伦敦商事法院裁定在纽约土产交易格式租约条款下船舶在被海盗扣押时仍然属于出租状态
中远散货 （原告） Team-up Owning 有限公司 （被告）
伦敦商事法院以一致的意见支持一个著名仲裁庭的决定，当一艘船舶在纽约土产交易格式46 下出租时，当其被海盗劫持并控制的时候，船舶仍然处于出租状态。
这起案件的主要内容是一艘名叫Saldanha的船舶在航行在亚丁湾的UKMTO穿越通道时被索马里海盗劫持，然后船舶被海盗控制并带走。
船东坚持认为在被海盗劫持期间，船舶仍属于出租状态，因为船舶的状况并不属于停租条款的情况。证明船舶属于停租的责任则在租家身上。
租家试图通过一下几点去主张船舶应当属于停租：
1. 被海盗扣留等同于”对船舶或货物由于一般意外事件而扣留”
2. “人员的不履行义务或者缺陷”包括对船长和船员的过失错误。
3. 被海盗拿捕属于规定”任何其他原因”的范围
对于第一点，仲裁员发现持有重武装的海盗攻击和拿捕船舶不是意外事件，因为它与在The Mareva案件中”一般意外”的定义不同。
对于第二点，仲裁员和法官都接受了”不履行义务”一次的自然意义中可以包括船长或船员的过失或非故意的行为，但是”人员的不履行义务”必须做缩小解释。考虑到海运行业的时间，仲裁庭驳回了租家力图使”人员的不履行义务”包括船长和船员的任何对其职责的违反以失职。
法官同时拒绝了租家为使海盗扣船满足”任何其他原因”的主张。
最后法官遵从了以下主张: 该租约里包含了一条关于拿捕、扣留和扣押条款， 但是拿捕条款不能延伸到被海盗拿捕。
The London Commercial Court rules
The London Commercial Court rules that vessel chartered on NYPE terms remains on hire whilst detained by pirates
COSCO Bulk Carrier Co., Ltd v Team-up Owning Co. Ltd [2010] EWHC 1340 (Comm) (The Saldanha)
The London Commercial Court has upheld the unanimous decision of an eminent arbitration tribunal that a vessel chartered on the NYPE 46 from which were seized by pirates remained on hire whilst under the control of the pirates.
The case is manly on the bulk carrier m/v Saldanha was seized by Somali pirates whilst sailing through UKMTO transit corridor in Gulf of Aden, then the vessel was taken by the pirates.
The owner insisted that the vessel remained on hire during the period of detention due to that the seizure by pirates does not fall within the off-hire clause. The onus of prove is on charterer.
Charterer tried to argue that the vessel was off-hire on following points:
- detention by pirates amounts to “detention by average accidents to ship or cargo”;
- “default and or deficiency of men” is including negligent errors, by the master and crew.
- seizure by pirates falls in provision of “any other cause”
For the first point, the arbitrators have found heavily armed pirates attacking and seizing a vessel was not an accident, since it doesn’t fall in the meaning of “average accident” in the case The Mareva A.S [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368.
For the second point, the arbitrators and the judge accepted the natural meaning of “default” of men can include a negligent or inadvertent performance of duties by the Master or Crew, but “default of men” shall be constructed narrowly. Considering the marine industry practice also, the tribunal rejected the argument of Charterer which intended to include any failure by the Master and crew to perform their duties or any breach by them of their duties.
The judge also rejected other reasoning raised by the charterer trying to put the detention by the pirates fell within the scope of “any other cause”．
Finally the judge observed that the Charterparty included a “bespoke” clause dealing with the risk of seizure, arrest, requisition and detention, however the seizure clause did not extend to cover seizure by pirates.
