Bring it on to the Shipmasters’ awareness

Image source: http://www.aukevisser.nl/supertankers/part-3/id743.htm, accessed 25 September 2018.

This brief is applicable to shipmasters (hereinafter “masters” or “master”) in tramp shipping, particularly, voyage charter.

Shipowners (both shipowners and owners will be used interchangeably hitherto) are always busy looking for charterers. In a voyage charter, shipowners inevitably contracted with the next charterers even before the existing charter ends. In short, shipowners are contractually obliged and liable to two clients charterers vis-a-vis two voyage charterparties. Are the owners’ masters aware of this? If not, why not? If so, does that affect the sentiments of the masters on his professionalism to ensure certain obligation in this respect is not neglected? How will the master ensure that he will carry out the obligation to the utmost? Do tramp shipping masters peruse prevailing charterparties? Well, is it his/her ambit as a master to peruse the charterparties? Does s/he understand the content of such charterparties (hereinafter “CP," for both singular and plural)?

Masters, are owners’ representatives, masters will therefore be responsible to two charterers in the above situation. S/he has to ensure the smooth performance of both CP, ie on one hand, to ensure timely loading and unloading of the existing cargo and on the other hand, to commence the next voyage without delay (with utmost despatch) so as to commence performance of the next CP and arrive its loadport within stipulated laydays therein. To prevent unacceptable commercial uncertainty,[1] s/he will not only/just concentrating on carrying the obligation of the initial CP and will only resume obligation of the overlapped CP after discharging the performance of the former.

In The Pacific Voyager,[2] the defendant owners fixed the VLCC (hereinafter “vessel”), with claimant charterers under Shellvoy 5, dated 5 January 2015, between Rotterdam and Far East. The laycan for this charter was 2359 hours on 4 February 2015. During this fixture, the vessel was still laden with the cargo under a previous charter. The cargo was destined for Egypt for cargo operations before final discharge in Le Havre. There was recap vis-a-vis the Shellvoy 5 with timetabled terms for completion of the current voyage from Egypt to Le Havre. While sailing northbound in the Suez Canal on 12 January 2015, the vessel suffered damage and had to undergo dry dock for repairs before performing any further laden voyages.[3] There is no suggestion of faults or possible preventive measures on/by the vessel or its owners concerning the damage suffered. On 13 January 2015, owners informed the charterers of the above and added that dry-docking in Cadiz was due on 8 February 2015 which will take “months”. Charterers terminated the Shellvoy 5 on 6 February 2015 and claimed damages of US$1,202,812.50.

Both disputants’ interpretation of loadport arrival terms in the CP differs. The claimant submitted that the laycan window is equivalent to ETA loadport before the cancelling date and owners have absolute obligation to commence the approach voyage.[4] The defendant submitted that owners to exercise due diligence to arrive loadport by the cancelling date following the timetabled terms. Popplewell J gave judgment to the claimant.

It is unfortunate that the vessel in this case suffered damage. Especially so without fault of their own. Vessels and their owners fault if proven, can include negligence in navigation that may lead to collision and grounding, lack of maintenance that may also lead to the same incident. However, fault or no fault, [voyage] charterers would have no knowledge or right of access to such information. The onus is on owners to exercise their common law obligation to ensure seaworthiness when sending vessels to sea.

______________________________________

[1] The Pacific Voyager [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 57, at [19].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid, at [6].

[4] Ibid, at [8].