关于NOR及LAYTIME的若干问题

关于NOR及LAYTIME的若干问题 / 詹先凯 【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。 【关键词】NOR、Laytime、有效性、到达船，港界 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HP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： HP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HP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HP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.d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legal ready 两种情况。 另参Shipping Law-Chapter 11Laytime 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。 HP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。 2、London Arbitration 4/14 (2014) 892 LMLN 3 在该案中，船舶到Matadi装乙醇到鹿特丹。船于10月29日1020递交NOR，但此时只是在Banana 的引航站，并未在Matadi的锚地Ango-Ango 抛锚（anchored）；船于1540抵达Boma 抛锚（dropped anchor）。11月6日0620上引水，1555靠泊Matadi(fully berthed),2230开始装货，11月9日0830完货。 卖家抗辩说Banana引航站不在Matadi的港界内，而且船未抛锚，因此递交的NOR无效。法官认同卖家解释，判NOR无效。 The sellers had also relied on The Agamemnon 1998 1 Lloyds Rep 675 and on London Arbitration 16/04 (2004) 647 LMLN 2). There the vessel gave NOR from the fairway buoy marking the approach to Banjul, and then proceeded to anchor at a place which was not one of the anchorages for Banjul as described in the port guide. It was held that the NOR was invalid. Before presenting NOR, the vessel had to proceed as close to her berth as possible from which point “her proceeding further would serve no useful commercial purpose”. The sellers had referred to a commentary on that case in Schofield, Laytime and Demurrage, which cited it for the proposition that an owner “cannot artificially bring forward the point of arrival by pausing without anchoring or by anchoring temporarily within port limits to pick up a pilot”. The sellers submissions would be preferred. It made no commercial sense for a NOR to be considered effective when the vessel was many miles and several hours transit time from the actual port of loading, let alone its berth. Such a NOR could not possibly satisfy Lord Reids test. Even if, which was doubtful, the vessel could be considered to be technically within the port jurisdiction for administrative purposes it was clearly not “at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer”, nor indeed could Banana be considered to be “a usual waiting place within the port” or “a place where waiting ships usually lie”. Even if it was, its distance from Matadi would constitute what Lord Reid referred to as an “extraordinary circumstance” which would rebut the presumption of readiness. Lastly, Banana and Matadi were both self-contained ports in their own right. Whilst that of itself might not prevent it from being possible validly to give NOR at the former for the latter, taken with all the other factors mentioned above it reinforced the tribunals conclusion. Accordingly, laytime did not begin to run six hours after the NOR was tendered at Banana, as contended for by the buyers. Laytime began to run, as the sellers had submitted, when the vessel berthed at Matadi, ie at 15.55 on 6 November. 该案中提到的John Schofield在Laytime and Demurrage一书中，Chapter 3-3.54中说的，The Owners cannot artificially bring forward the point of arrival by pausing without anchoring or by anchoring temporarily within port limits to pick up a pilot. 也就是说船东不能单方面地辩称在船舶到达某个位置临时停顿，而没有抛锚或者临时抛锚等待引水的情况下就可以了。 另参Voyage Charter-Chapter 57: 57.4 However, the clause provides no justification for giving notice while the vessel is passing the entry buoy or for otherwise dispensing with the normal requirement that the vessel must have come to rest before giving notice. A short pause, while picking up a pilot, was held insufficient in Lond Arb.8/03 LMLN 615. 短暂停留接引水都认为不符合要求，导致NOR无效。 类似的在Federal Commerce v. Tradax Export (The Maratha Envoy) 1978 A.C. 1 案中，Maratha Envoy轮以 Baltimore Berth form C 格式执行一个程租航次，租家安排到德国的Brake 港卸货，船舶在Weser Lightship 习惯性等泊地点抛锚等泊，但由于此位置在法律、财政、行政上都不属于Brake港管辖，于是船开到河内属于Brake港界内的灯浮处递交NOR然后再回到Weser Lightship锚地抛锚等泊。上议院认为在Brake港界内的时候船舶还没Come to rest，而在锚地come to rest的时候又不在港界内，因此NOR无效。 The Maratha Envoy was chartered on the Baltimore Berth form C charterparty and was ordered to discharge at one of a number of northern European ports. Time was to count “whether in berth or not”. The charterer ordered her to discharge at Brake. No berth was available, so she waited at the usual waiting place, the Weser Lightship, which was not within the legal, fiscal and administrative limits of the port of Brake. The vessel sailed up the river to a position off Brake and there served notice of readiness before returning to the usual waiting place. The House of Lords held that the notice of readiness was not validly tendered. The vessel had not come to rest when it was given and the place where she did come to rest was not within the port. 此外在London Arbitration 16/05 (2005) 672 LMLN 3案中，法官认为 EOSP(end of sea passage)，结束海上航行的时候和船舶是否抵达没有关系，判船长在EOSP的时候递交的NOR无效。 另参Voyage CharterChapter 15-Laytime Consequently, the general law applies and she must be at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer, having come to rest at the place at which she can be described as an “arrived ship”. 也就是说船舶必须come to rest(停止移动)才可以被认为是到达船R。笔者认为come to rest 和 dropped anchor, made all fast 有一样的意思，如果租约无相反规定，那么船舶必须在抛锚后，或者完全靠泊后才可以递交NOR。 换个意思讲就是如果船还在移动，租家无法进行装卸货作业，因此不能算ready,不可以计算laytime。 因这个抛完锚（anchor dropped）与法官Reid关于arrived ship定义的第二点 at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer似乎有点冲突，笔者暂且把come to rest 或anchor dropped 归为ready的情况来解释。 该轮是在抛完锚后递交的NOR，而不是先递交NOR才抛锚，船舶已经处于ready了，因此在这点上不影响NOR的有效性。 那么租家是否可以抗辩说舱盖还未打开，还不能卸货，船舶未ready呢？ 参Shipping Law-Chapter 11-Laytime and Demurrage That a valid NOR could be given, even though some preliminary routing matters, such as removal of hatch covers, still needed to be attended to, provided that they were unlikely to cause any delay. 及Voyage Charters-Chapter 15-Laytime 15.41 The Court of Appeal in The Tres Tlores state that the fact that some preliminary routing matters need to be carried out before cargo operations could begin, such as the removal of hatch covers, would not prevent a valid notice of readiness being given, so long at least as they are not likely to cause any delay. 也就是说这些卸货前通常需要准备的事项，比如需要开舱等不影响有效NOR的递交。 3、London Arbitration 8/14 ( 2014) 896 LMLN2 在该案中，第一个争议，租家认为在8月16日1815到17日1250期间，挖掘机损坏，情况受阻，NOR无效。但被法官驳回，法官认为船舶是否ready的情况和港口情况无关，只和其自身状况有关。 The charterers argued, firstly, that laytime was suspended between 18.15 on 16 August and 12.50 on 17 August because the movement of ships in the loading port was stopped due to the breakdown of a dredger. Accordingly, the notice of readiness (NOR) which was given during the period of suspension was not valid because of the suspension. That argument would be rejected. Whether a ship was ready or not for the purposes of giving NOR depended upon her condition, not the condition of the port in which she found herself. If it were otherwise, a ship giving NOR at a congested port would find that her notice was invalid and that time would not count, at the very least until the congestion cleared and she was in a position to berth. That was nonsense. 因此由于去港口的必经之路水深的问题，影响靠泊，这类港口本身的问题，和船是否ready没有关系。 4、London Arbitration 19/07 (2007) 723 LMLN 2 在该案中，以带有附加条款的Gencon格式，执行一个从利比亚装尿素到意大利卸航次。利比亚当局要求超过20年的船，需在到港前2星期提早递交相关文件，办理豁免手续。该船龄已经24年了，但船东并未办理此豁免手续，在支付了罚款之后船舶允许靠泊装货。船于4月15日0500抵达Marsa-El-Brega锚地并递交NOR，由于泊位被占，及坏天气等影响，最终4月21日1415才靠泊装货，22日1225完货离港。 船东称从15日1400开始起算laytime，从17日0521进入滞期，共约5.25天滞期。租家抗辩说依据合同第21.2条，船东未取得exemption，NOR无效。 其中合同21.2 Eligibility clause 规定如下： Owners further warrant that the vessel is in all respects eligible for carrying the cargo as stated in clause 12(part I ) and for trading to the ports and places specified in Part I for the present charter party and that all necessary time she shall have on board all certificates, records and other documents required for such services. Any delay losses, expenses and damages arising as result of failure to comply within this clause shall be for Owners account. Time lost because of non-compliance with this clause shall be at Owners cost and responsibility. 法官认为此exemption不同于普通正常的进港手续，在未取得豁免的情况下，NOR无效，驳回船东滞期费索赔。 The present case was distinguishable from The Aello and The Tres Flores . The required exemption from entry prohibition was only forthcoming when a timely application had been made or the prescribed fine paid: until then the Vessel was not permitted to berth. The exemption was therefore more than a mere formality and was something that rested entirely within the power of the owners to obtain if, as and when they chose to do so. Against that background the vessel was not ready to load within the meaning of clause 2.15 when NOR was tendered at 0500 on 15 April, and thus the NOR was invalid and a nullity. Consequently, the owners claim for demurrage failed. 5、AET Inc Ltd v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The “Eagle Valencia”) Court of Appeal (Longmore, Richards and Etherton LJJ) 23 June 2010 在该案中，油轮Eagle Valencia以Shellvoy 5 格式，于1月15日1148抵达第二装港Escravos，并递交NOR；16日0730港口当局相关人员上船，于0830取得free pratique。1539船长说船舶已经ready，不损害15日递交的NOR，1553发邮件说free pratique已经于0830取得。19日1354离开锚地，1542靠泊，2100开始装货，21日0830完货。 船东说在NOR递交后6小时候，也就是1月15日的1745开始起算Laytime。租家抗辩说15日递交NOR的时候，free pratique没有取得，按合同 22条，NOR无效。 22.1If Owners fail (A) to obtain Customs clearance; and/or (B) free pratique; and/or (C) to have onboard all papers/certificates required to perform this Charter, either within the 6 hours after Notice of Readiness originally tendered or when time would otherwise normally commence under this Charter, then the Original Notice of Readiness shall not be valid. 22.2 A Notice of Readiness may only be tendered when Customs clearance and/or free pratique has been granted and/or all papers/certificates required are in order in accordance with relevant authorities requirements. 法官认为free pratique未在NOR递交后6个小时内取得，判NOR无效。 The only situation where owners would be heavily disadvantaged would be if free pratique was only granted when the vessel berthed. If, in those circumstances, the only NOR which owners had been able to tender was invalid, they would (unfairly) have borne the risk of congestion which clause 13 provided they did not have to bear. SAC 22.5 then came into play because it provided that, in those circumstances, the original NOR was not to be invalid but was to take effect in accordance with the terms of the charter unless (SAC 22.6) the delay was in some way the fault of the owners. That was an entirely understandable and workable scheme. Accordingly, since free pratique was granted more than 6 hours after the “original” NOR was tendered, that NOR was rendered invalid by SAC 22.1. 此外如Antclizo Shipping Corp v Food Corporation of India ( The Savvas) 1982案中关于Customs clearance or entry； Sociedad Financiera De Bienes Raices v Agrimper( The Allo )1960案中关于 Immigration and policy approval的；The Austin Friars (1894) 案中关于health or free pratique的，及本案中关于exemption的，都可以归为是legal ready的范畴。 那么问题来了，租家是否可以抗辩说进港手续还没办，比如边防，卫检等，因此船舶不是legal ready呢？ 参Voyage Charters-Chapter 15-Laytime： 15.45 It is common to provide for the commencement of laytime “ whether customs cleared or not” and “ whether in free pratique or not “ and in such cases those matters are simply irrelevant to the giving of a notice of readiness. Even where there is no such express provision, if those matters are reasonably believed to be “ mere formalities” and routine, notice of readiness may be given without having obtained the necessary clearances. 也就是说这些通常进港需要办的手续不影响有效NOR的递交。 此外HP轮为一级船舶，PSC检查几乎都是无缺陷通过，船舶在各个方面都表现出色。货物不是非法货物，为租家自己的铁矿；船员配备严格按照相关规定要求，也未发现有偷渡客等等。 综合以上，HP轮于12月9日0320在辽东湾浅滩抛完锚后递交的NOR不管是physical还是legal上都已经处于ready状态，符合租约条款中对于NOR递交的要求，因此NOR有效。 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 Lloyds 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 Lloyds 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 charterers 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