Ship Chartering

1- Understanding Charterparty and Bill of Lading (B/L)

When a Shipowner, either directly or via a Shipbroker, commits to transporting goods by sea or to provide a ship for such a purpose, this agreement is termed a Charterparty. These contracts can adopt various formats, though typically they fall into two categories: those formalized in Charterparties and those documented by Bills of Lading (B/L). When the Shipowner commits the entire capacity of his ship for a specific voyage or a defined time period, it usually constitutes a Charterparty. Conversely, if the Shipowner operates his ship within the liner trade, offering transport services to any interested party, the contract generally manifests as a Bill of Lading (B/L). It’s important to note that the categories of Charterparty and Bill of Lading (B/L) are not entirely distinct, as it’s common for a Charterer to lease a ship for a certain duration and then use it as a general carrier.

Charterparty is a freely negotiated contract, solely influenced by the Laws of Supply and Demand. The negotiating power of the parties (Shipowners and Charterers) hinges on the prevailing conditions of the shipping market. Nevertheless, both Shipowner and Charterer freely negotiate their terms without any legal restrictions. Typically, Shipowners and Charterers opt for a Standard Charterparty Form as the foundation of their contract, to which they often add Additional Clauses (Rider Clauses) tailored to their specific needs. These Standard Charterparty Forms have diverse origins—some have evolved over years linked to specific trades like grain, coal, or iron ore, while others are crafted by firms monopolizing particular sectors like oil transport. Many such forms have been created over the past century by documentary committees from organizations such as the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, BIMCO, and the Japanese Shipping Exchange, representing both shipowner and charterer interests.

The availability of these standard forms significantly benefits international trade, especially when Shipowners and Charterers are based in different countries and face language barriers. Familiarity with a Standard Charterparty Form prevents parties from being caught off-guard by unexpected clauses, allowing them to focus on core terms like Freight, Laytime, and Demurrage Rates. The global adoption of Standard Charterparty Forms also ensures uniform application of laws and their interpretation by courts. However, these benefits can diminish when parties merely use the standard form as a template for their contract. Based on their bargaining strengths, they may modify existing clauses and introduce new ones, resulting in a contract that barely resembles the original form. This often leads to confusion and promotes litigation.

There are primarily two basic types of Ship Charter:

1. Voyage Charter
2. Time Charter

Additionally, there is the Demise Charter or Bareboat Charter, which, although not technically a carriage charter, is a lease of the ship that transfers possession as well as management and navigation to the Charterer. Depending on whether the ship is chartered for a set time or one or more voyages, in both instances the Shipowner maintains control over equipping and managing the ship and commits to providing a transport service. In a Voyage Charter, the Shipowner pledges to transport a cargo between specific points. In contrast, in a Time Charter, the Shipowner makes his ship’s carrying capacity available to the Charterer for a defined period. A typical instance of a Voyage Charter occurs when a seller under a CIF contract, having agreed to transport goods to the buyer, charters a ship for the journey. Alternatively, a Time Charter is often employed by Carriers looking to expand their fleet temporarily without the costs associated with purchasing or operating a ship.

Before delving into the specifics of these two primary forms of Ship Charter, it is crucial to acknowledge the existence of various hybrid contracts that arise from the freedom of contractual negotiation. One such hybrid is the Trip-Time Charter (TCT), which involves a Time Charter for a ship specifically for a cargo voyage. Unlike a Voyage Charter where freight is typically charged per unit of cargo upon voyage completion, a Trip-Time Charter (TCT) ensures that the Shipowner is compensated for the entire duration of the voyage until the cargo is unloaded at its destination. A variant of this form is designed to safeguard the Shipowner in scenarios where the discharge port is remote and unlikely to provide subsequent cargoes, requiring the hire payment to continue until the ship returns to more frequented trade routes.

Another hybrid is the Consecutive Voyage Charter (CVC), where the ship, chartered for a specific time frame, is obligated to complete multiple voyages between designated ports during that period. An alternative, known as the Contract of Affreightment (COA), serves a similar purpose, involving the Shipowner’s commitment to transport specified quantities of a bulk commodity between certain ports over time, choosing the ships as he deems fit.

These two basic types of Ship Charter, the Voyage Charter and the Time Charter, are fundamentally different in their operation. While both ensure that the Shipowner remains in charge of the ship’s management, offering a transport service, their roles diverge significantly:

• In a Voyage Charter, the Shipowner agrees to move a specific cargo from one port to another. Here, the Shipowner assumes most operational responsibilities but is exposed to risks such as delays from uncontrollable factors, which might affect the fixed freight rate.
• In contrast, a Time Charter allows the Charterer extensive control over the commercial use of the ship within agreed limits, typically making the Charterer responsible for direct costs resulting from their directives, like fuel expenses, port charges, and loading/unloading costs. The Charterer must also cover any liabilities arising from the issuance of Bills of Lading (B/L) under their direction. In this arrangement, the Shipowner benefits from a more predictable revenue stream through a flat Hire Rate, regardless of operational delays unless they stem from factors attributable to the Shipowner, such as mechanical failures or crew issues, which might trigger an Off-Hire Clause.

The method of payment also distinguishes the two types. Voyage Charters often involve a lump sum payment for the entire journey or a rate based on the cargo amount. Time Charters, however, charge based on the time the ship is under the Charterer’s control, taking into consideration the essential duration for the operation and any potential delays that extend this period. This pricing model focuses negotiations on the expected time required to complete the transport, the allowed number of Lay Days for loading and unloading, and the Demurrage costs if these Lay Days are exceeded.

These structural distinctions not only define the operational responsibilities and financial liabilities between the Shipowner and Charterer but also shape the contractual landscape in maritime freight, catering to the diverse needs of global trade.

Bill of Lading (B/L) Contract

Charterers’ Bill of Lading (B/L) in Bulk Shipping

Challenges often occur when attempting to differentiate the impact of two types of Contracts of Carriage, particularly when both Charterparty and Bill of Lading (B/L) are utilized simultaneously. In such scenarios, Charterers transporting their goods on a chartered ship need confirmation of the quantity and condition of goods loaded. A Bill of Lading (B/L) provided to a Charterer under these conditions primarily serves as Receipts for the shipped cargo and as potential Documents of Title (DOT) if the Charterer opts to sell the goods while in transit. However, the Bill of Lading (B/L) does not verify the terms of the Charterparty between the Shipowner and Charterer, as their agreement is exclusively dictated by the Charterparty. Furthermore, the Hague Visby Rules do not govern the Contract of Carriage while the Bill of Lading (B/L) is retained by the Charterer, though these rules become applicable once the cargo is sold and the Bill of Lading (B/L) is transferred to a third party.

Time Charters typically grant the Charterer the authority to issue Bill of Lading (B/L) on behalf of third party Shippers and to submit them to the Ship Master for signature in exchange for an indemnity from the Charterer for any extra liabilities the Shipowner incurs as a result. This privilege is crucial, for instance, when a ship is chartered to enhance the Charterer’s fleet, thus allowing him to manage the ship’s commercial operations. In such cases, the Bill of Lading (B/L) becomes the primary contractual document concerning the Shipper, governing the Contract of Carriage just as if the ship were not chartered. Between the Shipper and Carrier, the terms of the Charterparty are irrelevant unless explicitly included in the Bill of Lading (B/L) contract. Nonetheless, there often remains the underlying issue of determining whether, under the Bill of Lading (B/L), the Shipowner or the Charterer should be considered the Carrier for the purposes of the Hague Visby Rules.

Bareboat Charterparty

The Bareboat Charter or Demise Charter, which is distinct from other charter types previously discussed, functions as a lease of the ship rather than a Contract of Carriage. This form of charter parallels hiring a self-drive car as opposed to using a taxi service. In a typical Time Charter, the Shipowner maintains control over the ship’s operations. However, under a Bareboat Charter or Demise Charter, the Charterer replaces the owner and, during the lease period, takes possession and full control of the ship.

In a Bareboat Charter, the Charterer staffs and outfits the ship and takes on all responsibilities for its Navigation and Management. Essentially, the Charterer acts as the Shipowner throughout the charter’s term, covering all operational costs and insuring the ship.

The Bareboat Charter or Demise Charter is particularly apt for government shipping operations, especially during wartime or other emergencies. In the private sector, it offers a Shipowner the opportunity to expand his fleet temporarily without the financial burdens of ownership, yet allows for complete control over the chartered ship. This charter type can also serve as a Hire-Purchase Agreement, securing the financing company while the ship’s purchase price is paid off in installments. Although Bareboat Charters or Demise Charters are less common than Voyage Charters and Time Charters, their usage has increased recently, notably in the oil tanker sector and for government leases.

As the Charterer in a Bareboat Charter or Demise Charter acts almost as the ship’s owner, they are considered the Carrier under the Hague Visby Rules. Thus, the Bareboat Charterer or Demise Charterer is accountable for any damage to the cargo and is liable under any Bill of Lading (B/L) signed by the Ship Master. Conversely, the Bareboat Charterer or Demise Charterer is entitled to any salvage the ship earns. Since the Shipowner does not possess the ship, he cannot place a lien over cargo as security for the Charter Hire.

What is the difference between Bareboat Charter and Demise Charter?:

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Bareboat Charter and Demise Charter differences www.handybulk.com

2- Implied Obligations in Charterparty

Alongside the Express Clauses agreed upon by the Shipowner and Charterer, every Charterparty is shaped against a backdrop of customary commercial practices, from which a series of obligations are implied. These are inherently incorporated into the Charterparty unless explicitly stated otherwise. Originating from the law merchant, these obligations yield consistent outcomes at Common Law, whether the Charterparty terms are specified within a Charterparty or documented through a Bill of Lading (B/L). However, an important caveat exists. Under Charterparties governed by the Hague Visby Rules, the range and application of these implied obligations are modified, and the capacity of both the Shipowner and Charterer to mutually exclude these obligations is significantly restricted.

2.1- Dangerous Cargoes

The framework at Common Law has been bolstered by various statutes aimed at regulating the shipment of specific cargo categories. These laws generally establish protocols for marking, packing, and stowing cargoes, with compliance enforced through fines and other penalties. An early example of such legislation is found in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (S446), which mandates that Shippers of certain listed cargoes must notify the Ship Master or Shipowner of their characteristics prior to shipment and clearly label the exterior of any package or container with the nature of the cargoes. Failure to comply results in a penalty of £100 for each violation. Additionally, if Unmarked Cargoes are loaded without the required notification to the carrier, the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (S448) allows the Ship Master or Shipowner to dispose of such cargoes overboard without facing any civil or criminal liability.

Subsequent legislation includes regulations set forth by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (S85), which aim to enact the safety measures outlined in the International Conventions for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). The current Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 implement the 1974 SOLAS Convention and its 1978 Protocol, as amended. These regulations classify Dangerous Cargoes according to the IMDG Code (International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code) and other designated IMO (International Maritime Organization) publications, and they detail comprehensive standards for the documentation, marking, packaging, and stowing of such cargoes. Additionally, there are more specialized codes governing the transport of bulk cargoes like grain, iron ore, oil, and coal.

2.2- Seaworthiness and Cargoworthiness

In every Charterparty, it is an implied obligation to ensure the ship is Seaworthy, capable of facing and surviving the sea’s perils and other inherent risks during a voyage. In most Charterparties, this implied promise is bolstered by an Express Term to the same effect. For example, the preamble of the NYPE Form (New York Produce Exchange Form) mandates that the ship must be “tight, staunch, strong, and fully equipped for the service”. This obligation extends beyond the physical condition of the ship to include the crew’s competence and adequacy, the adequacy of fuel and supplies, and the necessary facilities for transporting the cargo.

At Common Law, the duty of the Shipowner to provide a Seaworthy Ship is absolute. If breached, the Shipowner is liable regardless of fault, implying not just an effort to make the ship fit, but a guarantee of its fitness. However, the obligation does not demand a flawless ship, but one that is reasonably suitable for its intended purpose. The requisite standard is not for a ship free of accidents or one that could withstand all possible dangers, but rather one that a prudent Shipowner would deem fit at the start of the voyage, considering all potential circumstances. This standard varies based on the voyage’s nature, the cargo type, and potential dangers along the route. Although this Common Law obligation can be waived by a specific clause in the Charterparty, courts typically interpret such clauses narrowly, as seen in the Nelson Line v Nelson case where a clause exempting the Shipowner from liability for damage “capable of being covered by insurance” did not exclude liability for damage due to unseaworthiness. To effectively exclude liability, such Clauses must be clearly and unambiguously stated. An example is The Irbenskiy Proliv case, where a Bill of Lading (B/L) Clause was broad enough to exclude all liability for unseaworthiness, despite the claimant’s argument against its validity.

Under the Hague Visby Rules, the Absolute Obligation at Common Law is replaced by a Duty to Exercise Due Diligence to ensure the Ship is Seaworthy. Thus, while the Carrier is no longer absolutely liable without fault, they remain responsible for their negligence and that of any party, including independent contractors, tasked with making the ship Seaworthy. This shift in liability comes with a rule that nullifies any attempts by the Carrier to further diminish or negate his obligation to provide a Seaworthy Ship.

Many modern standard Charterparty Forms now incorporate the Hague Visby Rules concerning Seaworthiness. For instance, the NYPE Form (New York Produce Exchange Form) uses a Clause Paramount to expressly integrate the provisions of the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936, and the Baltime Form negates the Shipowner’s liability for cargo loss or damage unless due to a lack of due diligence by the Shipowners or their Manager in preparing the ship for seaworthiness and readiness for the voyage.

These developments suggest that the Common Law Absolute Obligation to provide a Seaworthy Ship has been transitioned to a Duty to Exercise Due Diligence.

The obligation for the Shipowner to provide a Seaworthy Ship entails a dual responsibility. Firstly, the ship must be appropriately manned and equipped to handle the common perils it may encounter during its duties, and secondly, it must be Cargoworthy, meaning it should be in a suitable condition to carry the specified cargo.

Regarding the first aspect of Seaworthiness, the Common Law implied obligation covers not just the physical state of the ship and its equipment but also extends to the competence of the crew and the adequacy of stores and documentation. For instance, a ship would clearly be deemed Unseaworthy if it has faulty engines or a defective compass, or if cargo is stored in a way that makes the ship unstable. Similarly, the Shipowner would breach this obligation by hiring an incompetent engineer or other officers, taking insufficient fuel on board for the journey, or if the voyage’s documentation is lacking. However, once these legal prerequisites are met, the implied obligation does not extend to issues like recommended manning levels or employment conditions set by external bodies like trade unions.

In a Voyage Charter, the duty to ensure the ship is Seaworthy applies at the departure for the Charter Voyage. It does not matter if there were defects rendering the Ship Unseaworthy during the initial journey to the loading port or during the loading process, as long as these issues are rectified by the Time of Departure.

The obligation is considered fulfilled if the ship is Seaworthy at departure, regardless of subsequent events during the voyage or at intermediary stops. “The warranty is merely concerning the ship’s condition at a specific moment—departure. It does not guarantee continuous fitness throughout the voyage. Should any incident occur that damages the cargo, the Shipowner is liable unless the damage stems from a cause within the agreed exceptions.” This means that for a Consecutive Voyage Charter (CVC), the obligation to provide a Seaworthy Ship arises at the start of each voyage executed under the charter. Similarly, if a Voyage Charter is segmented by agreement between the Shipowner and Charterer, the duty to make the Ship Seaworthy recurs at the beginning of each segment. However, the scenario differs under a Time Charter where the obligation is only applicable at the Time of Delivery of the ship under the Time Charterparty, usually complemented by a Maintenance Clause requiring the Shipowner to “maintain the ship in excellent operational condition throughout the charter.”

The second aspect of the Seaworthiness obligation at Common Law concerns the ship’s Cargoworthiness. The Shipowner must ensure the ship is ready to receive the agreed cargo. This would not be met if, for example, the ship’s holds require Fumigating or Cleaning to be ready for cargo, if there’s a malfunction in the refrigeration system meant to transport frozen meat, or if the pumps are insufficient to handle excess water from the cargo. This warranty of Cargoworthiness is active from the start of loading. “The guarantee implies that when the cargo is loaded, the ship must be capable of handling it and the usual perils of the loading process, but there’s no ongoing guarantee once the cargo is aboard that the ship remains suitable through to departure, regardless of any incidents in the interim.” Therefore, in McFadden v Blue Star Line, when cargo was safely loaded but later damaged due to mishandling by the ship’s engineer, it was ruled that the damage post-loading did not violate the Cargoworthiness Warranty.

The inclusion of Hague Visby Rules in many modern Charterparty Forms might influence the operation of the implied Seaworthiness obligation. In Adamastos Shipping Co v Anglo-Saxon Petroleum, the Voyage Charter included a Clause Paramount incorporating the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 provisions, which were treated as if directly written into the Charterparty. Consequently, the majority of the House of Lords acknowledged the Hague Visby Rules’ provisions for all voyages under the Charterparty, irrespective of their geographical routes or cargo status. Some legal opinions suggest that under the Hague Visby Rules, the obligation to Exercise Due Diligence to ensure the Ship is Seaworthy should be considered for each voyage under a Time Charter. However, Mustill J expressed caution in The Hermosa case, noting that the typical terms regarding initial Seaworthiness and ongoing maintenance in most Time Charters do not easily align with the Hague Rules’ framework, which mandates Due Diligence for each voyage.

Proof of Unseaworthiness rests with the party alleging it, often supported by judicial inferences, such as seawater in the hold generally being treated as Prima Facie Evidence of Unseaworthiness. Once a breach is established, the claimant must prove that this Unseaworthiness caused the specific loss complained of. For instance, in International Packers v Ocean Steamship Co., cargo damage was attributed not to Unseaworthiness but to crew negligence in securing hatch covers.

Regarding remedies for breach, courts avoid rigid classifications into Conditions or Warranties, preferring to view the obligation to provide a Seaworthy Ship as an Innominate Term (Intermediate Term), as seen in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki. This approach allows for responses proportional to the breach’s severity—permitting contract termination for severe breaches while limiting less serious breaches to damage claims. Thus, the remedy available depends on the breach’s impact on the Charterparty’s overall benefit, judged on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, the provisions for breach and remedies in Charterparty cases are nuanced, relying heavily on the specific circumstances of each case and the contractual terms agreed upon by the parties.

Where a breach is detected before the performance of the Charterparty has commenced, the Charterer may treat his obligations under the Charterparty as discharged if the breach significantly deprives him of the entire benefit of the Charterparty, and if the breach is unrectifiable within a reasonable time frame. For example, in the Stanton v Richardson case, the ship’s pumping equipment was insufficient for handling surplus water from a cargo of wet sugar. It was determined that the new pumps could not be installed swiftly enough, allowing the Charterer to repudiate the Charterparty.

Conversely, if the breach’s effects are less severe, the Charterer’s remedy is limited to seeking damages. The permissible duration for remedying the defect may vary depending on whether it’s a Voyage Charter or a Time Charter. A brief delay might frustrate the purpose of a Voyage Charter, whereas a Time Charter might tolerate a longer delay without being frustrated. This was exemplified in the Hong Kong Fir case where the Court of Appeal held that a ship’s unavailability for five months for repairs did not frustrate the purpose of a 24-month Time Charter.

Moreover, specific clauses in the Time Charter might provide the Charterer with additional options if the Shipowner fails to rectify a defect before the specified Cancelling Date. For instance, under Clause 22 of the Baltime Charterparty Form, the Charterer has the right to cancel the Charterparty unless the ship is delivered by a certain date, fully prepared for ordinary cargo service. This was effectively applied in The Madeleine case, where the Charterer was able to cancel due to the Shipowner’s failure to provide the required Deratisation Certificate by the Cancelling Date, as stated by Roskill J: “there was here an Express Warranty of Seaworthiness and unless the ship was timely delivered in a Seaworthy condition, including the necessary certificate from the Port Health Authority (PHA), the Charterers had the right to cancel.” Such a right to cancel does not necessarily depend on a breach of obligation by the Shipowners.

When the Unseaworthy state of the ship is discovered only after it has set sail, the mere acceptance of the ship does not imply that the Charterer waives his right to claim damages, nor does it necessarily waive the right to repudiate the Charter provided that the discovered breach is sufficiently serious. This holds particularly true for Time Charters. In the case of a Voyage Charter, if the breach is not noticeable before the ship departs, the Charterer might have limited chances to detect it before the ship completes its journey and the contract is fully performed.

The determination of what remedies are available to the Charterer in the event of a breach of this intermediate obligation by the Shipowner depends on whether the breach occurs before or after the ship has commenced its Charterparty performance. If before, the Charterer can treat his obligations under the Charterparty as ended if the breach fundamentally undermines the whole benefit of the Charterparty, and it is irremediable within a timeframe that would prevent the Charterparty’s purpose from being thwarted. If after, the Charterer is confined to damages unless the breach’s severity justifies repudiation.

In summary, the legal framework surrounding Seaworthiness in Charterparties is complex, shaped by the specifics of each case and the clauses of the Charterparty. Whether a Charterer can repudiate the Charterparty or is restricted to claiming damages often hinges on the nature of the breach, its timing, and the Charterparty’s specific terms.

2.3- Deviation

The Shipowner, whether managing a Liner Service or operating under a Charter, inherently commits to ensuring his ship does not stray from the agreed voyage while fulfilling the terms of the Charterparty. Deviation is typically described as “an intentional and unreasonable alteration of the voyage’s geographical course as outlined in the contract.” To establish if such a Deviation has taken place, one must first identify the intended route set by the Charterparty. Although some standard Charterparty Forms explicitly dictate the route, in their absence, it is generally assumed that the ship should take the shortest Geographical Route between the loading and discharge ports. However, this assumption can be challenged if the Shipowner presents evidence of the Customary Route used in the trade or the route historically taken by the specific shipping line. For instance, in the Reardon Smith Line v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance case, a ship that was to travel from a Black Sea port to Sparrow Point deviated from the direct route to refuel in Constanza, attracted by the availability of inexpensive fuel. Evidence showed that it was common for ships in that trade to stop in Constanza, with 25% of ocean-going ships traversing the Bosphorus Strait adopting this practice. Consequently, the House of Lords ruled that there was no Deviation from the usual route. Lord Porter succinctly summarized the law:
“It is the obligation of a ship, especially on an ocean journey from one port to another, to follow the common route between those ports. Without contrary evidence, this route is presumed to be the direct geographical path, but it can be altered for navigational or other reasons. Evidence defining the typical route is always permissible unless a specific path is mandated by the Charterparty or Bill of Lading (B/L).”

An Unjustifiable Deviation occurs when the departure from the Contractual Voyage results from a deliberate decision by the Shipowner or the Ship Master. Therefore, there is no violation of this implied commitment if external factors like a storm misdirect the ship, or if navigational errors arise due to the Ship Master’s illness or a malfunctioning compass.

Justifiable Deviations at Common Law:

To prevent harm to the ship or its cargo: the Ship Master is obligated to use reasonable care and skill to ensure a successful voyage, which may include the right to Deviate from the set course to protect the ship and its cargo. Typically, the Ship Master is duty-bound to take such measures. Risks might stem from natural elements like storms, ice, or fog, or from political issues such as war or the threat of interception by enemy forces. However, the threat must be significantly enduring; a temporary hindrance like a tug shortage or a neap tide does not justify a major alteration in the voyage. A common example of a permissible Deviation occurs when the ship, for safety, must enter a port for repairs due to damages incurred during the journey. The cause of the damage, even if it is initial Unseaworthiness of the Ship, is usually irrelevant. For instance, in the Kish v Taylor case, a ship initially chartered to carry a complete load of timber from two Gulf of Mexico ports to the West Continent had to source additional timber from other Shippers after the Charterer failed to provide the full load. Some of this timber was stored on deck, making the ship Unseaworthy. After encountering severe squalls that jeopardized the ship’s safety by shifting the deck cargo, the Ship Master docked in Halifax for essential repairs before continuing to Liverpool to unload. Despite allegations of an Unjustifiable Deviation to Halifax, the House of Lords affirmed the Deviation’s legitimacy, attributing justification to the presence of danger rather than its origin. Lord Atkinson highlighted the policy implications: “The existence of danger, not its cause, defines the nature of a Deviation. Should a ship master, through his own fault or a breach by his owner, find his ship in jeopardy, is he compelled to proceed regardless of risk, or can he seek safety only at the risk of voiding the contract of affreightment?” In such cases, it is prudent to afford the Ship Master the benefit of the doubt since: “Nothing could, in my view, more likely increase the perils faced by life and property at sea than to compel a merchant ship’s master to choose between such alternatives.” It appears a Deviation might be justified even if the risk only concerns the ship and not the Cargo. Conversely, it’s unclear whether a duty to Deviate arises when only slight or partial damage to the cargo is likely. Although the Ship Master should consider both the ship and cargo interests, “I am not ready to assert that the moment it’s clear some damage will occur to part of the cargo, the captain must reverse course, potentially causing substantial expense.” The decision on whether a Deviation is justified under such conditions likely hinges on weighing the danger’s severity against the costs and disruptions of evasive actions.

To rescue human lives or a ship in Distress if lives are at risk: “Deviation to save lives is protected and does not lead to insurance forfeiture or liability for the goods,” according to the Shipowner regarding losses typically excluded under Perils of the Seas. Consequently, Deviation to contact a ship in Distress is permissible, especially if the distressed ship’s situation poses a life threat. Conversely, Deviation solely to save property does not receive the same protection and incurs usual Deviation consequences. In one case, a ship diverted to respond to a Distress Call had the opportunity to rescue the crew of a distressed ship but chose to tow it for salvage instead. Caught in a storm during this operation, the ship ran aground, losing its cargo. This Deviation for salvage purposes was deemed unjustified, and the Shipowners were held liable for the cargo loss, despite it being covered under Perils of the Sea in the Charterparty. The situation would have differed had the weather necessitated towing to save the crew’s lives.

Charterer’s default necessitates the Deviation: Deviation may be warranted to dock and unload Dangerous Cargo loaded without the Shipowner’s knowledge by the Charterer. Similarly, the Ship Master might need to Deviate to acquire additional cargo if the Charterer fails to fulfill his obligation to load a complete cargo.

Justifiable Deviations under the Hague Visby Rules:

In addition to the justifications recognized under Common Law, Article IV rule 4 of the Hague Visby Rules introduces two additional grounds: “Deviation in saving or attempting to save property at sea” and “Any Reasonable Deviation.” Courts in the United Kingdom have interpreted “Reasonable Deviation” quite narrowly, resulting in few reported cases where this principle has been successfully applied.

Liberty Clauses in Charterparty

Most Standard Charterparty Forms include a Liberty Clause that allows the Ship Master to Deviate for specified reasons. For example, Clause 3 of the Gencon Charterparty Form states: “The ship has liberty to call at any port or ports in any order, for any purpose, to sail without pilots, to tow and/or assist ships in all situations, and also to deviate for the purpose of saving life and/or property.” Liberty Clauses in different Charterparty Forms may permit Deviation for various reasons, such as Bunkering (Fueling), adjusting compasses or radio equipment, or for the boarding and disembarking of crew members.

Although these Liberty Clauses, if taken literally, could have extensive implications, they are mainly included for the Shipowner’s advantage. Consequently, courts often employ the principle of Contra Proferentem (which favors the interpretation against the party who drafted the ambiguous term) to interpret these clauses very narrowly. In the Glynn v Margetson case, for instance, oranges were shipped from Malaga to Liverpool under a Bill of Lading (B/L) that granted the Shipowner “liberty to proceed to and stay at any port or ports in any rotation.” Despite the clause’s broad wording, the courts ruled it did not shield the Shipowner when the ship docked at non-Geographical Route ports, resulting in damaged cargo upon arrival. Lord Esher, in a similar case, stated that such a Charterparty Term is usually understood to mean the ship may only stop at ports that are natural and customary on the specified voyage. Even if the clause says the ship can call at any ports, the usual interpretation is that the ship is only allowed to stop at ports along the Geographical Route; hence, the phrase “in any order” is often added. Regardless, Lord Esher noted that the ports must be substantially along the voyage’s course.
These principles of interpretation rely heavily on the skill of the draftsman and can be circumvented with precise language. For example, Clause 13 of the Nubaltwood Charterparty Form permits the Shipowner to call “at any port or ports whatsoever in any order in or out of the route or in a contrary direction to or beyond the port of destination.” Courts have fully enforced such Liberty Clauses, interpreting them as granting the ship freedom to navigate as desired, provided the voyage’s primary purpose is not thwarted.
A complication arises when Standard Charterparty Forms explicitly incorporate the Hague Visby Rules, which set the minimum protections for the Cargo Owner that cannot be diminished by mutual consent. How do these Liberty Clauses align with the requirement in Art IV Rule 4 that a Deviation, unless to Save Life or Property, must be reasonable? U.S. courts have adopted a stringent approach, validating Liberty Clauses in the Charterparty only as far as the Deviation remains Reasonable. English courts, however, view an Express Liberty Clause as delineating the contractual voyage’s boundaries rather than excusing departures by the Shipowner from this route. According to Hodson LJ, “the purpose of the Hague Visby Rules is not to define the contract of service’s scope but to stipulate the terms under which that service is to be performed.” It is likely the same interpretation would apply if a Bill of Lading (B/L) issued under a Charterparty explicitly includes a Liberty Clause from the charter.

At Common Law, any Unjustifiable Deviation from the prescribed route is seen as a fundamental breach of the Charterparty. “The departure from the voyage agreed upon is a breach by the Shipowner of his contract, a breach so serious that no matter how minor the Deviation, the other party to the contract may consider it a fundamental breach, thus freeing himself from all Charterparty Terms,” it is often stated. Traditionally, a Fundamental Breach differed from a condition because it entitled the Innocent Party to Repudiate his obligations under the Charterparty and sue for extensive Damages, ignoring any Exceptions or Limitation of Liability Clauses in the Charterparty.

Historically, this importance was due to Marine Insurance practices in the United Kingdom and the United States, where a Deviation would void cargo insurance coverage. The strict liability imposed on the Shipowner aimed to protect the Cargo Owner. Modern insurance practices have mitigated this issue; policies usually feature a Held Covered Clause allowing for coverage extension in case of Deviation for an Additional Premium (Extra Premium). Along with the introduction of broad Liberty Clauses into Charterparties, these changes have diminished the practical significance of the Deviation concept.

Recent judicial opinions, notably in the Suisse Atlantique and Photo Production v Securicor cases, have cast doubt on whether the strict interpretation of Deviation as a legal rule can persist. These rulings suggest that the concept of fundamental breach as a legal rule was a judicial mistake initially meant to shield consumers from Exclusion Clauses, a need which the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 has made redundant. In commercial contexts, a return to strict contractual interpretation allows parties to freely negotiate contracts and allocate risks.

What does this mean for the traditional understanding of Deviation? On one side, Lord Wilberforce in the Photo Production v Securicor case suggested that Deviation cases might be considered unique due to their historical and commercial contexts. Alternatively, as seen in The Antares case, the Court of Appeal believed Deviation should be integrated into standard contract law, where the entire contract terms, including Exceptions and Liberty Clauses, are evaluated to determine if they were intended to apply to a changed voyage. With such comprehensive tools available, the necessity of a legal rule specific to Deviation is questionable, as expressed by a modern legal scholar: “All the common law control methods are preserved, and these are enhanced by the necessity of reasonableness. The rules of interpretation still predominantly disadvantage the proferens. A skilled judge should easily be able to dismiss an undesirable exemption clause.”

Therefore, what is the Effect of Deviation on the Charterparty? Traditionally, in the event of an Unjustified Deviation, however minor, the Charterer has the option to either view the breach as a Repudiation of the Charterparty or to Waive the breach, leading to a limited recourse for Damages. A similar stance might be taken by a court that finds, upon interpretation, that the Charterparty terms do not apply to the altered voyage. However, this traditional stance should be cautiously regarded until the implications of the decision in the Photo Production v Securicor case are fully understood.

Despite Deviation being a Fundamental Breach of the Charterparty, the Charterer may choose to overlook it and continue to treat the Charterparty as valid since “even a fundamental condition can be waived by the cargo owner.” This approach is common in many instances where the Deviation causes minimal or no loss to the Charterer. In such cases, all Charterparty terms, including Exceptions and Limitation of Liability provisions, remain in effect. Additionally, the Shipowner retains the right to claim Freight and General Average (GA) contributions, while the Charterer’s recourse is limited to seeking damages for any loss due to the deviation that is not exempted by an exception.

A notable example illustrating the Charterer’s options occurred in the Hain SS Co v Tate & Lyle case. A ship was contracted to pick up a sugar cargo from two Cuban ports and one in San Domingo, as nominated by the Charterer. Due to a communication failure by the Shipowner’s Agents, the Ship Master was unaware of the San Domingo port nomination. After loading at the Cuban ports, the Ship Master headed to Queenstown for further instructions. Once the error was realized, the Ship Master was directed back to San Domingo to collect the remaining cargo. However, the ship ran aground leaving Queenstown, resulting in partial cargo loss, with the rest transferred to another vessel for the voyage to the United Kingdom. Before the ship reached its destination, the Bills of Lading (B/L) for the sugar were endorsed to Tate & Lyle, who received the cargo unaware of the Deviation. The court recognized the Deviation as a Fundamental Breach of the Charterparty, giving the Charterers the right to deem the Charterparty repudiated. However, fully aware of the circumstances, the Charterers chose to waive the breach by instructing the ship to return to San Domingo. As the injured party, “the cargo owner can choose to uphold the contract; and doing so fully informed of their rights binds them under general contract law.” Under these conditions, if the Charterers claimed, the Shipowners could invoke the Charterparty’s Perils of the Sea exception for protection. The situation for the Bill of Lading (B/L) Holders was different; they couldn’t waive rights without knowing of the breach. Following the principle set in Leduc v Ward, the Bill of Lading (B/L) Holders weren’t bound by the Charterers’ waiver, preventing the Shipowners from using the Bill of Lading (B/L) Exceptions to defend against any cargo claims from the Consignees.

The responsibility to prove a waiver rests with the Deviating Shipowner, and it’s seldom in the Consignee’s interest to waive the breach once the cargo has arrived, as “a waiver, to be effective and estop a party’s claim, must be unequivocal, definite, clear, cogent, and complete.” There is some uncertainty whether merely referring a dispute to arbitration as per a Charterparty Clause would constitute such a waiver. The prevailing opinion is that it would not.

2.4- Reasonable Dispatch

Every Charterparty inherently involves an obligation for the Shipowner or Carrier to fulfill his contractual duties with Reasonable Dispatch. If no specific timeframe is stated for a duty, an Implied Obligation exists to complete it within a Reasonable Time. For instance, a Voyage Charter typically implies that the ship will embark on the voyage and manage loading and unloading either at the agreed time or within a Reasonable Time. Similarly, in a Time Charter, it is expected that the Ship Master will carry out each voyage with the Utmost Dispatch. The evaluation of this duty is not strictly objective; rather, it considers what is reasonably expected of the Shipowner under the existing circumstances during performance. If the Charterparty’s language does not clearly or implicitly set a timeframe for fulfilling a contractual duty, the law presumes it should be done within a Reasonable Time. This principle applies broadly, not just to Charterparties. In various contracts, the requirement of a reasonable time is often interpreted to mean that the responsible party fulfills his obligations despite prolonged delays, provided these are due to uncontrollable factors, and there is no negligence or unreasonable behavior.

Similar to the Seaworthiness commitment, the duty to ensure Reasonable Dispatch is categorized as an Innominate Term (Intermediate Term). The type of remedy in any case depends on the impact of the breach. Although the affected party can always seek compensation in the form of Damages for any Unreasonable Delay, he can only Repudiate the Charterparty if the delay significantly thwarts its purpose. For example, in the Freeman v Taylor case, after unloading cargo in Cape Town, the Ship Master independently decided to transport mules and cattle to Mauritius on the way to Bombay. This diversion delayed the ship’s arrival in Bombay by about six or seven weeks, leading the court to conclude that the delay was substantial enough to Frustrate the charter’s objective. In instances of less severe delays, however, the affected party’s remedy will be limited to seeking Damages. Such claims might be excluded if the delay falls under an excepted peril.

2.5- Safe Port (SP) and Safe Berth (SB)

Whenever a Charterer has the authority to Nominate Port, whether under a Time Charter or Voyage Charter, it raises the question of whether the Charterer also has a duty to nominate a Safe Port (SP). The nomination right may manifest in one of two forms. Firstly, the Charterer may have the option to choose from a Range of Ports specified in the Charter, such as Iskenderun/Mersin/Antalya. In this scenario, there is no Implied Warranty of safety upon nomination because the Shipowner, by listing the ports in the Charterparty, is considered to have accepted any associated risks. Conversely, the Charterer may be allowed to nominate from various unnamed ports within a Specific Range, like Singapore/Japan. Here, a distinction is necessary between a Time Charter and a Voyage Charter.

For Time Charters, where the Shipowner provides the commercial use of his ship to the Time Charterer, an Implied Warranty concerning the Safety of any Nominated Port is typically assumed. As Donaldson J noted in The Evaggelos Th case, “I should make this implication because common sense and business efficacy require it in cases where the Shipowner relinquishes to the Charterer the right to decide the ship’s destinations and because this aligns with the majority of judicial opinions.”

However, the situation with Voyage Charters is more complex. Without clear precedents, recent cases have indicated that when a Voyage Charterer can Nominate from a Range of Unnamed Ports, such a warranty isn’t automatically implied but depends on the Specific Terms of the Charterparty and whether the implication is necessary for the Charterparty’s practical effectiveness.

In most charters, the necessity for an Implied Obligation is negated by an Express Term serving the same purpose. For instance, Clause 2 of the Baltime Charterparty Form 1939 states: “The ship shall be employed in lawful trades for the carriage of lawful merchandise only between safe ports or places where the ship can safely lie always afloat.”

What then defines a Safe Port (SP) for such warranties? According to case law, the essential concept of a Safe Port (SP) remains consistent whether it pertains to an Express or Implied Warranty, or whether it is related to a Time Charter or Voyage Charter. Sellers LJ provided a classic definition in The Eastern City case, stating: “a port will not be Safe unless, in the relevant period, the particular ship can Reach it, Use it, and Return from it without, barring some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship.”

The period mentioned in the definition encompasses the entire duration the ship utilizes the port, from entry to departure. In some instances, this may extend to include risks in the port’s approaches, such as ice in the St. Lawrence obstructing safe access to the Port of Quebec. Exceptionally, it might even cover dangers on the open sea, like submarine activity near German Ports during wartime. Conversely, once loading or unloading operations are completed, the ship must safely exit the port. For instance, Manchester was deemed an Unsafe Port in a case where, after cargo discharge, a ship’s masts were too tall to pass under bridges on the canal linking the Port to the sea. However, the risk must be directly related to using the Nominated Port, as Devlin J pointed out in the Grace v General SN Co case, noting, “It is obvious in point of fact that the more remote it is from the port, the less likely it is to interfere with the safety of the voyage. The Charterer does not guarantee that the most direct route or any particular route to the Port is safe, but the voyage which he orders must be one which an ordinarily prudent and skilful master can find a way of making in safety.”

Most cases focus on the ship’s safety within the port itself, where the variety of risks covered by the warranty is evident. The most common danger in an Unsafe Port is the risk of Physical Damage to the ship, which might result from inadequate water depth or the presence of ice or periodic silting that obstructs port access. Alternatively, an exposed or rocky anchorage could make a Port Unsafe, especially one prone to sudden gales or other adverse weather. Moreover, political risks, like a blockade or hostilities, or organizational risks due to poor management by Port Authorities (PA), such as inadequate safety equipment or unsafe berths, could also render a Port Unsafe.

Determining whether a Port is Safe is a factual matter, contingent on the specific circumstances, including the type of ship, the tasks to be performed, and the prevailing conditions at the Port at the relevant time. A Port might be safe for one ship type but not for another, such as a Very Large Ore Carrier (VLOC) that cannot access many Ports safe for smaller vessels due to its deep draft. It’s acknowledged that using any port carries some risk, and a port isn’t considered unsafe simply because it may occasionally experience storms, provided that adequate weather forecasts are available and the Port’s organization allows a competent master to take necessary evasive actions. For example, in the case of The Khian Sea, the Court of Appeal deemed a Port Unsafe because, despite receiving adequate storm warnings, the Ship Master was unable to leave his berth due to two other ships anchored nearby. Lord Denning MR highlighted the necessary conditions under the Safe Port (SP) Warranty, including adequate weather forecasting systems, available pilots and tugs, sufficient sea room to maneuver, and an effective system to ensure that such room is always available.

However, not every hazard renders a Port Unsafe. Temporary Obstructions like high winds, neap tides, or silting require the Ship Master to wait a reasonable time until the danger subsides or is removed. Only if the resultant delay is inordinately long, to the extent of frustrating the Charterparty’s objective, does it breach the Safe Port (SP) Warranty. For instance, a Port on the Mississippi was not considered Unsafe despite a 21-day delay caused by fog and periodic silting downstream. Roskill LJ stated that a Charterparty cannot be abandoned due to “commercially unacceptable delay,” meaning a delay beyond a Reasonable Time. The delay must be so severe as to Frustrate the venture. Roskill LJ argued that substituting any other test for frustration would yield a measure exceedingly difficult to apply consistently.

The situation might differ if the port’s characteristics causing the Temporary Hazard existed at the time of its nomination and the shipowner is claiming Damages for Detention, not rescinding the Charterparty. In the recent case of Independent Petroleum Group v Seacarriers, a ship was detained for four days at the Port of Beira due to another vessel running aground and blocking the main channel. Arbitrators found that marker buoys were misplaced due to shifting sands and there was no adequate monitoring system. Although no physical damage occurred and no frustration was claimed, Toulson J still ruled Beira an Unsafe Port and awarded Damages for Detention, finding support in Lord Roskill’s words from The Evia (No 2), emphasizing ongoing risk due to existing conditions at the Time of Nomination.

This interpretation suggests that even without a delay causing frustration, the inherent risks posed by a port’s existing conditions can deem it prospectively Unsafe, as evidenced by the findings in the Independent Petroleum Group v Seacarriers case. Toulson J’s decision illustrates that a port’s inherent characteristics can pose a continuous risk, warranting a finding of unsafety even when the delay is not severe enough to frustrate the purpose of the Charterparty.

The contrast in judicial decisions regarding similar circumstances underlines the complexity of defining what constitutes an Unsafe Port. For example, while Beira was considered Unsafe due to inadequate monitoring and management of navigation risks, another Port might be deemed Safe under similar physical conditions if the local Port Authorities effectively manage these risks. The decisive factor in the Independent Petroleum Group v Seacarriers case was the failure of the Port Authorities in Beira to monitor and ensure the safety of the navigational channel, considered an ongoing breach of duty from the time the Port was Nominated.

Thus, the determination of a port’s safety often hinges on a combination of Physical, Organizational, and Situational factors. Each case is unique and must be assessed on its own merits, considering the specific characteristics of the Port, the ship’s requirements, and the prevailing conditions at the time of use. This approach aligns with the principle that the safety of a Port is not just about natural conditions but also about how well these conditions are managed and communicated by the Port Authorities.

In conclusion, the safety of a port is a multifaceted issue that requires consideration of both natural and managerial elements. Ports must not only be naturally suitable for the ships that use them but also well-managed to adapt to and mitigate potential risks. Effective management includes proper surveillance, timely and accurate weather reports, and ensuring that navigational aids are in good working condition. Only through such comprehensive measures can a Port be deemed Safe, supporting the seamless operation of maritime activities without undue risks to ships and their cargoes.

Safe Port (SP) vs Safe Berth (SB)

Whether a Port is specified in the Charterparty or to be Nominated by the Charterer, it is generally assumed that the Charterer will also have the right to Nominate a Berth or Berths within that Port. Often, the Charterparty explicitly mandates that the Charterer Nominate only Safe Berths (SB), for example, “1/2 Safe Berths Amsterdam.” In scenarios lacking such Explicit Provision, the obligation to Nominate a Safe Berth (SB) hinges on various factors. If the Charterer has expressly warranted the Port as safe, this warranty typically extends to the Berth, implying an obligation for the Charterer to Nominate a Safe Berth (SB).

However, if the Right to Nominate arises at a Port not expressly warranted as Safe by the Charterer, the Court of Appeal has recently determined that there is No Implied Obligation to Nominate a Safe Berth (SB). In the Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading case, a Ship was chartered from Chekka (Lebanon) to Algiers (Algeria) carrying bulk cement. The Charterparty did not expressly warrant the Safety of the Port or the Berth. The Charterers nominated a Berth in Chekka where the Ship suffered severe damage due to an underwater obstruction. In addressing a claim for Damages for Breach of an Implied Warranty regarding the Berth’s Safety, the Court of Appeal ruled that such a warranty’s existence depends on the interpretation of the Charterparty’s terms. The Shipowners bore the burden of proof and failed to present any precedent where a warranty had been implied under similar circumstances. The issue revolves around whether the Charterers agreed to assume the risk of hidden dangers at the Berth, and the answer was found to be no.

Conversely, when the Charterer must Nominate a Safe Berth (SB) at a named Port not itself Expressly Warranted as Safe, the Nomination of the Berth does not imply anything about the Port’s Safety. This distinction’s practical implications are exemplified in The APJ Priti case, where a Charterer had the right to nominate “1/2 Safe Berths (SB)” at Bandar Khomeini (Iran), a Port named in the Charterparty but not warranted as Safe. The Ship sustained severe damage from a missile while en route to the Port. The Court of Appeal concluded that damages were not recoverable because the voyage to the Port did not fall under the Safe Berth (SB) Warranty, and there was no warranty, either Express or Implied, regarding the Port’s Safety. As Bingham LJ stated, “I do not accept that the Ship’s passage to and from a Nominated Berth should be treated as including any part of the voyage to and from the Port. It would only include movement within the Port to and from a Nominated Berth.”

What is the difference between Berth Charterparty and Port Charterparty?:

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of HandyBulk to learn more about Berth Charterparty and Port Charterparty differences www.handybulk.com

Frustration of Charterparty

Lord Radcliffe noted, “Frustration occurs whenever the law recognizes that without default of either party, a Contractual Obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called for would render it a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract.” Non Haec in Foedera Veni (This is not what I promised to do).

Tracing back to its 19th century origins, the Doctrine of Frustration was initially justified on the basis of a term to be Implied to reflect the presumed intention of the parties. However, in more recent years, it has evolved to focus more on the interpretation of the terms of the Charterparty. It is noted that the Implied Term theory, while never serving as the basis for a court’s decision, has been used as a theoretical explanation. A more commonly accepted perspective is that of Lord Wright, who stated, “the court decides the issue and decides it Ex Post Facto based on the actual circumstances of the case. The data for decision are, on the one hand, the terms and construction of the Charterparty, interpreted in light of the existing circumstances at that time, and on the other hand, the events that have occurred. It is up to the court to determine the true position between the parties.”

In practice, while the doctrine can apply to all forms of sea carriage contracts, it is most often associated with Charterparty disputes in decided cases.

Types of Frustration of Charterparty:

1. Impossibility of Performance
2. Supervening Illegality
3. Excessive Delay

In the realm of Charterparties, Frustration can manifest in several ways, including Impossibility of Performance, Supervening Illegality, or Excessive Delay. The determination of Frustration in each instance is a nuanced mix of Fact and Law. While ultimately, deciding whether a Charterparty has been Frustrated is a legal question, this decision must be made after evaluating the pertinent Facts. Consequently, while the invocation of the Doctrine of Frustration is a legal matter, determining whether a delay is extensive enough to qualify as Frustration involves factual assessment.

This distinction gains particular significance in judicial reviews of Arbitration Awards, where courts typically refrain from overturning an Arbitrator’s findings on factual grounds. In a recent judgment on this topic, Lord Roskill stated, “For the future, I believe that in cases otherwise suitable for appeal, the courts should only intervene with Arbitrators’ conclusions on issues such as those arising in Frustration cases in reasoned awards if they are demonstrated to have erred in Law by not applying the correct legal test or if, despite purportedly applying the correct legal test, they have reached a conclusion that no reasonable person could have arrived at, based on the Facts they have determined.”

Impossibility of Performance

The clearest instance of Frustration due to impossibility of performance occurs when a chartered ship is either Actually Lost or declared a Constructive Total Loss (CTL). Often, Time Charterparties include an Express Clause stipulating that Ship Hire paid in advance but unearned must be returned in such events. Conversely, the destruction of cargo that a Charterer intends to ship rarely leads to Frustration of the Charterparty. This is because the Charterer is typically seen as having an absolute obligation to provide a cargo. The only scenario in which a Charterer might be excused is when the contract is interpreted to mean an agreement to load a specific cargo, and that cargo is destroyed through no fault of the Charterer before loading begins. A similar outcome might occur if a ship is chartered to transport a specific commodity, and its export subsequently becomes prohibited by government decree.

Supervening Illegality

A Charterparty will also be Frustrated when changes in the Law make further performance illegal. This presupposes that the Shipowner and Charterer enter into a Charterparty believing that they can legally fulfill their obligations. If this foundational assumption fails, they are relieved from further duties under the contract. It seems irrelevant whether the illegality arises from modifications in English law or the laws of a foreign country where the performance is supposed to occur. Frustration also happens if the onset of war makes continuing the contract’s performance illegal. This could occur if a ship is owned or chartered by an individual who becomes an enemy alien, or if executing the Charterparty requires interactions with individuals in enemy-occupied territories. Under such conditions, the supervening illegality leads to an automatic termination of the contract, regardless of its specific terms or the initial intentions of the Shipowner and Charterer.

Excessive Delay

When the performance of a contract is postponed due to an event or change in circumstances, the Charterparty may become Frustrated if the resultant delay is so extended that it undermines the purpose for which the Shipowner and Charterer entered into the Charterparty. The determination of whether this criterion is met depends on the specifics of each case, though typically, a shorter delay might suffice to frustrate a Voyage Charterparty compared to what might be necessary to terminate a Time Charterparty. In the case of Jackson v Union Marine, the Shipowner agreed to pick up cargo at Newport (UK) promptly, with the understanding that “dangers and accidents of navigation excepted.” However, when the ship grounded in Caernarvon Bay on its way to Newport (UK) and sustained damage requiring six months to repair, all further liabilities under the Charterparty were nullified despite the Exception Clause. The court believed that the Shipowner and Charterer did not intend for this Exception Clause to account for such a significant alteration in the contract’s nature. It seems irrelevant whether the pertinent event occurs before the performance has started or after the Charterparty has been partially fulfilled, as long as its impact serves to Frustrate the intentions of the Shipowner and Charterer in entering the contract. A Frustrating event can manifest in various forms, such as the time needed to complete repairs following a collision, detention by a foreign government, or ongoing strikes.

From a review of decided cases, the most common cause of delay stems from the requisitioning of ships during emergencies or the trapping of ships at the onset of hostilities. In cases of requisitioning, the decision to claim Frustration often depends on the compensation offered by the government. If the compensation exceeds the Ship Hire Rate under a Time Charterparty, the Shipowner is likely to allege Charterparty Frustration. Conversely, if the compensation is lower, the Shipowner may not claim Frustration.

In the case of Tamplin SS Co v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co, a tanker was chartered for five years to transport oil as directed by the Charterers. With three years remaining on the Charterparty, the tanker was requisitioned by the Admiralty, leading the Shipowner to claim that the Charterparty was discharged. However, the Charterer was willing to continue paying Freight and argued that the foundation of the Charterparty had not vanished since no specific commercial venture was contemplated. This perspective was upheld by the majority in the Appeal Court, possibly influenced by the notion that the Shipowner was seeking to evade the Charterparty to secure higher compensation from the Admiralty. Lord Finlay later noted that the legal principles expressed by the majority and the dissentients were the same, but they differed in applying these principles to the facts at hand.

A contrasting decision occurred in the Bank Line v Capel case, where a Charterer had chartered a ship for a year, but the ship was requisitioned by the government before delivery. Here, the Lords ruled that the Charterparty had been Frustrated, even though the ship was released after only three months. Lord Sumner noted that the short duration of the requisition was irrelevant because the initial expectation was that the requisition would last indefinitely, thus altering the entire nature of the charter.

Additional examples of delays leading to Frustration include numerous instances where ships were trapped unexpectedly by the outbreak of hostilities. Notably, a surge of litigation followed the closure of the Shatt al Arab in 1980 when the Iran-Iraq War began.

Whether an intervening event results in a delay significant enough to Frustrate the commercial purpose of the Charterparty must be determined based on the specific facts of each case. For Time Charterparties, this decision is typically made by comparing the duration of the interruption or delay to the total length of the Charterparty. This assessment is objective and must be made without the benefit of hindsight. As stated by Bailhache J, “the parties (Shipowner or Charterer) must have the right to claim that the Charterparty is terminated by Frustration as soon as the event upon which the claim is based occurs. The question then is what estimate would a reasonable businessperson make of the likely duration of the ship’s withdrawal from service, based on the information available to him at that time, including the cause of the withdrawal. It will be immaterial whether his prediction is later proven right or wrong by subsequent events.”

Therefore, in the Bank Line v Capel case, it was irrelevant that by the time the case went to trial, the requisition had only lasted three months. The determination of Frustration had to be based on the information available when the requisition started. Rights should not be left uncertain or dependent on future outcomes. A Charterparty either binds or it does not, and the law should allow the Shipowner and Charterer to ascertain their position immediately. What occurs later might help reveal what the real probabilities were if they had been reasonably predicted, but when the causes of Frustration have lasted so long or occurred under such conditions as to imply an unreasonable delay, the time to decide the fate of the Charterparty has come.

Burden of Proof in Charterparty Frustration

The burden of proving Frustration rests with the party alleging it. They must convince the court that an intervening event has made the performance of the Charterparty either impossible or fundamentally different from what was agreed upon at the contract’s inception. In evaluating the evidence presented, the court must consider several factors.

To establish Charterparty Frustration, it must be demonstrated that performance has become impossible or so fundamentally altered that enforcing the original terms of the Charterparty would be unjust to the Shipowner or Charterer. It is not mere hardship, inconvenience, or material loss that activates the principle of Frustration. There must also be a change so significant that the duty, if fulfilled, would differ substantially from what was originally contracted. For instance, in the case of Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thor, sellers were obligated to deliver Sudanese groundnuts CIF (Cost Insurance Freight) to Hamburg. Following the Charterparty agreement, hostilities in Egypt led to the closure of the Suez Canal. The only viable alternative for the seller was to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope (COGH) at significantly higher Freight Rates, leading them to claim Frustration. However, the Lords dismissed this claim, determining that although more costly, shipping via the Cape of Good Hope (COGH) was not commercially or fundamentally different from the intended route. Similar judgments have been upheld in cases where ships were Voyage Chartered and Time Chartered. Therefore, Frustration is likely to be considered only when a specific route specified in the contract becomes impassable or when the ship carries perishable cargo that might not withstand an alternative route.

Express Provision in the Charterparty

Originally, the Doctrine of Frustration was triggered by an unforeseen event that significantly altered the obligations outlined in the Charterparty. Initially, if a specific event was predictable and not addressed in the Charterparty, it was assumed that the Shipowner and Charterer had intended to establish an Absolute Obligation. However, subsequent cases have indicated that this presumption may be incorrect, and Frustration is generally not excluded unless the Charterparty explicitly covers the event in its Express Terms. For example, in the Tatem v Gamboa case, the Charterparty was deemed Frustrated when a ship chartered to evacuate refugees during the Spanish Civil War was seized by Nationalists, even though such a seizure was foreseeable.

Moreover, even when an Express Clause in the Charterparty covers a particular event, courts typically interpret these clauses stringently. This approach resembles the Contra Proferentem rule used in interpreting clauses that seek to exclude liability for a fundamental breach.

In the Jackson v Union Marine case, the Charterparty was found Frustrated when the ship ran aground, despite a clause excluding “Dangers and Accidents of Navigation.” The court reasoned that the Shipowner and Charterer did not intend for this clause to apply to such a significant alteration in the nature of the Charterparty. Similarly, in the Bank Line v Capel case, the House of Lords allowed the Shipowner to successfully claim Frustration, even though an Express Clause gave the Charterer, but not the Shipowner, the option to cancel if the ship “be commandeered by Government during this charter.” Lord Haldane expressed that when a Charterparty’s performance depends on the continued availability of the subject matter, and this availability unexpectedly ceases due to circumstances beyond the Shipowner’s control, the Shipowner is not bound unless it is explicitly stated that they have agreed to such terms. In this instance, Lord Haldane found no evidence of such an intention.

Self-induced Frustration of Charterparty

When the event alleged to have disrupted the performance of a Charterparty stems from the actions or decisions of one party, that individual cannot use their own fault as a defense under the Charterparty. For example, in the Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers case, the Charterer had leased a fishing trawler knowing it required an otter trawl, which could not be used without a license from the Newfoundland (Canada) government. The Charterer, who operated four other ships with otter trawls, applied for five licenses but received only three. These were allocated to the other ships, and the Charterer then claimed that this particular charter was Frustrated due to the illegality of operating the trawler without a license. The Privy Council dismissed this claim on the grounds that the Frustration was self-induced, resulting from a conscious choice by the Charterer.

The responsibility to prove that Frustration is self-induced falls on the party asserting it, and there is some ambiguity regarding the scope of this concept. Clearly, a party cannot claim Frustration if the situation arose from a breach of the Charterparty on their part. For instance, if further performance of a Charterparty becomes impossible due to a breach of the Safe Port (SP) Warranty or the obligation of Seaworthiness, the defense of Frustration is not available to the party at fault. The same principle applies if the intervening event is due to Negligent Conduct, such as significant ship damage resulting from negligent actions by the Shipowner or crew members. However, it has been noted that self-induced Frustration involves a deliberate choice, and mere negligence might not suffice. Lord Russell highlighted that such cases “can range from the criminality of the scuttler who opens the sea-cocks and sinks his ship, to the thoughtlessness of a prima donna who sits in a draught and loses her voice. I wish to guard against the assumption that every destruction of corpus for which a contractor can be said, to some extent or in some sense, to be responsible, necessarily implies that the resultant Frustration is self-induced within the meaning of the phrase.”

3- Understanding Time Charterparty

The terms of a Time Charterparty differ considerably from those of a Voyage Charterparty due to their distinct functions. In a Time Charter, the Shipowner provides the ship for a specified period, during which the Time Charterer has the flexibility to use the ship for their own purposes within the agreed contractual framework. The Time Charterer, who manages the ship’s commercial operations, is responsible for the related costs and must indemnify the Shipowner against any liabilities arising from following the Time Charterer’s commercial directives. Although various Standard Time Charterparty Forms exist, they typically include certain Core Clauses.

The operational efficiency of the chartered ship is vital for the Time Charterer, as the success of the commercial venture relies heavily on this factor. Consequently, the Preamble of the Time Charterparty details the ship’s specifications, such as Speed, Loading Capacity (DWCC), and Bunker Consumption. The legal implications of these specifications and the remedies available for any inaccuracies vary. New York Arbitrators often treat specifications related to Ship Speed and Bunker Consumption as Continuing Warranties, implying that the ship is expected to maintain these capabilities throughout the Time Charter period. Conversely, English courts view these specifications merely as Warranties, which pertain to the ship’s condition upon delivery under the Time Charter. If these Warranties are breached, the usual Damages would be the difference between the market rate of Ship Hire for a ship that meets the specifications and the actual chartered ship. For a breach of the Ship Speed Warranty, an alternative remedy could be to designate the ship as Off-hire for the duration required.

A Clause in the Time Charterparty usually specifies the exact length of the Time Charter Period, which may be defined in days, months, or years. However, it is understood that the precise timing for a ship’s operations under a Time Charterparty cannot be perfectly aligned so that the ship arrives at the designated port for Redelivery exactly on the termination date. As a result, the ship may arrive Too Early (Underlap) or Too Late (Overlap), potentially causing disputes, particularly during periods of fluctuating Ship Charter Rates. Courts recognize this issue and generally allow a Margin of Tolerance (around 5%) around the stated duration unless explicitly addressed by the parties. If the Time Charterer returns the ship after the Time Charter Period but within the permitted Overlap, they must compensate at the usual Time Charter Rate. If the return exceeds the Overlap Allowance, it constitutes a Breach of the Time Charterparty, making the Time Charterer liable for Damages based on the current market Ship Hire Rates.

Ship Hire is payable for the entire Time Charter Period, irrespective of whether the Time Charterer uses the ship. On the other hand, an Off-hire Clause is commonly included to ensure that no Ship Hire is due when the ship is not fully available to the Time Charterer due to an accident or a deficiency for which the Shipowner is responsible. The Off-hire Clause details specific situations when the ship will be considered Off-hire, activating the clause simply upon the occurrence of the event, without needing to prove fault on the part of the Shipowner.

If the Off-hire Clause is activated, the Time Charterer is entitled to a reduction in Ship Hire to compensate for the time the ship was unavailable. Many Off-hire Clauses explicitly permit the Time Charterer to deduct the calculated amount from the subsequent Ship Hire payment. Even in the absence of explicit terms, courts generally allow such deductions from Ship Hire, provided they are made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds.

Ship Hire is the fee charged for using the ship, typically calculated as a fixed daily rate over a specified period, such as 30 days or a calendar month. Ship Hire is generally paid in advance, either monthly or semi-monthly. When ships are Time Chartered for extended periods, they face risks like currency fluctuations, changes in the shipping market, and the effects of inflation on operational costs incurred by the Shipowner. As a result, Shipowners and Time Charterers often include specific provisions in the Time Charterparty to address these risks. This usually involves a Currency Clause that fixes an exchange rate between the payment currency and another relevant currency, and an Escalator Clause that allows for periodic adjustments to the Ship Hire Rate based on predefined economic factors.

Under Common Law, time is generally not considered of the essence in Time Charters, meaning that a Shipowner cannot cancel the Time Charterparty for late payment of Ship Hire unless the delay undermines the purpose of the charter. Consequently, it’s common to include a specific clause in the Time Charterparty that grants the Shipowner the right to withdraw the ship in case of payment default. Initially designed to address non-compliance or recover the ship from a potentially bankrupt Time Charterer, this clause is now also used to take advantage of fluctuations in market Ship Hire rates. Ships are frequently withdrawn immediately upon payment default and then offered to the same Time Charterers at the higher prevailing market rates. Courts have interpreted these Withdrawal Clauses strictly and typically do not provide equitable relief to Time Charterers facing forfeiture. To mitigate this, an Anti-Technicality Clause can be added to the Time Charterparty, requiring the Shipowner to give a specified notice period before exercising the right to withdraw the ship.

Most Time Charterparties include a clause that grants the Time Charterer full use of the ship within agreed limits and requires the Ship Master to comply with the Time Charterer’s orders. The Time Charterer’s trading activities are defined by agreement and can specify types of cargo and geographic trading limits. It is typically required that the Time Charterer only use the ship between Safe Ports (SP) and Safe Berths (SB). A significant right given to the Time Charterer is the ability to issue Bills of Lading (B/L) which the Ship Master must sign upon request, even if the terms differ markedly from those of the Charterparty. As the Ship Master acts as the Shipowner’s agent when signing these Bills of Lading (B/L), the terms are enforceable against the Shipowner by any good-faith Indorsee of the Bill of Lading (B/L). The Shipowner is not protected from claims arising from cargo damage unless due to the Shipowner’s or Ship Managers’ lack of diligence in maintaining the ship’s seaworthiness or other personal acts or defaults. Without a proper incorporation Clause in the Bill of Lading (B/L), terms in the Time Charterparty binding the Shipowner and Time Charterer remain exclusive to their agreement.

Description of the Ship in Time Charterparty

Since the Time Charterer manages the ship’s Commercial Operation and is required to pay Ship Hire at a Fixed Rate throughout the Time Charter Period, the profitability of the operation largely depends on the ship’s characteristics and performance. Consequently, Standard Time Charterparty Forms typically start with a Preamble that provides a detailed description of the ship, including Ship Name, Flag, Ownership, Class, Gross Tonnage (GT), Net Tonnage (NT), Cargo Capacity (DWCC – Deadweight Cargo Capacity), Ship Speed, and Bunker Consumption. The venture’s success often relies on the accuracy of these details, as the Time Charterer is primarily responsible for ensuring the ship’s efficient performance. Therefore, it is crucial for the Time Charterer to obtain a comprehensive Ship Description and, if needed, arrange for a survey by qualified professionals. However, the Shipowner’s reputation often serves as a more reliable benchmark.

Although any part of the Ship Description could be critical in specific situations, such as the Ship’s Flag during wartime, most disputes tend to focus on Cargo Capacity (DWCC – Deadweight Cargo Capacity), Ship Speed, and Bunker Consumption. To minimize conflicts over minor discrepancies, these specifications are often qualified with terms like “About” or similar, allowing for a tolerance of approximately 5%. Additionally, when Ship Speed is mentioned, it is standard to include a clause such as “in good weather conditions,” which allows Arbitrators to disregard measurements taken on days with winds stronger than force 4 or 5 on the Beaufort Scale.

Specifications in a Time Charterparty are intended to be contractually binding, providing assurances from the Shipowner about the ship’s performance. However, their exact legal significance is still debated. The question is whether these specifications merely describe the ship’s capabilities at the time the Time Charterparty is signed or if they represent contractual commitments that the ship will maintain these capabilities throughout the Time Charter period, or at least up until Delivery to the Time Charterer.

In New York, statements about Ship Speed and Bunker Consumption are generally viewed as Continuing Warranties, requiring the ship to maintain these capabilities throughout the Time Charter period. Conversely, British courts have historically taken a narrower approach. For example, in the late 19th century, the Court of Appeal determined that a statement regarding a ship’s Classification was not a Continuing Warranty but only relevant at the time the Time Charterparty was executed. Recent judgments have softened this view somewhat. In the Cosmos Bulk Transport Inc v China National Foreign Trade Transportation Co case, Judge Mocatta J ruled that a Ship Speed Warranty pertains to the ship’s performance at the date of Ship Delivery under the Time Charterparty.

In this case, while the ship met the warranted Speed when the Time Charterparty was signed, its performance later declined due to mollusc encrustation on the hull while at a tropical port finishing a prior charter. Judge Mocatta J held the Shipowners accountable for the breach, asserting that “commercial considerations require that the description of the ship’s speed applies as of the date of the Ship’s Delivery, regardless of its condition at the Time Charterparty’s signing.” He extended similar reasoning to Bunker Consumption and Cargo Capacity (DWCC – Deadweight Cargo Capacity), distinguishing these from earlier cases related to Ship Classification Warranties. He reasoned that changes in Ship Classification, which are beyond the control of both parties, mean that the Shipowner should only be responsible for the accuracy of such statements at the time they were made.

The Shipowner is not generally required to guarantee the continuous accuracy of specifications throughout the Time Charter Period, though some Tanker Time Charterparty Forms may include such guarantees explicitly. Normally, unless the Shipowner undertakes actions like selling the ship—which could alter Ship Ownership and potentially the Ship Flag—specifications such as Ship Speed and Bunker Consumption are expected to remain consistent from the signing of the Time Charterparty to the ship’s Delivery.

The Time Charterer bears the responsibility of proving any non-compliance with these specifications, which can be difficult. A serious breach might allow the Time Charterer to terminate the Time Charterparty, but more frequently, the Time Charterer is restricted to seeking damages for the ship’s failure to meet the specified standards. Under contract law, damages are typically calculated by comparing the market charter rates for a ship that meets the specifications with the rate for the ship as delivered. This method can be complex in practice and may result in only nominal damages.

In the Cosmos Bulk Transport case, the court adopted a different approach for breaches of Ship Speed Warranty, permitting the Time Charterer to classify the ship as Off-hire for any additional time required on the voyage due to the breach.

Other provisions in the Time Charterparty may offer alternative remedies for discrepancies in the ship’s description. For instance, many Time Charterparties include a clause requiring “All Voyages with the Utmost Dispatch,” which can address issues with Ship Speed. Additionally, an Off-hire Clause might account for reductions in Ship Speed due to “defects in or breakdowns of any part of her hull, machinery, or equipment.” The New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) Form also provides a remedy for cases where bottom fouling affects the ship’s speed, permitting the Time Charterer to request that the ship be cleaned at the Shipowner’s expense.

Period of Ship Hire

A dedicated clause in the Time Charterparty will specify the duration of the Time Charter Period, which can be defined in terms of days, months, or years, or a combination of these. It is also becoming common for the Time Charter Period to be determined by the time required for a particular voyage or a round trip between named ports. Practically, Trip Time Charters (TCT) are handled like standard Time Charters, although the Time Charterer will be in breach if the ship is not sent on the agreed voyage.

However, it is recognized that precise scheduling to ensure the ship arrives at the Redelivery Port exactly on the termination date of the Time Charter is not always possible. Issues often arise when planning the final voyage under the Time Charterparty, particularly with whether it will result in an Underlap (finishing early) or Overlap (finishing late) relative to the designated time limit. The Time Charterer’s aim is to generate revenue, either through operating the ship in the Liner Trade or more commonly by sub-chartering it for specific voyages. The goal is to arrange voyages that maximize the ship’s profitability while ensuring its timely return to the Redelivery Port. Disputes are common during periods of fluctuating Ship Hire Rates, and are further complicated by varying Overlap Clause wording. When Ship Charter Rates are high, the Time Charterer will seek to maximize every moment of the Time Charter Period, while the Shipowner will want to regain control of the ship. When Ship Charter Rates drop, the situation reverses. Time Charterparties include clauses to manage these scenarios, and it is important to first evaluate the accuracy of the specified time limit and then the Ship Charter Rate applicable during any Overlap Period.

When a Time Charterparty specifies a fixed duration, such as “eight months” or “three years,” without further qualifications, courts typically interpret time as not being of the essence. They often allow for a reasonable Margin of Error, generally around 4% to 5%. Conversely, New York Arbitrators use the “Overlap/Underlap Rule” to determine if the Time Charterer can dispatch the ship on a final voyage under the Time Charterparty. According to this rule, the Time Charterer may opt for either an Underlap (finishing early) or Overlap (finishing late) to bring the Ship Redelivery as close as possible to the end of the Time Charter Period.

Including terms like “About” before the Time Charter Period, as seen in the New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) Form, acknowledges this reasonable allowance. Many Time Charterparties feature an Express Clause specifying acceptable leeway, such as “a period of 8 months, 15 days more or less at the Time Charterer’s Option” or “minimum 8/maximum 10 months.” These clauses define the maximum allowable flexibility, and Redelivery outside these bounds would be considered a breach. Additionally, estimates such as “duration about 17/18 months without guarantee” offer further flexibility, with liability for exceeding the 18 months depending on whether the initial estimate was made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds.

The Shipowner and Time Charterer can either explicitly or implicitly make time a critical element of the Time Charterparty. For instance, in the case of Watson v Merryweather, the Time Charterparty specified “Redelivery to Shipowners between 15 and 31 October,” which led to the conclusion that time was of the essence. Therefore, failing to Redeliver the ship by 31 October was deemed a breach of the Time Charterparty. Similarly, the absence of the term “About” before the Time Charter Period in the New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) Form implies that time is a critical factor.

If the ship is returned to the Shipowner before the end of the agreed minimum period, the Time Charterer generally does not receive a refund and is still required to pay the Full Ship Hire for the entire Time Charter Period. If such early Ship Redelivery is deemed a breach of the Time Charterparty, the Shipowner might need to mitigate losses by attempting to rehire the ship if commercially viable within the remaining Time Charter Period. However, this strategy can be risky, as demonstrated in the case of The Zenovia. In this case, the latest allowable Ship Redelivery Date was 22 November. However, as the Time Charter approached its end, the Shipowner received around 30 days’ notice of Redelivery, initially set for 6 November. Due to the swift completion of the Final Voyage and increasing Ship Charter Rates, an Additional Voyage was feasible before the Time Charter concluded. Consequently, the Time Charterer adjusted the Ship Redelivery Date to “About 20 November.” The Shipowner, who had already arranged a new Fixture based on the original earlier Redelivery Date, challenged the Time Charterer’s right to change the date and withdrew the ship from the Time Charter on 2 November. Judge Tomlinson determined that the Shipowner was liable for Damages due to wrongful repudiation of the Time Charterparty. He found no grounds to imply a term that the Time Charterer would avoid actions that might delay the earlier Ship Redelivery Date and did not find a sufficiently clear and unequivocal promise to establish an Estoppel.

In cases of Overlap, the Time Charterer’s liability depends on whether they are in breach of the Time Charterparty. If Ship Redelivery occurs within the allowed tolerance period and the Time Charterer is not in breach, they will be required to pay for the additional time at the standard Time Charter Rate. If Ship Redelivery occurs beyond this period, damages will be calculated based on the current market Ship Charter Rate.

Recently, courts have applied the Legitimate Final Voyage Test to determine if a Time Charterer has breached the Time Charterparty. According to this test, the Time Charterer is not in breach if, when dispatching the ship on its Final Voyage, it was reasonable to expect that the voyage could be completed within the Time Charter Period plus any allowable extension. The validity of the Final Voyage is assessed based on the circumstances at the time of departure, rather than when the voyage was ordered.

Even if the Final Voyage is deemed legitimate, the Time Charterer must still ensure timely redelivery of the ship. If unforeseen events prevent this, the Time Charterer will be held liable for Breach of the Time Charterparty, even if the delay is due to factors beyond their control. In such situations, the Time Charterer must continue paying Ship Hire at the agreed Charter Rate until redelivery and may also owe Damages if the Market Charter Rate exceeds the agreed rate during the excess period.

Certain Time Charterparty Clauses may relieve the Time Charterer from this liability by requiring the Shipowner to complete a Legitimate Final Voyage without responsibility for late delivery, provided the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the Time Charterer’s control. These Clauses do not typically allow for requiring the Shipowner to undertake an illegitimate Final Voyage unless explicitly specified. For instance, the Shelltime (Clause 18) form includes a provision: “Notwithstanding the stated charter period, should the ship be upon a voyage at the expiry of the period of this charter, charterers shall have the use of this ship at the same rate and conditions for such extended time as may be necessary for the completion of the round voyage on which she is engaged.”

In The World Symphony case, the Court of Appeal determined that the clause allowing the Time Charterer to order a Final Voyage, even if it extends beyond the specified Time Charter Period, takes precedence over the Time Charter Period clause. This means that during such a Final Voyage, the Time Charterer is entitled to use the ship at the normal Time Charter Hire Rate, despite any delay beyond the originally stipulated redelivery time.

In contrast, Lord Denning MR in The Dione case articulated a different stance. If the Time Charterer dispatches the ship on an Illegitimate Final Voyage—one that cannot reasonably be completed within the Time Charter Period—the Shipowner has the right to refuse this direction and request alternative instructions for a Legitimate Final Voyage. Should the Time Charterer fail to provide these alternative instructions, the Shipowner may consider it a fundamental Breach of the Time Charterparty, arrange a new charter, and seek Damages. If the Shipowner proceeds with the Illegitimate Final Voyage, they are entitled to receive payment for the Excess Period at the Current Market Charter Rate if it exceeds the agreed Charter Rate. In The Dione case, where the charter was for “6 months, 20 days more or less at the Time Charterer’s option,” the Time Charterer’s Final Voyage extended beyond the expected redelivery date of 28 September, with actual redelivery occurring on 7 October. Consequently, the Time Charterer was held liable to pay hire at the Time Charterparty Rate up to 28 September and at the Market Rate for the period thereafter.

When determining Damages for a Breach of the Time Charterparty, the applicable Market Ship Hire Rate should reflect the current rate for a Time Charter of Equivalent Length to the breached charter, rather than the rate for a theoretical Voyage Charter related to the Illegitimate Final Voyage. In The Johnny case, where a ship was chartered under a Baltime Time Charterparty Form for a “minimum 11/maximum 13 months” term that expired on 7 November 1974, the ship was sent on a Final Voyage to Karachi, Pakistan, on 19 September. This resulted in the ship being Redelivered 29 days late. The court ruled that the appropriate Market Hire Rate for the additional 29 days should be based on the Current Hire Rate for an 11/13-month Time Charter, rather than the rate for a Voyage Charter to Karachi, as the Shipowner had contended.

Ship Off-hire Clause

Standard Time Charterparty Forms generally include an Off-Hire Clause, which stipulates that the Time Charterer does not owe Ship Hire during periods when the ship is unavailable for use due to issues within the Shipowner’s responsibility. The specific conditions that lead to a ship being Off-hire and the duration for which Ship Hire is suspended vary depending on the wording of the Off-Hire Clause in each Time Charterparty form. For instance, the Baltime Time Charterparty Form (Clause 11A) states:

“In the event of drydocking or other necessary measures to maintain the efficiency of the ship, deficiency of men or owner’s stores, breakdown of machinery, damage to the hull, or other accident that hinders or prevents the working of the ship for more than twenty-four consecutive hours, no hire shall be payable for the time lost during the period the ship cannot perform the required service. Any hire paid in advance will be adjusted accordingly.”

Typically, the Off-Hire Clause will list the range of events that can cause a ship to be Off-hire. Sometimes, there may be multiple smaller Off-Hire Clauses covering specific issues, such as Ship Speed Deficiency or Drydocking, scattered throughout the Time Charterparty. This can lead to inconsistencies or contradictions unless these clauses are clearly cross-referenced to the main Off-Hire Clause. The Standard Off-Hire Clause is activated by the occurrence of one of the listed events, irrespective of any fault by the Shipowner.

Off-hire Clauses, being No Fault Clauses, are interpreted strictly by courts, and the Time Charterer must clearly demonstrate their entitlement to a suspension of Ship Hire. As Judge Bucknill LJ observed, “I think he must bring himself clearly within the exceptions. If there is a doubt as to what the words mean, then I think those words must be read in favor of the Shipowners because the Time Charterer is attempting to limit the Shipowners’ right to Hire.” The Off-hire Clause is not impacted by Exception Clauses or Force Majeure Clauses in the Time Charterparty. However, other clauses may specifically exclude the Off-hire Clause in certain situations, such as if the event causing the off-hire is due to the Time Charterer’s negligence. There is also some authority suggesting that the Off-hire Clause may not apply if the event causing the off-hire results from the Time Charterer’s breach of the Time Charterparty. Even if the ship goes Off-hire due to such a breach, the Shipowner might still seek damages for the loss of Ship Hire.

The Standard Off-hire Clause typically ends with the phrase, “or by any other cause preventing the full working of the ship.” This phrase generally covers only causes that directly affect the ship’s operational efficiency and excludes external delays not related to the ship’s physical condition or crew. For example, delays caused by blockages in the La Plata River or by a ship being overloaded for Panama Canal entry are not covered by the Off-hire Clause. Conversely, delays in obtaining Free Pratique due to health concerns about a crew member are considered closely related to the ship’s performance and thus qualify as Off-hire. The term “any other cause” is not generally interpreted under the Eiusdem Generis Rule, as it is often difficult to isolate a distinct category from the listed items. When the Off-hire Clause is modified to include “any other cause whatsoever,” the Eiusdem Generis Rule does not apply. Typically, the clause covers unforeseen events rather than those naturally resulting from the ship’s usage.

Typically, the Time Charterer cannot invoke the Off-hire Clause unless the ship is rendered unusable due to one of the specific events listed in the clause. For example, if an engine breakdown occurs at sea, it may render the ship Off-hire. However, if the same breakdown happens while the ship is discharging cargo in port and the ship remains functional for that task, it would not affect the Off-hire status. Likewise, if the Shipowner installs new equipment at the Time Charterer’s request while the ship is waiting for a Berth, the Off-hire Clause does not apply, as the Time Charterer still has access to the ship. The impact of the Off-hire Clause depends on its exact wording, and the courts’ strict interpretation can result in very different outcomes, even for clauses that seem similar.

The majority of Standard Off-Hire Clauses fall into one of two distinct categories:

1. Period Clause
2. Net Loss of Time Clause

A Period Clause defines the specific timeframe during which Ship Hire is suspended due to certain events. For example, if events such as crew shortages or drydocking trigger the Off-hire Clause, Ship Hire is suspended until the ship is fully restored to operational efficiency and can perform the required service. A partial restoration of the ship’s efficiency generally does not end the suspension. This type of Clause is relatively easy to apply as long as the events listed are clearly identifiable. For instance, in a situation where defective loading equipment caused time loss, it was ruled that the Period Clause applied for the entire duration the Time Charterers were deprived of using the equipment, irrespective of whether loading was delayed by strikes, adverse weather, or cargo issues.

In contrast, a Net Loss of Time Clause simply states that Ship Hire is not payable for the time lost due to specified events. As described in the Baltime Time Charterparty Form (Clause 11A): “no hire to be paid in respect of any time lost thereby during the period in which the ship is unable to perform the service immediately required.”

At first glance, this wording suggests that Ship Hire is not suspended solely due to the occurrence of a specified event but only if, and to the extent that, time is lost as a result. This distinction is crucial in cases where a ship remains partially efficient, such as when only one of several loading cranes breaks down or when there is a Ship Speed Deficiency.

With a Period Clause, the obligation to pay Ship Hire resumes once the ship is fully operational and the Time Charterer can use it as intended. Therefore, if a ship has to deviate for repairs, the Time Charterer will bear the costs associated with making up for lost time after repairs are completed, unless the Time Charterparty specifies otherwise. A similar outcome is observed under English Law with the Net Time Lost type of Off-hire Clause. Despite this clause including “Any Time Lost” as a result of the specified event, recent cases indicate a broader principle: time lost is not deducted once the ship’s full operational efficiency is restored.

In The Marika M case, the court determined that the Time Charterer could not deduct time lost while waiting for a berth after the ship, which had previously gone Off-hire due to running aground, was refloated. This delay was considered a direct consequence of the grounding. Specific terms addressing such scenarios can be included in the Off-hire Clause itself. For example, the Intertanktime 80 Time Charterparty Form (Clause 20) specifies: “Ship Hire shall cease to be payable from the commencement of such deviation for repairs until the time when the vessel is again ready to resume her service from a position not less favourable to Time Charterers than that at which the deviation commenced.”

Off-hire Clauses often include a De Minimis Provision, which becomes effective only after 24 or 48 hours have passed since the specified event. Once this period has elapsed, all lost time, including the initial 24 or 48 hours, is considered. Despite the suspension of Ship Hire payments during the Off-hire period, the Time Charterer remains responsible for other obligations under the Time Charterparty, such as paying for fuel, port services, or crew overtime during this time.

Sometimes, the Off-hire Clause may offer the Time Charterer the option to extend the Time Charter by an equivalent period. However, this option can be unfavorable to Shipowners, especially in a rising Charter Rates market or if a subsequent charter has already been arranged. Therefore, it is more typical for the Off-hire Period to be counted as part of the original Time Charter Term. If the Off-hire event results from a breach of the Shipowner’s warranty or other acts not covered by exceptions, the Time Charterer may also be entitled to claim damages in addition to suspending Ship Hire payments.

Payment for Ship Hire

An Express Clause in a Time Charterparty usually outlines the timing, location, and frequency of Ship Hire payments, specifying the currency in which these payments are to be made. Ship Hire amounts are typically set at a fixed rate for a defined period, which can range from 24 hours to 30 days or a calendar month. Instalments of Ship Hire are often scheduled to be paid monthly or semi-monthly. Given the extended duration of these payments, they are particularly vulnerable to inflation and fluctuations in currency value.

To address these risks, Time Charterparties often include Currency Clauses to establish a fixed exchange rate between the payment currency and other relevant currencies. Additionally, an Escalator Clause may be included to adjust the Ship Hire Rate in response to increases in ship Operating Costs. For example, the Baltime Time Charterparty Form (1939 – Clause 6) provides:

“Time Charterers to pay as hire per 30 days, commencing in accordance with Clause 1 until the Redelivery to the Shipowners. Payment of Ship Hire to be made in cash without discount, every 30 days, in advance.”

Typically, a Time Charterparty stipulates that Ship Hire must be paid in cash. In The Brimnes case, Judge Brandon commented that “these words must be interpreted against the background of modern commercial practice. So interpreted, it seems to me that they cannot mean only payment in dollar bills or other legal tender of the US. They must have a wider meaning, comprehending any commercially recognised method of transferring funds, the result of which is to give the transferee the unconditional right to the immediate use of the funds transferred.” This implies that banker’s drafts and payment slips are generally accepted as equivalent to cash. However, there is some debate over whether Payment Orders under the London Currency Settlement Scheme are considered equivalent to cash. Although Payment Orders are viewed as equivalent to cash in the banking sector, a customer cannot access the funds until the document has been processed.

Conversely, Judge Lloyd in The Afovos case held that payment via telex transfer from one bank to another should be considered payment in cash for this purpose. Judge Lloyd reasoned that “when payment is made by telex transfer from one bank to another for the account of a customer, the payment is complete when the telex is received and tested by the receiving bank; so if the Shipowners were to inquire at their bank, they would be informed ‘yes, the money has arrived for your account.’ It is not necessary for the funds to be credited to the Shipowners’ account or for them to be able to withdraw the funds. It is sufficient that the funds have been received for the Shipowners’ account.”

This perspective contrasts sharply with the approach taken by the House of Lords in The Chikuma case. In that instance, the Ship Hire instalments had been paid into the Shipowner’s bank in Genoa on the due date, but the telex transfer included a value date that was four days later. According to Italian banking practice, this meant the funds in the Shipowner’s account did not accrue interest until the value date, and withdrawing the money would have involved paying interest. This situation effectively constituted an overdraft facility that the bank was obligated to provide. The House of Lords thus determined that such a payment did not qualify as cash.

In The Brimnes case, where both the Shipowner and Time Charterer had accounts at the same branch of the same bank, the receipt of a telex instruction from the Time Charterer to transfer the Ship Hire instalment into the Shipowner’s account did not constitute a cash payment. The payment was only considered effective once the amount had been credited to the Shipowner’s account, allowing them to access the funds.

Additionally, Ship Hire payments must be made in advance at either monthly or semi-monthly intervals. Payments are required before the performance period begins and can be made on or before the due date. If the due date falls on a Sunday or a non-banking day, the payment must be made by the preceding banking day; otherwise, the Time Charterer will be in default. However, the Time Charterer has until midnight on the due date to make the payment.

Lord Hailsham LC in The Afovos noted that “it is a general principle of law that when a person is obligated to perform an act by a specific date, they have the entire day to fulfill their duty.” Therefore, the Time Charterer is not considered in default until the end of that day, even if payment can only be made during banking hours. Griffiths LJ also emphasized that it is preferable to fix such important obligations to a specific time, like midnight, rather than depending on the varying business hours of different banks, which could lead to confusion.

In the absence of specific provisions to the contrary, the final instalment of Ship Hire due under the Time Charterparty must be paid in full, even if the ship is redelivered before the end of the charter period. Any overpayment of Ship Hire will be refunded by the Shipowner once the ship is returned.

The requirement for timely payment of Ship Hire in advance is strictly enforced, and the Time Charterer is considered in default if payment is not made by the due date, regardless of whether the delay is just a few hours or minutes. The nature of the default—whether intentional or not—is irrelevant. As long as there are no exceptional circumstances excusing the delay, failing to make the payment on time is enough to constitute default, regardless of any deliberate or negligent behavior.

Deductions from Ship Hire

The Time Charterer may have the right to adjust the Ship Hire for various reasons, such as advances for Port Disbursements (PDA) made on the Shipowner’s behalf, deductions for Off-hire Periods, allowances for Ship Speed Deficiency, failures to meet Time Charterparty Specifications, or compensation for Damage to cargo. In such instances, many Time Charterers prefer to deduct these amounts from future Ship Hire Payments rather than risk the difficulty of obtaining an Arbitration Award from an insolvent Shipowner or a single ship-owning company located in a distant country. Conversely, Shipowners generally resist any interruptions to their cash flow.

Some Time Charterparties specifically allow the Time Charterer to make deductions from future Ship Hire Payments for Port Disbursements (PDA) or Off-hire Periods. In contrast, other Time Charterparties may prohibit deductions in the event of a disputed claim or may suspend Ship Hire payments due when the ship is Off-hire.

In the absence of an Express Right to Deduct from Ship Hire specified in the Time Charterparty, British courts have traditionally been hesitant to permit self-help measures. Historically, it has been established that claims related to cargo cannot be settled through deductions from Freight, and this principle was initially extended to deductions from Ship Hire. For instance, in the Seven Seas Transportation v. Atlantic Shipping case, Judge Donaldson determined that there is no general equitable right of set-off for time lost under an Off-hire Clause. Judge Donaldson’s reasoning was based on concerns about potential disputes if the Shipowner denied liability or contested the claim amount. Exercising a deduction right in such cases could lead to the risk of the ship being Withdrawn for non-payment of Ship Hire, especially if the claim turned out to be partially or entirely unjustified.

Conversely, Judge Parker in The Teno case proposed a different approach, arguing that it would be fundamentally unfair to allow a Shipowner to collect Ship Hire for a period during which they failed to provide the contracted services. Judge Parker supported the notion of an Equitable Right of set-off, allowing the Time Charterer to make deductions from future Ship Hire Payments to account for Port Disbursements (PDA) made on the Shipowner’s behalf and for periods when the ship was Off-hire due to machinery breakdowns. Additionally, Judge Parker extended this right of set-off to both total and partial withdrawal of the ship’s use.

In The Nanfri case, the Court of Appeal tackled the divergent opinions on deductions from Ship Hire payments. The Time Charterer had deducted an amount from a Ship Hire instalment due to an earlier alleged loss of speed by the chartered vessel. Lord Denning MR distinguished Ship Hire from Freight, stating that the prohibition against deductions from Freight does not apply to Ship Hire payments under a Time Charter. He emphasized that the rules for Freight and Hire are fundamentally different and should not be applied interchangeably.

Lord Denning MR noted that a clear distinction must be made between defensive rights of set-off and cross-claims or counterclaims. Only those cross-claims that are directly related to the plaintiff’s demand and closely connected with it can be deducted. Therefore, if a Shipowner wrongfully deprives the Time Charterer of the ship’s use due to a breach of contract, the Time Charterer is entitled to deduct an amount equivalent to the Ship Hire for the lost period.

Although the House of Lords has not yet reviewed this decision and has recently adopted a more stringent interpretation of Time Charter Clauses, the principles established in The Nanfri have been upheld by lower courts. Judge Mocatta supports this decision as consistent with commercial practice, though he notes that set-off is restricted to claims that directly challenge the Ship Hire demand. Claims related to cargo damage or unrelated issues are excluded, and the Time Charterer cannot deduct more than the Ship Hire due for the period during which the required services were not provided.

A Time Charterer is not permitted to make advance deductions from Ship Hire for Anticipated Off-hire Periods. In The Li Hai case, where a Ship Hire instalment was due while the ship was scheduled for routine drydocking estimated to last around eight days, the trial judge ruled against allowing such advance deductions. The judge noted that allowing deductions based on estimates rather than actual events would create cash flow issues and lead to potential disputes.

When deductions from Ship Hire are allowed, courts recognize that it would be unfair to penalize the Time Charterer for minor errors in calculating the exact deduction amount. A reasonable estimate made in good faith is acceptable. The precise figures can be determined later either through mutual agreement between the Shipowner and Time Charterer or, if an agreement cannot be reached, through arbitration. If it turns out that the Time Charterer has deducted more than necessary, the Shipowner can recover the excess amount. This approach maintains the integrity of the express right to deduct as provided by many Off-hire Clauses, without undermining it by penalizing minor

Right to Withdraw Ship for Non-payment of Ship Hire

Under Common Law, time is generally not considered of the essence in a contract, which means a Shipowner cannot repudiate the Time Charterparty and withdraw the ship solely due to late Ship Hire payments, unless there is clear evidence of the Time Charterer’s intent not to perform. This could be evidenced by an explicit repudiation of obligations or a pattern of repeated non-payment. However, many Time Charterparties include a specific contractual right for the Shipowner to withdraw the ship. For example, the Baltime Time Charterparty Form (Clause 6) stipulates:

“In the event of payment default, the Owners have the right to withdraw the Ship from the Charterers’ service, without protest and without court intervention or other formalities, and without prejudice to any other claims the Owners may have against the Charterers under the Charter.”

Similarly, the New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) Form (Clause 5) allows the Shipowner to act in the event of “failure to make punctual and regular payment of hire.” These clauses were initially designed to exert pressure on persistent defaulters or to recover the ship before the Time Charterer’s insolvency led to bankruptcy proceedings. During times of fluctuating market rates, such clauses have been advantageous for Shipowners with long-term Time Charters at fixed rates. By invoking these clauses and withdrawing the ship for a payment default, Shipowners have been able to recharter the vessel at current market rates, occasionally even offering it back to the original Time Charterer.

n the vivid words of Lord Denning MR, “When market rates for ship charters are rising, Shipowners meticulously monitor Ship Hire payments. A minor lapse by the Time Charterer—a few minutes late or a few dollars short—triggers swift action from the Shipowners. They issue a Notice of Withdrawal and demand full payment of Ship Hire at the current peak market rate. Although the ship is seldom actually withdrawn, arrangements are often made for it to continue operating as if nothing occurred. The ensuing dispute is typically resolved through arbitration or court to assess the validity of the Notice of Withdrawal. Despite the seeming sharp practice, the courts view this as a hard-nosed business tactic rather than dishonesty.”

These clauses grant Shipowners considerable leverage but can also lead to contentious disputes. While the right of withdrawal is frequently exercised in response to payment defaults, it is often used strategically to either pressure Time Charterers into compliance or to reposition the vessel to take advantage of higher market rates.

In practice, invoking these clauses often results in negotiations between the Shipowner and the Time Charterer, and disputes are usually settled before arbitrators or in court, focusing on whether the Notice of Withdrawal was justified under the Time Charterparty terms. Despite potential disputes, courts generally consider these practices as part of normal business operations rather than evidence of bad faith.

Moreover, Ship Withdrawal Clauses are designed to protect the Shipowner’s interests by ensuring that significant payment issues are resolved promptly. The right to withdraw the ship provides a mechanism to address non-payment effectively and safeguard the Shipowner’s financial interests.

While the strict enforcement of withdrawal clauses may appear severe, it underscores the high stakes in managing ship charter agreements and the need for adherence to agreed terms. The interplay between enforcement and practical business considerations continues to influence how these clauses are applied and interpreted in Maritime Law.

A Time Charterer defaults if they fail to pay a Ship Hire instalment on time, or if payment is partial on the due date. This highlights the importance of determining whether the Time Charterer has an implied right to make Deductions from Ship Hire under certain circumstances. Ship Hire Payments must be made on or before the specified date to be deemed Punctual Payments or In Advance Payments. If payment is due on a day when banks are closed, it must be completed by the end of trading on the preceding business day. These requirements are enforced rigorously, regardless of whether the delay in Ship Hire Payment is by days or mere hours. A Late Ship Hire payment made before the Shipowner has exercised their Right to Withdraw the ship will not rectify the default unless the Shipowner chooses to accept the payment as timely and Waive the Breach. The Court of Appeal’s contrary decision in The Georgios case was specifically overturned by the Lords in The Laconia. Clear Notice of Withdrawal must be given to the Time Charterer or their Agents; notice to the Ship Master is insufficient. While no specific wording is mandated, the Time Charterer must be informed that the Shipowner views the Non-payment of Ship Hire as a termination of the Time Charterparty.

A Shipowner may lose their Right of Withdrawal if they waive the Breach. To prove waiver, the Shipowner’s actions must clearly and unequivocally show that they accepted Late Ship Hire Payment as if it were on time, or that the delay in rejecting the payment could reasonably lead the Time Charterer to believe it was accepted. Receipt of late payment by an Agent does not constitute a waiver unless the Agent has Explicit Authority to make such decisions on behalf of the Shipowner.

In The Laconia case, where Ship Hire payment was due on a Sunday, the Time Charterer’s bankers delivered a payment order for the correct amount under the London Currency Settlement Scheme to the Shipowner’s bank at 3 p.m. the next day. After receiving the payment order, the bankers were instructed to refuse the money and return it to the Time Charterer’s bank. The House of Lords determined that the Shipowners were still entitled to Withdraw the Ship. The bankers were only performing a ministerial function and lacked the authority to make commercial decisions about the continuation or termination of the Time Charterparty. “It was not within the bankers’ Express or Implied Authority to make business decisions regarding late Ship Hire payments without specific instructions. The bankers followed instructions to reject the payment and returned it to the Time Charterers the next day, which was considered a reasonable timeframe.”

Accepting a portion of the Ship Hire on or before the due date does not waive the Shipowner’s Right to Withdraw the Ship if the full amount is not paid by midnight on the due date. In the case of The Mihalios Xilas, the Time Charterers had the right to deduct Bunker (Fuel) Costs and Shipowner’s Port Disbursements (PDA) from the final month’s Ship Hire. However, the Time Charterer mistakenly thought that the ninth month was the final month and intended to deduct $31,000 from the Ship Hire instalment due on 22 March without disclosing the basis for these deductions. On 20 March, the Shipowner objected to the proposed deduction but did not instruct their bankers to reject the remaining Ship Hire, which was paid on 21 March. The Shipowner later discovered that the Time Charterer was treating the ninth month as the final month and requested further details and supporting vouchers, which were not provided. The Shipowner then withdrew the Ship on 26 March. The Time Charterer claimed damages for Wrongful Withdrawal, arguing that by accepting the payment on 21 March, the Shipowner had waived their Right to Withdraw the Ship. The House of Lords ruled that accepting part of the Ship Hire on 21 March did not constitute a waiver since the Time Charterer had until the end of trading on 22 March to make the full payment, and no default had occurred at that time. Lord Diplock observed that “waiver requires knowledge” and agreed that the Shipowners were entitled to a reasonable period to verify the situation with the Time Charterer and the Ship Master before deciding to withdraw the Ship. Consequently, the four-day period from 21 March to noon on 26 March was considered a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, retaining the advance Ship Hire payment during this period did not amount to an unequivocal waiver of the right to withdraw.

Subsequent cases have established that a delay of four to five days past the Ship Hire Payment due date is typically deemed reasonable and does not constitute a waiver of the breach. Judge Lloyd in The Scaptrade case observed that “the minimum time reasonably necessary will depend on the specifics of the case. In some situations, it may be appropriate for Shipowners to take time to evaluate their position, as withdrawing from a Time Charter is a significant decision that should not be made lightly. In other cases, Shipowners might reasonably seek legal advice. It would be unjust to expect Shipowners to act immediately or to consider themselves at risk for granting a short grace period to Time Charterers.”

Moreover, there is precedent suggesting that if a Shipowner consistently fails to enforce strict legal rights regarding Ship Hire payments, this could establish a pattern that prevents them from exercising the Right of Withdrawal for future breaches by the Time Charterer. However, the Shipowner must give adequate notice of their intention to revert to strict legal enforcement in such cases.

In the Tankexpress v Compagnie Financière Belge des Petroles case, a seven-year Time Charter required Ship Hire to be paid in cash, monthly in advance, with a provision allowing the Shipowner to withdraw the ship “in default of such payment.” Initially, the Time Charterer consistently mailed a cheque to the Shipowner’s London bank two days before the payment was due, and the Shipowner accepted this method for two years without complaint. When the payment for September 1939 was delayed due to the outbreak of war, the Shipowner attempted to exercise their Right to Withdraw the Ship. The House of Lords ruled against the Shipowner. Lord Porter remarked, “In this situation, it is evident that the method of contract performance was adjusted by an arrangement to send payment to Hambros Bank by cheque posted in time to reach London by the 27th of the month. While Shipowners could have insisted on strict performance after providing proper notice, they could not abruptly change the accepted method of performance without first notifying the Time Charterers and allowing them the opportunity to comply as required.”

On the other hand, a distinction must be made between an accepted mode of performance and a scenario where the Shipowner repeatedly accepts Late Ship Hire Payments without objection. In such cases, this behavior does not generally indicate that the Shipowner will forgo their Right to Withdraw in the event of a future late payment. In The Scaptrade case, the Court of Appeal found that estoppel did not arise even though six out of 22 installments were paid late. Judge Robert Goff remarked, “It is not easy to deduce from the mere acceptance of late payments in the past that the Shipowners have unequivocally represented that they will not exercise their strict legal right of withdrawal for future late payments, especially since the circumstances of earlier late payments may differ from those of the present.”

There was initially hope that the Equitable Doctrine of relief against forfeiture could soften the impact of a strict withdrawal clause. However, this doctrine received limited support in The Laconia case. Lord Denning MR observed in the Court of Appeal, “On reflection, I do not think equity would intervene in such a commercial case. It would leave the parties to determine their rights by law. Commercial matters require certainty, timeliness, and speed, which equity does not provide.” In the House of Lords, Lord Wilberforce agreed, noting the clear distinction between Charterparty contracts and land leases, where the Equitable Doctrine was developed. Lord Simon suggested there might be rare cases where a failure to make punctual payment due to an accident could unfairly disadvantage the Time Charterers, making it unconscionable for the Shipowners to withdraw. However, he acknowledged such cases would be extremely rare. This potential exception appears to have been definitively ruled out by The Scaptrade case, which held that courts do not have jurisdiction to grant equitable relief in these situations. Robert Goff LJ’s judgment in the Court of Appeal underscores the current judicial stance:

“In commercial transactions, it is essential that parties know their legal position if an event affecting their rights occurs. The Court should avoid creating obstacles to determining this position, as prompt action may be necessary and have significant consequences. The policy favoring certainty in commercial transactions opposes equitable intervention, which could lead to uncertainty, disputes, and litigation. Thus, extending such jurisdiction would interfere with the exercise of contractual rights and is not deemed appropriate.”

The courts’ hesitance to apply Equitable Relief in these cases is partly due to the presence of Anti-Technicality Clauses, which can be included in a Time Charterparty with mutual consent. These clauses generally require the Shipowner to give specific notice to the Time Charterer before invoking the Withdrawal Clause in case of a Ship Hire payment default. For instance, in The Libyaville case, the Time Charterparty included a clause stipulating that, “in the event of a failure to make punctual and regular payment, Shipowners must provide Time Charterers with two banking working days’ written notice to correct the failure.” Courts have strictly enforced these Anti-Technicality Clauses, ruling that an inquiry about a missed Ship Hire installment does not qualify as notice of intent to withdraw. Additionally, notice under such a clause cannot be issued before midnight on the due date, so any notice given before midnight but after banks have closed on the due date is deemed ineffective.

Judge Griffiths, in The Afovos case, highlighted the practical reasons behind this strict adherence: “Ship Hire payments are often processed via telex through various banks, and delays can occur due to oversights. Once the Time Charterer has instructed their bank to make the payment, they lose control over the transaction as it passes through the banking system. Therefore, Shipowners must notify Time Charterers if payment has not been received. Early notification before the deadline might not convey urgency, causing the Time Charterer to expect the payment to be credited on time. Conversely, notification after the deadline ensures the Time Charterer understands the breach and has a clear 48-hour window to remedy the situation.”

When the Shipowner exercises the right to withdraw the ship due to default in Ship Hire payment, it results in the termination of the Time Charterparty. The Shipowner cannot temporarily withdraw the ship to compel payment unless explicitly permitted by the Time Charterparty. Such an action would constitute a breach of the Time Charterparty, for which the Shipowner would be liable for damages. Additionally, the Shipowner cannot engage in other actions, such as revoking the Time Charterer’s authority to sign a Bill of Lading (B/L) or instructing the Ship Master not to sign a pre-paid Bill of Lading (B/L). In The Nanfri case, such conduct was deemed a repudiatory breach, allowing the Time Charterers to terminate the agreement.

Practical challenges arise when a ship is withdrawn after cargo has been loaded. Recent cases have established that in such scenarios, expenses related to bailment during the unloading period, as well as the cost of bunker (fuel) used for discharge, can be claimed. If a Bill of Lading (B/L) has been issued prior to the withdrawal, especially to parties other than the Time Charterer, the withdrawal would generally be contingent on completing the voyage covered by that Bill of Lading. Typically, after a Notice of Ship Withdrawal is issued, Shipowners and Time Charterers often reach an agreement to continue the charter under the original terms. If the Notice is deemed valid, the Time Charterer will pay the increased market charter rate; if invalid, the original charter rate remains.

The immediate effect of withdrawing the ship is the termination of the Time Charterparty, and the Shipowner is not entitled to any Ship Hire for the remaining charter period. Furthermore, the Shipowner cannot retain any unearned Ship Hire that was paid in advance. Damages for the unexpired portion of the Time Charter can only be claimed if the default in Ship Hire payment is considered a repudiation of the Time Charterparty by the Time Charterer. As time is generally not of the essence in a Time Charter, a default in Ship Hire payment rarely amounts to repudiation. Consequently, a Shipowner intending to withdraw the ship usually relies on the Withdrawal Clause specified in the Time Charterparty.

Indemnity Clause in Time Charterparty

Most Time Charterparties include an Indemnity Clause that grants the Time Charterer the full use of the ship during the charter period and requires the Ship Master to follow the Time Charterer’s orders and instructions.

A significant right provided by such an Indemnity Clause is the Time Charterer’s authority to issue Bills of Lading (B/L), which the Ship Master must sign upon request. These Bills of Lading can be enforced by third-party holders against the Shipowner, even if their terms differ considerably from those in the Time Charterparty. In return, the Time Charterer agrees to indemnify the Shipowner for any additional liabilities arising from these actions.

An example of this type of clause is found in the Baltime Time Charterparty Form (Clause 9): “The master shall conduct all voyages with the utmost efficiency and provide customary assistance with the ship’s crew. The master shall comply with the charterers’ orders regarding employment, agency, or other arrangements. The charterers shall indemnify the owners against any consequences or liabilities arising from the master, officers, or agents signing bills of lading or other documents, or complying with such orders, as well as any irregularities in the ship’s documents or for overcarrying goods.”

Judge Devlin aptly highlighted the rationale behind including such an Indemnity Clause: “If the Shipowner is to give up his freedom of choice and place the Ship Master under the Time Charterer’s orders, it is only fair that the Shipowner should receive full indemnity in return.” This specific Indemnity Clause is designed to cover any additional costs or liabilities that arise from making the ship available to the Time Charterer. These liabilities might result from the Time Charterer’s instructions regarding the ship’s use or from the Ship Master signing Bills of Lading (B/L) as requested by the Time Charterer.

For example, the Shipowner can seek compensation for physical damage if the ship is sent to a hazardous port or tasked with carrying dangerous cargo. The Shipowner is also protected against financial liability to third parties if cargo is released without presenting the relevant Bill of Lading (B/L) upon the Time Charterer’s instruction. Moreover, if the Ship Master signs a Bill of Lading (B/L) with terms more onerous than those specified in the Charterparty—such as omitting Charterparty exceptions or falling under the Hague-Visby Rules—the Shipowner is indemnified against any extra liability incurred.

While it might initially seem that this Indemnity Clause would allow the Shipowner to recover all additional costs or liabilities arising from the charter, there are several limitations on the Shipowner’s right to such recovery under this clause.

Firstly, under a Time Charterparty, the Shipowner remains accountable for navigation and ship management. Therefore, the Shipowner cannot seek compensation for losses arising from negligent navigation or issues of unseaworthiness, even if these occur while executing the Time Charterer’s instructions. These responsibilities are inherent to the Shipowner’s role. Judge Lloyd in The Aquacharm explained: “Not every loss during a voyage is recoverable. For instance, Shipowners cannot claim damages for heavy weather simply because an alternative route ordered by the Time Charterers might have avoided it. The connection is too remote. Likewise, routine navigation costs, such as ballasting, cannot be claimed even if they arise from the Time Charterer’s orders.”

Secondly, while the Ship Master must follow the Time Charterer’s instructions within a reasonable period, they are not obliged to comply with orders that exceed the Time Charterer’s authority. A clause requiring the Ship Master to obey the Time Charterer’s orders does not extend to directives that go beyond the Time Charterer’s legitimate power. Therefore, if the Ship Master is instructed to go to an obviously unsafe port or to sign a Bill of Lading (B/L) that contradicts the Time Charterparty terms, the Shipowner cannot use the Indemnity Clause to recover resulting losses. However, the courts typically acknowledge the Ship Master’s difficult position and generally afford them the benefit of the doubt, provided their actions were reasonable and made in good faith.

Lastly, causation must be addressed. The mere fact that a loss occurs while following the Time Charterer’s orders does not automatically prove that the loss was directly caused by, or is a legal consequence of, such compliance. Without concrete evidence establishing this causation, there is no entitlement to indemnity. For example, an Indemnity Clause does not cover losses caused by crew negligence. Likewise, indemnity will not apply if a cargo, such as coal, emits methane gas that ignites due to unrelated repair work. In such cases, the court may find that the cargo’s loading was not the direct cause of the explosion. The essential question is whether the loss to the Shipowner was an unavoidable outcome of following the Time Charterer’s instructions.

Recent judgments have shown that, in the absence of an Express Term, a Right to Indemnity might be implied when a Shipowner places the Ship Master under the Time Charterer’s orders. This implication is based on Business Efficacy: if the Time Charterer requires full control over the ship, voyages, cargoes, and Bill of Lading (B/L) terms, the Shipowner should be entitled to indemnity for any resulting losses or liabilities. However, no implied indemnity will apply if the Shipowner has expressly or implicitly agreed to assume the risk at the Time Charterparty’s formation. Any implied indemnity will also be limited by the same constraints as an express indemnity and will be excluded if there is a conflicting provision in the Time Charterparty.

Redelivery of the Ship under Time Charterparty

In a Time Charterparty, it is common for the agreement to specify that the ship must be redelivered to the Shipowner at a designated port or within a specified range of ports in good condition, “ordinary wear and tear excepted.” If the Time Charterer fails to meet this obligation due to a breach of their duties under the Time Charterparty, they are liable for damages. This liability also extends to any damage to the ship for which the Time Charterer is responsible under the Employment and Indemnity Clause.

There is some debate about whether this clause imposes a strict obligation on the Time Charterer to return the ship in good order. Since the Shipowner typically agrees to maintain the ship in an efficient condition throughout the Time Charter Period, it can be argued that the Time Charterer’s responsibility might be limited to damage they have directly caused or damage resulting from their instructions.

Even with the requirement to return the ship in good condition, the Shipowner cannot refuse to accept redelivery due to unresolved defects. As stated by Lord Denning MR, this requirement is “not a Condition precedent to the right to redeliver, but only a stipulation providing a remedy in Damages.” Therefore, if repair costs exceed the ship’s value after repairs, the Shipowner must accept redelivery and seek damages instead of withholding ship hire until repairs are completed. Both legal and commercial considerations necessitate that the Time Charterparty concludes even if the ship’s condition upon redelivery is unsatisfactory.

The concept of “Ordinary Wear and Tear” is determined by the specific use for which the ship was chartered. For instance, in a case concerning the refitting of a liner used for troop transport during World War I, Lord Buckmaster commented:

“It is challenging to understand how a Time Charterparty for a ship specifically hired to transport troops and similar cargo can overlook the expenses incurred during its operation.”

If a ship is chartered for a specific type of trade and operates without negligence, any damage resulting from such use should be considered Fair Wear and Tear.

The Time Charterer’s final obligation is to return the ship to the port or location specified in the Time Charterparty. If the ship is returned to a different location, the Shipowner is entitled to continue using the ship at the charter rate of hire until it reaches the proper redelivery point. This voyage to the redelivery location is considered part of the chartered service. To compensate for this breach, the Time Charterer must pay the Ship Hire the Shipowner would have earned had the voyage been completed as originally agreed. Practically, this means damages are calculated based on the net profit from a hypothetical voyage to the agreed redelivery point under the Time Charterparty, minus any net profit from alternative employment during the time needed to complete the hypothetical voyage.

4- Understanding Voyage Charterparty

—

Ship Chartering

Ship chartering is a widespread practice globally, but it can be challenging for those outside the shipping industry to comprehend. This page aims to provide a straightforward, easy-to-understand overview of the ship chartering process, without the use of technical jargon.

Ship chartering is the practice of renting or leasing a ship for the purpose of transporting goods or passengers from one location to another. It plays a significant role in the global shipping industry and international trade, as it allows businesses to move large quantities of cargo across the world in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In ship chartering, a shipowner leases their ship to a charterer, who then uses the ship to transport cargo or passengers under the terms and conditions specified in a legal contract called a charter party agreement. There are different types of ship chartering arrangements, including Bareboat Charter, Time charter, and Voyage Charter, each with its own set of terms and responsibilities for the Shipowner and Charterer.

What is Ship Chartering?

Ship chartering is the process of renting or leasing a ship for the transportation of goods or passengers. It is an essential part of the global shipping industry and plays a crucial role in international trade, as it allows companies to transport large quantities of cargo across the world efficiently and cost-effectively.

Ship chartering involves renting a ship to transport cargo from one place to another, much like a company would hire a truck for road transport. A charter party is signed between the charterer and the shipowner, outlining the terms and conditions of the agreement. This document contains all the relevant details of the charter, including the freight, loading rates, discharging rates, lay time, etc.

Shipbrokers are often involved in the ship chartering process. Shipbrokers act as intermediaries between those seeking to charter a ship and shipowners, helping to locate the appropriate ship to meet the charterer’s needs. Additionally, Shipbrokers can work with ship owners, identifying suitable charterers for their ships. It is important to understand that ship chartering is not solely used for transporting cargo, but also for human transportation. For instance, cruise lines often charter ships from ship owners for extended periods. Additionally, charterers may also hire ships such as tugs and workboats that aid in cargo transport.

Parties involved in Ship Chartering

As previously stated, three parties are typically involved in the ship chartering process: the charterer, ship owner, and shipbroker. Here is a breakdown of each party’s role in the process:

1. Charterer: The charterer is the party that requires a ship to transport cargo or passengers. They are responsible for negotiating the terms of the charter party with the shipowner and for paying the agreed-upon charter hire.
2. Shipowner: The ship owner is the party that owns the ship that is being chartered. They are responsible for providing a seaworthy ship that meets the requirements of the charter party. The shipowner receives the charter hire from the charterer.
3. Shipbroker: The shipbroker acts as an intermediary between the charterer and the shipowner. They assist the charterer in finding the most suitable ship for their needs and negotiate the terms of the charter party on behalf of the charterer. Alternatively, they may assist ship owners in finding suitable charterers for their ships.

There are various responsibilities and roles that a ship charterer might have, depending on the type of charter agreement:

1. Voyage Charter: In a voyage charter, the ship charterer contracts the ship for a specific voyage or set of voyages. The shipowner provides the ship, crew, and covers operational expenses, while the charterer pays a freight rate based on the volume or weight of cargo transported. Voyage charters are the most common type of chartering agreement in the shipping industry.
2. Time Charter: In a time charter, the ship charterer rents the ship for a specific period, with the shipowner providing the ship, crew, and covering operational expenses such as fuel and port charges. The charterer is responsible for directing the ship’s movements and covering the costs of cargo loading and unloading. Time charters are usually short to medium-term agreements.
3. Bareboat Charter: In a bareboat or demise charter, the ship charterer assumes full responsibility for the ship’s operation, including hiring the crew, obtaining insurance, and providing necessary supplies. The charterer also bears the costs of fuel, port charges, and other operational expenses. This type of charter is typically used for long-term arrangements.

2- Ship Owner

A shipowner is an individual or a company that owns one or more ships, which are used to transport goods or passengers across various routes in the maritime industry. Shipowners can be independent operators who own and manage their own ships or larger shipping companies with a fleet of ships serving various markets and cargo types.

The primary role of a shipowner is to provide shipping services to charterers who require transportation of goods or passengers. Shipowners maintain and operate their ships in compliance with international regulations, safety standards, and environmental requirements. They are also responsible for hiring and managing the crew, maintaining the ship’s seaworthiness, and ensuring it meets all legal and technical requirements.

The ship owner is the person or organization who owns the ship and earns money by leasing it out to charterers. The ship owner may own a single ship or a fleet of several ships of different types and sizes. The ship owner is responsible for the maintenance of the ship on a day-to-day basis, ensuring that it complies with safety and seaworthiness standards, among other requirements. The ship owner also organize and cover the costs of inspections and ship registration fees.

The ship owner bears the initial cost of purchasing or constructing the ship, which is usually significant. Therefore, finding charterers regularly is crucial. They are also responsible for the crew’s payment, and with Voyage Charters, they bear all other expenses of the voyage.

Shipowners play a crucial role in international trade and the global shipping industry, as they provide the ships and services necessary for transporting goods and passengers across the world. To be successful, shipowners need to be knowledgeable about the shipping market, ship types, maintenance and operational costs, regulations, and safety standards.

What are the responsibilities of a Ship Owner? 

Depending on the type of charter agreement, shipowners may have different levels of involvement and responsibilities in the chartering process:

1. Voyage Charter: In a voyage charter, the shipowner provides the ship, crew, and covers operational expenses for a specific voyage or set of voyages. The charterer pays a freight rate based on the volume or weight of cargo transported. In this arrangement, the shipowner is responsible for the overall operation and performance of the ship, following the charterer’s instructions on the route and cargo loading and unloading.
2. Time Charter: In a time charter, the shipowner provides the ship, crew, and covers operational expenses, such as fuel and port charges, for a specific period. The charterer is responsible for directing the ship’s movements and covering the costs of cargo loading and unloading. In this type of charter, the shipowner is more involved in the ship’s operation, ensuring that the crew follows the charterer’s instructions and manages the ship’s performance.
3. Bareboat Charter: In a bareboat or demise charter, the shipowner rents the ship without any crew, provisions, or insurance. The charterer takes full responsibility for the ship’s operation, including hiring the crew, obtaining insurance, and providing necessary supplies. The shipowner’s primary responsibility in this arrangement is to provide a seaworthy ship that meets the requirements of the charterer.

3- Shipbroker

A shipbroker is a professional intermediary who specializes in facilitating transactions between shipowners and charterers in the maritime industry. Shipbrokers act as agents, connecting parties interested in chartering ships for the transportation of goods or passengers with shipowners who have ships available for hire. Their primary goal is to negotiate and secure the best possible terms for both parties, ensuring a successful and profitable agreement.

The role of the shipbroker in ship chartering is to act as an intermediary between the charterer and the ship owner, helping to find the best deal for their Principle. Shipbrokers have extensive knowledge of the shipping industry and can help to negotiate the terms of the charter party.

The shipbroker is usually paid a commission by the charterer or ship owner, or sometimes a combination of both. Shipbrokers can also provide valuable market intelligence and advice on the current state of the shipping industry, helping their clients make informed decisions.

Shipbrokers typically possess in-depth knowledge of the shipping market, ship types, freight rates, and market trends. They use their expertise to help clients make informed decisions and provide valuable advice on chartering strategies, shipping routes, and other crucial factors that impact the chartering process. Shipbrokers can be specialized in different segments of the shipping industry, such as dry bulk, tankers, containers, or passenger ships.

Shipbrokers play a vital role in the shipping industry, as their expertise and connections help facilitate transactions and ensure the efficient movement of goods and passengers across the world. They are crucial to the success of both shipowners and charterers, providing valuable market insights and supporting smooth chartering processes.

What are the responsibilities of a Shipbroker? 

The key roles and responsibilities of a shipbroker include:

1. Chartering Negotiations: Shipbrokers act as intermediaries between the charterer and the shipowner, negotiating the terms and conditions of the charter on behalf of their clients. They strive to secure the most favorable rates and conditions for both parties.
2. Chartering Contract Preparation: Once an agreement is reached, shipbrokers help draft the charter party agreement, a legal contract outlining the terms and conditions of the charter. They ensure that all necessary clauses and provisions are included to protect the interests of both the shipowner and the charterer.
3. Market Analysis: Shipbrokers constantly monitor market conditions, freight rates, and trends to provide clients with accurate and up-to-date information. This helps clients make informed decisions and identify opportunities in the market.
4. Ship and Cargo Matching: Shipbrokers analyze the requirements of charterers and identify suitable ships from their network of shipowners. They ensure that the ships meet the charterers’ specifications in terms of size, type, and cargo capacity.
5. Post-Fixture Services: Shipbrokers may also provide post-fixture services, such as monitoring the performance of the ship during the charter, ensuring timely payments, and assisting with any disputes or issues that may arise between the parties.

Types of Ship Chartering

There are three main types of ship charters: voyage charter, time charter, and bareboat charter:

1- Voyage Charter

In a voyage charter, the charterer contracts the ship for a specific voyage or set of voyages. The shipowner provides the ship, crew, and covers operational expenses, while the charterer pays a freight rate based on the volume or weight of cargo transported. Voyage charters are the most common type of chartering agreement in the shipping industry.

A voyage charter is the most commonly used chartering type. It involves the chartering of a ship for a specific voyage between two or more ports. The charterer hires the ship for the voyage, and the ship owner takes back control of the ship after the voyage is complete. The charter party specifies the laytime, which is the time allotted for loading and unloading the ship. If the laytime is exceeded, penalties are applied by the ship owner (Demurrage), and if the time taken is less than stipulated, the charterer may receive a partial refund (Despatch).

Payment for a voyage charter is generally charged on a per-ton basis, but for some cargo types, the charterer may pay a Lump Sum Freight. A voyage charter can be a one-off contract or part of several consecutive voyages.

Contract of Affreightment (COA): What is Contract of Affreightment (COA)?

A Contract of Affreightment (COA) is a legal agreement between a shipper and a carrier, where the carrier agrees to transport a specified quantity of goods over a certain period of time or across multiple voyages. The contract outlines the terms and conditions under which the carrier will provide transportation services for the shipper’s goods, including the freight charges, payment terms, cargo description, delivery dates, and any other relevant details. This type of contract is commonly used in the shipping industry for bulk cargo or larger shipments that require multiple voyages to transport.

2- Time Charter

In a time charter, the charterer rents the ship for a specific period. The shipowner provides the ship, its crew, and covers operational expenses, such as fuel and port charges. The charterer is responsible for directing the ship’s movements and covering the costs of cargo loading and unloading. Time charters are usually short to medium-term agreements.

A time charter allows the charterer to use the ship for an agreed period of time, where they have complete control over the ship’s routes, destinations, and more. The charterer is responsible for most of the costs incurred by the ship during the agreed time, including fuel costs (bunkers), cargo handling costs, port charges, and more. The time charter ends when the specified time runs out, regardless of the ship’s location. This type of charter is commonly used for ships that support a specific civil construction or offshore project, such as tug boats, anchor handling tugs, crew boats, and supply ships.

3- Bareboat Charter

In Bareboat Charter, the charterer leases the ship without any crew, provisions, or insurance. The charterer takes full responsibility for the ship’s operation, including hiring the crew, obtaining insurance, and providing necessary supplies. Bareboat charters are typically used for long-term arrangements.

Bareboat charter is a type of ship chartering where the charterer leases the ship for a long period, usually for many years, and assumes full responsibility for the ship’s operation and maintenance, both legally and financially. The charterer pays for all the costs associated with the ship during the charter time, including crewing, fuel, and insurance. This arrangement is particularly attractive to ship owners who want to avoid the day-to-day running of the ship. Under a bareboat charter, the charterer may have the option to eventually gain ownership of the ship through a hire-purchase agreement.

What are the advantages of Bareboat Charter?

A bareboat charter offers the advantage of greater freedom and control for the charterer, as they have the ability to determine the itinerary and choose their own crew. Additionally, agreeing to a long-term charter can lower the overall cost and there may be an option for the charterer to eventually take ownership of the ship through a hire-purchase agreement.

Is Ship Chartering insured?

When taking out a charter agreement, it is important to note that the charterer assumes various responsibilities, one of which is the requirement for insurance coverage. This insurance should provide liability coverage for cargo damage, ship damage, environmental damage, and marine salvage. It is essential for the charterer to carefully review the contract and understand their obligations regarding insurance.

Ship chartering typically involves various types of insurance to protect the interests of both the shipowner and the charterer. Insurance is essential in the shipping industry to mitigate potential risks and financial losses that may arise due to accidents, cargo damage, or other unforeseen events. Some common types of insurance involved in ship chartering include:

1. Freight, Demurrage, and Defense (FD&D) Insurance: FD&D insurance covers legal costs and expenses arising from disputes related to charter party agreements, such as claims for unpaid freight or demurrage. This insurance is often provided by the same P&I Clubs that offer P&I insurance.
2. Cargo Insurance: Cargo insurance protects the charterer or cargo owner against loss or damage to the cargo during transportation. This insurance is typically taken out by the charterer or the cargo owner, as they have an insurable interest in the cargo being transported.
3. Hull and Machinery Insurance: This insurance covers the physical damage to the ship itself, including its hull, machinery, and equipment. It is usually taken out by the shipowner to protect their investment in the ship.
4. Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Insurance: This type of insurance covers the shipowner’s third-party liabilities, such as crew injuries, damage to third-party property, or pollution caused by the ship. P&I insurance is typically provided by specialized clubs known as P&I Clubs, which are mutual insurance associations made up of shipowners.
5. War Risk Insurance (WRI): This insurance covers losses resulting from war-related perils, such as terrorism, piracy, or acts of war. It can be taken out by both the shipowner and the charterer to protect their respective interests.

Insurance Responsibilities in Ship Chartering

In a ship chartering arrangement, the specific insurance requirements may vary depending on the type of charter:

1. Voyage Charter: In a voyage charter, the shipowner generally provides hull and machinery and P&I insurance, while the charterer or cargo owner is responsible for cargo insurance.
2. Time Charter: In a time charter, the shipowner typically provides hull and machinery and P&I insurance, while the charterer may be responsible for cargo insurance and other specific insurance depending on the charter party agreement.
3. Bareboat Charter: In a bareboat or demise charter, the charterer assumes full responsibility for the ship’s operation and is usually required to obtain hull and machinery, P&I, and other necessary insurance coverage.

The exact insurance requirements and responsibilities for ship chartering should be clearly outlined in the charter party agreement to ensure that all parties are adequately protected and understand their obligations.

What is Charter Party Agreement?

A charter party agreement is a legal contract between the shipowner and the charterer that outlines the terms and conditions of the charter. It specifies the details of the ship, cargo, route, duration, payment terms, and other essential information. It is crucial for both parties to thoroughly review and understand the charter party agreement to ensure a smooth and successful ship chartering process.

Factors to Consider in Ship Chartering:

a) Type of Cargo – Different types of cargo require different types of ships. For example, dry bulk cargo (such as coal or grains) requires specialized dry bulk carriers, while liquid cargo (such as oil or chemicals) requires specialized tankers.

b) Ship Size and Specifications – The size and specifications of the ship should match the requirements of the cargo being transported. Ship size is usually measured in deadweight tonnage (DWT) or gross tonnage (GT).

c) Route and Distance – The intended shipping route and distance will impact the cost of the charter, as fuel consumption and port charges vary depending on the route.

d) Duration – The duration of the charter agreement will affect the charter rate. Longer charter agreements may lead to lower daily rates, while shorter agreements may have higher daily rates.

e) Market Conditions – The supply and demand for ships in the market will influence the charter rates. Higher demand for ships will result in higher charter rates, while lower demand will lead to lower rates.

In conclusion, ship chartering is a vital aspect of the global shipping industry, enabling the efficient transportation of goods across the world. Understanding the different types of chartering agreements and the factors that influence them is crucial for businesses looking to charter ships for their cargo transportation needs.

Ship Chartering Process

The ship chartering process involves a series of steps that connect shipowners and charterers to facilitate the transportation of goods or passengers across the world. This process is essential to the global shipping industry and international trade. The following is an overview of the key steps in the ship chartering process:

1. Identifying Requirements: The charterer begins by determining their specific shipping needs, such as the type and volume of cargo, preferred ship size and specifications, loading and discharging ports, and the desired schedule for transportation.
2. Engaging a Shipbroker: The charterer may engage a shipbroker, a professional intermediary with expertise in the shipping market and connections with shipowners. The shipbroker helps the charterer navigate the chartering process and negotiate favorable terms with shipowners.
3. Market Analysis and Ship Search: The shipbroker or charterer conducts market research and analysis to gather information on freight rates, ship availability, and market trends. They then search for suitable ships that match the charterer’s requirements, contacting shipowners with ships available for charter.
4. Chartering Negotiations: Once a suitable ship is identified, the shipbroker or charterer negotiates the terms and conditions of the charter with the shipowner. This may include the freight rate, laytime (time allowed for loading and unloading cargo), demurrage (penalties for exceeding laytime), payment terms, and other relevant clauses.
5. Charter Party Agreement: After reaching an agreement on the charter terms, the shipbroker or charterer drafts a charter party agreement, which is a legal contract outlining the rights and obligations of both parties. This document includes details about the ship, cargo, route, duration, and other essential terms. Both parties review, negotiate, and ultimately sign the agreement.
6. Pre-Voyage Preparations: Before the voyage begins, both parties must prepare for the transportation of the cargo. The shipowner ensures the ship is seaworthy, complies with all regulations, and is ready to receive cargo. The charterer arranges for the cargo to be transported to the loading port, and any necessary permits or documentation are obtained.
7. Loading and Transportation: The ship arrives at the loading port, and the cargo is loaded onto the ship according to the terms outlined in the charter party agreement. Once the cargo is safely loaded, the ship departs for its destination.
8. Discharging and Payment: Upon arrival at the discharging port, the cargo is unloaded, and any inspections or documentation required by local authorities are completed. The charterer pays the freight charges and any other fees specified in the charter party agreement to the shipowner.
9. Post-Fixture Services: After the voyage is completed, the shipbroker or charterer may provide post-fixture services, such as monitoring the ship’s performance, ensuring timely payments, and resolving any disputes that may arise between the parties.

The ship chartering process is a complex and essential part of the global shipping industry, requiring cooperation and coordination between charterers, shipowners, and shipbrokers to ensure the efficient and cost-effective transportation of goods and passengers.