新型冠狀病毒所引發有關租船合同的問題（雙語）

概覽

At a Glance

2020年1月30日，世界衛生組織宣佈新型冠狀病毒（“2019-nCoV”）疫情（“疫情”）為國際公共衛生緊急事件。疫情顯然影響著中國的經濟活動，更影響截至本文出版之日於中國以外的23個[1]國家。

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (the “Virus”) to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. It seems clear that the Virus is also having an impact on economic activities not only in China, but also in the 23[1] countries outside of China where it has been recorded at the time of writing.

本簡報論述在英國法下，該疫情所引發的經濟效應將如何影響租船合同。以下僅為我們就特別事項準備的概要。有關個別租船合同的實際條款及事實情況，請另自按個別案件作參考。

This briefing note will discuss a number of the ways in which charterparties are likely be affected by the Virus’ impact on economic activity, as a matter of English law. The below seeks only to highlight the issues, and the precise terms of each charter and the factual circumstances will need to be considered in each individual case.

不安全港口 Unsafe port

_

許多船舶操作員的先決考慮是一個受疫情影響的港口是否為“安全港”。有關“不安全港”的測試是眾所周知的。“除非在有關時間內，特定的船舶能夠到達、使用並從該港口返回，而沒有（在未發生異常情況下）遇到即使擁有良好航行和航海技術也不能避免的危險，否則該港口將被視為不安全港。”（節錄自The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep，並得到最高法院在The Ocean Victory [2017] UKSC 35一案認可）。值得注意的是，最高法院在The Ocean Victory就The Eastern City一案作評論：“在本案中，雙方沒有提出有關“不安全港”的測試可以或應該不同於Sellers法官在The Eastern City中所描述的測試。再者，該測試經過時間的考驗，也一直被沿用。”

The starting point for many operators will be whether a port affected by the Virus is a “safe port”. The test for an unsafe port is well known. A “port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship” (The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127, approved by the Supreme Court in The Ocean Victory [2017] UKSC 35). Notably, the Supreme Court in The Ocean Victory said of The Eastern City: “It is important to note that it was not submitted that the relevant test could or should be other than that described by Sellers LJ in The Eastern City. In any event that test has stood the test of time.”

在Ciampa v. British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1915] 2 K.B. 774一案中，一艘船因來自受瘟疫汙染的港口而被定為不適航，並須在下一港口進行燻蒸消毒。同樣道理，如果一個受新型冠狀病毒汙染的港口導致船舶在接下來的港口受到限制，

In Ciampa v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1915] 2 K.B. 774 a vessel was held to be unseaworthy as it had come from a port contaminated by plague, necessitating fumigation of the vessel at her next port. By extension, a port infected by the Virus could arguably be construed as causing actual damage to a vessel if it led to restrictions at a future port, rendering it unseaworthy. If the vessel could not avoid exposure to such danger, this may lead to an unsafe port argument.

承租人對港口安全的責任

Charterers’ responsibilities relating to the safety of the port

_

_

儘管當前的重點大多是船舶能否完成現有的航程，定期承租人必須同時留意其主要義務，即指定在當時預期安全的港口。其次，承租人的次要義務在於當其原先指定的港口不再安全時，取消原有的命令，並就前往當時預期安全的另一個港口下達新的命令。承租人的主要義務是絕對義務，而次要義務則是“盡職”義務。

While much of the immediate focus will be on the performance of existing voyages, time charterers must nonetheless be alert to their primary obligation to nominate a port that is, at the time of nomination, prospectively safe. This primary obligation is followed by a secondary obligation for the charterers to cancel the original order and to issue new orders to another port that is prospectively safe at that time if the original port is no longer safe. The charterers’ primary obligation is an absolute obligation, whereas the secondary obligation is one of “due diligence”.

這觀點可能被特定的租船合同條款改變，例如Shelltime 4第4(c)條列明：

This position may be amended by specific charterparty clauses such as Shelltime 4 clause 4(c), which states:

_

“承租人應以盡職調查確保船舶僅在其可以安全地漂浮的安全地點或在安全地點之間航行（安全地點在本合同中意指港口、泊位、停泊處、碼頭、錨地、海底管線、在船舶或駁船旁邊，以及其他位置，包括在海上的位置）。”

“Charterers shall use due diligence to ensure that the vessel is only employed between and at safe places (which expression when used in this charter shall include ports, berths, wharves, docks, anchorages, submarine lines, alongside vessels or lighters, and other locations including locations at sea) where she can safely lie always afloat.…”

_

該條款的作用是放寬絕對義務的標準至盡職調查標準。承租人只有在未採取合理謹慎措施以確定港口安全的情況下，才會違反此項盡職調查義務。

The effect of this clause is to displace the absolute obligation with one to exercise due diligence. The charterers will only breach this due diligence obligation if they fail to take reasonable care to establish that the port is safe.

因此，根據The Saga Cob [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545一案，承租人需要密切監視地形實況，以確保他們有能力履行其主要、次要和/或盡職調查義務，以確保指定港口的安全。

Charterers will therefore need to monitor the factual landscape closely with a view to ensuring that they are capable of discharging their primary, secondary and/or due diligence obligations to ensure the nominated port is safe (The Saga Cob [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545).

_

_

_

請輸入標題 abcdefg

隔離限制和延遲

Quarantine restrictions and delay

_

因隔離檢疫限制引致的延誤，將因應個別租船合同的類型和措辭而有所不同。在定期租船合同下，如果基於船員健康的原因船舶被要求偏離航道，或因隔離而被延遲，則承租人可能可以選擇停租。或者，如果船舶偏離航道或延誤是由承租人的指示所致，則該船應被視為繼續租用。對於包含《海牙規則》或《海牙維斯比規則》的租船合同，第四條第2(h)項可能可以為隔離檢疫限制所引起或造成的損失或損害提供辯護。

Delays occasioned by quarantine restrictions will differ depending on the type and wording of individual charterparties. Under a time charterparty, should the ship be required to deviate for crew health reasons, or be delayed by quarantine, the charterers may be able to place the ship off-hire. Alternatively, it may be that if the deviation or delay was a consequence of the charterers’ employment instructions, the ship may remain on-hire. For charterparties that incorporate the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules, Article IV r 2(h) may provide a defence for loss or damage arising or resulting from quarantine restrictions.

流行病條款 Epidemics clauses

_

租船合同可能包含一般的“流行病條款”。取決於條款的措辭和解釋，這條款可能足以讓船東違抗要求船舶前往已知病毒盛行的地區的命令。然而，我們建議船東在依賴任何一般的“流行病條款”前尋求個別意見。

A charterparty may contain a general “epidemics clause”. Subject to the wording and construction of such a clause, this may be sufficient for a shipowner to resist orders to proceed to an area where the Virus is known to be prevalent. It is recommended, however, that specific advice is sought before any reliance is placed on a general “epidemics clause”.

_

_

為了應對2014年的埃博拉疫情，各個行業機構和運營商都針對定期租船合同及定程租船合同制定了伊波拉條款。波羅的海國際航運公會（“BIMCO”）中有關埃博拉病毒的條款是為應對任何強力疾病而草擬的通用術語，並沿用類似BIMCO戰爭條款和海盜條款的字眼。當時，合同中的其他用字可能是針對埃博拉病毒而草擬的，並且僅在該條款的語言能夠廣泛地概括當前事實時才適用於本次疫情所引發的事情。如果您正考慮重用任何以往使用的條款，則需要檢查有關措辭，並確保其範圍足以涵蓋本次疫情及反映合同方的實際意願。

In response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak, various industry bodies and operators developed Ebola clauses for both time and voyage charterparties. The Baltic and International Maritime Council (“BIMCO”) clauses dealing with Ebola were drafted in general terms for use in response to any virulent disease, and are along the lines of the BIMCO War and Piracy Clauses. Other clauses used at that time may be Ebola specific, and would only apply to the Virus if the language of the clauses was sufficiently wide to capture the present factual landscape. If you are considering re-using any previously used clauses you need to review the wording and ensure it is wide enough to cover the Virus, and reflects what the parties intend.

_

_

在起草任何條款時，合同方都需要考慮可能產生的合同後費用，例如清潔、燻蒸消毒和隔離檢疫等費用。如果船東以定期租船合同出租船舶，在允許船舶航行到受疫情影響的地區前，可能希望考慮向承租人索取財務擔保。

Any clause will need to consider post-contractual costs, such as cleaning, fumigation and quarantine, which may arise, and owners who are chartering their vessels on time charter may wish to consider obtaining financial guarantees before allowing their vessels to trade to areas affected by the Virus.

就新的定程租船合同，合同方將被視作在簽訂合同時清楚知道當中的風險。因此，船東可能希望加入條款，以列明合同方計劃在新型冠狀病毒蔓延時如何處理相關情況。

For new voyage charters, it will be assumed that the parties enter into the contract being aware of the risks at the time the contract is concluded, and so owners may wish to incorporate terms to set out what the parties intend to happen in the event that the Virus spreads.

不可抗力事件 Force majeure

_

“不可抗力”一詞在英國法中沒有確定的含義

The term “force majeure” has no established meaning in English law, and the precise contractual clause will need to be reviewed carefully.

_

一般的做法是指明將構成不可抗力事件的事情，並添加一個涵蓋當事方無法合理控制的事件的全能性條款。只要有關行為足夠接近所依賴的指明事件，指明事件的列表可以包括“流行病或疾病大流行”及“任何法律或政府或公共機構採取的任何行動”。同樣，不可抗力條款通常指明不可抗力事件是不能被合理預見的。

It is standard practice to name events that will constitute force majeure events as well as to add a catch-all provision covering events beyond a party’s reasonable control. The list of named events may include “epidemic or pandemic” and “any law or any action taken by a government or public authority,” providing the action is sufficiently proximate to the event relied upon. It is similarly common for a force majeure clause to include a provision stating that a force majeure event should not be reasonably foreseeable.

一般而言，如果出現不可抗力事件，通常合同方會暫停執行並延長執行時間。然而，合同有時候也可能容許合同方在通知對方的情況下終止合同。

The consequences of a force majeure event are usually to suspend performance and to have the time for performance extended although there may also be on-notice termination provisions.

合同受阻條款 Frustration

_

在沒有適用的不可抗力條款的情況下，如果因疫情使其不能履行合同義務，則船東和承租人可以考慮援引合同受阻條款的一般原則。一旦合同受阻，各方的合同義務即告解除。

In the absence of an applicable force majeure clause, shipowners and charterers may consider invoking the general doctrine of frustration if the Virus prevents them from performing their contractual obligations. Once a contract is frustrated, the parties’ contractual obligations are discharged.

因為履行合同而遭遇的艱辛、不便或物質損失不會使合同受阻。合同受阻條款的原則僅在發生意外事件，而船東和承租人都無法控制的情況下，且其於實際上或商業層面上無法履行租船合同時適用。或者，如果事情將有關義務轉變為與該租船合同原先項下的義務截然不同時，這條款便適用。

Mere hardship, inconvenience or material loss will not frustrate a contract. The doctrine of frustration only arises when an event occurs that is both unexpected and beyond the control of the shipowner and the charterer, and renders it physically or commercially impossible to fulfil the charterparty, or transforms the obligation to perform into a radically different obligation from that undertaken at the moment of entry into the charterparty.

_

_

合同是否受阻於本次疫情並因而無法履行將取決於主張合同受阻時的事實情況。在The Hermine [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 212一案中，法院認為僅造成延誤的障礙不會使港口變成不安全港，除非延誤足以使商業活動的原意受阻。如果因疫情將合同項下的義務轉變為與簽訂合同時承擔的義務截然不同的義務，則在該種情況下，租船合同可能會受阻。

Whether performance is frustrated due to the Virus will depend on the factual landscape at the time frustration is claimed. In The Hermine [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212, it was held that an obstruction that merely caused delay did not render a port unsafe unless the delay was sufficient to frustrate the commercial venture. If the effect of the Virus on the performance required is such that it transforms the obligation to perform into a radically different obligation from that undertaken at the moment of entry into the contract, the charterparty may in those circumstances be frustrated.

一般而言，在英國法下，合同受阻一直是一個較難證明的情況。

As a general statement, frustration is historically difficult to argue as a matter of English law.

_

_

《準備就緒通知》及檢疫證書

Notices of readiness and free pratique

_

定程租船合同下的裝卸時間僅在船舶提交有效的《準備就緒通知》後開始計算。一般而言，船舶將在到達泊位時，在形式上獲得檢疫證書。在已知受病毒感染的港口或地方，我們將不能假定同樣的形式適用於該港口。

Laytime under a voyage charterparty only commences once a ship has tendered a valid notice of readiness (NOR). It is often assumed that a ship will obtain free pratique on arrival at the berth as a mere formality. In ports or places where the Virus is known to be present, any mere formality can no longer be assumed.

如果船舶在到達泊位並得到檢疫證書時仍然未能有效地提交《準備就緒通知》，且在租船合同未有另外指示的情況下，則船東可能為延誤負責。

If NORs cannot then be validly tendered until free pratique has been granted at the berth, there is the potential for delay, which, absent contrary wording in the charterparty, rests with the shipowner.

閱讀更多 海合網 的文章

關鍵字: 雙語 傳染病 中東呼吸綜合症