It is not infrequent that charter parties contain provisions according to which it is prerequisite for submitting valid notice of readiness that vessel’s holds have been inspected and passed by an inspector employed by charterers or even receivers (see Note 1). However, the purpose of the present comments concerns another aspect, viz. waiting for charterers’ inspector once the vessel has arrived. In English law the charterers have no inspection duty immediately upon vessel’s arrival. The view is that cargo interests should be able to rely on the notice of readiness basically stating a fact; that the ship is ready so far as charterers can then use the vessel when so notified. It may, therefore, be a bit of a gamble to give notice from the waiting place if no inspection is performed there which may be the rule rather than the exception. When the vessel is eventually inspected alongside, the waiting time will be for owners’ account if the inspector rejects the vessel’s holds. The point is that it will be inferred that the ship was not ready when the notice was given. The notice would, therefore, be a nullity, of no effect and a fresh notice should be given once the ship is in a contractual state as laid down in the Tres Flores judgement (see Note 2). Conversely, if the holds are passed by the inspector, the initial notice must be presumed to have been a good notice and the ensuing waiting time must be absorbed by the charterers. As may be gathered there is the potential for adverse effects as far as owners are concerned if an inspector feels that he owes complete loyalty towards his employer to the extent of clouding his vision. This having been said, the harsh effects of the Tres Flores judgement in English law may to some extent be “cushioned” if the charter party contains provisions (a) entitling the Master to tender notice of readiness from the waiting place in case of, for instance, congestion and (b) governing a situation in which the vessel is turned down on inspect-ion once she comes alongside. This was the outcome in the decisions rendered in the Jay Ganesh (see Note 3) and the Linardos (see Note 4) judgements. In the former of these judgements, the charter party in question was the “Worldfood” charter party which in clauses 8 and 9 (see note 5) contains precisely the aforesaid provisions. Colman J. said, inter alia that: The overall effect of cll. 8 and 9 was that this form of charter required that the charterers must pay for waiting time at the anchorage when they had not provided a berth, but that if the vessel then caused delay after arrival in berth because she was not in truth then ready to load or discharge that loss of time was to be borne by the owners. It should be mentioned, however, that reliance on the above requires that the Master acts in good faith when he submits the notice of readiness, i.e. if the Master genuinely believes that the ship is in all respects ready to load or discharge he may tender a notice of readiness. This means on the other hand that charterers will have the possibility to attempt to demonstrate that the notice should be considered invalid if circumstances are such that the Master may appear not to have acted in good faith. If charterers manage to lift their burden of proof, the principles laid down in the Tres Flores would apply. The view which appears to be favoured by New York arbitrators may be illustrated by the decision in S.M.A. award No. 1180 in which the panel unanimously held, inter alia: that the time waiting for the charterers’ surveyor to inspect the vessel&rsquo...

MEMBER SECTION

If you are a member, please login using the orange button at the top of the page to view the full article, or register. If you are unsure of your membership, or wish to become a member, please contact membership@bimco.org.