SUPPLYTIME BIMCO UNIFORM TIME CHARTER PARTY FOR OFFSHORE SERVICE VESSELS CODE NAME: “SUPPLYTIME 89”. To view this document. In November BIMCO released its revision of the Supplytime 89 Uniform Time Charter Party for Offshore Services Vessels. Since it replaced its Some limitations of BIMCO’s Supplytime. contract (Supplytime ) is one of the most frequently used time revised in and again in

Author: Zujas Juzahn
Country: Guinea
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 21 December 2008
Pages: 202
PDF File Size: 20.22 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.14 Mb
ISBN: 549-4-97786-576-4
Downloads: 81915
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Bataur

Since it replaced its predecessor the Supplytime 89 has become the most widely used standard form contract in the offshore industry. However, despite its widespread use the form has not been free of criticism, and its Clause 26 Early Termination mechanism, particularly, has lead to considerable litigation.

These notes underline that the majority of changes are linguistic – for the purpose of improving clarity and avoiding disputes. Of the latest iteration’s amendments to the 89 Form, two key provisions which merit close examination are the “Liabilities and Indemnities” provision, better known as the “knock-for-knock” clause, and the Early Termination Clause already mentioned.

Further, the liabilities falling on entered vessels as a result of waivers of rights of recourse, such as those that necessarily form part of any knock-for-knock provision, should only be poolable if the purported knock-for-knock provision is balanced, or in other words, a genuine knock-for-knock provision.

As can be seen from sub-clause a of Cl. This is however subject to the following exceptions: Conversely, as can be seen from sub-clause b of Cl.

Supplytime 05: BIMCO Finalises Its Revision of Supplytime 89

In contrast to the Owner’s position, the only exception under Cl. For the purpose of this Clause “Charterers’ Group” shall mean: The sub-clause a definitions set out the parties that fall suupply the “Owners’ Group” and those that fall within bimci “Charterers’ Group”.

This sjpply to avoid repetition in the rest of the clause but alters the position under the 89 Form. The 89 Form used only to include an obligation on the charterers to pay for the vessel’s bunkers and lubricants under its Cl. These obligations are set out in Cl. This noteworthy amendment to the liability regime under the 89 Form is reasonable and necessary given the charterers responsibility for the supply of suitable bunkers.

It is analogous to the exception in respect of the carriage of undeclared dangerous goods. The 05 Form now includes at Cl. The Owner bears liability for any losses arising from its failure to do so. The exception in respect of breaches of the ISPS Code fundamentally alters the nature of the liability apportionment scheme, and compromises the effectiveness of Cl. The “Knock-for-Knock” provision is to operate irrespective of fault with the Owner is held harmless in respect of damage to the tow, or Charterers’ Group property even if same is caused “wholly or binco by the unseaworthiness of any vessel”.


Losses and liabilities which arise as a result of breach of the ISPS are not necessarily the types of liabilities covered by war risk underwriters. In fact it is feasible that a breach of supplyy ISPS Code by the Owner, by say not maintaining a proper system with regard to the determining the identities of individuals coming on board the vessel could result in losses to the tow caused by mischief on the part of third parties who are tome operating to a terrorist or belligerent agenda.

The need for this exception in the liability apportionment scheme is unclear, not least because Cl. Leaving that aside, and 889 bills have been issued, it is difficult to see how the Owners’ liabilities under the bills of lading following, say, withdrawal are likely to suppy the types of losses in respect of which the Owners hold the Charterers harmless under the “Knock-for-knock” provision.

Under a further amendment of the 89 Form, the Owner’s statutory rights with regard to limitation of liability are not in nimco way compromised by the liability apportionment scheme in the 05 Form. This is achieved through the express reference to the Cl. The inclusion of the express reference in this manner is a departure from the position under then 89 Form.

Whilst the 89 Form included a similar reference to limitation at Cl. Such losses could comfortably exceed the vessel’s limitation figure it is worth bearing in mind that OSV’s, because of their size, often have fairly low limitation figures and any difference will have to be borne by the charterer or member of the “Charterers’ Group” against whom the original claim was brought.

Steamship Mutual – Supplytime BIMCO Finalises Its Revision of Supplytime 89

The Pollution Clause Cl. This clause allocates all liability for pollution from the vessel excluding from cargo on board the vessel to the Owners, regardless of fault, and all other pollution to the Charterers, also regardless of fault.

The provisions tie this clause have now been expressly incorporated in the Cl. Salvage is treated similarly to pollution and, like Cl.

That clause stipulates that the Charterers will indemnify the Owners for their losses arising suplpy a result of a set-off by the other ship of claims for which it is liable in respect of “loss of or damage to, or any claim whatsoever of the owners of any goods carried under this Charter Party”.

Whilst beneficial to the Owners, this is difficult to reconcile this provision with the general “knock-for-knock” approach.

However, whereas in the 89 Form General Average was the only exception to the indemnity provided by the Charterers to the Owners in respect of “charterer-sided” losses, the 05 Form includes three further exceptions. These are Pollution as set out in Cl.


Suspending performance – no notice required under Supplytime 89 – Lexology

The 89 Form Wreck Removal provision, which was found at Cl. The Owners obligations under it are unaffected by the indemnity provided by the Charterers in respect of Charterers’ property etc.

This has the effect of precluding the Owners from being able to claim from the Charterers any additional costs of wreck removal arising as a result of Charterers’ Group property that was on board the vessel and forms part of the wreck, and represents a substantive amendment to the 89 Form.

What should be clear from the above is that, there are important substantive changes in the 05 Timf which alter the scope of the “knock-for-knock” provision.

Any queries relating to the same should be referred to the Club. The other provision in the 89 Form which drew considerable attention, and has suupply a cause of litigation, is the Early Termination Clause, Cl. Past difficulties arose primarily in relation to Early Termination for Cause, and in particular in respect of Breakdown of the vessel.

It appears no longer sufficient that the vessel is unable to perform for a period exceeding that agreed by the parties and specified in Box This amendment places a significant restriction on the Charterers’ right to terminate early, and is a welcome change to the severe scheme under the 89 Form. The Owners will now have the opportunity to remedy the problem with the vessel, whilst the Charterers will be compensated under the other charterparty provisions if there has been a breach, and in any event hire will cease to count in line with Cl.

Any queries relating to Early Termination under either of the Supplytime Forms should be referred to the Club. The charterer bears the responsibility for damage caused by shipment of undeclared dangerous cargoes this is the reference to Cl.

The charterer remains responsible for any loss to the owner as a result of salvage performed on property owned by or contracted to the charterer this is the reference to Cl. The provisions of Cl. Undeclared dangerous cargo shipped by the charterers on Board the Vessel: As before, charterers remain responsible for the replacement of towage and anchor handling equipment on board the vessel where same becomes lost, damaged or unserviceable other than as a result of the Owner’s negligence Cl.

The charterers’ responsibility for the replacement of special mooring lines to offshore units, wires, hose connections and similar equipment on the vessel, also remains with 9 e of the 05 Form replacing Cl.

January PDF Version.

Author: admin