Abstract
In Count case, the owners claimed from the charterers the amount of their loss resulting from the delay to the Count caused by the blockage of the channel due to stranding of the Pongola on the ground that this loss resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions. The Claim was referred to arbitration and dealt with on written submission. In a reasoned award, the arbitrators upheld the owners' claim. The charterers seek an order reversing the award or remitting it to the arbitrators for further consideration : (1) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port of Beira was unsafe and that in consequence the charterers were liable to the owners in damages for detention. (2) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port was unsafe in the abstract by reference to the fact that two other vessels had grounded there. (3) Having held that the Count was delayed for a little over four days by the fact that, after the charterers had nominated the port, the Pongola had grounded in the access channel, the tribunal should have held that the port was not prospectively unsafe. On the that the grounding the Pongola was caused by the characteristics which made the port an unsafe port to nominate for the Count. The court was held that it was not an independent event which broke the chain of causation between the breach of contract and the owner's loss. For those reasons, the court was upheld the arbitrator's award.
Count호 사건의 항해용선계약에서 선주는 양하항에서 Pongola호의 좌초사고에 의해 본선의 출항이 지연되었기 때문에 용선자의 안전항담보의무위반을 이유로 초과정박손해배상금을 청구하였다. 중재판정부는 양하항을 비안전항으로 보고 선주의 청구를 인정하였지만, 용선자는 중재판정에 다음과 같은 과오가 있다고 하여 영국 법원에 상소하였다. (1) 중재판정부는 Beira항이 안전하지 못하며 그 결과 용선자는 선주에게 초과정박손해배상금에 대해 책임이 있다고 판정한 것은 과오가 있으며, (2) 중재판정부는 Beira항에서 두 선박이 좌초했다는 사실과 관련하여 그 항이 안전하지 못하다고 판정한 것은 과오이며, (3) 선석에서의 양하를 종료하여 출항하려고 하였는데 거의 같은 장소에서 Pongola호가 좌초하여 항만당국에 의한 수로폐쇄에 의해 본선은 4일 후까지 출항할 수 없었다고 판정한 것 등이다. 본 연구에서는 항해용선계약과 관련하여 안전항담보의무위반에 따른 초과정박손해배상금의 청구에 대해 쟁점이 된 Count호 사건을 중심으로 분석하는데 목적이 있다.
