CHAPTER 3 第3章
Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算
3.397 He therefore held:
. . . in the present case, time did not begin to run until the vessel was berthed, because it was not, before that time, waiting for a berth to become available, ready (so far as it was concerned) to unload.
3.398 In the Court of Appeal, the principal judgment, with which both other members of the court agreed, was given by Lloyd LJ, who, in addition to the other cases mentioned, also cited The Shackleford where Buckley LJ had said that there was no difference between himself and Roskill LJ in the views they had expressed in The Johanna Oldendorff, as had previously been suggested in that case and again by Webster J in the present case. Reversing the decision of the High Court, Lloyd LJ said:
I do not doubt that the reason why the provision was originally included in berth charters was to cater for the case where the port is congested and a berth unavailable. But there is nothing in the wording of the provision which limits its operation to such a case. The wording is quite general. Notice of Readiness may be given whether in berth or not. Ex hypothesi, therefore, Notice of Readiness may be given before the vessel has reached its contractual destination.
3.398在上诉法院，由Lloyd大法官给出主要的判词，其他2名大法官也认同，另外并提到了其它案例，也援引了Buckley大法官在The Shackleford案中所说的：即他自己（Buckley）是与The Johanna Oldendorff案中Roskill大法官表述的观点没有分歧，他（Roskill）的这个观点在上文已经提到过（3.391段），并且在该案Webster法官又一次提到了它（3.395段）。Lloyd大法官推翻了高等法院Webster的判决，他说：
3.399 The principal speech in the House of Lords was that of Lord Brandon, who summarised the issues thus:
The views have been advanced, at each stage of the proceedings, with regard to the meaning of the phrase ‘‘whether in berth or not’’ in a berth charterparty. One view, put forward by the charterers and accepted by Mr Justice Webster, is that the phrase covers cases where the reason for the ship not being in berth is that no berth is available but does not cover cases where a berth is available and the only reason why the ship cannot proceed to it is that she is prevented by bad weather such as fog. The other view, put forward by the owners and accepted by the arbitrator and the Court of Appeal, is that the phrase covers cases where a ship is unable to proceed to a berth either because none is available or because, although a berth is available, the ship is prevented by bad weather, such as fog, from proceeding to it.