Private Law Research

Referees 2023

Referees

Referees 2021

Referees

Referees

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Conditions of Commencement of Laytime from the Perspective of Common Law Judicial Case Law and Arbitral Awards

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Proffessor, Private Law Dept., Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 M.Sc. Student in International Trade Law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Laytime is the obligation of the ship's charterer to carry out loading / unloading operations within the stipulated time. Determining the exact point when laytime commences is determined by various factors and is important because exceeding laytime would result in the liability of charterer against shipowner and many cases has been formed on this issue in the Common law system. However, under Iranian law, the subject is not addressed and the lack of rules, reveals the need to study the matter. The present article seeks to extract the criteria of commencement of laytime by adopting an analytical and interpretive method and examining the existing judicial case law and arbitral awards under common law system, which is the main origin of shipping law and to study the most important issues around each criterion. The findings of the article, indicate that in general, under the common law legal system, three cumilitive conditions exist, which lead to commencement of laytime when all of the mentioned conditions are met. These three conditions are the presence of the ship at the intended contractual destination, readiness of the ship, and finally the issuance of Notice of Readiness (NOR).

Keywords

References
Arbabi, Masoud, (Demurrage and Detention), Legal Reseraches, Vol, 7, No. 23 and 24, (1998) [In Persian].
Aspragkathou, Despiona, (The Asbatankvoy Charterparty Clauses for the Commencement of Laytime - Interpretation under English and American Law), Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, vol. 40, no. 1, (2009).
Aspragkathou, Despoina, (Review of the Gencon Charter Clauses for the Commmencement of Laytime: Analysis of the Time Lost in Waiting for a Berth to Count as Laytime or Time on Demurage Clause), Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, vol. 38, no. 4, (2007).
Baughen, Simon, Summerskill on Laytime (6th edn.), Sweet & Maxwell, 2021.
Carver, Thomas & Colinvaux, Raoul, Carvers’s Carriage by Sea (13th edn.), Sweet & Maxwell, 1995.
Collins, Nick, The Essential Guide to Chartering, (A. Tabesh Trans.) (1st edn.), IRISL, 2008 [In Persian].
Davies, Donald, Commencement of Laytime (4th edn.) Informa Law Routledge, 2006.
Foxton, David et al., Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, (19th edn.), Sweet & Maxwell, 1984.
Girvin, Stephen, Carriage of Goods by Sea (2nd edn.) Oxford, 2011.
Grime, Robert, Shipping Law, (A. Ramezani Trans.) (1st edn.), IRISL, 1991 [In Persian].
Hill, Christopher, Maritime Law (6th edn.), Informa Law from Routledge, 2003.
Ivamy, Hardy, Casebook on Shipping law, (M. Poornori Trans.) (3rd edn.) Payam-e- Edalat, 2018, [In Persian].
Mashhadchi, Majid, Shipping and Maritime law (1st edn) IRISL, 1984 [In Persian].
Schofield, John, Laytime and Demurrage (7th edn.), Routledge, 2016.
Tabatabayi, Seyyed Mohammad, Maddahi Nasab, Mostafa, (Notice of Readiness and Demurrage Claims Derived from it: Examination of Doctrine and Case Law), Private Law Research, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2011) [In Persian].
Tiberg, Hugo, (Arrived Ship and Demurrage: An English and a Swedish Approach), Scandinavian Studies in Law, 20, (1976).
Tiberg, Hugo, The Law of Demurrage (3rd edn.) Stevens&Sons, 1979.
Trappe, Johanes, (Laytime problems and comparison of law), Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, (1986).
پ) پرونده
Anders Utkilens Rederi A/S V. Compagnie Tunisienne De Navigation of Tunis (The "Golfstraum") [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97.
Armement Adolf Deppe V John Robinson & Co Ltd [1917] 2 K.B. 204.
Brown V. Johnson, (1842) 10 M. & W. 331.
Christensen V Hindustan Steel Ltd [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 395.
Compania De Naviera Nedelka S.A. V Tradax International S.A. (The “Tres Flores”) [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 384; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 247.
Cosmar Compania Naviera S.A. V. Total Transport Corporation (The "Isabelle") [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 81 Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court).
Mosvolds Rederi A/S V. Food Corporation of India (The "Damodar General T. J. Park" And "King Theras") [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 68. Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court).
Davies V Mcveagh (1879) 4 Ex.D. 265.
E.L. Oldendorff & Co. G.M.B.H V Tradax Export S.A. (The “Johanna Oldendorff”) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 96; [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285.
Emeraldian Ltd Partnership V Wellmix Shipping Ltd, Guangzhou Iron & Steel Corp Ltd [2010] Ewhc 1411 (Comm); [2010] 1 C.L.C. 993.
Eurico S.P.A. V. Philipp Brothers (The Epaphus) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 387; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215.
Federal Commerce And Navigation Co Ltd V Tradax Export S.A. (The “Maratha Envoy”) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 223; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217; [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301.
Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd V Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 184.
Gill & Duffus SA V Rionda Futures Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67.
Glencore Grain Ltd V Flacker Shipping Ltd (The “Happy Day”) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 754; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487.
Government of Ceylon V Société Franco-Tunisienne D’armement-Tunis (The Massalia) (No 2) [1962] 2 Q.B. 416.
Groves, Maclean & Co V Volkart Bros (1884) C. & E. 309.
Kell V Anderson (1842) 10 M. & W. 498.
Leonis Steamship Company Limited V Joseph Rank Limited No. (1) 96 Ltr 458; [1907] 1 Kb 344; [1908] 1 Kb 499.
Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 332—25 July 1992.
Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 337—3 October 1992.
Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 409 8 July 1995.
Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 445—23 November 1996.
Logs & Timber Products (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. V. Keeley Granite (Pty) Ltd. (The "Freijo") [1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1 Court of Appeal.
London Arbitration 1/00 (2000) 538 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 1.
London Arbitration 11/00 (2000) 545 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3.
London Arbitration 12/01 (2001) 562 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3.
London Arbitration 12/98 – Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 488, 21 July 1998.
London Arbitration 13/02 (2002) 594 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 1(2).
London Arbitration 14/05 (2005) 669 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3.
London Arbitration 15/01 (2001) 566 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3.
London Arbitration 15/80 (1980) 15 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3(2).
London Arbitration 19/04 (2004) 648 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 1(2).
London Arbitration 19/05 (2005) 676 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3
London Arbitration 19/07 (2007) 723 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 2.
London Arbitration 31/92 (1992) 338 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 4.
London Arbitration 4/05 – Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 659, 23 February 2005.
London Arbitration 4/93 (1993) 351 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3.
London Arbitration 7/02 (2002) 587 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 4.
London Arbitration 7/88 (1988) 239 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 4.
London Arbitration 8/08 (2008) 748 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 2(2).
London Arbitration 8/81 (1981) 44 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 2(2).
London Arbitration 9/96 (1996) 434 Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (LMLN) 3.
Makin V Watkinson (1870) L.R. 6 Ex. 25.
Nelson V Dahl (1879) 12 Ch.D. 568.
Noemijulia V. Minister of Food, (1949–50) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 500.
North River Freighters Ltd V President of India (The “Radnor”) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 73; [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 668.
Novologistics Sarl V Five Ocean Corp (The Merida) [2009] Ewhc 3046 (Comm); [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 274.
Ocean Pride Maritime Ltd Partnership v Qingdao Ocean Shipping Co [2007] EWHC 2796 (Comm); [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511.
Odfjell Seachem A/S V Continentale Des Petroles ET D’investissements [2004] Ewhc 2929 (Comm); [2005] 1 All E.R.
Ransgrain Shipping B.V. Global Transporte Oceanico S.A. (The “Mexico 1”) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 507 Court Of Appeal.
Sofial Sa V Ove Skou Rederi A/S (The Helle Skou) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205.
Stag Line Ltd V Board Of Trade [1950] 1 K.B. 536, Approved By Lord Oaksey In The Court Of Appeal [1950] 2.
Surrey Shipping Co. Ltd V Compagnie Continentale (France) S.A. (The “Shackleford”) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 191; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154.
Tapscott V Balfour (1872) L.R. 8 C.P. 46.
Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Mining Co Ltd V Morel Bros & Co [1891] 2 Q.B. 647.
The Anco Elias Arbitration, 1977.
The Arundel Castle [2017] Ewhc 116 (Comm); [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370.
The Austin Friars (1894) 10 T.L.R. 633.
The Demosthenes V (Gerani Compania Naviera SA V General Organization for Supply Goods) (No.1) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275.
The Doric Pride [2006] Ewca Civ 599; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.175.
The Gundulic Arbitration, 1980.
The Polyfreedom New York Arbitration, 1974.
The Port Russel [2013] Ewhc 490 (Comm); Lloyd’s Law Reports, [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57. Trafigura Beheer Bv V Ravennavi Spa.
The Torm Estrid Arbitration, 1978.
Vaughan V Campbell Heatley & Co (1885) 2 T.L.R. 33.
Vyse V Wakefield (1840) 6 M. & W. 442.
Weir V Union Ss Co Ltd [1900] A.C. 525.
White V Winchester Ss Co (1886) 23 Sc.L.R. 342.
Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd V Tradax Export S.A. (The “Timna”) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409.
 
 
Private Law Research
Volume 10, Issue 39
June 2023
Pages 73-101
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics