BIFAlink
Legal Eagle
www.bifa.org
Time... waits for no one
Forwarders will be all too familiar with time bars for bringing claims. Clause 27 of BIFA’s Standard Terms and Conditions (STC) stipulates that a customer has nine months to commence a claim against a forwarder, leaving the forwarder a further three months to start an action under, for example, a bill of lading against the carrier involved. A year is endemic in international carriage, but you need to ensure that you have incorporated BIFA’s STCs into your contract to rely on that. A recent case, Euronav NV v Repsol Trading SA , involved a vessel owner’s claim for demurrage, which had a shorter 30-day time period. Demurrage generally does involve a pretty short time to make a claim but, regardless of the time limit, this case is of wider general interest to international carriage and commercial contracts where a number of time zones around the world could be involved. Which time zone applies? In this case the charterers said the vessel discharged in California and local time applied, so the claim was time barred. On the other hand, the vessel owner said that a number of alternative time zones, all essentially European, should apply in which case the claim was not time barred. The vessel owner contended that the same time zone should be applied to both the beginning and the end of the period – in other words the 30-day period – and the claim should be submitted to the charterers in a European time zone, and it was the time zone which had A recent London Commercial Court decision to uphold a time bar following a debate over what time zone applied confirms, if confirmation were needed, the possible, writes shipping and transport specialist John Habergham of Myton Law necessity of bringing claims as swiftly as
Discharge was completed at 21:54 on 24 December 2019 in California. At that point in time, it was 06:54 Central European time, or 05:54 Greenwich mean time on 25 December 2019. The claim for demurrage was made on 24 January 2020. The charterers said discharge was completed on 24 December 2019 and, therefore, the last day for notification was 23 January 2020, being day 30, counting 25 December 2019 as day one. The vessel owner said discharge was completed on 25 December 2019, that the last day for notification was 24 January 2020, being day 30, counting from 26 December 2019 as day one. Therefore, it was in time. The court accepted the charterers’ contention, that local time applied, and on that basis, in September 2021, the court ruled that the claim for nearly US$500,000 was time barred. An expensive lesson. Never leave it to the last moment before initiating an action, and do not get into a position of having to use a technical argument such as time. We are grateful to BIFA Associate member Myton Law and John Habergham for providing this article. www.mytonlaw.co.uk
the closest and most real connection with the term in the charter that should apply. On that basis, the only connection with California was discharge. In all other respects, administrative staff of both parties were located within a European time zone. Conversely, the charterers said that the local time zone should be used because that reflects information which is stated in the relevant statement of facts and the owner’s laytime statement. It also reflects the proposition that the date of discharge would be material for any cargo claim brought under the Hague Visby regime. The margins of time were particularly tight.
16
December 2021
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker