甲板货免责条款：The Elin案

关于提单中免除承运人对于甲板货物灭失或损坏责任条款的效力问题，英国法院近期做出了一项裁决

 

在“The Elin”案中，船舶装载了从泰国运输到阿尔及利亚的201包工程货。

提单正面注明：

 

“70 pckgs… loaded on deck at shipper’s and/or consignee’s and/or receiver’s risk; the carrier and/or Owners and/or Vessel being not responsible for loss or damage howsoever arising”.

“70包……装在甲板上，风险由货主和/或收货人承担；承运人、船东或船舶对发生的任何损失或损坏都不承担责任。”

 

提单背面注有类似条款。

 

该轮在航行中遭遇恶劣天气，甲板上部分货物丢失或受到损坏。货方声称，船东未能照管好装在甲板上的货物造成货损，还可能由于不当绑扎和积载，船东未能在开航前谨慎处理使得船舶处于适航状态造成货损。

 

免责条款

作为一个基础议题，法院需要审议提单中的免责条款是否足以排除因疏忽或不适航所造成的损失或损害的责任。

 

船东援引包括“The Imvros”案在内的之前案例，大意是说，如果提单中的除外条款的措辞清晰，那么应遵从措辞所表述的意思。船东辩诉称，法院不应变更合同，曲解免责条款的含义。

 

货方辩称，免责条款必须要特别指明由于不适航或过失而产生的责任才能在本案中有效。货方表示，由于“The Imvros”案的判决受到了学术界的强烈批评，而且新加坡法院已认定该判决是错误的，所以“The Imvros”案的判决不应适用于本案。

 

 “The Elin”一案的法官驳回了对于“The Imvros”案判决的批评。 该法官称，“howsoever arising”一词是用来排除过失责任和不适航责任的“classic phrase(经典措辞)”。

 

因此，船东对于装载在甲板上的任何货物的任何损失或损坏，包括由于疏忽和不适航造成的损失或损坏，不承担任何责任。

 

北英保赔协会简评

 

对于经常在甲板上载货的船东来讲，这是一个非常有用的判决。该判决确认了运输合同当事人可以自由约定承运人对于甲板货物的灭失或者损坏不承担任何责任。

 

北英保赔协会提醒承运人查看协会推荐的General Deck Cargo Clause：

 

提单上应注明“Carried on deck at shipper’s risk without responsibility for loss or damage howsoever caused.”

 

同时，法官拒绝接受对于“The Imvros”判决的批评，这对于船东也有帮助。除了免责条款外，“The Imvros”同时指出，如果租家负责积载，且由于积载不当原因使得船舶不适航，那么因为积载不当所造成的损坏责任不得转移给船东。

 

如需查阅更多信息，请前往以下链接下载Aprile SPA v Elin Maritime Ltd案判决书：http://www.nepia.com/media/1026370/APPROVED-JUDGEMENT.pdf

通函内容，请以英文原文为准，汉语翻译仅供参考。 如您对上述内容有任何疑问，新乔十分乐意为您解答并提供帮助。 

Deck Cargo Exclusion Clauses: The Elin

A recent decision in the English Courts concerns the effectiveness of a clause in a bill of lading that excludes a carrier’s liability for loss or damage to cargo carried on deck.

 

In this case, The Elin loaded 201 packages of project cargo for carriage from Thailand to Algeria. The front of the bill of lading stated:

“70 pckgs… loaded on deck at shipper’s and/or consignee’s and/or receiver’s risk; the carrier and/or Owners and/or Vessel being not responsible for loss or damage howsoever arising”.

There was a similar term on the back of the bill of lading.

During the voyage the vessel encountered heavy weather and some of the deck cargo was lost or damaged. Cargo interests claimed the shipowner had failed to care for the deck cargo or, alternatively, had failed to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage due to inadequate lashings and stowage.

 

Exception Clauses 

The Court was asked to consider, as a preliminary issue, whether the exceptions clauses in the bill of lading were sufficient to exclude liability for loss or damage caused by negligence or unseaworthiness.

 

The owner raised previous legal cases (including The Imvros) to the effect that, where exclusionary words in a bill of lading are clear, then they mean what they say. They argued that the Court should not re-write the contract to give a different meaning to an exclusion clause.

 

Cargo interests argued that for it to operate in this case, exceptions clauses must specifically refer to liability for unseaworthiness or negligence. Cargo interests suggested The Imvros should not be applied because that decision had been forcefully criticised by academics and because the Singapore courts had decided it was wrong.

 

The Judge in The Elin rejected the criticisms of the decision in The Imvros. The phrase “howsoever arising” is, the Judge said, the “classic phrase” used to exclude liability for negligence and unseaworthiness. 

 

The shipowner was therefore not liable for any loss or damage to any cargo carried on deck, including loss or damage caused by negligence and unseaworthiness.

 

North View 

This is a very useful decision for shipowners who routinely carry cargoes on deck. It confirms that parties to a contract of carriage are free to agree a carrier has no liability for loss or damage to deck cargo.

 

Carriers are reminded of North’s recommended General Deck Cargo Clause:

 

Bill of lading to be claused: “Carried on deck at shipper’s risk without responsibility for loss or damage howsoever caused.”

 

The Judge’s rejection of criticisms of the decision in The Imvros is also helpful to shipowners.  In addition to dealing with exceptions clauses, The Imvros also stated that, where a charterer is responsible for stowage, liability for damage caused by inadequate stowage is not transferred back to the owner where the stowage is performed so badly it renders the vessel unseaworthy.

 

For further reading, download the judgment: Aprile SPA v Elin Maritime Ltd.

 

来源：北英保赔协会@2019.06.26

http://www.nepia.com/insights/signals-online/cargo/deck-cargo-exclusion-clauses-the-elin/deck-cargo-exclusion-clauses-the-elin/