近期在一倫敦仲裁案例¹中，再次涉及了NOR遞交與滯期費(fèi)計算爭議。在該仲裁中，船東請求賠償109,495.83美元的滯期費(fèi)。船東認(rèn)為在密西西比河內(nèi)的Davant裝貨港發(fā)生了這些滯期費(fèi)；但是承租人否認(rèn)承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任，相反認(rèn)為有時間節(jié)省，他們有權(quán)獲得速遣費(fèi)6,359.38美元。

在該仲裁案中至關(guān)重要的問題是，如果有的話，所謂的UBT規(guī)則并入租船確認(rèn)書的效果。UBT規(guī)則是泊位運(yùn)營商對使用的泊位用戶以合同方式強(qiáng)加的規(guī)則。

        租船合同確認(rèn)書相關(guān)條款規(guī)定如下²：

裝港，1個 UBT Davant的安全港口，UBT規(guī)則并入該租船合同。

如果泊位被占，或者船舶在抵達(dá)或在港外無法駛往該泊位的話，NOR可以用電傳，傳真遞交；無論在泊位與否，無論清關(guān)與否，無論獲得免檢疫入港許可與否，無論在港與否。

在裝卸港，裝卸時間在有效裝備就緒通知書遞交12個小時候開始起算，除非更早開始裝卸貨。如果那樣，實(shí)際使用的時間計算裝卸時間。

        并入的UBT Rules，其中規(guī)定³：

如果要裝載一艘遠(yuǎn)洋船舶，則遞交準(zhǔn)備就緒通知書即意味著該船舶（1）已獲得所有必要的政府批準(zhǔn)，檢查和許可，包括但不限于美國海關(guān)的要求，服務(wù)和移民歸化服務(wù)；（2）位于泊位或最近可用的錨地（如以下第2.5節(jié)所定義）；（3）準(zhǔn)備好并在各方面均適合在所有待裝貨艙中接收貨物；（4）已與碼頭確認(rèn)已將貨物裝載至船舶，并已在碼頭存儲，或者，如果要直接轉(zhuǎn)移貨物，則將貨物裝在碼頭船隊(duì)的駁船中；（5）確定該貨物的狀況使船舶當(dāng)事方和所有監(jiān)管當(dāng)局滿意。除非滿足上述五個條件，否則準(zhǔn)備就緒通知將被視為無效。此外，用戶特別承認(rèn)，溫度，濕度和重量的變化以及自燃的變化是與處理煤炭，石油焦炭和其他貨物相關(guān)的內(nèi)在問題。在裝卸貨物之前，用戶的驗(yàn)船師應(yīng)確定貨物的溫度，濕度和狀況令人滿意。

2.5最近可用的錨地

正常情況下，要求遠(yuǎn)洋船舶提交泊位申請以利用碼頭設(shè)施的錨地在Davant錨地（53.5-54.5 LDB海里）或離路易斯安那州達(dá)芬特最近的錨地。

該船于4月13日約1400到SW Pass，但因港口擁堵而無法直接靠泊。船長于當(dāng)天1524遞交了NOR。然后，該船等到4月17日中午1200，引航員登船，將船舶引到到51海里處的錨地，于4月17日的1824抵達(dá)。在抵達(dá)該錨地之后不久，該船做了初始水尺檢驗(yàn)并通過了貨艙檢驗(yàn)，船長遞交了第二個NOR，并備注該NOR不影響第一個NOR的有效性。

船舶一直到4月24日1400才最終靠泊，當(dāng)時船長又遞交了第三個NOR，同樣批注不影響早先NOR的有效性。

船東爭辯說，第一個NOR是有效的，并且裝卸貨時間以此為基礎(chǔ)開始起算。承租人聲稱依據(jù)UBT規(guī)則，并說時間只有在船舶靠泊后才開始計算。承租人認(rèn)為，UBT規(guī)則優(yōu)先于船東和承租人之間另行商定的任何沖突條款。根據(jù)UBT規(guī)則，在遞交有效的NOR之前，該船必須處于裝卸泊位或最接近的可用錨地，并準(zhǔn)備好并適合于接收該貨物。

承租人還參考了通過概述合并到租船確認(rèn)書中的租船條款，即租船合同的印刷條款1，該條款規(guī)定⁴：船舶應(yīng)前往第10欄中規(guī)定的裝港或位置裝貨。以及印刷的第6條⁵，以及印刷的第41條⁶  的相關(guān)規(guī)定：

承租人認(rèn)為，SW Pass不是最接近的可用錨地。合并后的租船合同第1條中的刪除條款表明，該船必須駛向裝貨港本身，并且僅在此一個有效的準(zhǔn)備就緒通知即可。既然那沒有發(fā)生，那么只有船舶靠泊后時間才能開始。

       仲裁庭認(rèn)為，承租人對租船合同第1條的依賴被誤解了，因?yàn)檫@取決于隨后的內(nèi)容，包括第6條⁷。承租人還爭辯說，在任何情況下，只有通過貨艙檢查，該船才準(zhǔn)備就緒，而船舶在4月17日才通過貨艙檢查。此外，各種通知都沒有被接受，無論如何，第二和第三個通知是在受載期以外遞交的，因此是無效的。

仲裁庭認(rèn)為這些論點(diǎn)完全取決于承租人依賴UBT規(guī)則是否正確。合同中沒有要求在遞交有效的NOR之前，船舶必須通過任何檢查等。合同中也沒有任何要求承租人或其代理人接受通知的要求。同樣，它也沒有要求在受載期內(nèi)遞交NOR⁸。

仲裁庭認(rèn)為實(shí)際上，承租人所有的觀點(diǎn)都取決于他們所說的是否納入了UBT規(guī)則。仲裁庭認(rèn)為英國法律的立場是，當(dāng)合并的文件與當(dāng)事方訂立的主要協(xié)議的條款相抵觸時，相沖突的條款必須讓位與該主要協(xié)議中與之不一致的條款⁹。

仲裁庭認(rèn)為承接The Linardos¹⁰案中的這一原則，承租人所依賴的UBT規(guī)則的各個方面與租船合同概述中提到的基本協(xié)議的條款相抵觸，并通過合并的承租人條款得到加強(qiáng)¹¹。

仲裁庭認(rèn)為此外，就像在The Linardos案中一樣，UBT規(guī)則旨在管理碼頭和泊位用戶之間的合同關(guān)系，因此，當(dāng)將它們并入到租船合同時，必須牢記這一點(diǎn)，即使不考慮The Linardos案的原則，在租船合同中對這些條款進(jìn)行解釋時必須謹(jǐn)慎行事，以確保只有規(guī)則中與租船協(xié)議真正相關(guān)并兼容的條款才能生效¹²。

承租人的意見書僅提及第6條¹³關(guān)于裝卸時間計算的。仲裁庭認(rèn)為這實(shí)際上證實(shí)了總結(jié)中已達(dá)成的共識。如果說第41條的引述部分與租船確認(rèn)書中的條款相抵觸，那么根據(jù)合同概述的內(nèi)容，必須以合并租船合同的第6條為準(zhǔn)¹⁴。

承租人提到了The Agamemnon¹⁵案，他們認(rèn)為在SW Pass遞交的NOR為時過早，因?yàn)槟遣皇请x該泊位最近的錨地。仲裁庭認(rèn)為，在那個案中，重點(diǎn)實(shí)際上是有關(guān)無效通知以后是否可以生效；那個案中的船舶幾乎沒有在SW Pass等待：船舶在那兒停留了不到四個小時，然后就上引水到上游。但是在本案情況下，船舶必須在SW Pass錨地上等待很長時間，在此期間，錨地是船舶可以到達(dá)裝貨港的最近點(diǎn)。從當(dāng)時可以達(dá)到的程度來看，船舶是“在港口外”，并且盡可能地靠近港口，盡管離港口有相當(dāng)大的距離¹⁶。

仲裁庭認(rèn)為根據(jù)合同概述中商定的租船條款規(guī)定，該船有權(quán)在SW Pass遞交NOR，因?yàn)樵撐恢檬谴暗竭_(dá)港口時離港口最近的可用錨地，而UBT規(guī)則不影響該NOR的有效性¹⁷。

最終仲裁庭裁定船東的索賠成功了，他們將獲得109,495.83美元的索賠額，外加利息和費(fèi)用。

       關(guān)于NOR遞交及Laytime計算，日常中經(jīng)常會發(fā)生爭議，為避免由此帶來的不確定，船長在遞交NOR的時候一定要認(rèn)真查核租船合同中的相關(guān)規(guī)定。該NOR必須滿足租船合同中所要求的條件，避免遞交的NOR無效。

        如果沒有相反規(guī)定，船舶到達(dá)某個位置臨時停頓，而沒有拋錨或者臨時拋錨等待引水的情況下，遞交的NOR無效¹⁸。結(jié)束海上航行的時候和船舶是否抵達(dá)沒有關(guān)系，船長在EOSP的時候遞交的NOR無效¹⁹。

有些合同會規(guī)定必須在取得Free pratique之后才可以遞交NOR，那么船舶就必須在獲得free pratique之后才能遞交有效的NOR²⁰。此外如海關(guān)清關(guān)²¹，移民局許可²²，健康許可²³都屬于NOR遞交的條件。如果租約規(guī)定船舶必須抵達(dá)港界內(nèi)才可以遞交NOR，則在港界外遞交NOR無效²⁴。有些合同甚至規(guī)定了遞交NOR的方式，如果船長習(xí)慣性用電郵方式遞交NOR，則可能導(dǎo)致NOR無效²⁵。

 因此，作為謹(jǐn)慎的船長，遞交NOR必須嚴(yán)格按照合同條款規(guī)定，而不是按自己習(xí)慣來遞交。關(guān)于這方面的，可以參閱魏長庚船長等人翻譯的第7版的Laytime and Demurrage一書，經(jīng)典好書。

Footnotes

1. London Arbitration 15/21.

2. Fixturenote provides:

“- LOAD PORT: 1SP UBT DAVANT- USA (ATTACHED UBT RULES SHALL INCORPORATE WITH THIS CP

…

- SHOULD THE BERTH BE OCCUPIED OR SHOULD THE VESSEL BE PREVENTED FROM PROCEEDING TO THEBERTH AFTER HER ARRIVAL AT OR OFF THE PORT NOTICE OF READINESS MAY BE TENDEREDBY TELEX, FAX WWWW

- AT BOTH ENDSPORT LAYTIME SHALL COMMENCE TO  COUNT 12 HRS AFTER VALID NOR IS TENDEREDUNLESS OPERATIONS SOONER COMMENCED.  IN CASE SOONER COMMENCED, ACTUAL TIMEUSED TO COUNT.”

“WWWW” was anacronym for “wibon, wccon, wifpon, wipon”, ie “whether in berth or not, whethercustoms cleared or not, whether in free pratique or not, whether in port ornot”.

UBT Rules provides:

“2.2 NOTICE OF READINESS

In the case ofan Ocean Vessel to be loaded, issuance of the Notice of Readiness shall meanthat the Ocean Vessel (1) has obtained all requisite governmental approvals,inspections and clearances, including, but not limited to, those required bythe US Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and (2)is located at the Berth or Closest Available Anchorage (as defined in section2.5 below); and (3) is ready and suitable in all respects to receive the Cargoin all holds to be loaded; and (4) has confirmed with the Terminal that theCargo is to be loaded to Vessel is in storage at the Terminal or, if Cargo isto be direct transferred, is in barges in the Terminal’s fleet; and (5) hasdetermined that the Cargo is in a condition satisfactory to the Vessel Partyand all regulatory authorities for shipment. Notice of Readiness shall beconsidered invalid unless the aforementioned five conditions are met. Inaddition, User specifically acknowledges that varying temperatures, moistureand weight changes and spontaneous combustion constitute inherent problemsassociated with the handling of coal, petroleum coke and other Cargo. Prior toloading or unloading, User’s surveyor shall determine that the temperature,moisture and condition of the Cargo is satisfactory.

…

2.5 CLOSEST AVAILABLE ANCHORAGE

Ocean Vessel sfiling a Berth Application to utilize the Terminal facilities normally will be required to anchor at Davant Anchorage (Mile 53.5-54.5 LDB), or the closest available anchorage to Davant, Louisiana.”

4. Printed clause 1, provides:

“The saidVessel shall, , proceed to the loading port(s) or place(s) stated in Box 10”

5. Printed clause 6, provides:

“If theloading/disch berth is not available on the Vessel’s arrival at or off the portof loading/discharging, the vessel shall be entitled to give notice ofreadiness within ordinary office hours on arrival there, whether in freepratique or not, whether custom cleared or not.”

6. Printed clause 41, provides:

“In any casethe notice of readiness to load must be tendered once:

(a) has arrivedat the port limits

(b) is physically ready in all respects to load or discharge the nominated cargo.”

7.Tribunal held:

Held, that the charterers’ reliance on printed clause 1 of the charter was misplaced because that was subject to what followed, including clause 6.

8. Tribunal held:

Those arguments depended entirely on whether the charterers were right on the UBT Rules. Therewas no requirement in the contract for the vessel to have passed anyinspections, etc before giving a valid notice of readiness. Nor was there anyrequirement in the contract that notice be accepted by the charterers or theiragents. Similarly it contained no requirement that notice be given within thelaycan.

9. Tribunal held:

In effect, allthe charterers’ points depended on what they said was the incorporation of theUBT Rules. However, the position under English law was that where anincorporated document conflicted with the terms of the primary agreemententered into by parties, the conflicting terms had to give way to those in thatprimary agreement with which they were inconsistent.

10. The Linardos [1994] 1 Lloyd's Rep.28.

11. Tribunal held:

Applying theprinciple in The Linardos, the aspects of the UBT Rules relied on by thecharterers conflicted with the terms of the fundamental agreement as found inthe recap, and reinforced by the incorporated charter terms.

12. Tribunal held:

Further, asin The Linardos, the UBT Rules were designed to govern contractualrelationships between the terminal and users of the berth so, when reading theminto a charterparty that had to be borne in mind and, even without regard tothe Linardos principle, great caution had to be exercised ininterpreting them in the charterparty context so as to ensure that only thoseprovisions in the Rules that were truly relevant to and compatible with thecharter agreement were given effect to.

13.Clause 6 provides:

“If the loading/disch berth is not available on the Vessel’s arrival at or off the portof loading/discharging, the vessel shall be entitled to give notice ofreadiness within ordinary office hours on arrival there, whether in freepratique or not, whether custom cleared or not. Laytime or time on demurrageshall then count as if she were in berth and in all respects ready forloading/disch provided that the Master warrants that she is in fact ready inall respects. Time used in moving from the place of waiting to theloading/disch berth shall not count as laytime or time on demurrage. If, afterinspection, the Vessel is found not to be ready in all respects toload/discharge time lost after the discovery thereof until the vessel is againready to load/discharge [sh]all not count as laytime.”

14. Tribunal held:

That in effect confirmed what had been agreed in the recap. If it be said that the quoted partof clause 41 conflicted with that then, in the light of what the recapprovided, it and clause 6 of the incorporated charter had to prevail.

15. The Agamemnon [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep.675.

16. Tribunal held:

But the pointin that case was really as to whether an invalid notice could later becomevalid; and the vessel there hardly waited at the Southwest Pass: she was therefor less than four hours before moving up the river. In the present case, thevessel had to wait a long time at an anchorage which was, during that time, thenearest point that she could get to the loading port. She was, so far as couldbe attained at the time, “off the port”, and as close to the port as she couldbe, albeit a considerable distance away from it.

17. Tribunal held:

In the light ofthe charter provisions agreed in the recap, the vessel was entitled to givenotice of readiness at the Southwest Pass as that was the nearest availableanchorage off the port at the time she arrived there, and the UBT Rules did notaffect that position.

18. Laytime and Demurrage at paras.3.54, Voyage Charters at paras.57.4, London Arbitration 8/03,The Maratha Envoy [1978]A.C.1.

19. London Arbitration 16/05.

20. The Eagle Valencia [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.257 (C.A.).

21. The Savvas [1982]1 Lloyd’s Rep.22.

22. The Aello [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.623.

23.The Austin Friars (1894)10 TLR 633.

24. The Arundel Castle [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.370.

25.The Port Russel [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.57.