Defence Guide - Hold cleaning in a nutshell (time charters)
1. On delivery:
The state of the holds on delivery is usually a requirement to validly tender an N.O.R. In the absence of any specific clause, most charters require that the ship be “ready to receive cargo with clean swept holds” (e.g. line 22 NYPE) i.e. she is ready to commence loading without delay.
To what standard must the holds/tanks be presented?
Courts will look at the wording of clauses and give them their literal meaning. The words “clean dry, free from loose rust flakes/scales and residues of previous cargo” will not mean that the holds can be rejected if “traces” of previous cargo are found, although there are conflicting arbitration decisions on this issue.
Very often, the rider clauses will require the ship’s holds to be delivered up to a particular standard. If a ship is to be delivered with holds clean to a high standard, e.g. grain standard or “hospital clean”, but the holds do not comply with this standard of cleanliness, it is not relevant whether the failed holds are still in a suitable condition for the particular cargo to be loaded (e.g. coal); charterers will still be entitled to reject the holds and insist that these are cleaned to the agreed standard before charterers accept delivery of the vessel.
Similarly, if a ship is to be “on delivery…ready to receive any permissible cargo allowed under the charter party…” then holds should be cleaned to the standard of the most sensitive cargo permitted under the charter party. For example, If grain cargoes are permitted, then the hold must be ready for grain cargo, no matter what the intended cargo is.
When must the holds be at the required charter party standard?
Careful consideration must be given as to the precise wording of the clause. Whilst many clauses will require the holds to be in satisfactory condition on “delivery”, some clauses may only require this to be “upon arrival at first load port”. Delivery of the ship may occur before arrival at the first load port.
Can charterers reject the ship if the holds are not clean?
If the ship is not in the required condition, the N.O.R is invalid and charterers are entitled to refuse delivery/reject her, and the charter period will not start. If owners are not able to rectify the condition of the ship before the cancelling date, charterers may become entitled to cancel the charter.
Clauses allowing owners to tender a valid N.O.R with unready holds
Some clauses will state that “If vessel fails such hold inspection, vessel to be off hire from time of failure until all holds passed. Any additional expenses because of hold failure to be for owner’s account”. There are also similar clauses in voyage charters where “laytime is suspended”. In this situation, charterers will have to accept the ship/N.O.R. and their remedy will be to put the ship off-hire/suspend laytime. In the context of time charters, such clauses are “period” off-hire clauses and no actual loss of time needs to be proven.
Holds to the “satisfaction of an independent surveyor’s whose estimate shall be final and binding”
Clauses often require the holds/tanks to be to the “satisfaction of an independent surveyor”. An independent surveyor must come from a survey firm, independent from owners, charterers, shippers & receivers. The surveyor must be jointly appointed unless the clause states that the holds are to be to the “charterers/shipper’s surveyor’s satisfaction” in which case it is arguable that the surveyor need not be jointly appointed.
A complete code?
Many clauses state that if the holds are failed “…then the vessel to be off-hire with all bunkers consumed/extra expenses and time incurred as a consequence of the failure to be for Owners’ account until the vessel passes ready to load”.
Most tribunals consider such clauses as being a “complete code” meaning that no other losses other than those listed in the clause can be claimed by the charterer. As such, loss of profit from sale of original cargo, procuring substitute cargo, storage costs etc… may not be claimed.
It is however also argued that clear words must be used if parties intend such clauses to be a “complete code”: as a general rule, the fact that a particular event results in the vessel going off-hire, does not prevent it from also being a breach of another clause in the charterparty allowing a party to claim for additional damages.
Pre-inspections prior to the inspection of the “independent surveyor”
Quite often, owners will organise a “pre-inspection” to satisfy themselves that the holds/tanks are ready. This inspection is merely an informative inspection for Master to get a better picture of shippers’ cleanliness requirements. Charterers cannot put the ship-off hire and rely on this report.
When holds are failed, when must charterers reinspect?
When holds on delivery are failed, there is an implied term that both parties take reasonable steps to cooperate and organise a reinspection without undue delay once the master advised that the holds/tanks are clean. The implied term may vary depending on which inspector failed the holds.
What if, despite the holds not being in satisfactory condition, charterers accept the vessel?
Where charterers accept delivery of the ship and the ship’s holds are not in the required condition, owners may still be liable in damages, if they can show that this breach caused a loss/damages on the second voyage. For example, if the holds are to be “grain clean” on delivery and charterers accept the holds despite cargo residue, they may claim damages if time is lost cleaning the holds on the second voyage before loading a cargo of grain. Charterers should however be careful not to waive their rights.
Can charterers claim damages if they have missed their shipment laycan?
If charterers can establish a breach by owners which causes the vessel to miss a laycan due to hold rejection, damages for loss of the sub-charter are in principle recoverable (subject to any defence for owners that is incorporated into the charter party). There may be arguments about causation (i.e. was this the only reason the laycan was missed?) and remoteness (i.e. was it reasonably foreseeable that such a breach would lead to such damages?). However, on balance, owners would be presumed to know that (assuming there is a liberty to sub-let in the charter party) disponent owners would be sub-chartering with terms as to the condition of the holds on delivery, subject to arguments about remoteness, i.e. whether owners undertook any liability for such losses.
2. Intermediate hold cleaning:
Owners have an obligation to maintain the ship which continues throughout the charter period. Unless otherwise agreed (for example, where the cargo loaded has not been one that is permitted under the charter party but the owners have agreed to carry it at charterers’ expense/risk and the carriage has resulted in additional hold cleaning being necessary), owners must also pay for all expenses of intermediate hold cleaning. In the absence of an intermediate hold cleaning clause, owners are responsible for exercising due diligence to clean the ship with reasonable care, skill and speed. Three separate provisions arise in the charter in this regard:
- The maintenance clause (e.g. lines
21-24 and clause 1 of NYPE 1946);
- Owners’ obligation to render all
customary assistance with the ship’s
crew (clause 8 NYPE);
- Implied term that the crew should perform their services with due diligence
The question as to the level of cleaning that the crew can reasonably be expected to achieve is a question of fact.
Cleaning the holds includes removal of loose rust scale and loose paint, always given time and calm weather. The crew are not regarded as skilled cleaning operatives and, therefore, there is a limit on what cleaning can reasonably be effected whilst at sea.
Cleaning holds & customary assistance does not include:
- Removal of hard adhering rust and large loose rust patches
- Chipping rust
- Scaling operations requiring sophisticated tools (pneumatic hammers, high pressure water jets, grit blasting equipment)
When extraordinary cleaning is necessary due to charterers’ choice of cargo (unless this cargo is one that has been agreed that owners will carry, i.e. at owners’ risk and expense), owners’ reasonable costs should be recoverable from charterers under an implied indemnity.
Facts to consider when dealing with a claim:
- The vessel’s age
- The configuration of the vessel’s holds (height and accessibility)
- Regarding intermediate hold cleaning: was the amount of time and were the weather and sea conditions reasonably sufficient to enable the holds to be cleaned by the crew? What were the previous cargoes and the amount of cleaning required? In particular, were dirty cargoes such as petcoke or coal previously carried? The standard of cleaning required in the charter party (e.g. “grain clean”)
- What were the reason(s) why the hold(s) failed the inspection (removal of soft non-adhering rust is the duty of the crew, removal of hard adhering rust…cannot be done by the crew)
3. Redelivery: In Lieu Of Hold Cleaning (ILOHC)
Upon redelivery, charter parties will often include a provision that charterers are to return the ship in the same condition as it was delivered in. Charterers will also have to option of paying a lump sum In Lieu Of Hold Cleaning (ILOHC). This clause is only intended to cover for the cleaning of the holds when debris and residue is left inside. It does not extend to large amounts of cargo being left in the holds that have been rejected by receivers. In this situation, charterers will have to indemnify owners for the extraordinary costs of cleaning.
-
Hold cleaning in a nutshell PDF (157.4 KB)
This article was written by Julien Rabeux in the Club’s Hong Kong office with additional input from Holman Fenwick Willan (London).
This note is for general guidance only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Should you require specific advice on a particular situation please contact the Club.