Weather Delays
It is well-accepted in the trade that exceptions to laytime such as WWD and SHEX apply to laytime while a vessel is waiting for berth. With respect to bad weather while the vessel is waiting at the anchorage, such time is excepted from laytime when it is shown on a Statement of Facts which is signed by the Master without any protest, as is the case here. Sometimes, such rain time is not shown on the Statement of Facts, in which case, under a “weather working day of 24 consecutive hours” provision, the Charterer has the burden of proving that the vessel at the intended berth was prevented or would have been prevented from working due to rain or bad weather, had work been intended. In this case, evidence presented by Owner showed that the congestion at Paranagua was partly caused by the prevailing bad weather, and the arbitrator had no reason to doubt the veracity of the rain periods registered in the Statement of Facts and that they would have been of sufficient intensity to interrupt work. Therefore, rain periods while the vessel was waiting for berth, which are recorded in the signed Statement of Facts, do not count as laytime.
SMA 3190
______________________
A rainy day can be a weather working day if the weather did not have an adverse impact on cargo handling. The fact that adverse weather conditions existed is a prerequisite but does not automatically establish that laytime should or is suspended. Certain cargoes, such as ore, coal or scrap for that matter, are routinely discharged during rain or snow periods. The weather working term has historically been applied for the protection of the commodity to avoid cargo damages.
Editor comment: a quite similar observation made on the Laytime & Demurrage book (Schofield)
SMA 3944
______________________
The burden is on the charterer when the vessel is at anchorage to prove that had the vessel been berthed it would not have been worked due to the weather. when the vessel was waiting for a berth, the best evidence of what periods should have been excluded would have been the actual experience of the vessel or vessels discharging similar cargo in the berth. the Master's somewhat cryptic “remark” on the Statement of Fact has no bearing on the outcome as it refers to periods after the Vessel went on demurrage.
SMA 2980
______________________
Charterer was allowed a deduction from laytime for a period of rain while the vessel was at anchorage, without regard to whether the rain delayed discharging vessels.
SMA 1866
______________________
Under GENCON charter party, rain time outside of working hours does count as laytime, in the absence of proof that the rain that fell was of sufficient intensity to prevent loading had the vessel been working. Under GENCON, where there is no proof to the contrary, a “weather working day of 24 hours” is a day when weather permits work to be done and rain periods falling outside the working periods of vessel were weather working days.
SMA 383
_______________________
Under Baltimore Form “C”, cl. # 9, periods of rain which occur while vssel is awaiting her loading turn, are included in laytime. In cl. # 9, the term “““weather permitting” means only that bad weather which actually interfers with the actual loading of the vessel.
SMA 646
_____________________
Once vessels are on demurrage, demurrage counts continuously without interruptions despite presence of rain periods and Sundays.
SMA 125
_______________________
Charterer has the burden of proof that rain periods actually caused work stoppage. It is clearly a requirement that the adverse weather conditions have to be the cause for work to have been prevented on stopped. In this regard it differs from the interpretation, as spelled out by Scrutton and by Summerskill in their chapter on Laytime, that a ship not actually working may benefit from rain or other advise weather conditions that cause other vessels in the same port to cease work. The burden of showing that the rain periods claimed for actually caused the working of cargo to cease lies squarely on Charterers. In the facts in this case they have failed
to meet this burden, as the evidence shows that the vessel was idle on all those days for causes not in any way relating to the weather conditions.
SMA 1354
_______________________
Laytime was expressed in weather working days. it well established that rain periods experienced prior to berthing are only to be excluded if the vessel is not already on demurrage and the charterer has produced convincing evidence that those same rain periods would have prevented loading or discharging operations had such work been scheduled. Although the rain periods at Shanghai did take place prior to the expiration of allowed lay time, Charterer has made no showing that loading, if scheduled, would have been prevented during all or any part of those rain periods
SMA 4156
_______________________
Since the charter party refers to “weather working days” and for any time where the adverse weather conditions affect the dispatch of the vessel or the cargo, Charterers should be entitled to except such periods from laytime. However, if such proof cannot be produced by Charterers, then no deductions from laytime should be made. It is insufficient to point out that other vessels with commodities such as clay or salt interrupted cargo operations because of the weather conditions and apply these stoppages to the discharge of scrap cargo.
Editor: a similar view expressed in a London Arbitration award.was
SMA 1695
_______________________
Rain periods while waiting for a berth excluded from laytime if the rain would have prevented discharge had the vessel been berthed.
SMA 1878
_______________________
Where laytime was expressed in weather working days, and owner failed to prove that delays were caused by the nonavailability of cargo, rain periods were excepted from laytime whether work was performed or not.
SMA 2841
_______________________
Where vessel was already on laytime, delays in berthing due to effect of winter swell at Inchon on deep drafted vessel would not be excluded; charter contained no draft restriction.
SMA 3317
_______________________
Charterer held liable for demurrage where Charterer had not met its burden in proving that delays were due to weather conditions
SMA 3290
_______________________
CONOCO Weather Clause does not require a specific weather condition to come into effect, only that the vessel encountered delays in berthing as a result of weather.
SMA 3420
_______________________
Delays due to the vessel’s awaiting Charterer’s berthing instructions held not to be beyond its control.
SMA 3542
_______________________
In a demurrage case where Charterer submitted evidence from third party sources to impeach the weather entries in the ship’s log, although the arbitrators ruled that the Charterer failed to meet its burden of proving “conclusively” that the log entries were wrong, it was clear the arbitrators had in fact properly applied only a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and their reference to “conclusively” should be disregarded as simply an “inartistic” use of the word.- IMC Maritime Group v. Russian Farm Community Project, 167 Fed. Appx. 845 (2d Cir. 2006)
_______________________
Laytime was expressed in weather working days. Although it rained heavily while the ship waited for berth, Charterer failed to prove that such rain would have interrupted loading had the ship then been in berth and the rain periods were regarded as part of weather working days.
SMA 4156
_______________________
Delay caused by frozen pipe found to be due to breakdown of machinery of charterers, shippers or consignees, and under the terms of the contract of affreightment should be settled at half the demurrage rate
SMA 3583
_______________________
Inability to load cargo at midstream loading platform due to weather conditions (fog) preventing movement of cargo to platform counts against Charterer under “weather working days of 24 hours” provision of charter party.
SMA 3451
_______________________
Since the terminal regulations prohibited berthing when wind speed exceeded 15 knots, the delay in berthing during such periods were attributable to “weather and/or sea conditions” and only half-demurrage accrued
SMA 4104
_______________________
The NORGRAIN charter provided that Charterer was not responsible for “delay to . . . load . . . resulting from Act of God.” In the absence of an agreement between the parties to the contrary, a hurricane is an Act of God, notwithstanding that such storms are seasonal and could be expected to occur
SMA 4037
_______________________
“Half-weather exceptions” applied to laytime calculation for the period when second load berth was not available due to fog.
SMA 3213
_______________________
Despite discharge of cargo being delayed because of hurricanes, the force majeure clause in the charter did not reduce demurrage on a vessel which experienced post-hurricane congestion, especially since the charter gave Charterer multiple discharge berth options and Charterer failed to select one where offloading could have been accomplished sooner
SMA 3990
_______________________
Claimed rain exception to charterer’s laytime calculation will be disallowed where the receiver gave specific instructions to the vessel to keep hatches open during periods of rain
SMA 3792
_______________________
High winds held to be a condition of “weather” preventing work and interrupting laytime.
SMA 3541
_______________________
Charterers have failed to prove that bad weather, in fact, prevented the vessel from berthing. Rather, the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.The Panel also finds no support for Charterers' claim that the vessel was responsible for the delay in commencement of discharge. The Statement of Facts for the discharge port lists the activities which occupied the time in question as normal functions, usually performed by a receiving terminal and ones for which Owners bear no responsibility.
SMA 2281
_______________________
Laytime counted for delays in berthing caused by congestion, but not for delays caused by bad weather. Whether the bad weather qualified as a storm was irrelevant, because the charter provisions for reducing storm delays by half applied only when the vessel was on demurrage.
SMA 2410
_______________________
Laytime ran during periods when pumping was stopped due to surging since such conditions are common at Sandwich on a bend of the Cape Cod Canal.
SMA 2947
_______________________
Even if charterer had not been entitled to delay berthing the ship, the Conoco Weather Clause applied when calculating laytime.
SMA 2940
_______________________
The most realistic proof for weather conditions and its effect upon cargo operations is the contemporaneous entries in vessel's logs, work reports for the port and other vessels discharging the same cargo, as well as the vessel's stevedoring records.
SMA 3835
_______________________
Panel found that for purposes of determining laytime there is no practical difference between terms “weather working” and “weather permitting.”
SMA 3249
_______________________
Invoking Clause 20 (“WEATHER”), Charterers insist on a 50% deduction from Owners' laytime/demurrage accounting for these periods and voyages (i.e., a deduction of 10 hours, 52½ minutes under the second and of 17 hours, 5 minutes under the third voyage).Owners reject the application of Clause 20 to bad weather delays during lightering at an anchorage and contend that a lighterage anchorage is not a berth within the meaning of the clause. Owners further argue that laytime is clearly defined in Special Clause 8 (“Lighterage”) without reservation for weather delays, and, moreover, argue that Charterers have not submitted acceptable evidence of bad weather on either voyage for the entire delay. It is the Panel's opinion that with the exception of the period from 01.10 - 04.05 on February 11th, when Vessel was at anchor, no credible evidence of bad weather has been presented which would merit consideration of a 50% deduction of the laytime.
SMA 2745
_______________________
Delays awaiting cargo documents counted where they were substantiated by the Statement of Facts or other evidence independent of owner's laytime statement. Although the charter provided that “Vessel to clean to Charterer's Inspector's satisfaction”, laytime counted while the vessel's tanks were inspected where additional cleaning was not required.
SMA 2597
_______________________
Where the lighterage contract provided that time was to run continuously from the tendering of the vessel's notice of readiness until dropping the last outbound sea pilot at the last discharge port,the customary exceptions to laytime were eliminated and time counted despite weather delays.
SMA 2952