Voyage Charterparty
Laytime. Duty to procure the berth ‘reachable on arrival’ - The Angelos Lusis [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 28
The President Brand [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338
The Delian Spirit [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506
The Laura Prima [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
The Angelos Lusis [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 28
Asbatankvoy
6. NOTICE OF READINESS.
Upon arrival at customary anchorage at each port of loading or discharge, the Master or his agent shall give the Charterer or his agent notice by letter, telegraph, wireless or telephone that the Vessel is ready to load or discharge cargo, berth or no berth, and laytime, as hereinafter provided, shall commence upon the expiration of six (6) hours after receipt of such notice, or upon the Vessel’s arrival in berth (i.e., finished mooring when at a sealoading or discharging terminal and all fast when loading or discharging alongside a wharf), whichever first occurs. However, where delay is caused to vessel getting into berth after giving notice of readiness for any reason over which Charterer has no control, such delay shall not count as used laytime.
First time the effect of ‘Reachable on Arrival’ provision was considered in Sociedad Carga Oceanica S.A. v. Idolinoele Vertriebsgesellschaft M.B.H. (The Angelos Lusis)[1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 28. The Angelos Lusis arrived in the roads at Constantza on Jan. 28, 1962 but was not permitted by the port authority to enter the port until Feb. 2, 1962 because there was no berth available for her. Clause 6 of relevant charterparty read:
The Vessel shall load and discharge at a place or at a dock or alongside lighters reachable on her arrival which shall be indicated by Charterers…
and laytime was to begin as per cl.7
…from the time the Vessel is ready to receive or discharge her cargo, the Captain giving six hours’ notice to the Charterers’ Agents, berth or no berth.
From the time of arrival vessel in fact was physically ready to enter the port and commence loading. The owner contended that the charterer was in breach of an absolute obligation to provide a berth ‘reachable on arrival’ and claimed damages in respect of the time for which the vessel was delayed in the roads. The charterer in its turn maintained that obligation to nominate a berth ‘reachable on arrival’ never aroused until Feb. 2, 1962, i.e. the moment when the Angelos Lusis entered commercial area of the port of Constantza.
Megaw J. pointed out, that construction suggested by the charterer is meaningless since gives nothing to the owner because port authorities of Port of Constantza would permit vessel to enter the commercial area of the port only when the berth become available for her. He rejected charterer’s defence on the grounds that incorporation of the words ‘reachable on arrival’ was not merely a ‘surplusage’ in cl. 6 but that these words were intentionally inserted in the shipowner’s favour with the purpose to give the shipowner such contractual right
…which they would not otherwise have, and to impose on the charterers a contractual obligation of value to the owners.
From the judgement of Megaw J in Sociedad Carga Oceanica S.A. v. Idolinoele Vertriebsgesellschaft m.b.H. (The Angelos Lusis), [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 28
The judge also found that on true construction of cl. 6 the vessel should arrive physically whether within or outside the commercial limits of the port, but be so positioned that nomination of a particular loading place would become relevant if the vessel is to proceed directly to the berth. When the owner brought the vessel to such position, the charterers become obliged to indicate reachable place which she would be able to reach and occupy. Under the reachable place Megaw J apparently meant a vacant berth since delay in berthing was caused by congestion in port.
Share this article on:
Leave your questions and comments here
Although author encourages visitors to leave their comments using this form, but should you be unable or unwilling to use it for any reason you can mail to info@lawandsea.net to contact with him.