In Euronav NV v Repsol Trading SA (mt Maria) [2021] EWHC 2565 (Comm) Henshaw J was faced with a dispute between owners and charterers as to whether a demurrage claim was barred by clause 15(3) of the Shellvoy 6 form, which requires notification to be made of a demurrage claim “within 30 days after completion of discharge” failing which the claim becomes time-barred. The Vessel discharged at Long Beach and disconnected hoses at 21:54 local time (PST – Pacific Standard Time) on 24 December 2019, as noted in the Statement of Facts and laytime statement. On 24 January the Charterers received owners’ brokers an email stating that: “According to owners, demurrage has incurred on above [subject] voyage. Hence, please take this email as demurrage notice”.
Whether owners’ notification was within the thirty days after completion of discharge depended on which time zone was used in respect of ‘completion of discharge’. It was agreed that when computing a period of time within which a certain thing must be done, the first day is not ordinarily counted and that the date of discharge – whichever date it was – was ‘day 0’ and not counted as one of the 30 days within which notification had to be given. In addition ‘day’, absent any contrary indication meant a calendar day, i.e. the period of twenty-four hours beginning and ending at midnight, and not merely a period of twenty-four consecutive hours.
If as charterers’ argued, one took local time in California, where discharge took place, day one would be 25 December and the claim submitted on 24 January would be out of time and time-barred. Owners argued that for three alternatives which would give the date of completion on 25 December, and day one on 26 December: (a) the time zone of the recipient of the required notice (here, Spanish time, that of Charterers), (b) the time zone of the giver of the required notice (here, Belgian time, that of Owners) or (c) GMT, given that the contract applied English law? On each of these approaches the claim would not be time-barred.
Henshaw J held that the date of completion of discharge is to be determined applying local time at the place of discharge for the following reasons [61]:
“i) The ordinary and natural approach is to allocate to an event (e.g. a historical event, or a person’s birth, marriage or death) the date that was current in the place where the event occurred.
ii) That approach gains some support from the authorities and commentary referred to in §§ 30-35 above.
iii) The discharge of cargo from a vessel is a tangible physical event, which occurs at a specific location and in a particular time zone. It will in the ordinary course be recorded in documents, such as the Statement of Facts and any laytime statement, as having occurred at the time and date current applying local time. A contracting party would naturally expect the date stated in such documents to be the date of completion of discharge for contractual purposes.
iv) The date of discharge of the cargo is significant not only for the purpose of notification of demurrage claims, but also for other purposes. It represents the end of the contractual service to the shipper, and ends the running of laytime or demurrage. Under clause 15(3) itself it is also the start date for the separate 90-day period for service of supporting documents. It is generally the starting point for the time limit under the Hague-Visby rules for cargo claims. It would be unnatural and illogical either (a) for there to be more than one date of discharge, used for different purposes, or (b) for the date of discharge pursuant to (say) the Hague-Visby rules to be determined by something as potentially arbitrary and non-transparent as the place of receipt (or, even, potential receipt) of a notice of any demurrage claim. Whether the date of delivery for Hague-Visby purposes is determined using local time at the place of discharge (which I am inclined to consider the obvious approach) or using the relevant court’s own time zone (as was mooted during submissions but appears to me less attractive), Owners’ case creates the prospect of the same event being differently dated for different purposes.
v) The use of local time at the place of discharge gives rise to a single, clear and easily ascertainable date and time of completion of discharge. It tends to promote certainty and reduce the risk of confusion.
vi) It is inherent in a date based system that different time zones may apply to the events which define the start and end of the period, if they are in different countries.
vii) The point that it is not essential to apply the same time zone to the beginning and end of the 30 day period under clause 15(3) is illustrated by a case where daylight saving time changes during the period. If, for example, discharge is completed on a particular day in the UK, and a notice is served at half past midnight on day 31, the notice would be out of time even if the clocks had gone forward an hour to GMT + 1 in the meantime (so that half past midnight was 11.30pm on day 30 GMT).
viii) If it were appropriate to determine both dates using a single time zone, it would be more logical for that to be the time zone of the place of discharge. As already noted, the completion of discharge is a significant physical event, with a natural date, usually recorded in contemporaneous documents, and with several consequences under the contracts relating to the voyage.
ix) The considerations discussed in section (D) above give no compelling or sufficient to depart from the natural approach.
x) There is no ambiguity in clause 15(3) that might justify a contra proferentem interpretation.”
