Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
LAYTIME PROBLEMS AND COMPARISON OF LAW
Dr Johannes Trappe *
I. INTRODUCTION
Years ago parties involved in arbitration proceedings, as well as arbitrators, were reluctant to publish arbitration awards which they had obtained or rendered. It appears beyond doubt that publishing is necessary for various reasons, such as to help avoiding future disputes, to advise those engaged in the trade, and to control arbitrators. Meanwhile, it can be noted with satisfaction that all over the world maritime arbitration awards are in fact increasingly published, as in Gdynia, Hamburg, London, Moscow, New York, Paris, Tokyo.
Thus, we have now reached a stage where it is possible, and the time has therefore come, to embark on the task of comparing awards, i.e. the legal answers given therein by arbitration tribunals at different places, with the overall aim of considering whether certain answers are preferable to others and perhaps learning from the reasoning of particular awards.
In this paper therefore a brief attempt is made to identify laytime and demurrage problems which have been, at various places of arbitration, answered differently; to compare the answers given and where possible to evaluate the reasons given for those differing answers. Of course, only a few examples can be given.
II. EXAMPLES
1. Interruption of laytime
(a) The Malente was entitled, because of a special charter clause1, to tender notice of readiness while still waiting off the port. Another vessel had grounded in the entrance of the harbour, thus preventing other vessels, among them the Malente, from entering it. By the time that vessel had been freed the tide had fallen so that the fully laden Malente was unable to proceed to her berth. A Hamburg arbitration tribunal2 held that the counting of laytime was interrupted by this incident. There are similar French awards3. For the German arbitrators, the reason for so deciding was that the hindrance from entering the port had occurred within the sphere of responsibility of the carrier. German law, when counting laytime, widely follows the theory that each party to the contract bears the consequences of incidents which hinder loading/discharging, arising in its own sphere of responsibility. It is said that readiness to load or readiness
* Dr.iur., FChArb; Partner: Berenberg-Gossler und Partner, Hamburg. A paper read at the VIIth Congress of International Maritime Arbitrators, Casablanca, September 1985.
1 Clause 8 Grainvoy CP: “Should the vessel be prevented from entering port, harbour, dock or berth or from arriving at or off the loading or discharging port by any reason other than weather, tidal conditions or inefficiency of the vessel, the vessel shall be regarded as ready for loading or discharging, and the time shall count as per clause 9”.
2 Award 19.11.1982, unreported.
3 Sentence 341, 1.2.1980, DMF 1980, 689. Cf. also sentence 357, 6.5.1980, DMF 1980, 695.
251