In a recent London Arbitration 3/15, (2015) 918 LMLN 3, it was again proved that Force majeure Clauses are interpreted narrowly against the party relying on it. It was held that the performance by the Charterers was “not prevented” by a force majeure event, but was “hindered or rendered more onerous” and the charterers had the responsibility of nominating the loading berth.
In this matter, the vessel was chartered for a voyage for the carriage of a cargo of sepiolite from “1-2 load berth chop always afloat Santander” to a port in the UK. The Charterers ordered the vessel to load at the sepiolite terminal berth, which was adjacent to a Ro-Ro berth at which cars were waiting to be loaded.
See attached file: ALCO20150016 Force Majeure Clauses.pdf
不可抗力条款
最近的一宗伦敦仲裁案London Arbitration 3/15, (2015) 918 LMLN 3，再次证明仲裁员会对不可抗力条款做狭义解释，使裁决不利于提出不可抗力的一方。仲裁庭认为，租家并“没有”因为不可抗力事件而“受阻”，只是“受到妨碍或使得更麻烦”。而且，租家有义务指定装货泊位。
本案中，租家以航次租船的形式，运输海泡石，从“桑坦德，1-2个泊位，始终保持漂浮状态”到英国某港口。租家指令船舶在码头的海泡石泊位装货，该泊位毗邻一个滚装泊位，滚装泊位上有很多汽车待装。
详细信息请参阅附件。
