So far as the global shipping practice is concerned, laytime & demurrage is one of the most complicated topics for both ship-owners and charterers under. Develop comprehensive knowledge of the essential legal and practical aspects of tanker and dry cargo laytime and demurrage. The course focuses on the fundamental principles which underpin laytime and demurrage and how these principles can be changed quite dramatically by the.
|Published (Last):||27 April 2006|
|PDF File Size:||3.81 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The ruling charterparty was on an amended Gencon form. However, this article will focus on the main issues in the arbitration, namely stevedore incompetence and bad stowage.
Charterers also demurrqge that this caused delays in both loading and discharging port where damage to jumbo bags necessitated re-bagging of cargo. In the absence of express provision, the obligation to load, stow, trim is at common law with the owners. However line 78 of the NYPE form has the effect of shifting from owners to charterers layti,e primary responsibility for loading and stowing the cargo.
The master has the general right to supervise the cargo operations, if they affect the safety of the ship, but otherwise he has no duty to supervise. In the leading judgement Lord Atkin said:.
He has in any event to protect his ship from being made unseaworthy. However, ultimately, the reservations of the right of the captain to supervise – a right which would have existed even if not expressly reserved – has no effect whatsoever in relieving the charterers of their responsibility.
In the arbitration, it was held that the primary cause of the delays was stevedore incompetence. The stevedores failed to load the vessel in the most efficient way so as to use all available space. Jumbo bags are notoriously difficult to stow in the areas outside the hatch squares.
Not only did the stevedores have laytike minimise broken spaces, but they had to ensure an even stowage. And instead of making use of all the available space, they stowed the cargo in the hatch squares and the lower parts of the holds outside the squares.
The evidence before the tribunal indicated that the stevedores stowed the cargo in this way because they did not use dsmurrage whereas an experienced firm layttime to have realised at the outset that the use of forklifts was essential. Furthermore, charterers contended that delays at the discharge port were caused by re-bagging the damaged cargo. However on completion of loading charterers had issued a letter of indemnity LOIindemnifying owners in respect of any liability, including damage and delay in respect of torn and damaged bags, so charterers were responsible for these delays.
While the charterparty will normally specify the type and amount of cargo to be provided by the charterer at the port of loading, the shipowner is not concerned with the methods which the charterer uses to acquire the cargo. The charterer on the other hand, is under an absolute duty to provide the cargo and it will be no excuse that oaytime is prevented from doing so by reasons which are entirely beyond his control.
The amount of cargo required demurdage be provided by the charterer may be indicated in the charterparty in a variety of a different ways. This has been interpreted by the courts as imposing a liability on the charterer to load either a full cargo or the specified maximum. It also amounts to a warranty by the shipowner that the vessel is able to carry the stipulated quantity.
In this case a total of 5, jumbo bags weighing a total of 5,mt laytije loaded. In any event, and even if the cargo had been stowed properly and the stevedores had been competent, the vessel would have been layti,e because of non-availability of cargo. The owners, therefore, had a valid claim for deadfreight.
The tribunal, in deciding the end of demurrage, considered a London Arbitration award  where the charter provided for two load ports, but no cargo was available at the first port.
Laytime ceased to run when the charterers instructed the oaytime to proceed to another port. In the present lattime, the charterer ordered the vessel to remain at port until further cargo was available and as such laytime or time on demurrage continued to run until either the charterer ordered the vessel to proceed or abandoned the possibility of further loading.
The judgement in this case clearly affirms that there were contributory factors in the chain of causation which led the arbitrators to find in favour of owners. The case addresses important issues of general application with regards to the implications of delays during a charter and the contractual obligations between the main parties in a charter and their sub-contractors.
Certificate in Laytime & Demurrrage
lzytime Charterers should recognise the effect of issuing Letters of Indemnity at the load ports and ensure that a competent stevedore company will undertake the responsibility of an even stowage according to cargo specifications. Demurrage and Laytime – Who is Responsible for Delay? September PDF Version. There were 4 main issues in the arbitration: Whether owners or charterers were responsible for the bad stowage at the loading port which led to delays at both loading and discharge port.
Certificate in Laytime and Demurrage
Whether demurage stevedores were incompetent. When loadport demurrage ends where cargo is not available. In their defence charterers relied on clause 31, which provided: In the leading judgement Lord Atkin said: