COURT OF APPEAL DECIDES OBLIGATION TO PAY CHARTERPARTY HIRE IS NOT A CONDITION
上诉院判决期租租约中的租金支付义务不属于租约的条件条款
SPAR SHIPPING A.S. V GRAND CHINA LOGISTICS HOLDING (GROUP) CO. LTD [2016] EWCA CIV 982
On 7 October 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down the eagerly awaited appeal decision from the Commercial Court decision in Spar Shipping A.S. v. Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal made by Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd (“GCL”), providing definitive guidance on the question of whether the obligation to pay time charter hire is a condition. Answering the shipping market’s unease that arose out of conflicting first instance court decisions on the issue, the Court determined that a charterer’s failure to pay its hire instalments punctually and in advance under a time charterparty did not constitute a breach of condition. It also provided helpful guidance on the legal principles surrounding renunciation in the context of late and non-payment of hire under time charterparties.
2016年10月7日，英国上诉院就受到广泛关注的SPAR SHIPPING A.S.诉 大新华物流控股(集团）有限公司案作出上诉判决。上诉院驳回了大新华物流控股(集团）有限公司 （“大新华”）提起的上诉，并就租约中的租金支付义务是否属于条件条款给出了明确指导。解决了另一案子（The Astra）不同观点给航运市场造成的不安。上诉院认为：期租租约中租家未按时预付租金，不是违反条件条款的违约行为。上诉院还就如何认定迟付和不付租金导致的renunciation（预期违约），给出了原则性指导意见。
The background facts 事实
The background of this case has been laid out in previous articles and so will not be repeated at length here. In brief however, this was a dispute regarding the non and/or late payment of hire under three long-term amended NYPE 1993 form charters dated 5 March 2010 (the “Charterparties”). The unpaid period for which the Owners claimed spanned April to September 2011. The Owners also sought to recover the resulting damages for loss of bargain for the considerable unexpired period of the Charterparties thereafter.
本案案情已有多篇文章报道过，在此不再赘述。本案是三份订立于2010年3月5日的NYPE1993格式的租约（“租约”）下产生的有关不付和/或迟延支付租金引起的纠纷。船东索赔从2011年4月至9月欠付的租金。船东还索赔巨额剩余租期损失。
The Commercial Court decision 商事庭的判决
On 18 March 2015, the Commercial Court delivered its judgment. Notwithstanding careful consideration of the principles laid down by Mr Justice FLaux in The Astra [2013] EWHC 865 (Comm), Mr Justice Popplewell disagreed with that decision and ruled that punctual payment of hire in fact did not constitute a condition for the following reasons:-
2015年3月18日，商事庭就作出（一审）判决。法官Mr Justice Popplewell慎重考虑了Mr Justice FLaux 在The Astra [2013] EWHC 865 (Comm)案中的观点，法官Mr Justice Popplewell不同意The Astra案的观点，裁定“未按时支付租金”事实上不构成违反条件条款，理由如下：-
A withdrawal clause gave owners no more than an option to cancel. On this basis, Clause 11 (the hire payment/anti-technicality clause) of the Charterparties could not be said to amount to a condition. Had there been express wording to the effect that the clause was more than an option to withdraw, the position may have been different. However, as it stood, the clause provided no more than a liberty to the Owners to withdraw the vessel from service.
撤船条款仅仅赋予船东取消合同的权利，并不能因此认定租约第11条（租金支付/反技术条款）是条件条款。如果有措辞明确表述不仅仅是撤船权利，则情况可能不同。然而，实际情况就是该条款仅仅赋予船东撤船的自由。
Even had there been no withdrawal clause in the Charterparties and, consequently, no express right to terminate, payment of hire would not have been treated as a condition of the Charterparties. It could not have been intended that any breach of the hire payment, no matter how serious or trivial, would have the same consequences and allow the Owners to terminate a long-term charter even for a trivial breach.
即使租约中没有撤船条款，即没有明确约定终止租约的权利，租金支付也不属于条件条款。订约时双方的意图不可能是：租金支付上的违约，无论严重与否（尤其是轻微违约），船东都可终止一个长期租约。
Payment of hire in commercial contracts was not generally considered to be “of the essence” unless the contract expressly stated so. On that basis, in a time charter context, there was no good reason to treat payment of hire as a condition (unless expressly stated), since in any event the owners could exercise their contractual right to terminate the charter and put an end to the future performance of the vessel (and, therefore, the future expense of operating the vessel for the benefit of the charterer). Where an owner no longer has to provide a charterer with service of Master and crew, then the owner’s interest in the prompt and punctual payment of hire disappears.
商业合同中的租金支付条款通常不会被认为是合同的“核心” ，除非合同明确如此约定。期租合同已有专门的撤船条款赋予船东终止合同的权利，船东可据此终止为租家提供服务（即终止为租家的利益支出费用）；如果船东不再向租家提供服务，船东也就不需租家准时付租。鉴于此，没有理由将租金支付条款认定为条件条款（除非合同明确约定）。
Commercial certainty was not good reason to treat payment of hire as a condition. A withdrawal clause offering an option to cancel without conferring on the owners an unmerited right to damages was said to “adequately protect[s] this commercial interest”. The Court was clear that the desire for commercial certainty needed to be counterbalanced so as not to impose liability for trivial breaches in undeserving cases.
商业确定性并不是主张租金支付是条件条款的有力理由。撤船条款赋予了船东取消合同权利，但没有同时赋予船东索赔剩余租期损失的权利，这已达到了对商业利益的充分保护。：追求商业确定性应同时兼顾避免过分救济轻微违约。
The Court did, however, find in favour of the Owners on the ground that the Charterers had evinced an intention not to perform the Charterparties in a way that deprived the Owners of substantially their whole benefit under them. The Charterers were, therefore, in renunciatory breach.
，理由是租家表明了不再履行租约的意图，从而剥夺了船东租约下的实质利益。租家的行为构成renunciation（预期违约）。
GCL sought and obtained leave to appeal.
大新华提起上诉，并获得许可。
The Court of Appeal decision 上诉院的判决
The appeal was heard by Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gross and Hamblen LJJ in June 2016, with judgment handed down on 7 October 2016. The Court of Appeal determined that the Charterers’ failure to pay instalments of hire punctually and in advance under the Charterparties was not a breach of condition. Indeed, the appeal judges considered that failure to make payment (without more) merely permitted the Owners to withdraw the vessel from service in accordance with Clause 11 of the Charterparties. The decision therefore confirms that the obligation to pay hire under a time charterparty constitutes no more than an intermediate or innominate term.
上诉于2016年6月开庭，由Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gross 和 Hamblen LJJ 审理，2016年10月7日上诉院做出判决，认定期租租约中租家未按时预付租金，不是违反条件条款的违约行为。上诉院认为，根据租约第11条，租家未支付租金（没有其他违约行为），船东仅有权撤船。该判决确认了期租租约下的租金支付条款，最多只是中间条款。
The leading judgment of Lord Justice Gross provides considerable and helpful guidance as to the legal principles surrounding renunciation where there is late and/or non-payment of hire under time charterparties. In rejecting GCL’s argument that the test for renunciation was applied too strictly, and in conflict to the Court’s approach in other instances of non-payment (albeit in different types of contract), the Court of Appeal ruled that ultimately the obligation to pay hire promptly and in advance lay at the heart of the time charterparty. Where there was evidence of intent not to make such payment, that conduct went straight to the root of the contract, amounting to renunciatory breach and thereby entitling owners to terminate. It remains to be seen whether this conclusion will cause future courts and arbitrators to be more willing to find that a number of missed or partial payments of hire amounts to a renunciatory breach entitling an owner to terminate and claim damages for future losses.
Lord Justice Gross的判决，还就如何认定期租中迟付和不付租金导致的renunciation（预期违约），给出了重要的、有帮助的指导意见。大新华认为一审判定renunciation的标准过于严苛，并且有悖于其他类似案件（也是有关支付违约案件，但有关不同类型的合同）使用的方法。上诉院驳回了大新华的观点，上诉院认为按时预付租金是期租租约的核心。如有证据证明租家已没有意向支付租金，则这将影响到合同的根基，构成renunciation（预期违约），进而船东有权终止租约。本判决之后，，我们拭目以待。
Comment 评论
The outcome of this appeal now answers the market unease resulting from the decision in the Astra, whilst also offering more definitive legal guidance as to renunciation in the context of late and non-payment of hire in time charterparties.
本上诉判决安抚了Astra 案给航运市场造成的不安，同时就如何认定期租中迟付和不付租金导致的renunciation（预期违约），给出明确的法律指导。
It may be argued that the decision lacks the certainty of a rule that a single failure to pay hire in full and on time gives rise to a right to terminate and claim damages. However, as highlighted by Lord Justice Gross, the key question is “striking the right balance”. Where the likely breaches of an obligation to pay hire may have consequences that can be either trivial or serious, then the certainty achieved by classifying an obligation as a condition is that trivial breaches will have disproportionate consequences. This, in Lord Justice Gross’s view, was “an unsatisfactory balance”. Rather, sufficient certainty was provided by the withdrawal clause.
或许有观点认为，一次未及时支付（或未足额支付）租金，船东是否有权终止合同并索赔损失，本判决未给出明确意见。正如Lord Justice Gross强调的，本案的核心问题是 “寻求平衡点”。未支付租金的后果可能是轻微的也可能是严重的，将租金支付归类为条件条款，确定性是达到了，但同时造成了过分救济轻微违约的后果，Lord Justice Gross认为那是“一种无法令人满意的平衡”。何况，撤船条款已经达到充分的确定性。
It remains open to parties to include a term in their charterparties to the effect that the obligation to pay hire is a condition, as those drafting the NYPE 2015 form have sought to do.
为改变上诉院确定的原则，双方可自行在租约中加入条款，将租金支付明确约定为条件条款，NYPE 2015的草拟者就想达到这个目的。
关注我们
想要关注我们的朋友，可以点击文章标题下方的蓝色字体“英士律师”，或者在查找微信公众号页面搜索“英士律师”。
分享文章
喜欢本文的朋友，请点击手机右上角图标，把文本分享给您的朋友、微信群或发送到朋友圈。
版权声明
本文所含信息和评论，不作为、也不打算作为英国英士律师事务所（本所）对某个具体问题、给某个具体客户的法律意见。本文只是免费地提供信息，本所已尽合理谨慎保证本文的准确性和及时性。本所不对本文的准确性和正确性承担责任，本所不对任何人士、团体和公司，因依赖本文而做出的作为或不作为及其后果承担责任。如果您需要法律意见或其它专业意见，强烈建议您联系具有相关资格法律人士或专业人士。
