自英国贵族院1954年的“The Houston City”案以来，人们普遍认为英国法就租约中列名港口的安全风险承担问题界定较为明确，即列名港口的安全风险由船东负责，租家对非列名港口负有安全保证义务。然而，2007年，“M/TArchimidis”案，在经由仲裁庭、英国高等法院、英国上诉法院的逐级审理之后，形成一致结论，即对于订有明示安全保证义务的租约，即使在租约中列名港口名称，租家依然负有安全保证义务，而非船东。
首先，来了解一下安全港口的定义。
一、安全港口的定义
在2015年1月22日，Ocean Victory[2015] EWCA Civ 16 一案，上诉法院民事审判庭支持租家上诉的法律立场，并推翻了一审判决Ocean Victory [2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm). 震惊业界的OceanVictory 一案，终于落下帷幕；业界对于安全港口基本上达成了一致意见。
对于“”的权威定义，可以见TheEastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127:
“[A] port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, theparticular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absenceof some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided bygood navigation and seamanship.”
即，如果没有异常情况发生，虽然有良好的船舶驾驶技术仍不能安全地驶入、挂靠及离开一个港口，则这个港口是不安全的。
另根据The Evia No. 2 [1983] 1 AC 736:
“[A] charterers does not assume responsibility for unexpected or abnormalevents which occur suddenly and which create conditions of un-safety after hehas given order to proceed to the relevant port.”
即，租船人对指定港口后的突发事件或异常情况不承担不安全港口的责任。
From 1958 onwards,it is apparent to all in the shipping circles from the case of The Eastern City[1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 ( C.A.) , that charterers’ liability is absolute inrelation to the safe port warranty except for two defences of abnormaloccurrences and negligent navigation by the master of the vessel
从1958年The Eastern City 判例至今，航运圈一致认为，租家对安全港口的保证是绝对义务，只有两个抗辩理由，一是“异常情况”，二是“涉事船船长的航行过失”。
The Court of Appeal also clarified theapproach to be adopted when considering whether or not an event is an “abnormaloccurrence”, that is, “realistically and having regard to whether the event hadoccurred sufficiently frequently so as to become a characteristic of the port”.In other words, evidence relating to the past frequency and regularity of thefeatures occurring in combination, and the likelihood of them occurring againmust be evaluated carefully.
对于怎么判断一个现象是否是“异常情况”，上诉法院采取的判断标准是：“该现象是否实际以足够高的频率出现，以致可将其视为港口的一个特性”。换句话说，要综合考虑过去该现象出现的规律和频率证据，还要仔细评估其再次发生的可能性有多大。
在2015年Ocean Victory[2015] EWCA Civ 16案之后，LSLC(LondonShipping Law Centre)，专门召开了一次关于“unsafeport”的研讨会，其中关于可能造成港口不安全的原因，他们归纳了以下几个方面：
Port unsafety -then main risk types:
Grounding risks – on banks, bars, rocks andsubmerged objects
Meteorological/natural risks – storms, swell, ice,earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis
Berth characteristics – fendering, air draft, waterdraft, obstructions and configuration
Port set-up – berthing procedures, tugs,pilotage arrangements and personnel
Health – epidemics and fever andtheir consequences, particularly quarantine
Political – war, terrorism
以下就实践中碰到的情况，来谈谈安全锚地、安全泊位、安全港口的问题；前提是在合同里都已经加入Safe anchorage(s),Safe berth(s),Safe port(s)，租家保证锚地、泊位、港口对船舶是安全的。同时租约规定如果出现争议，适用英国法，伦敦仲裁。如果是美国仲裁或者北京仲裁则不在本文讨论范围之内。众所周知，英国是判例法国家，在没有新的不同判决出来之前，那我们只能遵循以上先例。
受限于个人专业及知识水平，案例只供参考；不足之处，敬请大家批评指正；一同为国家航运事业添砖加瓦。
二、船舶实例
a.“富康”轮以TCT方式租给韩国租家HYUNDAI GLOVIS，最终租家安排该轮到埃及的EL Dekheila港卸货。在该轮靠泊之前，公司的某轮刚刚被敲诈了9,000多美金，理由是船舶在靠泊期间损坏了码头的碰垫。就该问题在到港之前20多天就与租家开始交涉，以没有足够，状况良好的碰垫可能造成船壳损害；以及受风流影响，可能导致船舶断缆，使船舶远离泊位造成危险局面等，从而构成泊位、港口不安全，要求租家提前去处理碰垫问题及承担可能造成缆绳破断的费用。租家也积极找代理查核港口情况。
当靠泊后发现有三个碰垫破损，立即指示船长向相关方递交PROTECT, 声称港口没有状况良好的碰垫，可能造成船壳损坏，该港口不安全，要求租家，码头承担所有后果。在卸货期间，代理一直求着我们要求船长撤回该封PROTECT。
最后该轮顺利从EL Dekheila撤离，没有遭遇敲诈，我们也要求船长撤回那封PROTECT；和租家也以良好合作关系为由，放弃两根缆绳的索赔。
碰到类似的港口，需要提前做好准备，和租家先交涉；到了码头之后马上拍照，保留证据。
以下是其中一封交涉的邮件。
RE: MV FU KANG / HYUNDAI GLOVIS-CPDD22.12.2015- SAFETY WARRANTY
==================================
Thanks for Charterers’ last, but the message fromcharterers’ agent is untrue.
One of panamax vessel in Owners’ fleet ever call ElDekheila during end of last Month.
The vessel’s ropes broken more than 10 due to strongwind/wave/current.
Herewith attached some pictures for charterers’ easyreference, there were no any shelter area for the vessel.
Charterers’ agent contended that there were no concernedcirculars were issued recently and then the port are safe for the vessel whichare wrong conclusion.
In respect of safety or not, Owners wish to draw the charterers’ keen attention tobelow:
... a port will not be safe unless,in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it andreturn from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, beingexposed to danager which cannot be avoided by good navigation andseamanship....
Which are the authoritative and longrecongised statement of the nature of a safe port was that of SellersLJ in The Eastern City[1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 at page 131 col 2:
It’s common sense that the crews are very hard to avoidthose damage if the vessel was secured at the berth, despite of the crews havegood navigation and seamanship.
Needless to say that crews will carry out patrol regularto check the ropes, but if still could not avoid any damage due to strongwind/wave/current, then charterers please arrange tug assistance at theirtime/cost.
If the charterers no willing to arrange, then Owners willhave no choice but to reserve their all rights to claim back against thecharterers for they breach safety warranty, the vessel could not reach, use itand return from it.
Meanwhile, in respect of fender, Charterers please findattached, agent/port authority alleged vessel cause damage to the fender.Assume they make upside and down.
For this, Owners wish to point out that chartererswarrant to provide one safety anchorage, safety port and safety berth for thevessel, if the fenders are not in good order/condition, which will cause hulldamage. Then the charterers will have to hold whole responsible for this damagedue to their breach.
If the fenders are in good order/condition, the vesselwill be no impossible cause damage to the fenders, especially she was securedthere.
For avoid any unpleasant situation, the charterers arestrongly requested to double check all and try their best to avoid their breachsafety warranty.
Thanks for charterers’ attention and cooperation inadvance.
At this stage, Owners will have to reserve their allrights.
b.，在起锚准备靠泊的时候，发现锚链被其它船舶丢弃锚链缠绕，导致收不起锚，最后靠泊计划取消，产生相关的取消费及时间耽误等损失。
导致收不起锚的主因是被别的船的废弃锚链缠绕，以锚地不为安全由，对船东有风险，租家违约，要求租家承担所有费用及时间损失。
本合同里，在安全港口后面还加入了“alwayssafely afloat, free of risks, expenses to Owners”，该句很好地把各种风险都转嫁给了租家，对保护船东利益非常有利；最后租家确认承担此费用及所有时间损失。
以下是其中之一邮件。
RE:MV COSCOANSTEEL V26 / ANGANG- CARGO DOCS & LETTER OF PROTECT
==============================
Just gotbelow from agent for charterers' easy reference and record.
In respect of delay for berthing, For avoidany misunderstanding and argument in future, Owners hereby repeat below:
aa)
As thecharterers may well aware that the authoritative and long recongized statementof the nature of a safe port was that of Sellers LJ in The Eastern City[1958] 2Lloyd’s Rep 127 at page 131 col 2, which read:
... a portwill not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular shipcan reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of someabnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by goodnavigation and seamanship....
The delaywas caused by our vessel's anchor chain was twined by other unknown anchor &chain, which was not caused by the vessel and there are no any fault fromOwners' side, just due to the port/anchorage was not safe for the vessel. Thevessel could not return from it safely/successfully. Attached picture which isself-explanatory.
bb)
Purusantto clause 8. Loading Port and Discharging Port of this COA for 8.A.a, Whichprovided that:
Charterersshall load the cargo and spout trimmed at one safe berth in one safe port,Tubarao or Ponta de Medeira in
If thecharterers may contend that such delay was caused by the vessel could notheaving up anchor, therefore for PDM calling is not safe and free of risks toOwners, The charterers also will be in breach this clause.
Hope aboveare clear enough and will be acceptable by the charterers, The time willcontinuously to account as laytime.
Ownerswill revert additional costs/expenses/damages etc if any, the same also will befor the charterers’ account due to their breach in this regard.
c.“中远鞍钢”轮V26航次到湛江港卸货，因受第1621号台风影响，该
轮被迫移到锚地抗台。
湛江港9月受到1619号台风影响，10月受到1621号台风影响。以湛江港之前也受到之后也还会受到台风影响，船舶受台风影响不得不离开泊位到锚地避台，受台风影响不是异常情况为由，从而导致港口不安全，租家违约。要求租家承担所有相关的移泊费、燃油消耗及所有时间损失。
RE: MVCOSCO ANSTEEL V26 / ANGANG-TYPHOON SARIKA AT ZHANJIANG-IMPORTANT
================================
Assume the charterers may recall that the typhoon Aere ( No.1619 ) affected Zhanjiang recently. Fyi,One of Owners' vessel ever shift to anchorage for avoid damage. And now thereis another typhoon Sarika (No.1621 ) will affect Zhanjiang soon, may o/a 18th/Oct.
Attached typhoon tracking chart from WNI for charterers' easy reference.
There was no system at the port of Zhanjiang for ensuringthat capesize vessels, if they had to leave the berth on account of heavyweather, especially Typhoon, The vessel should shift to anchorage for safetypurpose.
The typhoon which affected Zhanjiang port wasnot abnormal occurrence, Accordingly, when the charterers ordered the vessel todischarge her cargo at Zhanjiangthat port was prospectively unsafe for COSCO Ansteel. There was a risk that thevessel may have to leave, or be advised to leave, the port on account of badweather especially typhoon.
Pursuant to clause 8.B.a of this COA which provided that:
...The vessel shall proceed to one safeberth each of one or two safe port(s)...
Trust the charterers may well aware that the authoritative and long recognizedstatement of the nature of a safe port was that of Sellers LJ in The EasternCity [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 at page 131 col 2:
“a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particularship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of someabnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigationand seamanship.”
That statement made no reference to “reasonable safety” and it would introducean unwelcome and inappropriate measure of uncertainty in the meaning of thesafe port warranty if safety were to be understood as “reasonable safety” ratherthan safety. Safety was not absolute but the measure of safety was not what was“reasonable” but whether any dangers in a port could be avoided by goodnavigation and seamanship. The charterers’ warranty was of safety, not ofreasonable safety.
The vessel could not use the port, she have to shift to anchorage to avoiddamage. The prospective unsafety of Zhanjiang for COSCO Ansteel was said toarise from the circumstance that the vessel have to leave the berth on accountof Typhoon, and bad weather at a time when there were gale force winds atZhanjiang when Typhoon approaching.
Thus the charterers breach their safety warranty.
Furthermore, clause 8.B.a which also specially stipulated that:
...always be safely afloat, free ofrisks, expenses to Owners...
There is potential high risks for the vessel, have to shift to anchorage foravoid damage due to the port of Zhanjiang may affectby typhoon, which was not abnormal occurrence.
As the charterers note that there are additional costs, such as pilotage,towage, bunker consumption, time lost etc will occur for shifting.
If COSCO Ansteel will have to shift to anchorage, then Zhanjiang port was not free of risks,expenses to Owners, the charterers therefore put them in breach this clause.
Accordingly, the shifting cost&expense /time lost etc which wascaused by the unsafety of the port. The charterers should hold wholeresponsible for their breach safety warranty.
Consideration the vessel will be affected by typhoon Sarika (No.1621 ) verysoon, Charterers are called upon to double check all from their side, whetherthey will settle all consequence costs/expenses by them directly.
Or need Owners to arrange in advance and then the charterers will compensateOwners the same together with balance freight.
Owners are awaiting for charterers' prompt response by return.
Charterers' keen attention and positive confirmation will be highlyappreciated.
d.“恒盛”轮V41航次到巴西的ITAGUAI，该轮9月15日移到内锚地，18日晚
上受大风影响，船长怀疑走锚，申请了引水重新抛锚。以该B5号锚地因距离孤立危险物标太近，没有足够的旋回圈，该锚地不安全，租家违约,要求租家去承担额外的引水费。
租家已确认，以下是其中两封邮件。
RE: MV HENG SHENG / VALE-COA 42ND VOY-SAFEANCHORAGE
=================================
Assume the charterers may recallthat the vessel shift to inner anchorage on 15th/Sep, drop anchor at B5anchorage with position Lat 22-57.88S, Long 043-56.03W.
And the Master require pilot forreposition his vessel to avoid emergency situation due to strong wind on earlymoring of 19th/Sep, reposition at Lat 22-58, Lat 043-56W.
There is additional cost foremergency pilotage usd 13,637.71 occured as per attached port d/a from agent.
Herewith attached concerned docs for charterers’ easyreference.
Owners wish to point out that anchorage B5 is not safeenough for the vessel, for the distance to that isolated danger mark just onlyabt 600M, and the vessel’s LOA is 300M. The vessel may cause collision to thatmark under the current/wind affection.
Pursuant to concerned provision as below of this COA,
...Loading ports: At any one ormore of the following to be nominated by the charterers:
...1/2 safe anchorages, 1/2 safeberths, 1/2 safe ports in charterers’ option...
The charterers warrant thatanchorages, berths, ports are safe for the vessel. But the anchorage there isno suffcient room for the vessel, the vessel need pilot emergency repositionhis vessel due to strong wind and to avoid collision to that mark. Thus thisanchorage is unsafe for the vessel.
The charterers may contend thatanchorage is safe and no willing to bear this additional pilotage due to theirbreach. Owners wish to draw the charterers’ attention to the safe portdefiniation.
The authoritative and long recognized statement of thenature of a safe port was that of Sellers LJ in The Eastern City[1958] 2Lloyd’s Rep 127 at page 131 col 2, which read:
... a port will not be safe unless, in the relevantperiod of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from itwithout, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to dangerwhich cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship....
It’s common sense that the port also includingberth/anchorage. Consideration that the vessel could not use this anchoragesafely, The anchorage is unsafe for the vessel.
Hence that the charterers should compensate Owners’ lost,i.e additional pilotage usd 13,637.71 which result from the charterers breachtheir safety warranty.
Hope above will be acceptable bythe charterers.
Owners are looking forward toreceiving charterers’ positive confirmation by return.
RE: MV HENG SHENG / VALE-COA 42ND VOY-SAFEANCHORAGE
===================================
Further to Owners’ messag date5th/Oct, Owners wish to explain and clarify below for charterers’ persual.
a. As Owners advise earlier, thecenter of anchorabe B5 to the isloated danger mark only abt 600M and the rightsafe boundary to the isolated danger mark only abt 280M.
b. The vessel shift to anchorage B5 on15th/Sep and drop anchor at position of Lat 22-57.88S, Long 043-56.03W; 5shackles on water. Attached anchor position showing that to that isloateddanger mark only abt 640M. As the charterers aware that vessel’s LOA is 300M,So the safety turning circles should be at least 450M, So this anchorage B5 isunsafe, there is no sufficient room for the vessel.
c. Refer to attached trail record,the vessel dragging due to strong wind, since 2016-09-18 19:48hrs to nearestposition on 2016-09-19 at 00:06hrs, The master advise the distance from hisvessel to that isolated danger mark only fews meters.
The prospective unsafety ofanchorage B5 for the vessel was said to arise from the circumstance that thevessel might cause collision to that isolated danger mark or cause damage tothe vessel’s hull/bottom, especially on account of strong wind, such as thevessel may drag in this case which put the vessel into rather emergencysituation.
The Master ever try to repositionhis vessel, but it’s not permit as per concerned port regulation, So in orderto avoid collision to the isolated danger mark and cause damage to the vessel’shull/bottom, the Master have to order pilot to reposition his vessel. There is no negligent navigation by the Master or his officer crews, theyhave done what they could to avoid this emergency situation.
Accordingly, the emergencypilotage for reposition the vessel was caused by the unsafety of the anchorageB5 for the vessel, which should be for the charterers’ account due to theybreach their safety warranty.
Hope above are clear and will beacceptable by the charterers.
Owners are sorry for anyinconvenience caused in this regard and charterers’ positive confirmation willbe highly appreciated.
同时因ITAGUAI MSD最大允许开航吃水仅为17.8M，导致船舶不能满载，找租家索赔亏舱费，以下为其中之一邮件：
关于此类因为吃水变化导致港口不安全的，可以参考伦敦仲裁判例，(2008) 740 LMLN 1， “The Archimidis”一案，仲裁庭认为租家事实上并没有完成提供足量货物的义务，而仅是在表面上作出租家已提供足量但船舶自身无法继续装载的姿态。在面临装港吃水不足的窘境时，仲裁庭认为租家至少有两种选择可以继续装足最低量的货物：一，根据租约约定到锚地采用船对船装载(“STS transfer”) ；二，等待航道被紧急疏浚后，继续在泊位上装货；但租家没有选择任何一种，而是让船舶在装上67,058吨货物后起航。因此，租家有义务赔偿船东的亏舱损失。上诉法院认为仲裁庭的中间裁决没有适用法律错误，应该被维持和尊重。上诉法院大法官同意仲裁庭和高等法院大法官的观点，认为“一个安全港口文茨皮尔斯”（“one safe port Ventspils”）构成租家保证该港口安全。
类似的有澳洲一些合同，在LOADINGTERM里面说租家不承担因为吃水造成的亏舱费。在PORT HEDLAND, DAMPIER等港口，潮汐影响巨大，对于CAPE而言，往往货量相差好几万吨。如果CLEAN RECAP里面加入了SA SB SP等字眼，由于手写的条款高于标准条款，按以上判例，可以去挑战一下，找租家索赔DAMAGE。
发配载图给代理租家的时候，加上“OWNERSALWAYS WISH TO LOAD MAX CARGO FOR THE VESSEL”。指示船长听从租家安排，装到MSD直接开航还是继续等货等下一个更大的潮水。完货后如果少装货，不管如何都叫船长递一个亏舱索赔申明，以免放弃了索赔权。租家很可能反过来说，你们船长为什么不继续等，我们本想继续给船装货的；但你们船没有我们指示就开了，所以我们租家不负责。
e. “富满”轮129航次，TCT租家NOBLE安排到罗马尼亚的Constantza装货，因靠泊后船方测量四周水尺不足，小于预计装货量的12.50M。以码头没有足够的水深，如果租家坚持要求装到12.50米，将造成坐底，泊位不安全，租家违约，要求租家去承担所有费用及风险。
这类装粮的泊位，日积月累，泊位水深尤其是内档都变浅。船去装货，需要提醒船长靠泊后一定要先安排船员测四周水深。
三、总结
事物千变万化，但万变不离其宗，大家都遵循合同办事。恰定好合同则是第一关：在合同里务必加上“SBS、SBS、SPS”；如果能再加上“BERTHS ARE ALWAYS REACHABLE， PORTS ARE ALWAYSAFLOAT、FREE OF RISKS、EXPENSESTO OWNERS”则最好不过。
每个案子也都不一样，需具体事情具体分析；只要把握好大的基本原则没有问题，不管如何厚着脸皮扯一扯，多多少少能挽回点损失。
联系客服
