the indemnity would provide the Owners with a defence to a claim under the warranty by way of circuity of action.
ii) 在另一方面,如果這些風險已經被船東所承擔,例如在合法使用船舶過程中通常會發生且可預見的海生物污染的風險,那么船東將不再享有默示索賠權。如果船舶的航速油耗表現受到這些已被接受承擔的風險的影響,而使得履約保證不適用,那將很難理解。船東在接受了該風險的同時給出了持續性保證,而不把其排除在保證之外,因此該保證必須被采納,具有完全的效力。
ii) On the other hand, where no right to an indemnity arises because the risks were assumed by the Owners, such as usual and expected marine fouling during legitimate deployment of the Vessel, it is difficult tosee why the warranty should be read as not applying where performance is affected as a consequence of such an assumed risk. The Owners have given the continuing warranty at the same time as assuming that risk, without excluding it from the warranty, so the warranty must be taken to apply with full force.
iii) 船東正在試圖避免接受關于他們本已經接受的風險所帶來的在保證上的責任,那么判船東承擔此責任即非不公平也未愚弄商業常識。
iii) The fact that the Owners are seeking to avoidliability on the warranty in relation to a risk they have assumed demonstrates that holding them liable is neither unfair nor flouts business common sense.
Phillips法官因此拒絕了因在租約履行過程中由于正常的磨損和消耗導致了船舶航速油耗表現下滑而使得持續性履約保證不適用這一主張,他重新考慮了Colman法官在The“Pamphilos”案中的判決,做出了相反的觀點。
對于船東所引援的《Time Charter》一書中第3.75段的觀點,Phillips法官認為該觀點太過寬泛,當一條船履行表現不足時,就算船東證明該履行表現不足是由于遵從租家的指示所造成的,但這并不是一能夠對抗持續性保證索賠的抗辯;除非該履行表現不足是由于這個風險導致的,而該風險在租約下船東并未被認為已經接受承擔,那么在這種情況下,船東就權從租家獲得賠償。
For the above reasons, I consider that the proposition stated in paragraph 3.75 of TimeCharters is too widely stated. Where a vessel has underperformed, it is not a defence to a claim on a continuing performance warranty for the owners to prove that the underperformance resulted from compliance with the time charterers' orders unless the underperformance was caused by a risk which the owners had not contractually assumed and in respect of which they are entitled to be indemnified by the charterers.
此外,Sumption勛爵在The“Kos”案中說到,首先,租約下船東的責任義務應該作為一個整體來解讀;船東沒有權利再尋求賠償如果他們已經在租金上得到賠付。因此,與履行租家服務相關的通常的風險和費用,不再有此賠償。損害賠償的目的是保護他們免受那些在租約中沒有明示或默示同意去承擔的風險或花費。什么樣的風險或花費船東已經同意去承擔的取決于合同別的相關條款是如何規定的,或對租家經營通常附帶的廣泛的物理和商業危害作出知情的判斷,或兩者結二為一。賠償范圍內損失的典型例子,可能是實踐中最常見的例子,就是來自船長遵從自己的指示去簽發比租約更苛刻條款的提單。但是,賠償原則上適用于各種其他情況,包括遵守裝載貨物的命令,即使在采取適當的謹慎措施的情況下是危險的,或是進入一個法律上不安全的港口的命令。另一方面,賠償將不適用于船東在合同被認為已經承擔的風險,這種情況發生通常會是,例如船東自己的過失或違約行為,或者在執行租約過程中容易發生的船舶海生物污染。
In the first place, it has to be read in the context of the owners' obligations under the charterparty as a whole. The owners are not entitled to an indemnity against things for which they are being remunerated by the payment of hire. There is therefore no indemnity in respectof the ordinary risks and costs associated with the performance of the chartered service. The purpose of the indemnity is to protect them againstlosses arising from risks or costs which they have not expressly or implicitly agreed in the charterparty to bear. What risks or costs the owners have agreed to bear may depend on the construction of other relevant provisions of the contract, or on an informed judgment of the broad range of physical and commercial hazards which are normally incidental to the chartered service, oron some combination of the two. The classic example of a loss within the indemnity, and probably the commonest in practice, is one which arises from the master complying with the charterers' direction to sign bills of lading on terms of carriage more onerous than those of the charterparty. But the indemnity has been held to be applicable in principle to a wide variety of other circumstances, including compliance with an order to load cargo which is dangerous even on the footing that appropriate care is taken of it, or anorder to proceed to a legally unsafe port. On the other hand, the indemnity will not apply to risks which the owners have contractually assumed, which will usually be the case where they arise from, for example, their own negligence or breach of contract or consequences such as marine fouling which are incidental to the service for which the vessel was required to be available.

總結:
在The“Pamphilos”案,因為船舶航速下降的主要原因是因為船舶遵從了租家的航次任務指示,在港停泊超時導致了污底,Colman法官判租家無權從租金中扣除船舶的航速油耗索賠,但租家未違反需還船條款,需交還一與交船時候一致,秩序狀況良好的船舶,因為這類污底可以歸類于航次中正常的磨損和消耗。而在The“KITSA”案及 The“Coral Seas”案中,從Aikens法官及Phillips法官的判決可以看出,除非船東能證明,在合同簽訂的時候這些能夠影響船舶航速油耗在港延誤導致的船舶污底的風險,是不尋常或不可預見的;要不船東將很難以此理由來對抗因違反租約持續性保證的航速油耗索賠,縱然這些污底是由于船舶遵從租家的指示造成的。因船東接受了這里風險之后,船東就不再享有英國普通法下依據NYPE租約第8條所賦予的默示索賠權,無法再找租家追償由于船舶污底所造成的航速油耗損失及安排清污的費用。
然而,在The“Kitsa”案及 The“Coral Seas”案中,因等泊超時而導致污底的風險,該風險是否已經被船東所接受及承擔?因為在這兩個案中,都是長期租約:The“Kitsa”案租期為7-9個月,The“CoralSeas”案租期23-25個月。那么在這么長的租期下,船東在簽訂租約的時候是否有義務去核對每個港口的排隊壓港情況?租家擬安排的航次未知,港口未知,市場變化未知等等,在這一切都是未知的情況下,如何去判斷,將來租家最終安排前往的某個港口是否會出現嚴重壓港從而導致發生船舶污底的風險?可能在簽訂租約的時候該港口并不壓港,但幾個月后或一年后變得壓港了,那么如果以最終的壓港情況來推定船東在簽訂租約的當時已經接受或愿意承擔此風險,那么難免有失偏頗。
在這兩個案中,都涉及了轉租,在分租約下,面對一個意向比較清楚的航次,可能還會有具體的港口。如果在這種情況下,租家仍然不對合同進行修改,按長久以來所確立的原理判租家在簽訂分租合同的時候就已經接受或承擔了此風險,沒有任何問題。但租家與分租家之間的合同,租家所接受或承擔的風險,是否可以完全背靠背轉嫁到船東身上呢?船東在案中并未就這點提出異議,頗感奇怪。
此外,在The“Kitsa”案中,關于停租部分的判決,似乎理由不夠充分,因為所去的港口是租家的安排,而如果在重載航次情況下,由于船舶吃水增加等影響,勢必給清底工作帶來困難。仲裁員只說清底工作如果造成了不合理的延誤,租家有權索賠損失,那么如何去界定這個不合理的尺度呢?既然認為不能以船舶的狀況有問題(租約第1條),然后引入到租約第15條的停租條款中來找船東索賠,那么似乎也不能歸類于第54條的如下原因來找船東索賠。同時,安排清底正是船東盡合理勤勉之責任義務,租家也不可以以此理由找船東索賠。
Should the vessel put back whilst onvoyage by reason of breakdown of machinery, collision, stranding, fire or otheraccident or damage to the vessel, …… or by reason of the refusal of the Master,officers or crew to do their duties, or any Owners' matters…
因此為了避免出現這種不確定性,最好是在租約中明確約定,在熱帶區域的港口在港時間超過多天,在別的區域港口在港時間超過多少天,所造成的污底風險將由租家承擔;在污底清理之前,船東對航速油耗不再負責;租家需在還船之前安排清底,時間費用由租家自己承擔;如果不安排,租家包干補償船東一筆錢等等。這類的條款可以參BIMCO 2013期租合同的船殼污染條款(BIMCO 2013 HullFouling Clause for Time Charter Parties)。同時,船東應該盡量避免在租約中做持續性保證,當然這是一種博弈。當然如果租家的指示是非法的,比如要求前往租約除外的區域,最終造成了異常延誤導致了船舶污底,那么在這種情況下,船東可以找租家索賠損害賠償。
最后,如果這些延誤是由于租家與收貨人之間有爭議而引起的,那么可以說船東是在遵循租家的指示,而不必認為是船東接受或承擔了此風險。如在The “Kitsa”案中,仲裁員的如下說法。
We can imagine circumstances in which – entirely legitimately as a matter of contract – a vessel may be held upat a port of discharge while for example, disputes are settled between charterers and receivers which having nothing whatsoever to do with the owner,and in such circumstances it might well be the appropriate conclusion that any resultant loss to the owner had flowed not from any risk that he had accepted,but from his compliance with the charterer's instruction. And we could, we aresure, multiply examples falling on one side of the line or upon the other,including those in which the conclusion may depend upon matters such as the notoriety of the risk.

作者:Alex 來源:航運佬

免責聲明:本文僅代表作者個人觀點,與船管網無關。其原創性以及文中陳述文字和內容的真實性、完整性等未經本站證實,船管網不作任何保證或承諾,請讀者僅作參考,并請自行核實相關內容。
關于版權:本站部分文章來源于網絡,如有侵權,請聯系本站,我們將盡快處理。
關于轉載:本站文章可任意轉載,但請注明作者和出處,并務必添加本站的文字鏈接。
預留廣告位600x60
【免費使用】點擊查看詳情
相關評論
發表我的評論
  • 來源:
  • 內容:
  • 驗證碼:
  • 船管網 ( Shipmg.com ) © 2021 版權所有 All Rights Reserved.
  • 聯系:sea#shipmg.com (發郵件時請將"#"換成"@") 微信公眾號:船舶管理信息平臺(shipmg)
  • 執行時間:47 毫秒   360網站安全認證
  • 亚洲国产一区二区三区,亚洲国产在线观看在5388,亚洲久久综合爱久久