1. The object of this article is, firstly, to consider the effect of the Johanna Oldendorff decision on “time lost waiting for berth” provisions in a charter-party (which in turn are governed to a considerable extent by the Loucas N. decision) and, secondly, to consider whether or not the House of Lords should have gone further than they did in defining the area in which a vessel becomes an “arrived ship”.

2. Although the Johanna Oldendorff decision will be treated in more detail when considering the second question, it is as well, at this stage, to set out the ratio decidendi of the decision, which appears to be that, a vessel can be said to have arrived at a port if she has reached a position within the port where she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer (this being a place within the port where waiting ships usually lie unless the charterer can show circumstances to the contrary; if the vessel is waiting at some other place in the port then it is up to the owner to prove that the vessel is as fully at the disposition of the charterer as she would have been if in the vicinity of the berth for loading or discharging).

3. Some persons now contend that, in the light of the Johanna Oldendorff decision, and assuming a vessel has become an “arrived ship”, in the case of a port charter-party which contains “time lost in waiting for a berth to count as loading time” provisions, the Loucas N. decision is to be disregarded so as to apply the laytime exceptions to the time that the vessel is waiting for a berth. While there may be considerable justice in this approach I do not think that it accords with the law as it stands at present, and this aspect is what I now go on to consider.

4. The Radnor decision has made it clear that, in the standard Gencon form, where the “laytime” provisions are in a separate clause to the “time lost waiting for berth” provisions (as is the usual case), the “time lost” provisions are independent of the “laytime” provisions and are therefore not to affect the independent “time lost” code. While I think that this is where the Courts (from a commercial standpoint) first went wrong on the topic (because, in commercial reality, the two clauses are not really independent; simply, for convenience and so as to build in lengthier and more complicated