В статье рассматриваются весьма важные и актуальные вопросы, связанные с пропущенным сроком исковой давности по требованию уплаты демереджа. Дело в том, что в чартерах часто предусматриваются очень короткие сроки исковой давности и довольно детальные перечни документов, которые необходимы при рассмотрении упомянутых требований и которые должны быть представлены судовладельцем. В решении по спору the M/V “Adventure”  EWHC 318 (Comm) суд утвердил решение арбитража, основной смысл которого сводится к тому, что заявление требования без приложения документов, предусмотренных в контракте, не может считаться заявлением требования в надлежащем порядке, и непредставление соответствующей документации до истечения срока давности истолковывается судом как пропуск срока исковой давности, следовательно, как основание для отклонения требования. Апелляция также была отклонена. Этот прецедент является прекрасным примером того, как недостаточно внимательное отношение судовладельцев к юридическому оформлению их требований приводит к недополучению достаточно крупных сумм демереджа. Так, в данном споре предметом выступала сумма USD 364,847.78.
English law has traditionally had a strict approach to contractually agreed time bars between commercial parties as well as applying stringently the stated requirements for the bringing of claims by one party against another.
A particular area where this approach is seen most often, is in relation to provisions for demurrage claims in charterparties.
It is not unusual, especially in the tanker trade, to see short time bars of 90 days, plus detailed lists of necessary documentation that must accompany the filing of a claim.
Where these are not complied with in an exacting manner, it can often lead to the claim failing. Recent English case law reaffirms this orthodox position.
Members that contract on the basis of terms including laytime and demurrage provisions (i.e.: voyage charter or similar terms) should pay careful attention to said provisions and ensure that the full requirements are understood in advance or risk serious disappointment later on.
In the recent case of the M/V “Adventure”  EWHC 318 (Comm), Mr Justice Hamblen interpreted an amended BPVoy4 charter party and applied a 90 days timebar provision for owners’ demurrage claim.
The case was an appeal to the High Court of England from owners, of an arbitration award from Mr. Simon Gault and Mr John Schofield. The arbitration tribunal had held that owners’ demurrage claim failed since owners had not fulfilled the documentary requirements under the CP, and that the claim was consequently timebarred.
Mr Justice Hamblen upheld the tribunal’s award and dismissed the appeal.
The relevant CP clause reads:
19.7.1 the Vessel’s Pumping Log signed by a senior officer of the Vessel and a Terminal representative showing at hourly intervals the pressure maintained at the Vessel’s manifold throughout the cargo operations; and
19.7.2 copies of all NOPs issued, or received, by the Master in connection with the cargo operations; and
19.7.3 copies of all other documentation maintained by those on board the Vessel or by the Terminal in connection with the cargo operations
20 Claims time bar
20.1 Charterers shall be discharged and released from all liability in respect of any claim for demurrage, deviation or detention which Owners may have under this Charter unless a claim in writing has been presented to Charterers, together with all supporting documentation substantiating each and every constituent part of the claim, within ninety (90) days of the completion of discharge of the cargo carried hereunder
The owners brought a claim for demurrage in the amount of US$ 364,847.78 as a result of delays at both load port, Sitra, and discharge port, Port Sudan. The following documents were provided by owners by email:
(c) A Notice of Readiness for Sitra;
(d) A statement of facts for Sitra;
(e) Four Letters of Protest for Sitra;
(f) A Notice of Readiness for Port Sudan;
(g) A pumping record for Port Sudan;
(h) A statement of facts for Port Sudan;
(i) Four Letters of Protest for Port Sudan;
(j) An Empty Tank Certificate for Port Sudan
Charterers disagreed with the demurrage calculation, and argued that since owners had not presented copies of the port log and time sheets from both load and discharge port together with their original demurrage claim, owners had not provided charterers with “all supporting documentation substantiating each and every constituent part of the claim” as required by clause 20.1.
Since owners had not corrected their claim by submitting the further documents within 90 days after completion of discharge, charterers argued that owners claim was time barred under clause 20.1.
The owners submitted that the proper construction of clause 20.1 only requires presentation of “essential” supporting documentation, which generally means the NOR and Statement of Facts, and that such documents were presented. Owners cited The Pera*, The Oltenia** and The Abqaiq*** in support of their position.
Mr Justice Hamblen agreed with the Charterers.
The judge first considered which documents are covered by clause 19.7.3 where he found that the wording “connotes contemporaneous records kept by the vessel relating to the cargo operation. The pumping log is the most obvious example of such a document but some vessels may keep similar but different records.”
Further Mr Justice Hamblen held that the port log and time sheets are clearly supporting documentation for the claim made. Mr Hamblen considered the documents to be “primary documents containing factual material which should be made available to the charterers so that they may satisfy themselves that the claim is well founded, consistent with the purpose of the clause.”
Based on the above, Mr Justice Hamblen held that “Clause 20.1 is not limited to a requirement to provide “essential” supporting documentation only and that it is to be construed in the manner outlined above. I also conclude that the tribunal was correct to find that all supporting documentation was not provided as required by the clause with the consequence that the claim for demurrage is time barred.”
The appeal was dismissed.
The interpretation of BPVoy4 as applied by Mr Justice Hamblen is strict on owners. The case shows that owners have to be very careful to fulfil all requirements of the CP when presenting a demurrage claim to charterers. Failure to do so may result in the demurrage claim to be time barred. The same care must be observed by charterers who act as disponent owners in a chain of charter parties.