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 alleged 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 the 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.
|Published (Last):||10 January 2017|
|PDF File Size:||6.61 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.48 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Loading was stopped because the vessel's air draft, i. As a consequence, the loading chute was removed to avoid damage. The owners' defence to the charterers' claim that this period should not count as laytime was that the charterers were aware of the vessel's characteristics including her air draft and, in addition, awaiting a low tide whereupon the loading chute could have been returned did not amount to an exception on which the charterers could rely.
The owners were obliged to be aware of any restrictions at the named loading port and it was their responsibility to ensure that the ship could load within those applicable restrictions. Loading was then interrupted a second time. According to the contemporaneous correspondence, two events occurred. The camera on the ship loader, required for loading operations, broke down and, at around the same time, the loading port experienced heavy weather. The charterers claimed that this interruption to loading fell within the weather exception in clause 28 of the charter and should be discounted from laytime.
However, it was not clear from the contemporaneous evidence which event had occurred first - i. The distinction was important. However, if loading had stopped initially because the camera's defect was caused as a result of the bad weather, then the period would fall within the exceptions to laytime under clause 28 of the charterparty. The charterers sought to rely upon the laytime exception that time should not count as they said the stoppage had been caused by bad weather.
Library Sector Insights. The tribunal found that the owners in this case were obliged to be aware of any restrictions at a named loading port and that it was their responsibility to ensure that the vessel could load within the applicable restrictions.
The case also considers the charterers' burden of proof when asserting that an exception to laytime exists: that burden - being placed firmly on the charterers' shoulders - is to show that the exception they seek to rely on exists on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the charterers must persuade a tribunal that it is more probable than not that the facts are as they assert them to be.
The background facts The vessel in question was chartered to carry a cargo of iron ore pellets in bulk from a named Canadian port to China.
A dispute arose as to whether two periods of time at the loading port counted as laytime. First disputed period Loading was stopped because the vessel's air draft, i. Second disputed period Loading was then interrupted a second time. Ian Cranston Ruth Monahan. Search Library To view articles by sector and or location or to search within articles please use the options below Search terms. View articles Clear all filters. Related content: Jamila Khan Maritime.
Laytime and demurrage in wet cargo trade
Live Online: Dry Cargo Laytime & Demurrage