船舶污底条款和过长时间停留

https://www./topics/legal/pi-and-defence/hull-fouling-clauses-and-prolonged-stays/

船舶污底是海洋生物累积的结果，会导致船速降低，燃料消耗增加，清理成本增长。

通常，防污漆的有效使用期可长达60个月，因此当船舶坞修时会进行水下清污和重新涂漆作业。在遵守租约的过程中，船舶污底被认为是可以预见的，因此不能作为船东根据租约中的雇佣和赔偿条款要求损害赔偿的理由（见The Island Archon [1994] 2 Ll Rep 227）。 然而，在履行租约的特殊情况下，例如船舶过长时间停留在热带水域，谁来承担清理污底费用和船期损失，通常会引起争议。

01

什么是“过长时间停留”?

Law

最早形成于2013年的BIMCO标准船舶污底条款认为是“船舶在某个地方，锚地和/或泊位停留或移动的时间累计超过：（i）双方书面约定的在热带地区或季节性热带地区的期限； 或（ii）双方书面约定的在此类区域外的期限。”

在某些条款提到“连续停留”的情况下，期租承租人在拥挤的港口锚地等待时可能会通过命令短途航行来中断这种延误。

在Dora [1989] 1 LI LR 69案有关受载期计算的裁决中认为一旦受载期开始，如果船东没有任何过错，船舶不在港也不能阻止受载期持续计算和继续滞期。Justice Atkin爵士说:“在我看来，这艘船是停泊在港口离泊位50码远的地方而不能靠泊，还是在离泊位50英里外的地方，都没有区别。在任何一种情况下，租船人已着手装货，就要对延误负责。”同样，如果租船人向船长发出的短期航行指示的唯一目的是规避过长时间停留条款，那么法院或法庭可能更愿意对措辞做有利于船东的解释。

油漆生产商通常保证其产品的防污性能在10到30天之间，具体时间长短取决于涂料技术。超过这个时间段的静止期，特别是在较温暖的水域，可能会造成船舶污底。这种短途航行从技术上讲是不能防止船舶污底发生的,因此不能规避过长时间停留条款的影响。因为根据大多数油漆制造商的指导意见，只有打破这个防污静态期，才能避免船舶污底，即船舶每周以最高航速航行3次，每次航行6小时，或者以正常航速航行1至2天。而这也仅适用于没有发生污损的船体。一旦污垢已经附着在船体上，就需要清理。

BIMCO标准船舶污底条款在2019年7月进行了修订，(a)项条款改动为:

船舶可以 ”在等候区,港口,某一地点,锚地和泊位内或之间停留或者移动”。

该条款更加明确了为“停止计时”而进行的短途航行，并澄清了“并且在此期间不进行具有足够速度和持续时间的海上航行来消除因为船舶停留造成的船舶水下部分形成的海洋生物”。

02

什么是“热带水域”

Law

严格地说，它是指北回归线和南回归线之间的区域。然而,在Rijn[1981] 2 Lloyd'sRep. 267,“热带”这个词不是用来指南北回归线之间的港口,而是被更广泛地理解为那些全年大部分时间气温和水温都比较高的地区,在这里船舶污底更有可能发生。对于这一点，BIMCO标准的船舶污底条款描述的是“热带区域”和“季节性热带区域”。

03

谁来承担清理费用?

Law

如上所述，当船舶污底的发生被认为是一种普通的营运风险时，污底清除的费用一般不属于租船合同所规定的默示赔偿的范围。见Pamphilos [2002 2 Lloyd's Rep. 681，船东认为租船人有义务以“良好的状态和状况”还船，但法院裁定，在没有特殊情况时，船舶污底可以被视为“正常磨损”。在Kitsa [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 432中,仲裁法庭进一步认为，在温暖水域港口过长时间停留引起船舶污底的风险是船东在租约下同意承担的一个风险,因此污底清理费用不能从租船人那里获得补偿。

当船舶污底的风险是租船人违反租约的指令导致的一个直接后果,比如指示船舶在约定的限制区域以外营运,违反安全港口保证或指示船舶长期呆在一个热带区域，那么租船人必须支付清理费用和与清理工作有关的时间损失。这是因为这些事件构成了“船东在订立租船合同时不愿承担的风险”(Pamphilos案)。

至于时间损失,在Rijn案中裁定，“是租船人自己选择让船停留在热带水域近3个月，如果他们能够为该延误的自然后果寻求财务减免，那将是不公平的”，故租船人从租期中扣除这部分时间损失是不公平的。由于船舶污底是租船人雇用行为的直接后果，并不构成停租的理由。

04

租船人索赔的权利

Law

除了清理成本，船舶污底也会导致性能不佳的索赔。如果船体在交付前或交付时已发生污损，租船人可以将船停租以弥补时间损失(见Ionna [1985] 2 Lloyd'sRep. 164)。在租船期间，租船人可根据NYPE 46 第15条的速度保证条款来抗议船舶污底是“导致船舶无法正常工作的原因”来提出停租，除非如上所述船舶污底是由于遵守租船人的指示而造成的。在这个案例中，船东将不会因为违反旨在中止性能保证的“过长时间停留”条款而对性能不佳负任何责任。

然而，船东有义务保持船舶充分有效的工作状态。即使在承租人无权扣除因执行他们自己的指令而导致的船舶污底和性能不佳的租期的情况下，船东仍有义务在合理可行的范围内尽快安排清理船体，以履行其维护船舶的义务。

05

争议/损失避免小贴士

Law

租船合同的相关方可以增加适用于整个租船合同的速度和消耗连续性保证条款。

注意如何起草停租条款:假如租船人未违反租船合同中有关船体污底条款的义务,在绕航条款中引用“或者任何船东的问题”，就可能赋予承租人在船体清理期间停租的权利。

在租约中商定船体清污的方式: 在泊位上，用潜水员或遥控潜水器(ROV)进行水下清理，因为相关条款可能没有规定这种方法

租船人应尽量缩短静止期的时长。

为了避免损坏水下船体涂层，租船人应在长时间的静止期后尽快安排水下清污。如果藤壶形成超过3个月，就很难去除。

本文仅供这参考，如有需要，欢迎随时联系我司。

电话：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

        [e-mail]

        [e-mail]

审核：王凤景

编辑：宋   雪 

原文如下

https://www./topics/legal/pi-and-defence/hull-fouling-clauses-and-prolonged-stays/

Hull fouling clauses and prolonged stays

Hull fouling is the result of accumulationof marine growth,resulting in reduced vessel speed, increased bunker consumptionand the accrual of cleaning costs.

In general, the effectiveness ofanti-fouling paint lasts up to 60 months and therefore underwater cleaning andrepainting operations are performed when the vessel is in dry dock. Fouling isconsidered to be foreseeable within the course of compliance with the charterand therefore not giving grounds for owners to claim for damages under theemployment and indemnity clause in the charter party (See The Island Archon[1994] 2 Ll Rep 227). However, in the course of extraordinary performance ofthe charter, like for instance prolonged stay in tropical waters, disputesoften arise as to who has to bear the cleaning costs and the time lost.

What constitutes a “prolonged stay”?

The BIMCO standard Hull Fouling clause,first developed in 2013, refers to the period of time where “the Vessel remains at or shifts within a place, anchorage and/orberth for an aggregated period exceeding: (i) a period as the parties may agreein writing in a Tropical Zone or Seasonal Tropical Zone; or (ii) a period asthe parties may agree in writing outside such Zones.”

While some clauses refer to a “consecutive stay”, timecharterers may try to interrupt the delay by ordering short sailings whilewaiting at anchorage in a heavily congested port.

In the The Dora [1989] 1 LI LR 69 rulingconcerning the calculation of laydays, it was held that there can be no reasonwhy the absence of the ship from the harbour, once the laydays have begun,without any fault on the part of the owner, should prevent the laydays fromcontinuing to run and the ship going on demurrage. Lord Justice Atkin said “It appears to me to make no difference whether the vessel is inharbour fifty yards away from a berth and cannot get to it or whether she isfifty miles away. In either case the charterer has undertaken to load and isliable for the delay.” By analogy, if the sole purpose of the charterers’instructions to the Master for the short sailing is to get around the prolongedstay clauses, then a court or tribunal would probably be more willing tointerpret the wording in the owners’ favour.

Paint makers generally warrant theantifouling performance of their products between 10 and 30 days depending onthe coating technology. Static periods in excess of this period, especially inwarmer waters, are likely to result in fouling. Such sailing might nottechnically prevent fouling and therefore not circumvent the effect of theprolonged stay clause, since, as per most paint manufacturer’s guidelines,fouling can only be prevented once the antifouling static period has beenexceeded by sailing 3 times per weeks for 6 hours at maximum vessel’s speed oralternatively sailing for 1 to 2 days at service speed. This applies to anon-fouled hull, and once fouling is attached to the hull, cleaning isrequired.

The BIMCO standard Hull Fouling Clause wasrevised in July 2019 and subclause (a) was amended:

The vessel can “remain[s] at or shift[s]within or between waiting areas, ports, places, anchorages and/or berths”.

The clause brings some clarity on the shortsailing performed to “stop the clock counting” and now clarifies the phrase“and does not in the interim undertake a sea passage with speed and durationsufficient to remove the marine growth from the Vessel’s underwater parts resultingfrom the Vessel’s waiting there”.

What is to be considered “tropicalwaters”?

Strictly speaking, it refers to the areabetween the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. However, in The Rijn[1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 267, the word “tropical” was used to refer to a port thatis not located between the two tropics, but it is understood more generally tobe regions where the temperatures are high and water is warm for large parts ofthe year and where fouling is more likely to occur. On that point, the BIMCOstandard hull fouling clause instead refers to 'Tropical Zones” and”Seasonal Tropical Zones”.

Who bears the burden of cleaning costs?

As seen above, the costs of de-fouling donot generally fall within the scope of the implied indemnity under thecharterparty when its occurrence is considered as an ordinary risk of trading.See The Pamphilos [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 681 where owners considered thatcharterers bore the obligation to redeliver the vessel in “like good order andcondition” but the court decided that bottom fouling could be seen as “fairwear and tear” without the presence of exceptional circumstances. Further, inThe Kitsa [2005] 1 Lloyd's Rep 432 where the arbitral tribunal concluded thatthe risk of hull fouling caused by a prolonged stay at a warm water port was arisk which the owners had agreed to bear under the charterparty, and that thecleaning costs could therefore not be recovered from the charterers.

When the risk of hull fouling is a directconsequence of charterers’ orders which results in a breach of thecharterparty, such as instructing the vessel to trade outside agreed limits,violating the safe port warranty or ordering a prolonged stay in a tropicalzone, then charterers have to pay for the cleaning costs and the related timelost in relation to cleaning operations. This because such event constitutes “arisk that shipowners are not willing to bear when entering into the charter”(The Pamphilos).

As for the time lost, it was decided in TheRijn that it would be “unjust” for charterers to make deductions from hire when“it was the charterers' own choice to keep her at rest in tropical waters fornearly three months, and it would be unjust if they could seek financial relieffor the natural consequences of the delay.” As the fouling was a directconsequence of charterers’ employment of the vessel, it did not constitute anoff-hire event.

Charterers’ right to claim

In addition to the cost of cleaning, hullfouling can also give rise to underperformance claims. If the hull is fouled onor before delivery, then charterers will be able to put the vessel off-hire fortime lost (see The Ionna [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 164). During the course of thecharter, charterers may argue under the speed warranty of NYPE 46 Cl. 15 (loss oftime) that the fouling was a “cause preventing the full working of the vessel”giving rise to putting the vessel off-hire unless, as mentioned above, thefouling was caused by compliance with charterers’ instructions. In this caseOwners will not be held responsible for underperformance due to breach of theprolonged stay clause which aims to suspend the performance guarantee.

Nevertheless, owners’ obligation tomaintain their vessel remains. Even in the event where charterers are notentitled to deduct hire for underperformance caused by fouling as a result ofcompliance with their own instructions, owners can still be under an obligationto arrange for hull cleaning to be carried out as soon as reasonablypracticable pursuant to their obligation to exercise due diligence to maintainthe vessel.

Useful tips:

The parties entering the charter can add aspeed and consumption continuity warranty that will apply throughout thecharter

Be attentive to how the off-hire clause isdrafted: provided that charterers are not in breach of their obligation underthe charterparty regarding the hull fouling clause, having a reference to “orany owners’ matters” to the deviation clause may entitle charterers to put thevessel off-hire during the period of hull cleaning

Negotiate into the charter the form of hullcleaning: at berth, by underwater cleaning with divers or ROV (remote operatingvehicle), as the method might not be set out in the relevant clause

The charterer should try to minimise thelength of the static period

To avoid damaging the underwater hullcoating, charterers should arrange underwater cleaning as soon as possibleafter a prolonged static period. If barnacles are older than 3 months theybecome very difficult to remove