Good Weather - Make it Clear

A recent case Polaris Shipping Co Ltd V Sinoriches Enterprises Co Ltd [2015] EWCH 3405 (Comm) – the “Ocean Virgo” – considered whether or not periods of less than 24 hours consecutively or cumulatively count as periods of “good weather” when assessing speed and consumption claims.

In December 2013 the vessel Ocean Virgo was chartered on the NYPE form for a time charter trip via the North Pacific to Singapore/Japan range to carry coal in bulk.  Owners gave speed and consumption warranties on the basis of “good weather/smooth sea, up to max BF SC 4/Douglas sea state 3, no adverse currents, no negative influence of swell”.

Charterers alleged that the vessel was not able to meet the performance warranties in good weather and claimed US$263,832 in damages.  In dismissing the claim, the arbitral tribunal held that for a period to be considered as being admissible “good weather” it had to constitute a period of 24 consecutive hours running from noon to noon. This was on the basis that this was traditionally considered to be a ship’s day.  Charterers appealed to the High Court in London. The basis of the appeal was that there had been an error in law by excluding periods of good weather which did not last 24 hours.

 The judge held that the arbitral tribunal had erred in law. The charterparty merely referred to “good weather” and, as such, an admissible period of good weather did not have to be a period of 24 consecutive hours running from noon to noon. It was also considered that there were no words in the charterparty which justified construing “good weather” as meaning good weather days of 24 hours from noon to noon.

In light of this decision when including “good weather” in speed and consumption warranties it should be made clear precisely what “good weather” means in the context. If the intention is to exclude from consideration periods of less than 24 hours of consecutive or cumulative good weather, the charterparty “good weather” description should make this clear.