Çarter Sözleşmeleri Bakımından Cari olan Güvenli Liman Yükümlülüğünün İngiliz Mahkeme Kararları Işığında Tanımı ve Kapsamı
Dünyada hızla artmakta olan ticaret hacmi dolayısıyla, deniz taşımacılığına ilişkin kural ve uygulamalar her geçen gün değişmektedir. Dünyanın bir ucundan öteki ucuna taşınan ticari malların hacim ve kapasitesini artırabilmek adına daha büyük, daha güvenli ve daha teknolojik gemiler inşa edilmektedir. Buna karşılık, zorlu iklim koşulları, fiziksel koşullar anlamda yetersiz limanlar ve dünyada değişen politik dinamikler gemiler için güvenlik sorunlarını da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu itibarla, çarter sözleşmeleri bakımından karşımıza çıkan güvenli liman yükümlülüğüne riayet, geminin limana girdiği, limanı kullandığı ve terk ettiği esnada uğradığı zararlara ilişkin sorumluluğun kime ait olduğunun tespiti bakımından son derece mühimdir. Bir limanın muayyen bir gemi ve zaman aralığı için güvenli olup olmadığı, somut olayın şartları kapsamında, yani sübjektif olarak değerlendirilmesi gereken bir husustur. Çalışmamızda evvela güvenli liman yükümlülüğüne dair mevcut mevzuat hükümleri değerlendirildikten sonra, söz konusu yükümlülüğün kapsamı üzerinde durulacaktır. Daha sonra, sorumluluğun hangi andan itibaren çartererdan gemi sahibine intikal ettiğinin daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi adına güvenli liman yükümlülüğünün hukuki mahiyeti ve sınırları ele alınacaktır. Son olarak, bu yükümlülüğe riayet edilmemesine bağlanan sonuçlar ortaya konulacaktır.
THE DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF THE SAFE PORT OBLIGATION UNDER CHARTERPARTY AGREEMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW
Due to the increasing volume of trade, the world of shipping is changing faster than ever. Bigger, safer and smarter ships are built to carry more goods to remote corners of the Earth. However, challenging weather factors, poor physical conditions of some ports and changing political dynamics of the world raise safety concerns for ships. Thus, understanding the scope of the safe port obligation is important to allocate the risk between the owner and charterer when a ship sustains damage while entering, using or leaving a nominated port. Therefore, under a charterparty, the charterers have an obligation to order the ship to safe ports and places. Although safety is a question of fact, whether a port is safe for a particular vessel at a relevant time is a subjective test. Thus, the meaning of safety might change from time to time and ship to ship due to different factors. After reviewing the existing judicial literature on safe port obligation, this paper will explore its scope and how far it extends. Later, the limits and the nature of the safe port obligation will be covered to understand when the risk shifts from the charterer to the shipowner. Finally, the paper will cover the remedies available for the parties.
___
- List of Cases
- Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36.
- Aegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (The Aegean Sea) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 (QB).
- Atkins International H.A. v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The A.P.J. Priti) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 (CA).
- Axel Brostrom & Son v. Louis Dreyfus & Co. (1932) 38 Com. Cas. 79 (KB).
- Compania Naviera Maropan S.A. v Bowater’s Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd (The Stork) [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 349.
- Gard v China National (The Ocean Victory) [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 521; [2017] UKSC 35.
- Gard v China National (The Ocean Victory) [2013] EWHC 2199 (QB).
- Gard v China National (The Ocean Victory) [2015] EWCA Civ 16; [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381.
- Grace v. General Steam Navigation (The Sussex Oak) (1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 297 (KB).
- Kodros Shipping Corporation v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 (CA).
- Kodros Shipping Corporation v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia 2) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 307 (HL).
- Kristiansands Tankrederi A/S v. Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Ltd. (The Polyglory) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 353.
- Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 (CA).
- Lensen Shipping v Anglo-Soviet Shipping (The Terneuzen) (1935) 52 Lloyd’s Rep. 141 (CA).
- Limerick Steamship Company, Ltd v W.H. Stott & Co Ltd (The Irishboffin) (1920) 5 Ll.l Rep 190; (1921) 7 Ll.l Rep 69.
- Marks & Spencer v BNP Paribas [2015] UKSC 72.
- Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corp of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391 (HL).
- Ogden v. Graham (1861) 1 B. & S. 773. (QB).
- Palm Shipping Inc v Kuwait Petroleum Corp (The Sea Queen), [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500.
- Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City) 1956 1 Lloyds Rep 1.
- St Vincent Shipping Co Ltd v Bock, Godeffroy & Co (The Helen Miller) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 95.
- Tage Berlund v Montoro Shipping Corp Ltd (The Dagmar), [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 (QB).
- Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v. Cook Industries Inc (The Mary Lou) [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 272 (QB).
- Uni-Ocean Lines Pte. Ltd. v. C-Trade S.A. (The Lucille) [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 244 (QB).
- Unitramp v. Garnac Grain Co. Inc. (The Hermine) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212 (CA).
- Ullises Shipping Corporation v Fal Shipping Co Ltd (The Greek Fighter) (2006) 703 LMLN 1.
- Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24.
- Secondary Resources
- Aikens, Richard, “Lord Mustill and Maritime Law” (2017) LMCLQ 349-359.
- Baatz Y, Maritime Law (5th edn Informa Law 2021).
- Baker C, ‘The safe port/berth obligation and employment and indemnity clauses’ [1988] LMCLQ 43.
- Baker C. and David P., ‘The politically unsafe port’ [1986] LMCLQ 112.
- Baughen S, Shipping Law (7th edn Routledge 2018).
- Bennett H; Dias J; Girvin S; Hofmeyr S; Kerr S; MacDonald A; Eggers P M; Sarll R, Carver on Charterparties, (2nd Sweet & Maxwell 2020).
- Chris W, “Unsafe berths and implied terms reborn” (2010) LMCLQ 489.
- Cooke J, Young T, Ashcroft M, Taylor A, Kimball J, Martowski D, Lambert L, Sturley M, Voyage Charters (4th edn. Informa Law from Routledge 2014).
- Coghlin T, Baker A, Kenny J, Kimball J, Belknap T, Time Charters (7th edn Informa Law from Routledge 2014).
- Davenport B.J., “Unsafe Ports Again” (1993) Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 150.
- Soyer B and Tettenborn A, Charterparties: Law, Practice and Emerging Legal Issues (1st edn Informa Law from Routledge 2017).
- Suri M, “Autonomous Ships and the Proximate Cause Conundrum - A Maritime and Insurance Law Tango” (2020) 51 Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce 163.
- Thomas R, “The Safe Port Promise of Charterers from the Perspective of the English Common Law” (2006) 18 The Singapore Academy of Law Journal 597.
- Todd P, “Laytime, demurrage and implied safety obligations” (2012) 8 Journal of Business Law 668-682.
- Todd P, Principles of the Carriage of Goods by Sea (1st edn Routledge 2016).
- Wilson J, Carriage of goods by Sea (7th edn Pearson Longman 2010).
- ISSN: 1309-9485
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 2010
- Yayıncı: Türkiye Adalet Akademisi