一旦滞期永远滞期后的“shifting time”

bkluesmart

有个问题想请教下，

1.杨先生的《装卸时间和滞期费》一书 15章第19.1节有提及“从锚地到泊位的时间”如果是在正常进港的情况下由船东承担，如果需要等泊而且装卸时间开始起算后移泊时间由租家承担，那和GENCON 94中规定的移泊时间需要扣除是否冲突？GENCON94Z中所谓的移泊时间扣除是指LAYTIME 起算前吗？是否LYTIME 起算后且有等泊就不需要扣除

2.在卸货港进入滞期后，按“ONCE DEM ALWAYS DEM”的规定移泊时间是否还需要船东承担。

请杨先生和大家赐教

SHINER

Shifting a vessel from anchorage to berth once on demurrage
The present post concerns whether time of shifting a vessel from anchorage to the berth is excluded from the laytime or not. Normally, it is excluded. Related charter party clause may look like: “Shifting from waiting berth, if any, to the final loading or discharging berth to be considered as part of the voyage and to be for Owners’ account”. However, the vessel was already on demurrage. The question becomes: “shall the time of shifting be excluded from laytime given that the vessel is already on demurrage?” Once on demurrage, the vessel is always on demurrage. In our case, there was no express provision in the charter party stating that shifting shall be excluded once demurrage. In the book of John Schofield “Laytime and Demurrage”, it is said that “Whether time shifiting from anchorage to berth is excluded once on demurrage has begun to run will normally depend on whether there is an appropriate exception clause in the charter”.

SHINER

London Arbitration 4/06 (2006) 685 LMLN 2
Held, that the charterers were correct on the shifting time point. Rider Clause 27 provided that “shifting time from anchorage or place of waiting to loading / discharging berths not to count”. The wording did not differentiate between time not to count as laytime or not to count as time on demurrage. The words were to be given their natural and wider meaning, so that time spent shifting was not to count.

seaswift

这个问题我也想继续请假一下，之前有看过一个case，合同根据金康，而且补充条款里面：
1. 1/2 sbs, 1sp
2. chrtrs option to lighten, expense due to lightening for chrtrs acct
3. shifting time from anchorage to berth shall not count as laytime even on demurrage.
后来船使用了1个锚地3个泊位卸货，具体过程是到达外锚地递交NOR后等了1天，然后去内锚地减载2天，然后移到第1个泊位卸货1天左右，然后移到2号锚地等第2个泊位等了2天，在第2个泊位卸了2天又直接移到第3个泊位卸货直至结束。
整个过程产生的港使费，时间损失以及移泊燃油消耗，请问各应该怎样归属呢？

SHINER

如果合同只规定两个泊位，由于额外的泊位产生费用，应该由租家承担。BIMCO有的租约标准合同有明示：

Costs of shifting the Vessel between berths at port(s) of loading and port(s) of discharge,
including bunkers, shall be for the Charterers’ account. Other costs on board the Vessel including wages and officers’ and crew’s overtime charges to be forOwners’ account.

seaswift

如果合同只规定两个泊位，由于额外的泊位产生费用，应该由租家承担。BIMCO有的租约标准合同有明示：

Costs of shifting the Vessel between berths at port(s) of loading and port(s) of discharge,
including bun ...
SHINER 发表于 2011-4-18 12:47

那装卸时间如何算呢？从外锚地递交NOR ，WWWW， 外锚地到内贸地，内贸地到第1个泊位，从第1个泊位到2号等泊锚地，从等泊锚地到第2个泊位，从第2个泊位到第3个泊位这之间的移泊时间根据合同是如何归属呢？

SHINER

引用ADMIN10年11月9号，另一帖子里的相关回复：
关于移泊时间的计算，可以去参照杨良宜先生的著作《装卸时间与滞期费》一书第十五章19节：免责事项之十五：“移船”（shifting）。该节中提到The “Ante Topic”(1966) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 566先例。该先例同样涉及了移泊时间如何停算装卸时间的问题。船东与承租人的争议是：船东认为只是船舶实际在移船的时间才能停算装卸时间，但承租人就认为所有的时间，包括4天等待足够水深的时间，都应该停算。租约有关的第17条文是如下：

“In the event of the vessel being ordered to Hull and being unable to berth immediately upon arrival on account of congestion, time to count from next working period after vessel’s arrival at Spurn Head anchorage but time used in shifting from such anchorage to discharge berth in Hull not to count as laytime.”

在上诉庭与贵族院，判是船东胜诉，主要是因为第17条文所用的关键字“转移”（shifting）代表了移动，不代表静止。在贵族院，Viscount Simonds是这样说：

“The word ‘shift’ is a verb transitive or (less commonly) intransitive, meaning to move or transfer from one place to another. It donates at least an activity. There could not well be a less appropriate  word to describe a period during which a vessel, having anchored, lies at anchor (in this case for several days) with no intention of raising anchor until the depth of water in the river permits passage.”