Voyage Charterparty
Laytime. Duty to procure the berth ‘reachable on arrival’ - The President Brand [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338
The Angelos Lusis [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 28
The Delian Spirit [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506
The Laura Prima [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
The President Brand [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338
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.
Few years later in Inca Compaina Naviera S.A. and Commercial and Maritime Enterprises Evanghelos P.Nomikos S.A. v Mofinol, Inc (The President Brand) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338, a dispute arose over charterparty (with cl.6 and cl.7 identical to those discussed in the Angelos Lusis) when the vessel arrived off Lourenco Marques, anchored at pilot station outside port and served NOR but was unable to cross bar and enter the port due to her draught for almost 4 days. When the tanker eventually crossed the bar she have had to drop anchor and wait for the berth to become free and after that for daylight for pilotage and berthing, which all together amounted to 5 days and 8 hours.
The owner claimed either damages for detention or demurrage for time spent at anchor and until vessel berthed alongside. Roskill J. noted a remarkable similarity between The Angelos Lusis and The President Brand cases with the only significant difference being the reason of delay in berthing, namely, congestion in the port of Constantza in the former case, and shortage of water which prevented the vessel crossing the bar at the entrance to the port of discharge in the later. Again, as in The Angelos Lusis the tanker was at all material times physically ready for cargo operations but was not an ‘arrived ship’ for the purpose of laytime and demurrage. The council for defending charterers criticised decision of Megaw J. in The Angelos Lusis and argued that to stretch the charterers’ liabilities for demurrage or detention to instances when the vessel on arrival was unable to get within the commercial limits of the port owing to shortage of water, was to cast upon the charterers the responsibility for something over which they had no control.
Roskill J., in answer, stressed that in cases like The Angelos Lusis and The President Brand, when breach occurred without fault from either side, the ultimate question is how does the charterparty provide for risk apportionment between the owner and charterer in case of such breach. He held that it was the charterers’ obligation was to nominate a berth which the vessel could reach on arrival and they are in breach of that obligation if they are unable so to do.
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.