您目前的位置: 首页» 研究资料» 英国法院驳回申请人对租船合同下法律问题的上诉(英国案例)

英国法院驳回申请人对租船合同下法律问题的上诉(英国案例)

2020728日,在Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank(Switzerland) Ltd & Anor[2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm)一案中(判决请见:阅读原文),英格兰与威尔士高等法院商事法庭(以下简称法院)认为,涉案运输合同中不存在默示条款要求被申请人(银行和收货人):采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付;和/或在合理时间内卸货。因此,法院驳回申请人对这两个法律问题的上诉。

一、背景介绍

涉案船舶的登记所有人以Norgrain 89格式的航次租船合同将船舶出租给承租人Agribusiness United DMCC。本案申请人从船舶登记所有人处受让船舶成为船舶所有人。承租人现已处于破产清算状态,无法履行航次租船合同规定的任何义务。

本案争议法律问题涉及由日期为2016117日的提单所包含或证明的运输合同。该提单包含一条并入条款,载明将所有航次租船合同的“……条款、条件、自由航行和豁免……”并入提单。第一被申请人Arab Bank (Switzerland) Limited (以下简称银行)为运输合同标的货物提供融资,第二被申请人Yousef Freiha & Sons Sal为收货人。

本案涉及两起仲裁程序。在第一起仲裁程序中,银行就错误交货要求船舶所有人赔偿损失,船舶所有人就滞期损失提出反请求。在第二起仲裁程序中,船舶所有人要求收货人赔偿滞期损失。两起仲裁程序由同一仲裁庭审理。

2019516日,仲裁庭作出部分最终裁决。仲裁庭在裁决中将以下法律问题作为初步事项处理:“25.初步事项:1.作为一个解释问题,以下主体是对否对运输合同下的卸货港滞期费承担责任:1.1银行;1.2收货人。2.如果1.11.2的答案为否,为船舶所有人追索延误造成的损失,运输合同中是否存在默示条款要求银行或收货人:2.1采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付;和/2.2在合理时间内卸货。

仲裁庭对问题1.11.2作出否定回答,仲裁庭认为银行或收货人无需对运输合同下的卸货港滞期费承担责任,应当对运输合同下的卸货港滞期费承担责任的是承租人。当事人未对该结论提出上诉。仲裁庭对问题2也作出否定回答,即认为运输合同中不存在默示条款要求银行或收货人:采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付(默示条款一);和/或在合理时间内卸货(默示条款二)。

申请人根据《1996年仲裁法》第69条对部分最终裁决所涉及的两个法律问题(关于是否存在两个默示条款的问题)请求上诉。2019114日,Picken法官准予上诉。

法院对这两个法律问题作出如下认定。

二、法院认定

最高法院在Marks and Spencer Plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Limited [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742案中全面阐述了适用于条款的默示含义的原则,并在Ali v. Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2017] UKPC 2;[2017] ICR 531案,Ukraine v. The Law Debenture Trust Corp. PLC [2018] EWCA Civ2026案和UTB LLC v. Sheffield United Limited [2019] EWHC 2322(Ch)案中适用了该原则。就本案目的,概括而言:(1)只有在以下情况下,条款才为默示条款,即只有当这种做法对于使合同具有商业效力或者使那些明显到不言而喻的东西具有效力,并且如果没有这些条款,合同将缺乏商业上或实践上的连贯性的时候且在此范围内,条款才为默示条款;(2)以下为必要但非充分要求,即当事人主张默示的条款看起来公平或者法院认为,如果当事人曾收到建议,他们会同意此种条款。(3)默示条款必须能够明确表达出来,并且不得与相关合同的明示条款相抵触;(4)在大多数(可能全部)关于某一条款是否为合同默示条款的争议中,只有在解释明示措辞的过程完成之后,默示条款的问题才会被考虑,因为只有在解释过程完成之后,才可以回答如下必要性问题和关联问题,即被主张为默示的条款是否与相关合同的明示条款相抵触。

In summary and in so far as is material for present purposes:

i) Terms are to be implied only if to do so is necessary in order to give the contract business efficacy or to give effect to what was so obvious that it goes without saying and only if and to the extent that without the terms contended for the contract would lack commercial or practical coherence;

ii) It is a necessary but not a sufficient requirement that the term that a party seeks to have implied appears fair or is one that the court considered that the parties would have agreed if it had been suggested to them;

iii) The terms to be implied must be capable of clear expression and not contradict the express terms of the contract concerned; and

iv) In most, possibly all, disputes about whether a term should be implied into a contract, it is only after the process of construing the express words is complete that the issue of an implied term falls to be considered because it is only after the construction exercise has been undertaken that the necessity question and the allied question whether the terms sought to be implied contradict the express terms of the contract concerned can be answered – see the judgment of Males LJ in Equitas Insurance Limited v. Municipal Insurance Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 718; [2019] 3 WLR 613. In the circumstances of this case, to the extent that exercise has been carried out by the Tribunal in the part of the Award from which there is no appeal, that construction is binding between the parties and on me for the purposes of this appeal.

根据Marks and Spencer Plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Limited Ali v. Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago案,“……必要性的概念不能被淡化。必要性的确立并非通过证明合同会因增加[默示条款]而更完善。默示条款的公正性或公平性是列入该条款的一个基本但不是充分的先决条件。(… concept of necessity must not be watered down. Necessity is not established by showing that the contract would be improved by the addition. The fairness or equity of a suggested implied term is an essential but not a sufficient precondition for inclusion。此外,如果任何条款与明示条款不一致,则不得在合同中默示任何条款(the principle [is] that (as restated in the Marks and Spencer case) no term may be implied into a contract if it would be inconsistent with an express term

1.运输合同中是否存在默示条款要求银行或收货人采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付(第一个默示条款)

船舶所有人认为,运输合同中存在默示条款要求被申请人(银行和收货人)采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付。船舶所有人主张卸货和交付之间存在区别。法院同意存在此种区别,且被申请人未表示反对。

在对卸货和交付进行区分后,船舶所有人的这项主张分为两个分论点:一是认为被申请人应当采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货;二是认为被申请人应当采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内交付。

对于第一个分论点,法院基于如下两个理由予以驳回:第一,这种做法试图回避本应完全由船舶所有人承担的卸货义务(this is an attempt to avoid the difficulty that discharge was an obligation that rested exclusively on the Owner)。第二,没有必要在运输合同中默示这样一个表达宽泛的条款(it is entirely unnecessary to imply such a wide and generally expressed term into the Contract of Carriage。根据运输合同,卸货不是一个协作过程,除非根据运输合同收货人有义务指定装卸工。但这并不意味着第一个默示条款的含义是必要的或合理的,因为:(a)明示的指定装卸工的义务在其条款中是绝对义务;(b)航次租船条款第20条明确约定了一种合同机制,适用于因被申请人未指定装卸工而延误卸货的情况。由此可见,就装卸工的指定,即使是狭义的条款也没有必要默示在合同中(因为双方已达成合意,这将由承租人支付的滞期费来处理),更不用说船舶所有人所主张的一般和无条件的条款。(that does not make the implication of the First Implied Term necessary or reasonable because (a) the express obligation to appoint is absolute in its terms and (b) there is an express agreed contractual mechanism contained in clause 20 of the Voyage Charter terms that applies in the event that discharge is delayed by the failure by the defendants to appoint stevedores. It follows that there is no necessity for even a narrow implied term concerning the appointment of stevedores because it has been agreed this will be managed by demurrage to be paid by the Charterer, much less one in the very general and unqualified terms sought by the Owner.

对于第二个分论点,法院认为,为了使运输合同具有商业连贯性,显然没有必要默示一般的和无条件的条款。相比于卸货,交付并不需要更多协作。如果收款人未接收货物,其后果将由一般法律通过长期确立的、范围更窄、更微妙的默示义务所规定。(If the receiver fails to take delivery the consequences are those provided by the general law by the implication of a long established, much narrower and more nuanced obligation.

法院认为,没有必要默示宽泛的,一般表述的和无条件的条款,因为:(1)在被申请人有义务提供泊位的范围内,可以通过狭义默示条款提供泊位;(2装卸工人的相关规定是明示条款主要内容;(3)运输合同包含一项滞期费制度,规定承租人有义务就任何时间损失支付滞期费,但在其适用的范围内,没有必要默示对其他当事人施加类似义务的条款,和/或任何此类默示条款将与明示条款不一致;(4)交货不需要承运人和收货人在任何法律意义上的协作,(5)一般法已提供收货人不接受交付的解决办法,以及(6)缺少本案的第一个默示条款,运输合同并不缺乏商业连贯性。(Returning to general principle, there is no necessity to imply the wide, generally expressed and unqualified term contended for by the Owner in this case because (a) to the extent the Defendants were under an obligation to provide a berth, that can be provided by a narrowly expressed implied term focussed exclusively on that assumed obligation, (b) the provision of stevedores is the subject of express provision; (c) the Contract of Carriage contains a demurrage regime that renders the Charterer liable to pay demurrage for any "… time lost for which the… receivers are responsible which is not excepted under this Charterparty …" and to the extent that it applies there is no necessity to imply terms imposing similar obligations on other parties and/or any such implied term would be inconsistent with what had been expressly agreed; (d) delivery does not require collaboration between carrier and receiver in any legally relevant sense, (e) the general law already provides a solution where the receiver does not accept delivery and (f) the Contract of Carriage does not lack commercial coherence without the implication of the First Implied Term.

2.运输合同中是否存在默示条款要求银行或收货人采取一切必要措施在合理时间内卸货(第二个默示条款)

船舶所有人认为,运输合同中存在默示条款要求被申请人(银行和收货人)采取一切必要措施,在合理时间内卸货。船舶所有人提出,在决定这个问题之前,须先解决以下问题,即对航次租船合同第10和第11条进行解释,“承租人/收货人”是否负责完成将货物卸离船舶的任务。法院同意这是需要解决的第一个问题。

租船合同第10规定“船方不负责卸下货物的费用(Cargo is to be discharged free of expense to the Vessel)”,第11条规定“卸货港的装卸工人由承租人/收货人指定并支付费用”。船舶所有人据此认为,负责将货物卸离船舶的任务专属于承租人和收货人。仲裁庭认为,“第11条的效力是,船舶所有人负责卸货,至少对装卸工所完成的实际卸货任务负责(it is the Owners who are responsible for discharging, at any rate as regards the physical task of discharging as performed by stevedores)。”

法院拒绝接受船舶所有人对上述条款的解释,并认为租船合同第10条的措辞很明确——船方不负责卸下货物的费用。该条并不意味着船舶所有人已将卸货任务的责任转移给收货人或承租人,只涉及谁来支付卸货费用。这在副标题“装卸费用”中明确表明。法院还认为,第11条是赋予第10条的费用转移条款效力的一种方式。(In my judgment the language of clause 10 is clear – the Cargo was to be discharged free of expense to the Owner. Clause 10 does not imply that responsibility for the task of discharge has been transferred by the Owner to the receiver or charterer. Clause 10 is concerned solely with who is to pay for the operation. That is made clear by the sub heading, which is "Cost of loading and discharging". In my judgment clause 11 is one way in which effect is given to the cost shifting provision within clause 10.)船东所依赖的前述措辞不能与条款中的其他措辞分开解读,即“在所有情况下,装卸工人应被视为船东的仆人,并应在船长的监督下工作”。法院认为这些措辞表明卸货责任仍然归属于由船长代表的船舶所有人。如果租船人或收货人对卸货负责,则不需要这样的规定。

法院认为,当事人所适用的措辞,不能表明卸货责任转移给收货人或承租人,也不会施加除指定装卸工和支付报酬以及其他卸货费用以外的任何义务。(The language used by the parties does not have the effect of shifting responsibility for discharge onto the charterers or receivers or of imposing on thereceivers or charterers any obligation beyond appointing and paying stevedores and meeting the other costs of discharge. There are no words that have that effect of transferring responsibility for discharge onto the charterers or receivers much less the clear words that are required.船舶所有人认为被申请人负有卸货义务,该观点是错误的。在这种情况下,关于是否存在第二个默示条款的进一步问题并未出现。

综上所述,法院认为,运输合同中不存在默示条款要求银行或收货人:采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付;和/或在合理时间内卸货。因此,法院驳回申请人对这两个法律问题的上诉。

三、评论

本案涉及两个法律问题:一是运输合同中是否存在默示条款要求银行或收货人采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付;二是运输合同中是否存在默示条款要求银行或收货人采取一切必要措施在合理时间内卸货。

对于第一个法律问题,在对卸货和交付进行区分后,船舶所有人的主张分为两个分论点:一是认为被申请人应当采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内卸货;二是认为被申请人应当采取一切必要措施,使货物能够在合理时间内交付。对于第一个分论点,法院基于如下两个理由予以驳回:第一,这种做法试图回避本应完全由船舶所有人承担的卸货义务;第二,没有必要在运输合同中默示这样一个表达宽泛的条款。对于第二个分论点,法院认为,为了使运输合同具有商业连贯性,显然没有必要默示一般的和无条件的条款。相比于卸货,交付并不需要更多协作。如果收款人未接收货物,其后果将由一般法律通过长期确立的、范围更窄、更微妙的默示义务所规定。因此,运输合同中不存在默示条款要求银行或收货人采取一切必要措施使货物能够在合理时间内卸货并交付。

对于第二个法律问题,法院对已并入提单的租船合同的相关条款进行分析:将“船方不负责卸下货物的费用”,“卸货港的装卸工人由承租人/收货人指定并支付费用”,以及“在所有情况下,装卸工人应被视为船东的仆人,并应在船长的监督下工作”结合起来解读,认为这些措辞表明,承担卸货责任的是船舶所有人,卸货责任并未转移给收货人或承租人,也不会施加除指定装卸工和支付报酬以及其他卸货费用以外的任何义务。因此,运输合同中不存在默示条款要求银行或收货人采取一切必要措施在合理时间内卸货。