最近的伦敦仲裁(2015)930 LMLN 3涉及一个以修订过的金康94合同为基础的，从乌克兰Nikolaev港装运高岭黏土至法国Le Legue的航次，仲裁庭支持了船东的滞期费索赔，并拒绝了租家提出的“延误是由于船东未能在预备航次中合理速遣”的抗辩。本案中，船东认为在本租约所涉航次开始之前还可以再完成一个中间航次，并实际履行了这个中间航次。
本租约下的受载期是10月16日-17日。10月7日，船东意识到船舶要赶上该受载期很困难且非常有可能错过受载期，此时船舶正在履行中间航次。但直到10月14日船东才通知租家并希望将受载期改为10月18日- 21日。
详细信息请参阅附件。
Owner’s obligation of reasonable despatch in a preliminary voyage
In a recent London arbitration (2015) 930 LMLN 3, where on an amended Gencon 94 voyage charterparty for a voyage from Nikolaev in the Ukraine to Le Legue in France with a cargo of Kaolin clay in, the tribunal upheld the owners’ claim for demurrage and denied the charterers’ defense that the delay was caused by the owners’ failure to prosecute the preliminary voyage with reasonable despatch. In this case Owners decided to do another intermediate fixture before the charter voyage was going to be commenced under this arrangement as they though it was possible.
Laycan under this fixture as agreed was 16/17 October. Owners knew as far as 7th Oct while performing under the intermediate fixture that it will be difficult for the vessel to maintain the laycan, and it could be touch and go. It was not until 14 Oct that the Owners sought an extension from the Charterers for the laycan to be 18/21 Oct.
See attached file: ALCO20150042 Owner’s obligation of reasonable despatch in a preliminary voyage.pdf
