Bottom fouling clauses are a standard feature of time charters. There are a variety of clauses and some make the transfer of burden for cleaning the hull (from owners to charterers) contingent upon marine growth being excessive. Question that came up in London Arb. 15/19 was - how 'excessive' must the marine growth be?
Vessel had a prolong stay at Hazira and owners arranged for a diver to attend but u/w inspection could not be carried out due to bad weather, low u/w visibility etc. After redelivery owners undertook cleaning, and were now seeking to claim the costs from charterers. The bill was for time lost due to diversion, cleaning costs, port expenses and costs of bunkers.
Charterers contended that clause will not kick in for any marine growth, howsoever small. They considered the marine growth to be non-significant. Owners placed reliance on a report by stormgeo which had compared vessel’s good weather average speed before and after cleaning. The difference was +0.33 knots.
The tribunal construed the term to mean marine growth which has a measurable impact on vsl’s performance and/or reduces the period until next hull cleaning. They were satisfied with owners’ demonstration of reduction in performance after fouling (or rather improvement after cleaning!)
Comments