Charterparty casebook update: Societe de Distributions de Toutes Merchandises En Cote D’Ivoire trading as “SDTM-CI” v Continental Lines NV (the “Sea Miror”) [2015] EWHC 1747 (Comm)

10 Авг

Рис в мешках был отправлен морем на основании коносамента, в который были инкорпорированы положения рейсового чартера по проформе Synacomex 90. По приемке груза было обнаружено, что он подмочен, мешки разорваны, а также недостача. Судовладелец признал, что упаковка производилась неосторожно. Суд отклонил аргумент фрахтователя, что ст. 5 проформы чартера, инкорпорированного в коносамент, недостаточно ясно и четко сформулирована чтобы перенести ответственность за погрузку и выгрузку груза на фрахтователя, но заметил, что ответственность за упаковку лежит на судовладельце. Решение по упомянутому делу будет весьма интересным для всех, интересующихся прецедентным правом, поскольку в этом решении последовательно проводится принцип свободы выбора сторон контракта относительно того, кто несет ответственность за погрузку, упаковку и выгрузку груза (принцип диспозитивности).

The Facts

Rice in bags was shipped from Karachi, Pakistan to Abidjan, Ivory Coast under bills of lading incorporating the Hague Rules and the germane terms of a voyage charterparty on a Synacomex 90 form.

Clause 5 of the standard Synacomex 90 form provided:

Cargo shall be loaded, trimmed and/or stowed at the expenses and risk of shippers / charterers at the average rate of 1,500 metric tons per weather working day … Cargo shall be discharged at the expenses and risk of receivers / charterers at the average rate of 1,500 metric tons per weather working day … Stowage shall be under Master’s direction and responsibility … Charterers and owners are allowed to work overtime, such expenses shall be for the account of the party ordering same …

On outturn there was wetting, tearing of the bags and short delivery.

Cargo interests alleged that the wording of clause 5 was insufficient to transfer liability for negligent loading and discharge to cargo interests.  Ship owners accepted liability for negligent stowage.

Findings

Flaux J accepted as correct the following statement in Cooke on Voyage Charters 4th Edition:

“In the Jordan II it was emphasised that each case would depend upon the terms of the charter in question and the context in which it has been made.  Nevertheless the following guides to construction may be deduced:

  1. 1. Since the responsibility for loading and discharging operations within the ship, and for stowage, is normally that of the owner, clear words are necessary to transfer the responsibility for these operations to the charterer.
  2. 2. A clause which confers about the charterer the right to appoint stevedores does not, without more, transfer to him the responsibility for their acts or omissions.
  3. 3. A clause which makes the charterer responsible for the expense of employing stevedores to perform loading, stowage or discharging does not, without more, transfer responsibility.
  4. 4. A clause which provides that the charterer shall perform loading, stowage or discharging does (emphasis added) transfer responsibility for those operations.

It was said to have been rightly conceded in the Jordan II that if all cargo work had to be performed by the charterer, he would be liable if it was not properly and carefully carried out.

Flaux J rejected cargo’s argument that clause 5 was not sufficiently clear to transfer liability for loading and discharge to charterers.  “Risk” meant “responsibility” and did not mean simply exposure to loss by fortuitous events.  Clause 5 initially transferred responsibility for loading, stowage and discharge to charterers but later transferred responsibility for stowage back to owners by the phrase “stowage shall be under Master’s direction and responsibility”.

Commentary

The case was decided against the backdrop of Pyrene, the Caspiana and the Jordan II, allowing the parties freedom to contract on individual responsibility for loading, stowage and discharge.

Flaux J rejected the argument that clause 5 contained an irreconcilable conflict by allocating liability for bad stowage to both the charterers and the owners.  The solution adopted by him is in line with English courts’ preference for forging common sense out of bad draftsmanship.

Источник: http://charterpartycases.com/case/492-societe-de-distributions-de-toutes-merchandises-en-cote-divoire-trading-as-sdtm-ci-v-continental-lines-nv-the-sea-miror-2015-ewhc-1747-comm