Recent decisions on the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 (the “ICA”)

介绍

ICA旨在为便利解决船东（Owners）与租船人（Charterers）货物索赔，避免仲裁和长期讨论，根据相关货物索赔的性质提供或多或少的机械的责任分摊（mechanical apportionment）。

ICA第8段规定了分摊的依据，这取决于索赔是否产生于：（a）不适航（unseaworthiness）; （b）货物装卸; （c）短缺或超载; 或（d）所有其他索赔。这部分有几个附带条件（provisos），为解决争议提供了十分充分的理由。

ICA无疑减少了此类索赔的争议。但是，如果发生高额和复杂的索赔，各方当事人都希望获得最佳结果是可以理解的，特别是在免赔额（deductibles）和索赔有争议时。另外，造成货损的原因往往不明确或涉及多重因素。因此，ICA本身引起了争议的公平分配并不令人意外。本文考虑了一些最近报道的决定，以及对根据ICA索赔的影响。

1.货损问题胜诉时，一方当事人能否收回抗辩代理费用？

这个问题涉及ICA的两个条款，即第3（c）条（抗辩或解决相关索赔的费用可以进行分摊）和4（c）条（相关索赔必须已经适当解决或和解并支付）。就此问题，有两个相互矛盾的仲裁裁决：

第10/15号伦敦仲裁

仲裁庭拒绝成功抗辩货物索赔所产生的费用进行分摊。适用ICA时，必须对第三方承担责任。

第30/16号伦敦仲裁

船东货物索赔抗辩成功，并根据ICA获得费用分摊的支持。

仲裁庭拒绝遵守第10/15号伦敦仲裁裁决。ICA适用于抗辩相关货物索赔产生的费用。第4（c）条延伸至为索赔抗辩而发生的已经支付的费用。

2.第8（b）条的第一个附加条件何时适用？

NYPE第8条，将船东（普通法中的地位）的装货，理仓（stowing）以及卸货责任转移给租船人（在“船长监督下”执行）。经常性的修改【增加“和责任”（ "and responsibility"）】将责任转回给船东。

ICA第8（b）条的出发点是租船人对货物装卸过程中产生的货损承担100％的责任。 但是，如果NYPE第8条中增加了“和责任”一词，“或者类似修改使得船长（ the Master）负责货物装卸”（"similar amendment"），则责任分摊比例为50/50（第8（b）条的第一个附加条件）。商业法庭最近在考虑什么构成“类似修改”：

AGILE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v ESSAR SHIPPING LTD [2018] EWHC 1055

货物损坏是由于装货不当引起的。NYPE租船第8条未修改，但第49条将理仓责任转移给船东。仲裁时，仲裁庭根据第8（b）款的第一个附加条件按照50/50分摊责任，因为第49条是一条“使船长负责装卸的类似修改”，因为它使船长“负责（至少部分）装货过程“。

法院推翻了上述裁决;仲裁员错误地将货物装卸责任部分转移给船东（例如第49条规定的装货）以满足第8（b）条的第一个附加条件，所要求的“类似修改”必须将货物装卸的所有责任转交给船东。

3.何时适用第8（d）条的附加条件？

第8（d）条将所有不属于第8（a），（b）或（c）条的货损索赔平均分摊给船东和租船人，除非索赔是由于某一方或另一方的行为或疏忽引起的（在这种情况下，该方将承担100％的索赔）。关于什么构成“行为或忽视”的问题，很多案件一直存在争议。

第30/16号伦敦仲裁

由于自热导致结块以及船舶潮汗产生冷凝（condensation），大豆货物受损。仲裁庭认为是装运的货物存在固有不稳定问题而导致货损。

根据ICA第8（d）条的规定，租船人须承担100％责任。租船人的相关“行为”是（i）运输不适航的固有不稳定货物; 或者（ii）运输具有自热倾向的货物，将货物运送到租船合同的限制范围之外，并超出船东同意承担的风险。

“ (i) the shipment of an inherently unstable cargo which was not fit for the voyage; alternatively (ii) shipping a cargo with a propensity to self-heat which took the cargo outside the limits of the charter, and outside the kind of risk which the owners agreed to bear.”

第19/17号伦敦仲裁

在从亚洲到安特卫普的航程中，一批钢材产品遭受冷凝损坏（condensation damage），主要原因是三个装载港之间的温差，船舶通风（ventilation）问题造成。

根据ICA规定，造成损害的原因不仅仅是理仓，所以第8（b）条不适用。

仲裁庭根据ICA第8（d）条裁定按照50/50进行责任分摊。附带条件并不适用，因为损坏是由多种因素造成的，而不仅仅是由于租船人在不同港口将货物装载到相同货舱（holds）（正如船东主张的）的“行为”。

仲裁庭认为，“行为”一词是针对某些具体和可确定的事件或事故（event or occurrence），而不是针对租船人对租船合同的总体遵守情况。

MV YANGTZE XING HUA [2017] EWCA Civ 2107（CA）

从南美运到伊朗的大豆食品，遭受热损。租船人命令该船在卸货港等待4个月（待付款）。船东解决了货物索赔。

造成损害的原因是货物的固有特性（及其油和水分含量）和在卸货港长时间的等待。

根据ICA第8（d）条附带条件的规定，租船人被裁定负有100％责任。尽管他们没有“违约或过失或疏忽”，但他们决定将该船作为浮仓（floating storage）（导致货物损坏），构成为了第8（d）条的目的而采取的“行为”。Teare法官和上诉法院支持了这一观点。

“行为”一词应赋予其自然含义，而并不局限于过错行为（culpable act）。关键问题是，索赔是否“事实上”是由所描述的行为，操作或事态引起。

虽然“行为”一词显然不需要过错（culpability），由于货损的明显原因或众多原因而导致8（d）条的适用存在激烈争议。

总结

ICA条款已经确定，并且继续适用。 虽然仲裁庭和法院热衷于推动机械适用方法，但各方当事人将不可避免地将尽可能创造性地继续对责任访谈问题提出异议。

在大多数情况下，面对货物索赔的当事人在解决相关货物索赔之前，最好先与其租船合同（charterparty）的租家进行协商解决（例如支持这种协议的案例，请参阅第28/17号伦敦仲裁），或至少让另一方收到预期解决方案的通知，并提供根据ICA进行责任分摊解决方案的依据。

细微的区别可能会差异迥异。造成损害的多重原因会使事情复杂化，并且可能导致无需承担100％的责任。如果造成损害的原因（或多重原因造成的损失）无法确定，仲裁庭可以采取概括性的责任分摊方法，从而符合ICA的原则。 例如，在伦敦第28/17号仲裁中，一个西非袋装稻米案，无法确定两个原因造成的损害的比例，其中一个是船东的责任，另一个是租家的责任。仲裁庭认为最公平的解决办法是按照50/50的分摊责任，各方当事人承担自己的费用和仲裁庭费用。

英文部分：

Recent decisions on the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 (the “ICA”)

Nico Saunders

Introduction

The ICA is designed to facilitate settlement of cargo claims as between Owners and Charterers, to avoid arbitration and protracted discussion by providing a more or less mechanical apportionment of liability depending on the nature of the underlying cargo claim.

Paragraph 8 of the ICA sets out the basis for apportionment, depending upon whether the claim arose out of: (a) unseaworthiness; (b) cargo handling; (c) shortage or overcarriage; or (d) all other claims. There are several provisos to this section, providing fertile breeding ground for disputes.

The ICA has doubtless reduced disputes for such claims. However, where high value and complex claims occur, parties are understandably keen to get the best result, particularly with deductibles and claims records in issue. Additionally, the cause of damage is often unclear or involves multiple factors. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the ICA itself has given rise to its fair share of disputes. This article considers some recent reported decisions, and their significance for claims handled under the ICA.

1. Can a party recover costs of successfully defending the cargo claim?

The issue concerns two provisions of the ICA, namely 3(c) (by which costs incurred in defence or settlement of the underlying claim can be included in the apportionment) and 4(c) (that the underlying claim must have been properly settled or compromised and paid). Two contradictory arbitration decisions have considered the question:

London Arbitration 10/15

The Tribunal refused to allow apportionment of costs incurred in successful defence of a cargo claim. For the ICA to apply, there had to be liability to a third party.

London Arbitration 30/16

Owners incurred costs successfully defending the cargo claim and claimed apportionment under the ICA.

The Tribunal declined to follow London Arbitration 10/15. The ICA applied to costs incurred in the defence of the underlying cargo claim. 4(c) extended to costs incurred in defence of the claim as long as they had been paid.

2. When will the first proviso to 8(b) apply?

NYPE Clause 8 transfers responsibility for loading, stowing and discharge from Owner (the position at common law) to Charterers (to be performed "under the supervision of the Captain"). A frequent amendment (adding "and responsibility") transfers responsibility back to Owners.

The starting point under 8(b) of the ICA is that Charterers bear 100% liability for claims arising out of cargo handling. However, if the words "and responsibility" are added to NYPE Clause 8 "or there is a similar amendment making the Master responsible for cargo handling" apportionment will be 50/50 (the first proviso to 8(b)). The Commercial Court recently considered what constitutes a "similar amendment":

AGILE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v ESSAR SHIPPING LTD [2018] EWHC 1055

Cargo damage arose from improper loading. Clause 8 of the NYPE charter was unamended, but Clause 49 transferred responsibility for stowage back to Owners. In arbitration, the Tribunal apportioned liability 50/50 under the first proviso to 8(b) because clause 49 was a "similar amendment making the Master responsible for cargo handling" as it made the Master "responsible for (part at least of) the loading process".

The Court overturned the Award on appeal; the Arbitrators were wrong to treat a partial transfer of responsibility for cargo handling back to Owners (such as stowage under clause 49) as sufficient to engage the first proviso of 8(b). The required "similar amendment" must transfer responsibility for all aspects of cargo handling back to the owner.

3. When will the proviso to 8(d) apply?

8(d) apportions all cargo claims which do not fall into 8(a), (b) or (c) equally between Owners and Charterers, unless the claim arose out of the act or neglect by one or the other (in which case that party will bear 100%). The question as to what constitutes "act or neglect" has been a contentious issue in numerous cases.

London Arbitration 30/16

A cargo of soyabeans was damaged as a result of self-heating causing caking and ship’s sweat producing condensation. The Tribunal held the single cause of damage was the shipment of an inherently unstable cargo.

Charterers were 100% liable under the proviso to8(d) of the ICA. The relevant "act" of Charterers was either (i) the shipment of an inherently unstable cargo which was not fit for the voyage; alternatively (ii) shipping a cargo with a propensity to self-heat which took the cargo outside the limits of the charter, and outside the kind of risk which the owners agreed to bear.

London Arbitration 19/17

A cargo of steel products suffered condensation damage during a voyage from Asia to Antwerp, principally due to significantly different temperatures between the three load ports. There was also criticism of the vessel’s ventilation.

Applying the ICA, the cause of the damage was not exclusively due to stowage, so 8(b) did not apply.

The Tribunal ordered 50/50 apportionment under 8(d) of the ICA. The proviso did not apply because the damage was caused by a number of factors and not solely due to Charterers’ "act" of loading cargo into the same holds at different ports (as Owners argued). In the tribunal’s view, the word "act" was directed at some specific and definable event or occurrence, not at Charterers’ general compliance with the charter.

MV YANGTZE XING HUA [2017] EWCA Civ 2107 (CA)

A cargo of soyabean meal, carried from South America to Iran, suffered heating damage. Charterers had ordered the vessel to wait off the discharge port for 4 months (pending payment). Owners settled the cargo claim.

The cause of the damage was a combination of the inherent nature of the cargo (and its oil and moisture content) and the prolonged waiting time at the discharge port.

Charterers were found 100% liable under the proviso to 8(d) of the ICA. Although they were not "in breach or at fault or neglect", their decision to use the vessel as floating storage (leading to cargo damage) constituted an "act" for the purposes of 8(d). This was upheld on appeal by Teare J and the Court of Appeal.

The word "act" is to be given its natural meaning and is not confined to a culpable act. The critical question is whether the claim "in fact" arose out of the act, operation or state of affairs described.

Whilst it is clear the word "act" does not require culpability, the application of 8(d) is likely to continue to fuel disagreement depending upon the apparent cause or causes of cargo damage.

Summary

The ICA is well-established and is here to stay. Whilst Tribunals and the Courts are keen to promote a mechanical application, parties will inevitably continue to dispute liability, using creative arguments where possible.

In most cases, a party faced with a cargo claim would be well advised to seek agreement from their charterparty counterpart before settling the underlying cargo claim (for an example of such an agreement being upheld, see London Arbitration 28/17) or at least put the other party on notice of the intended settlement and be prepared to explain the basis of the settlement when it comes to ICA apportionment.

Subtle distinctions may make all the difference. Multiple causes of damage will complicate matters and may preclude 100% liability either way. If the cause of damage (or the amount attributable to each in the case of multiple causes) is not identifiable, a Tribunal may take a broad brush approach to apportionment, in keeping with the ethos behind the ICA. In London Arbitration 28/17 for example, a West African bagged rice case, it was not possible to ascertain the proportion of damage arising from two competing causes, one of which was Owners’ responsibility and the other Charterers’. The Tribunal considered the fairest solution to be to apportion liability 50/50, for each side to bear its own costs and for the Tribunal’s fee to be shared.