在The Helen Miller [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 95.案中,St. Vincent Shipping Co. Ltd.(出租人)与Bock, Godeffroy & Co.(承租人)在1974年2月14日就The Helen Miller签订了一份期租合同,期租合同相同条款规定如下:

2. That theCharterers shall provide and pay for all the fuel except as otherwise agreed .. . but when the vessel puts into a port for causes for which the vessel isresponsible, then all such charges incurred shall be paid by the Owners . . .

5. . . . on anybreach of this Charter Party, the Owners shall be at liberty to withdraw thevessel from the service of the charterers . . .

25. The vesselshall not be required to enter any ice-bound port . . . or where there is riskthat in the ordinary course of things the vessel will not be able on account ofice to safely enter the port or to get out after having completed loading ordischarging . . .

32. . . . insuch lawful trades between safe ports within Institute Warranty Limitsincluding St. Lawrence up to and including Montreal but excluding Cuba Israel .. . and all unsafe ports but Charterers have the liberty of breaking limits,they paying extra insurance . . . Charterers have the option to employ vesselin Great Lakes Trading . . . But Great Lakes Trade only allowed betweenofficial opening and closing dates . . . Loss of time caused by average due tobreach of I.W.L. to be for Charterers' account . . . Delay owing to ice forCharterers' account . . .

承租人按照租船合同第32条规定为违反I.W.L.(Institute Warranty Limit),协会保证航区支付了额外的保险费。 1976年冬天,承租人安排该路到Montreal,Three Rivers和Port Alfred港,圣劳伦斯河中的港口在这个季节位于I.W.L.范围外。


最终仲裁员作出对出租人有利的裁决,但以特殊案件的形式表明他的裁决,法院对法院判决的问题是,根据所查证的事实和租船合同的真正解释,承租人根据租船合同第32条免除责任( 1)螺旋桨的维修费用;(2)维修期间浪费时间的损坏和(3)由于租船人因违反I.W.L而支付额外保险费而在维修期间消耗的燃油。






(C)但是,承租人可以自由破坏I.W.L. 限制,他们支付额外保险费,如果有的话,根据最低伦敦费率提交原始保险人账单。




(1) The argument is premised on the proposition that an order to a port outside theInstitute Warranty Limits is ipso facto an order to an unsafe port. To my mind,this premise is unsound. No doubt the risks attaching to ports outside thelimits are substantially greater than in the case of those within the limits,but there are many ports outside the limits which are either consistently safeor at least safe from time to time. Unless the port in question happens at therelevant time to be unsafe, neither the common law nor cl. 5 will give theowner the right to refuse compliance with an order to proceed to the port. Thisapplies equally to ports in those areas which are placed outside the limits incertain seasons because of the risk of ice. Sometimes the winter in those areasis severe; sometimes less so. Even during the same season ice does not affectall ports equally. An order to a port in such an area will no doubt often be anorder to an unsafe port, but this will not always be so. Everything depends onthe circumstances prevailing when the order is given. There is thus no suchautomatic conflict between cll. 5 and 25 on the one hand and the terms of cl.32 on the other which justifies reading into the latter a qualification whichthe parties have not chosen to express.


(2) Theargument overlooks the second part of cl. 32. The presence of the initials"I.W.L." in the third part of the clause shows that the limits therereferred to are the limits stipulated in the first part of the clause, namely,the Institute Warranty Limits. The second part of the clause is left untouchedby the liberty, and this rules out orders to "all unsafe ports". Theeffect of all three parts of the clause when read together is that thecharterers had the right to order the vessel to ports outside the limits, butonly if those ports were not unsafe. This being so, cl. 32 is not in conflictwith cll. 5 and 25. The breach of one brings the others into play.

下一个辩论如下。如果租船合同明确规定船舶装载或卸载船舶的地方,则视为已同意该地点被证明不安全的风险。同样,在本案的情况下,出租人通过赋予船舶在保证航区范围之外进行贸易的权利,默认同意承担如果行使权利,港口将被证明是不安全的风险。Mustill法官不能接受这个论点,他对列明的港口或范围与范围之间的类比持怀疑态度,因为通过支付额外的费用来开启协会保证航区。此外,无论在列明港口的情况下默示安全保证的法律,还有一个尚未最终确定的事项,Mustill法官认为他无权建议在租船合同中包含明示保证的情况下,它受到任何方式列明港口或范围内港口的限制。Owen Dixon首席法官,在Reardon Smith Line v. Australian Wheat Board, [1954] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 148案中第153页,不能被视为表达相反的观点,因为博学的首席大法官继续认为承租人根据租船合同承担责任,尽管它为列明港口。

The nextargument runs as follows. Where the charter-party expressly stipulates theplace at which the vessel shall load or discharge the shipowner is regarded ashaving consented to the risk that the place will prove to be unsafe. Equally,in the present instance the owners by giving the right to trade the vesseloutside the limits impliedly agreed to take the risk that if the right wasexercised the port would prove to be unsafe. I cannot accept this argument. Iam sceptical about the analogy between a named port or range and an area aswide as that arrived at by paying an extra premium to open the InstituteWarranty Limits. Moreover, whatever may be the law about implying a warranty ofsafety in the case of a named port, a matter not yet finally decided, I know ofno authority to suggest that where the charter contains an express warranty itis in any way restricted by the naming of the port or range. The judgment ofSir Owen Dixon, C.J., in Reardon Smith Line v. Australian Wheat Board, [1954] 2Lloyd's Rep. 148, at p. 153, cannot be read as expressing a contrary view,since the learned Chief Justice went on to hold that the charterers were liableunder the charter, albeit it named the port.


承租人的代表律师认为承认承租人对该地区以外的航行所固有的风险负有责任是荒谬的,因为这将使他们对额外保费应该给予保护的风险承担责任,所以他们将无偿地支付保费。虽然这个论点一见钟情,但在Mustill法官看来,它是不合理的。如果没有额外的保险,出租人不能安全地接受超出航区的航程命令,因为他将在没有保险的情况下交易他的船。他通常也没有动力自己支付保费,以便能够接受这样的命令。但是,当承租人同意支付额外保险费时,情况不同,出租人既不承担风险也不承担扩大航区的财务负担。因此,通过支付保险费,承租人确实获得了利益 - 能够在航行中派送船舶的利益,而出租人不会允许船舶执行,但这并不是说承租人因此获得了无风险安排船舶的权利。

Next it was argued that it would be absurd to hold that the charterersretain responsibility for the risks inherent in trading outside the area, sincethis would leave them liable in respect of the very risk against which theextra premium was supposed to give protection, so that they would be paying thepremium for nothing. Although this argument is attractive at first sight, itis, in my judgment, unsound. If there were no extra insurance the owner couldnot safely accept an order for a voyage outside the limits, for he would betrading his ship uninsured. Nor would he ordinarily have any incentive to pay thepremium himself, so as to be able to accept such an order. But when thecharterer agrees to pay the extra premium the position is different, and theowner carries neither the risk nor the financial burden of widening the tradinglimits. Thus by paying the premium the charterer does obtain a benefit - thebenefit of being able to send the ship on a voyage which the owner would nototherwise allow her to perform. But this is not at all the same as saying thatthe charterer thereby obtains the right to send her on such a voyage risk-free.

出于类似的原因,Mustill法官认为没有找到Rowlatt法官在S. J. Brice & Sons v. Christiani & Nielsen,(1928) 30 Ll.L.Rep. 177案中支持承租人的论点,在那个案中雇用起重机执行一项不寻常的任务,条件是起重机将联合保险以防止所有风险由租用人支付。 Rowlatt法官能够默示一个免除租约人免受损害赔偿责任的条款。Mustill法官认为那个案子与本案截然不同。在那个案中,该行动受到双方已知和讨论的特殊危险的影响,保险可能没有其他目的,只能解除双方的风险。然而,在本案的情况下,保险费的支付确实具有与转移风险无关的目的,即使出租人能够执行他本来无法进行的航程。

It is for asimilar reason that I do not find support for the charterers' argument in thedecision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in S. J. Brice & Sons v. Christiani &Nielsen, (1928) 30 Ll.L.Rep. 177. There the crane was hired to perform anunusual task on terms that there would be a joint insurance of the crane againstall risks, to be paid for by the hirer. Mr. Justice Rowlatt was able to imply aterm exonerating the hirer from liability for damage. The case was quitedifferent from the present. There, the operation was subject to special hazardswhich were known to and discussed between the parties, and there could havebeen no other purpose to the insurance than to relieve both parties of therisk. In the present case, however, the payment of premium did have a purposeindependent of shifting the risk, namely, to enable the owner to performvoyages which he could not otherwise have undertaken.

最后,承租人依赖于第32条的第二部分,Mustill法官认为如他已经提到过,具体涉及时间损失。正确地指出,如果承租人被视为承担超出航区的命令中固有的风险,则该条款是非常规的。在Mustill法官看来,这种考虑不足以转变观点,因为法院一再表示,在制定租船合同和类似文件时,基于冗余的论据并不重要。所依赖的词语的存在完全符合经纪人的愿望,即在一个本来可能成为疑问的点上表明立场。Mustill法官认为总而言之,他应该提到Lloyd法官在The Yasin [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 45案中所做的决定。没有详细讨论过这个问题,因为那里提出的论点是关于保险受到隐含条款的约束,该条款限制了以出租人的名义对承租人提起代位诉讼的权利。租船合同本身默示一个术语的可能性似乎没有被探讨过。尽管如此,Mustill法官认为学识渊博的法官判决中提出的一些考虑因素确实倾向于支持他在本案中得出的结论。


Finally,reliance was placed by the charterers on the passage in the second part of cl.32, to which I have already referred, which deals specifically with loss oftime. It is rightly pointed out that this provision is otiose if the charterersare to be regarded as carrying the risks inherent in an order outside thelimits. This consideration is not in my view enough to turn the scale, for ithas been repeatedly stated by the Courts that when construing charter-partiesand similar documents arguments based on redundancy are of little weight. Thepresence of the words relied upon is wholly consistent with a desire by thebrokers to make clear the position on a point which might otherwise have been asource of doubt.

In conclusion Ishould mention the decision of Mr. Justice Lloyd in the not dissimilar case ofThe Yasin, [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 45. I have not discussed this in detailbecause the argument there advanced was to the effect that the policy ofinsurance was subject to an implied term restricting the right to bring asubrogated action against the charterers in the name of the owners. Thepossibility of a term being implied in the charter itself does not appear tohave been canvassed. Nevertheless, some of the considerations set out in thejudgment of the learned Judge do tend to support the conclusions which I havereached in the present case.

For all thesereasons I reject the charterers' arguments on the cost of repairs. Aspreviously stated, the liability for extra bunkers follows that relating torepairs.

In the result,I agree with the conclusion of the learned umpire on all the issues raised bythe special case, and I therefore uphold the award.


在实务处理中,如果碰到类似的,谨慎的出租人应该以书面电邮,声明保留相关的索赔权利,避免误解。比如在The Chemical Venture [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 508案中,虽然港口被视为不安全港口,但是Gatehouse法官最终认为(i)尽管第36条授予船长或出租人或两者拒绝前往他们认为不安全的港口的权利,只有船长及其船员如此拒绝:出租人并没有拒绝前往;(ii)出租人在试图说服船员接受承租人的命令时站在了承租人的一方;(iii)出租人最终要求承租人直接与船长打交道“因为这是你和船员之间的事情。”;(iv)出租人没有暗示他们自己认为科威特码头不安全,出租人没有保留他们的权利,构成了弃权。

但相反,如果出租人什么都不做,保持沉默,则不意味着出租人已经弃权。如The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391(H.L.)案,贵族院认为,前往一个不安全港口,出租人只是放弃了拒绝承租人提名该港口的权利,并不代表出租人放弃由于港口不安全所带来的索赔的权利。







  • 不可抗拒及谨慎注意义务 --关于某高院就

      图片来源网络仅供示意 近期某高院就南鸿918轮作出了终审判决,上诉人(原审被告)引援不可抗力成功,免除了赔偿责任。......

    06-03    来源:信德海事网

  • 《航运实务案例汇编 五》-自序

      自序 2019年6月29-30日,杨良宜先生在广州律师大楼作了关于《国际仲裁法》的讲座。席间提到我们国外仲裁,败诉率高达95%以......

    07-09    来源:信德海事网

  • 简评关于NOR递交争议的最新伦敦仲裁判例

      图片来源网络仅供示意 关于NOR和Laytime计算,之前有多篇文章涉及;航运实务千变万化,就算一个从事数十年的老江湖也不能......

    06-12    来源:信德海事网

  • 关于船舶污底的最新伦敦仲裁判例


    07-05    来源:信德海事网

  • 从中国买家主张不可抗力谈不可抗力的举

      从中国买家主张不可抗力谈不可抗力的举证责任 詹先凯 航运佬 近期传闻荷兰皇家壳牌有限公司和道达尔公司拒绝接受中国一......

    02-12    来源:信德海事网

  • 评最新的关于Laytime计算争议的伦敦仲裁案

      图片来源网络仅供示意 在航运实务中,NOR是否可以合法有效递交直接涉及到Laytime计算问题,进而涉及到滞期费速遣费结算,......

    06-04    来源:信德海事网

  • 从一审法官认为货物损坏和被雨淋没有因

      图片来源网络仅供示意 前段时间有律师咨询因下雨,但关舱来不及导致货损的问题。大体是这样的,一个船东运输一批玉米......

    06-13    来源:信德海事网

  • 船舶偏离航线搁浅船长疏忽船东免责

      图片来源网络仅供示意 在英国法下经常听到船东有尽力速遣,不得绕航的义务,其实这些都是法律所默示的。船东不管是在......

    03-11    来源: 航运佬

  • 受疫情影响船舶需检疫检疫的时间费用法


    04-30    来源:航运佬

  • 煤炭货物到底是否属于unlawful cargo--从京唐

      Atkin法官认为这两种情况没有区别22。 最终,Atkin法官判定,延误是由于承租人违反了其对船东的义务,因此船东有理由针对......

    10-13    来源:信德海事网

用户名: 验证码: 点击我更换图片
Ctrl+D 将本页面保存为书签,全面了解最新资讯,方便快捷。