礼德公告（双语）| 新型冠状病毒所引发有关租船合同的问题

概览  

At a Glance

2020年1月30日，世界卫生组织宣布新型冠状病毒（“2019-nCoV”）疫情（“疫情”）为国际公共卫生紧急事件。疫情显然影响着中国的经济活动，更影响截至本文出版之日于中国以外的23个[1]国家。

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.

本简报论述在英国法下，该疫情所引发的经济效应将如何影响租船合同。以下仅为我们就特别事项准备的概要。有关个别租船合同的实际条款及事实情况，请另自按个别案件作参考。

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

许多船舶操作员的先决考虑是一个受疫情影响的港口是否为“安全港”。有关“不安全港”的测试是众所周知的。“除非在有关时间内，特定的船舶能够到达、使用并从该港口返回，而没有（在未发生异常情况下）遇到即使拥有良好航行和航海技术也不能避免的危险，否则该港口将被视为不安全港。”（节录自The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep，并得到最高法院在The Ocean Victory [2017] UKSC 35一案认可）。值得注意的是，最高法院在The Ocean Victory就The Eastern City一案作评论：“在本案中，双方没有提出有关“不安全港”的测试可以或应该不同于Sellers法官在The Eastern City中所描述的测试。再者，该测试经过时间的考验，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，一艘船因来自受瘟疫污染的港口而被定为不适航，并须在下一港口进行熏蒸消毒。同样道理，如果一个受新型冠状病毒污染的港口导致船舶在接下来的港口受到限制，则可被解释为该船舶因新型冠状病毒导致实质损坏，不再适航。如果船舶不能避免在港口遇到这类危险的情况，则可能引发不安全港的争议。

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.

承租人对港口安全的责任

Charterers’ responsibilities relating to the safety of the port

尽管当前的重点大多是船舶能否完成现有的航程，定期承租人必须同时留意其主要义务，即指定在当时预期安全的港口。其次，承租人的次要义务在于当其原先指定的港口不再安全时，取消原有的命令，并就前往当时预期安全的另一个港口下达新的命令。承租人的主要义务是绝对义务，而次要义务则是“尽职”义务。

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”. 

这观点可能被特定的租船合同条款改变，例如Shelltime 4第4(c)条列明：

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

“承租人应以尽职调查确保船舶仅在其可以安全地漂浮的安全地点或在安全地点之间航行（安全地点在本合同中意指港口、泊位、停泊处、码头、锚地、海底管线、在船舶或驳船旁边，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.…”

该条款的作用是放宽绝对义务的标准至尽职调查标准。承租人只有在未采取合理谨慎措施以确定港口安全的情况下，才会违反此项尽职调查义务。

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，根据The Saga Cob  [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545一案，承租人需要密切监视地形实况，以确保他们有能力履行其主要、次要和/或尽职调查义务，以确保指定港口的安全。

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).

请输入标题     abcdefg

隔离限制和延迟

Quarantine restrictions and delay

因隔离检疫限制引致的延误，将因应个别租船合同的类型和措辞而有所不同。在定期租船合同下，如果基于船员健康的原因船舶被要求偏离航道，或因隔离而被延迟，则承租人可能可以选择停租。或者，如果船舶偏离航道或延误是由承租人的指示所致，则该船应被视为继续租用。对于包含《海牙规则》或《海牙维斯比规则》的租船合同，第四条第2(h)项可能可以为隔离检疫限制所引起或造成的损失或损害提供辩护。

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.

流行病条款 Epidemics clauses

租船合同可能包含一般的“流行病条款”。取决于条款的措辞和解释，这条款可能足以让船东违抗要求船舶前往已知病毒盛行的地区的命令。然而，我们建议船东在依赖任何一般的“流行病条款”前寻求个别意见。

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”. 

为了应对2014年的埃博拉疫情，各个行业机构和运营商都针对定期租船合同及定程租船合同制定了伊波拉条款。波罗的海国际航运公会（“BIMCO”）中有关埃博拉病毒的条款是为应对任何强力疾病而草拟的通用术语，并沿用类似BIMCO战争条款和海盗条款的字眼。当时，合同中的其他用字可能是针对埃博拉病毒而草拟的，并且仅在该条款的语言能够广泛地概括当前事实时才适用于本次疫情所引发的事情。如果您正考虑重用任何以往使用的条款，则需要检查有关措辞，并确保其范围足以涵盖本次疫情及反映合同方的实际意愿。

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. 

在起草任何条款时，合同方都需要考虑可能产生的合同后费用，例如清洁、熏蒸消毒和隔离检疫等费用。如果船东以定期租船合同出租船舶，在允许船舶航行到受疫情影响的地区前，可能希望考虑向承租人索取财务担保。

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，合同方将被视作在签订合同时清楚知道当中的风险。因此，船东可能希望加入条款，以列明合同方计划在新型冠状病毒蔓延时如何处理相关情况。

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”一词在英国法中没有确定的含义。因此，在审阅有关合同条款时必须多加留意。

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

一般的做法是指明将构成不可抗力事件的事情，并添加一个涵盖当事方无法合理控制的事件的全能性条款。只要有关行为足够接近所依赖的指明事件，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机构采取的任何行动”。同样，不可抗力条款通常指明不可抗力事件是不能被合理预见的。

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，如果出现不可抗力事件，通常合同方会暂停执行并延长执行时间。然而，合同有时候也可能容许合同方在通知对方的情况下终止合同。

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.

合同受阻条款 Frustration

在没有适用的不可抗力条款的情况下，如果因疫情使其不能履行合同义务，则船东和承租人可以考虑援引合同受阻条款的一般原则。一旦合同受阻，各方的合同义务即告解除。

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.

因为履行合同而遭遇的艰辛、不便或物质损失不会使合同受阻。合同受阻条款的原则仅在发生意外事件，而船东和承租人都无法控制的情况下，且其于实际上或商业层面上无法履行租船合同时适用。或者，如果事情将有关义务转变为与该租船合同原先项下的义务截然不同时，这条款便适用。

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. 

合同是否受阻于本次疫情并因而无法履行将取决于主张合同受阻时的事实情况。在 The Hermine [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 212一案中，法院认为仅造成延误的障碍不会使港口变成不安全港，除非延误足以使商业活动的原意受阻。如果因疫情将合同项下的义务转变为与签订合同时承担的义务截然不同的义务，则在该种情况下，租船合同可能会受阻。

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，在英国法下，合同受阻一直是一个较难证明的情况。

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

《准备就绪通知》及检疫证书

Notices of readiness and free pratique

定程租船合同下的装卸时间仅在船舶提交有效的《准备就绪通知》后开始计算。一般而言，船舶将在到达泊位时，在形式上获得检疫证书。在已知受病毒感染的港口或地方，我们将不能假定同样的形式适用于该港口。

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. 

如果船舶在到达泊位并得到检疫证书时仍然未能有效地提交《准备就绪通知》，且在租船合同未有另外指示的情况下，则船东可能为延误负责。

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. 

礼德律师行将继续密切留意情况，并按事态发展提供进一步的信息。

Reed Smith will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates as developments occur. 

参考资料：

[1].https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports

如果您对上述事宜有任何疑问，请随时联系以下其中一位，或是您惯常联系的礼德律师事务所律师。

If you have questions or would like additional information on the material covered in this Alert, please contact one of the authors – listed below – or the Reed Smith lawyer with whom you regularly work.

李连君 （Lianjun Li )

礼德律师事务所香港办公室

合伙人、商业及航运诉讼部负责人

手机：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

李民 （Min Li )

礼德律师事务所香港办公室

合伙人

手机：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

Sally-Ann Underhill 

礼德律师事务所伦敦办公室

合伙人

手机：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

Peter Glover

礼德律师事务所香港办公室

合伙人

手机：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

Jason Toms

礼德律师事务所香港办公室

合伙人

手机：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

杜洋洋 （Janice Dao）

礼德律师事务所香港办公室

顾问律师

手机：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

沈信安（Donald Sham )

礼德律师事务所香港办公室

诉讼部顾问律师

手机：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

余晓辰（Cheryl Yu )

礼德律师事务所香港办公室

顾问律师（注册外地律师 (中国)）

手机：[phone]

           [phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

推荐往期阅读