关于NOR及LAYTIME的若干问题-云关通

关于NOR及LAYTIME的若干问题-云关通

【摘要】本文针对实践中发生的NOR争议事件，通过对一些仲裁判例的对比分析，来简要分析一下关于NOR及Laytime计算的一些注意事项，以便在实务中参考，避免引起不必要的争议纠纷及造成无谓的损失。

在航运实务中，NOR及Laytime计算争议数不胜数，这些争议和租约中的合同条款有莫大关联；因此一份好的没有漏洞的租约合同在实务中就显得非常重要。

现以某H轮为例，来谈一谈NOR有效性问题及一些基本的laytime常识。其中关于租家违约安排该轮在满载，未安排减载而直接到鲅鱼圈港缷货，以及违反租约安全港口的保证条款及相关确认承担挂靠鲅鱼圈港所有的风险、费用本文暂且不提，单就租家认为在辽东湾浅滩递交的NOR无效的情况做进详细的分析。
  
案件基本情况如下：
   
            H轮满载装292,605吨铁矿，吃水21.38米；租约规定，如果满载，租家得先安排船舶到大连港先减载才能去鲅鱼圈。在租家确认承担所有相关的风险和费用后，并签订《H轮直靠鲅鱼圈》协议，于是船东同意租家要求，船舶直接前往鲅鱼圈港卸货。在抵达辽东湾浅滩的时候，遭遇7-8级大风，鉴于可能造成搁浅，船底破损等风险，船长按照《H轮直靠鲅鱼圈》协议，于12月9日0320在辽东湾浅滩抛锚等候天气好转，并同时递交第一个NOR。此时，鲅鱼圈港的泊位一直有船作业，也未有合适的高潮，加上前方有军事演习，直到14日晚间2047才起锚前往鲅鱼圈，15日0410抵达鲅鱼圈锚地并抛锚，同时递交第二个NOR。泊位依旧有船在作业，该轮最后趁高潮18日0130起锚，0220引水上船，于0708靠泊鲅鱼圈港开始卸货， 21日0100卸完。

租家认为在辽东湾浅滩，船还未到鲅鱼圈港界，不是到达船，所以9日0320递交的第一个NOR无效；认为第二个NOR才有效。船东主张第一个NOR有效，可以开始起算Laytime。扣除从辽东湾浅滩到鲅鱼圈锚地的移泊时间，争议时间约5.73天，金额约17万美金。

现在来分析12月9日0320在辽东湾浅滩递交的NOR到底是不是有效的NOR。

合同第11条关于卸港NOR条款规定如下：

Notice of readiness should be tendered any time any day Sunday Holiday included, provided the vessel is ready for discharging.
Laytime shall commence 24 hours after tendering the Notice of Readiness, Sunday and holiday included, unless sooner commenced, in such case time used will be counted as laytime.

法官Thomas 在The Agamemnon 案中 提到：
A notice of readiness which is effective to start Laytime running can only be given when the conditions set out in the charterparty for its giving have been met. A notice that does not meet those conditions is not a valid notice.

针对本案，有效NOR递交的条件只有一个，就是ready for discharging。

一、船舶在辽东湾浅滩抛锚后递交NOR，此时船舶是否是算ready?

关于此ready，参《Voyage Charters》-Chapter 15-Laytime
15.44 The vessel must not only be physically ready to load or discharge, as required, when the notice of readiness is given, but also legally ready.
可分为physically ready 和legally ready 两种情况。
另参《Shipping Law》-Chapter 11—Laytime and Demurrage
The notice must be a notice of actual, not anticipated, readiness.
NOR will be effective only if the vessel, is, in fact, ready to load and discharge at the time it is given.
也就是船舶必须在递交NOR的时候已经在事实上ready，而不能是预期ready。

先来看看几个伦敦仲裁判例。

1、London Arbitration 14/05 (2005) 669 LMLN 3 案

在该案中，船舶以带有附加条款的Gencon格式，执行一个从Aqaba到Paradip装载60,000吨磷酸盐航次。船于7月9日0830抵达Paradip，由于泊位被占，船长在锚地递交NOR。7月15日港长及引水上船，发现船上磁罗经不工作，主机也未能达到需要的转数，没有大比例尺港图，船舶超吃水及造成拱头，车舵反应不灵敏，于是拒绝安排船舶靠泊，随后离船。7月25日又重新登船检验，26日同意船舶可以靠泊；最终30日0842靠泊，1530开始卸货，8月8日0900卸完。
船东称7月9日2030开始起算Laytime，并于7月13日1750进入滞期；租家抗辩说7月9日递交的NOR无效，从7月30日1530开始卸货才开始起算laytime。
鉴于港长及引水开具的那5条缺陷，船员并没有采取实质的纠正措施，但这都不妨碍正常靠泊，法官认为租家无法举证磁罗经在递交NOR的时候处于不能工作的状态，磁罗经损坏的偶发事件不足以令laytime停止计算。

For that reason, and because the other alleged deficiencies did not in the event prove to be impediments to berthing, the NOR tendered on 9 July was valid and effective to trigger the commencement of laytime.
No evidence had been adduced by the charterers that the problem with the gyro compass was the result of any breach of charter or fault by the owners. A fortuitous breakdown of the gyro compass was not sufficient to stop time counting. In order to stop time counting there had to be either a breach or fault on the part of the owners. The law recognised that breakdowns might occur without breach or fault and did not penalise shipowners in such instances. Without evidence of either (and the burden of proof lay on the charterers in that respect), time continued to count without interruption.

法官同时认为，如果租家对NOR递交条件有要求，须在合同里清晰列明。
That was not sufficient to contract out the usual requirements for the tender of a valid NOR. Clearer language would be required, referring specifically to the readiness of the vessel to load.

在该案中，港长及引水开具的5条缺陷，似乎都能认为船舶不是ready，但这些缺陷并没有影响到最终靠泊，租家也无法举证，因此在递交NOR的时候，被认为已经是ready了，不影响NOR的有效性。
但在装货前，比如货舱没备好，或者需要熏舱都可能会被认为尚未ready，如The Trest Flores 案，船舶在递交NOR之后还需要进行熏舱，法官认为船舶还没ready, NOR无效。
H轮在随后起锚，重新抛锚，起锚，靠泊，开关舱作业、离泊等等都非常顺利，未出现任何延误及异常情况，因此租家不能事后跑来说递交NOR的时候船舶还未physically ready。

二、0320这个时间点不在工作时间，是否影响NOR有效性？

在Galaxy Energy International Limited v Novorossiysk Shipping Company (The Petr Schmidt) [1998] 案中，租家要求NOR需在0600-1700之间递交，但是船长不是在这区间递交的NOR，法官认为租家代理在第二天的这个区间就能收到，因此NOR到那时候就变为有效的NOR，可以开始laytime计算。
参《Shipping Law》：
In Galaxy Energy International Limited v Novorossiysk Shipping Company (The Petr Schmidt) [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep 1 the charter required that NOR be tendered within 0600 to 1700 hours local time. The Court of Appeal upheld owners' contention that a notice tendered out of hours took effect when those hours began.

另参《Voyage Charter》-Chapter 15-Laytime
15.32 Under the general law, and unless the charter otherwise provides, notice may be given at any time, and there is no requirement that it be given during ordinary office hours. See the general discussion by Rix L.K in Tidebrook Maritime Corp V Vitol ( The Front Commander) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.251

也就是说如果租约没有规定，那么NOR就可以在任何时间递交。
因此在时间点上，没有任何问题，在0320递交不影响NOR有效性。

那么问题就来到租家辩称的，说船还未到鲅鱼圈港界内，不是到达船，NOR无效。

三、什么样的情况下才可以算是到达船 arrived ship?

业界著名的“Reid Test”，源于法官Reid在The“Johanna Oldendorff ”案中所确立的；由于其确立的“Reid Test”至今未被推翻，因此关于“Arrived Ship”的权威定义可见于：
The Johanna Oldendorff [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285 at page 291, and in particular the following passage at col 2:
“On the whole matter I think that it ought to be made clear that the essential factor is that before a ship can be treated as an arrived ship she must be within the port and at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer and that her geographical position is of secondary importance. But for practical purposes it is so much easier to establish that, if the ship is at a usual waiting place within the port, it can generally be presumed that she is there fully at the charterer's disposal.
I would therefore state what I would hope to be the true legal position in this way. Before a ship can said to have arrived at a port she must, if she cannot proceed immediately to a berth, have reached a position within the port where she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer. If she is at a place where waiting ships usually lie, she will be in such a position unless in some extraordinary circumstances proof of which would lie in the charterer.
If the ship is waiting at some other place in the port then it will be for the owner to prove that she is as fully at the disposition of the charterer as she would have been if in the vicinity of the berth for loading or discharge. ”

简单点说就是在港口租约的情形下，如租约未作特别约定，船舶要到港口范围内，也就是“within the port”，且处于承租人的有效控制下，也就是“at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer” 才可被视为到达了约定地点，否则就不是已到达船舶，也就是不是一个“Arrived Ship ”。需说明的是，在该案中强调船舶“要达到港口范围内”，即使是港口或者港口当局让船舶在港口范围外等待，该船舶仍然未到达约定地点。
    关于“within the port”和 “at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer”的解释如下：

? Within the port
如租约未作特别约定，船舶必需到达港口范围内才可能被视为已到达船舶。因此，如果船舶被命令在港口范围外待泊，船舶就不是已到达船舶（除非租约有特别约定）。

? At the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer
船舶必需处于承租人的立即、有效控制之下。所谓处于承租人的立即、有效控制之下，是指如果出现可以靠泊的泊位时，其可马上到达泊位开始卸货；或者需要在锚地开始减载的时候，其可以马上开始减载卸货。
那么，如何判断是否处于承租人的立即、有效控制之下？按照上述引用的Lord Reid的判决原文，如果船舶的待泊地点是在通常的待泊地点，则会初步认为其处于承租人的立即、有效控制之下，如承租人不同意则其负有举证义务。如果船舶待泊地点不是在通常的待泊地点，则船东负有举证义务证明其处于承租人的立即、有效控制之下。

船舶还未按租约约定到达指定位置，还不是到达船，导致NOR无效的案例有很多，抽取如以下：

四、辽东湾浅滩那是否是习惯性等泊位置及是否可以递交NOR？

从地理位置说，辽东湾满载VLCC推荐航线，是H轮满载进入鲅鱼圈的唯一通道，需要候潮、及在天气良好的情况下才能安全通过。H轮到达时适逢低潮和大风浪，在抵达辽东湾满载VLCC推荐航线南部后，，像H轮这种30万吨级别的船只能在浅滩前等泊，没有别的地方可以去，因为别的地方水深还更浅，因此可以认为是这种超大型船舶习惯性等泊位置。

在The Johanna Oldendorff案中，法官Diplock把程租航次分为了4个连续的阶段，如下：
(1) The loading or approach voyage, viz. the voyage of the chartered vessel from wherever she is at the date of the charterparty to the place specified in it as the place of loading.
(2) The loading operation, viz. the delivery of the cargo to the vessel at the place of loading and its stowage on board.
(3) The carrying voyage, viz. the voyage of the vessel to the place specified in the charterparty as the place of delivery.
(4) The discharging operation, viz. the delivery of the cargo from the vessel at the place specified in the charterparty as the place of discharge and its receipt there by the charterer or other consignee.

简单点就是第一为预备航次阶段，第二为装货作业阶段，第三位载货航次阶段，第四为卸货作业阶段。这4个阶段是连续的，没有间隙及没有重复的，只有在一个阶段结束了才可以开始下一个阶段。例如，船必须结束第一阶段后或第三阶段后才可以递交NOR，在航期间不可以递交NOR。
及《Laytime and Demurrage》Chapter 1,对此的补充解释说明：
Lord Diplock’s speech is clear authority that under English law the stages are consecutive and each must be completed before the next can begin. As will be seen, that means, for instance, that a vessel must reach its specified destination before a notice of readiness can be presented and notice cannot therefore be given whilst underway. There cannot be any gap between the stages, not is there any overlap.

那么船舶是否可以算是已经结束了carrying voyage了呢？因为无别的航线可以选择，船舶已经无论如何都无法再更靠近鲅鱼圈(as close as possible)，同时也已经抛完锚（finished voyage）,因此可以认为已经结束carrying voyage了。那么在结束了一个阶段后，就可以递交有效的NOR开始laytime计算，参如下：
The Johanna Oldendorff [1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep 285 and The Agamemnon [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 675) that the carrying voyage did not come to an end until the vessel had finished her voyage and reached a point as close as possible to where cargo operations were to be carried out as possible.

这4个阶段，其中预备航次和载货航次由船东自己负责，装货和卸货阶段主要由租家负责；如果船东方面如果有过失，造成耽误，则租家可以中断laytime计算。但在装货阶段，租家有绝对的义务去提供货物，如果因为没有货导致耽误，则船东可以以detention为由找租家索赔损失。
如Postlethwaite v. Freeland案中，Selborne勋爵说的如下：
An absolute and unconditional engagement, for the non-performance of which he is answerable, whatever may be the nature of the impediments which prevent him from performing it and which cause the ship to be detained in his service beyond the time stipulated.

绝对和无条件的保证。不论使他不能履行这项保证、导致船舶超出了规定的时间而产生延误的阻碍事项的性质如何，他都应为此承担责任。

此外，文头提过有军事演习，租家可能抗辩说军事演习属于不可抗力，但军事演习区域仅仅覆盖了部分H轮满载进入鲅鱼圈的唯一通道，即覆盖了部分辽东湾满载VLCC推荐航线。如果租家按租约要求，先到大连减载，H轮依然可以绕开军事演习区域，从以外的水域通过、并可顺利抵达鲅鱼圈锚地。这是另外一个话题，不在本文讨论。

五、习惯性等泊位置是否必须在港界内？是否可以递交有效的NOR?

由于港口地理位置等原因，比如长江内的港口，或者是密西西比河里的港口，这些习惯性等泊位置都不在港界内。

9、London Arbitration 11/95 (1995) 409 LMLN 3

在该案中，合同为带有附加条款的Euromed 的格式。租家安排到阿根廷Rosario装货，船于5月30日1440抵达Zona Comun并递交NOR，
… Time to count from the first working period on the next business day following vessel’s customs clearance and receipt at the office of charterers’ agents of written notice of readiness accompanied by pass of any national and/or other regulatory bodies as may be required, and/or independent surveyors as selected by charterers, [attesting to the fact that the vessel is clean and in every respect ready in all compartments

船东称按合同6月3日0600开始起算Laytime，租家辩称船不是到达船，NOR无效。
法官认为虽然总的原则上要求船必须到达港界内才能算是到达船，但是船抵达那些习惯等泊位置，虽然在港界外也应该被认为是到达船，可以递交有效的NOR，驳回租家第一个抗辩。
Held , that so far as the charterers’ first contention was concerned, the fact that Zona Comun was outside the Rosario port limits was clear on the evidence. What was really in contention was the effect that that factor might have upon the “arrived ship” doctrine (ie the Johanna Oldendorff test). Although the general rule was that, for a vessel to be treated as having arrived at her destination she had to be within the port limits, that had to be understood as being subject to an exception where the Port Authorities had designated another area within their administration where vessels had to wait before proceeding to a berth. Such interpretation of the law as it stood on that point had been widely accepted in commercial arbitrations and made good commercial sense where, as in the present case, the vessel became effectively an “arrived ship” when waiting off the port at a place where it was customary for vessels to be held pending the availability of a berth, and when it had been shown that the designated loading port exercised administrative control over the waiting area.
关于租家的第二个抗辩，法官认为合同里明确要求NOR递交必须accompanied那些相关的检验检疫，因此NOR无效。
However, the charterers’ second contention (that the tendering of the NOR was invalid because certain essential charterparty requirements had not been fulfilled at the time NOR was tendered), was well founded. The wording of the charterparty made it clear that a NOR could not validly be tendered unless it was “accompanied” by the relevant pass or passes. That could only be achieved if the necessary inspection had been performed and its result made known. That of course meant that the inspection had to precede and not follow the tendering of the NOR. In the present case, the inspection had taken place subsequently to the tendering of the NOR.

租家认为在第二个港应该递交NOR，但法官认为除非合同明确规定，要不在第二个港无需递交NOR。
The next issue to be considered was whether a further NOR was required to be tendered at the second loading port. The tribunal would agree with the owners that, unless there was a clear requirement written into the charterparty to the contrary, no NOR was required. That was a well established principle, logically based on the assumption that once the vessel had been tendered for loading at the first port, charterers were expected to a large extent to control the vessel and to be in a position to monitor progress of the loading operations. There was no merit in the charterers’ argument that clause 28 of the charterparty (which expressly dealt with the dispensation of the need to tender a NOR at the second discharging port) should be taken to infer that such further NOR was called for at the second loading port.

法官Branson 在Burnett Steamship案中也提到：
The charterers should know near enough without a fresh notice of readiness at what time they are to have their cargo ready at the port to which they have ordered the ship to go.

在London Arbitration 9/11 (2011)833 LMLN2 案里, 法官也判船东无需在第二装港Krishnapatnam递交NOR。

类似的，法官Mustill 在 The Mexico I 案中提到，在普通法下，如无相反规定，在卸港无需递交NOR。
At common law no notice of readiness is required at the discharging port to place the charterers under the obligation to take delivery of the cargo: he is expected to be on the lookout for the ship and for his cargo….
The contract provides for Laytime to be started by the notice ( which means a valid notice) and in no other way.

因此如果租约无相反规定，那么在普通法下，只要在第一装港递交NOR，而无需在第二装港，或卸港再递交NOR。不用再次递交NOR的好处是，到第二装港或卸港可以直接开始起算laytime。

六、船舶需要等潮水是否可以算不可抗力？是否可以扣除不算laytime？

先来了解一下关于laytime和demurrage的几个基本常识。
Laytime一经起算，不会自动终止，除非租约中相反规定，比如有明确的除外条款，或者是船东方面的过失造成的，或者是船东把船挪做他用。
参《Shipping Law》Chapter 11-Laytime and Demurrage
Once laytime begins, it will fun continuously against the charterers unless:
1. There is an  express provision in the charter to interrupt the running of laytime,
2. Delay is caused by the fault of the shipowners,
3. The shipowners remove the ship for their own purposes.

在Stolt Tankers v Landmark 案中，船在Bombay锚地等泊，船长被告之得等泊15天左右，于是船东安排先去卸别的货物，法官Andrew Smith认为租家无需为船东区卸别的货物支付滞期费。 在Re Ropner Shipping Co Ltd v Cleeves Western Valleys Anthracite Collieries Ltd [1927]案中，由于在等货，船东安排船先去加油，法官也判加油时间不算滞期时间。
但是如果是船舶必须进行排/压水才可以安全进行装卸货的话，如无相反规定，那么不可以中断计算。如Houlder v Weir[1905] 案中, 法官认为where demurrage was held to run continuously while ballast was being put into a ship to enable her to discharge in safety.

现在来看租约中关于除外条款是如何规定的。

合同第11条，除外条款规定如下：
11.e The following time shall not count as laytime and demurrage time:
--Time used for sailing from anchorage to wharf till all fastened at the designated discharging berth
--Time used for joint inspection
--Time used for draft survey during discharging
--Time stoppage caused by adjusting ballast(of deballasting)
--Time stoppaged caused by bad weather
--Stoppage or partial stoppage caused by Owners and partial stoppage as pro rata
--Stoppage caused by Force Majeure unless charterers request the vessel to the dischargeport already in Force Majeure and the vessel already on demurrage.
Discharging shall complete upon the last grab of cargo leaving hatches.

显然，由于港口吃水限制等原因，造成H轮不能顺利通过辽东湾浅滩，不是船东方面的过失，租家不可以依据此条除外条款扣除不计算laytime。

参照在同意租家去鲅鱼圈港口之前签订的《H轮直靠鲅鱼圈》协议如下：
1、引航员必须在辽东浅滩前登轮，以协助船舶通过辽东浅滩； 2、船舶必须在高潮时段通过禁航区附近的浅水区； 3、引航员携带DGPS定位仪，以“xx”轮通过的航迹为基础通过辽东浅滩，即靠近禁航区航行，并携带天津海测大队海图； 4、通过时应适当降速； 5、巡逻艇或引水船在前开路，以免他船妨碍安全航行； 6、通过浅水区前，长兴岛潮汐站及时报告潮高； 7、风力六级及六级以上，应限制通过。

船长在没有引水和拖轮情况下，加上碰上大风天气7-8级，选择抛锚理由充分。要不万一搁浅破底了，租家可能反过来说是船东自己造成的，自己放弃了协议允许的权利不用，损失船东自己承担。相反，租家为了节省费用，并未安排引水及拖轮，违反了该协议。另一方面，假如租家安排了拖轮和引水，船舶也许就能顺利穿过辽东湾浅滩区，因此该风险不属于不可抗力。就算租家抗辩说属于不可抗力，那么依据该条款第二条，租家得安排船舶去另外一个安全港口，要么就支付滞期费+燃油，也就是按detention赔偿船东损失。

再来看看两个较早的判例。

总结：

有人的地方就有江湖，有江湖的地方就有陷阱。因此为了避免自己掉入别人的陷阱，那么船东和租家，在最终恰定租约前，最好尽力清晰地表达彼此签约的真实意图，行成条文并入到租约中去。

如案中的租家如果想限制NOR的递交，比如必须到达还得在港界内，获得入港许可并清关，在工作时间内以传真的方式递交给租家及其代理，事实上及法律上准备就绪可以缷货，而且NOR递交后6小时内获得入港许可，要不NOR无效，那么在恰定租约时候，应该这样完整地表述
Notice of Readiness only could be tendered upon ①arrival at discharging port(s) ② within port limit ③during office hours between 0800-1700 ④by fax to ⑤Charterers and their agent, provide that the vessel is⑥ pysically and legal ready for discharging, ⑦in free pratique and ⑧custom clearance. NOR will be not be valid if free pratique could not be granted ⑨within 6 hours after tendered.

而不能写成这样：
Notice of readiness should be tendered any time any day Sunday Holiday included, provided the vessel is ready for discharging.

然后辩说真实的意图是前面的，要不然如法官Bucknill如下解释：
The cardinal rule…in interpreting such a charter-party as this, is that the charterers will pay hire for the use of the ship unless he can bring himself within the exceptions. I think he must bring himself clearly within the exceptions. If there is a doubt as what the words means, then I think those words must be read in favour of the Owners because the charterers is attempting to cut down the Owners’ right to hire.
条款中模糊的字眼将做出对船东有利的解释，因为租家想扣租。
同理，NOR条款中模糊的地方，也将做出对船东有利的解释，因为租家不想让laytime开始计算，不想付滞期费。

这些前面标注的①到⑨都是递交NOR的条件，违反了任何一条，在递交的当时都不会是有效的NOR，如法官Thomas 在The Agamemnon 案中说的：
A notice of readiness which is effective to start Laytime running can only be given when the conditions set out in the charterparty for its giving have been met. A notice that does not meet those conditions is not a valid notice.
当然，英国法下订约自由，如法官在The MV Arundel Castle案中说，It is always open to the parties to provide more specifically for what it is they intend。

因此，如果彼此真实的意图已经在租约中清晰列明了，不是违法的，那租约就都没有问题，应该被支持接受。

更多资讯敬请留意云关通官网.

云关通综合整理网络/吾爱航运网等,转载请注明