今天给大家讲述一个CTX成功解决的有趣又很有挑战性的案例。
在这个案例中，船舶的上上个船东在卖船前有一笔在另一个租约下未付的装卸费，这笔费用可以追溯到2014年11月。该案件发生在今年4月下旬，船舶目前的保赔险保险人是伦敦协会。而协会对未购买交船前的抗辩险及海事优先权保险的客户遇到这样的情况是不予承保的。当时该轮必须尽快离开巴拿马运河，以免错过下一批货物的解约日（运费非常高），我们的客户承受着巨大的压力。经过CTX同事的不懈努力，以及伦敦保赔协会最终同意提供帮助（尽管这并非他们分内之事）。扣船令最终在48小时内解除，该轮也顺利在原定过闸日顺利开航。
由于未购买交船前的抗辩险及海事优先权保险，此案并不在该轮目前的保赔和抗辩险保障之下。当时该轮必须尽快离开巴拿马运河，以免错过下一批货物的解约日（运费非常高），我们的客户承受着巨大的压力。好在伦敦保赔协会的理赔团队还是以其丰富的经验提供了咨询服务并帮助船东和CTX协调了当地的律师资源。最终，在CTX同事们的不懈努力下，扣船令最终在48小时内解除，该轮也顺利在原定过闸日顺利开航。
以下是一封当地律师的邮件节选，供您参考。我们想与您分享这个案例的原因是：
a) 关于对已发生的装卸费用是否享有海事优先权，在英国法下的观点与美国法是完全不同；
b) 懈怠原则的定义（Doctrine of Laches Defense）。
c) 建议船东考虑配置交船前抗辩险及海事优先权保险。
希望您对此感兴趣。
律师的邮件
QUOTE
Dear Sir,
先生您好，
Reference is made to our previous e-mail.
续我们之前的邮件。
We have had a chance to peruse the complaint. We were able to contact counsel for claimants at this late hour, and he agreed to send us courtesy copies of the exhibits filed with the complaint. Based on what we have seen so far, we can advise as follows:
我们已经仔细阅读了船东的诉求，并在很晚的时候联系了索赔人的律师，律师同意向我们提供与索赔有关的证物复印件。根据我们目前所看到的情况，我们提出如下建议：
1. The claimants are a company named Company X of USA.
2. The claim is for some unpaid stevedore services, provided to Vessel A at the G terminal from 4 to 16 November 2014.
3. The stevedore services were requested from Company X by Company Y, who were sub charterers of the vessel at the time.
1. 索赔人是美国的X公司；
2. 此次索赔是针对2014年11月4日至16日G码头向A轮提供的一些未付款的装卸服务；
3. 装卸服务是Y公司要求X公司提供的，该公司当时是该轮的二船东；
4. For which reason, this in rem claim is now filed against the Vessel K. Claimants allege that Company X has a maritime lien under US law, for necessaries provided to the Vessel back in 2014. The claim is in rem, and thus it is not predicated on the personal liability of the vessel’s current owners, but on the liability of the vessel herself as debtor for services she received and benefited from.
5. Claimants allege that US substantive law applies to this claim, since the stevedoring services were furnished in the US.
6. The quantum of the claim is US$460,000.00 (US$300,000.00 for principal on the invoice, plus US$160,000.00 for contractual interest, at 10% per a year, as provided by the applicable “Rules, Rates and Regulations” of the G Terminal.)
4. 因此，该原告行使了针对K轮的对物诉讼（前身是A轮，经卖船后现已改名为K轮）。索赔人称，根据美国法律，X公司对在2014年向船舶提供必需品及服务后对其提供服务的对象拥有海事优先权。该索赔是可以对物诉讼的，因此它不是以船舶当前所有人的个人责任为基础，而是以船舶本身作为债务人对其所获得的服务和从中受益的责任为基础；
5. 索赔人称，美国实体法适用于该索赔，因为装卸服务是在美国提供的；
6. 索赔金额约为460,000.00美元（账单金额约300,000.00美元，合同利息约160,000.00美元，按G码头适用的“条款、费率和规定”，按每年10%计算）；
After discussion with the local lawyer, we think that US substantive law indeed applies to this claim. Under the conflict of laws rules contained our Code of Maritime Procedure (CMP), a claim for services rendered unto vessels will be governed by the law of the place where the services were furnished, unless otherwise contractually agreed by the parties. Here, services were furnished in the US. Our understanding of US law is that a claim for stevedore services will give rise to a maritime lien for necessaries. A maritime lien, generally speaking, attaches to a vessel, even after a private transfer of ownership. However, a maritime lien might be defeated by virtue of the equitable doctrine of Laches. Under this doctrine, certain equitable factors such as the passage of a prolonged period of time, coupled with the arms-length sale of the vessel in question may be sufficiently significant from an equitable standpoint as to prompt a judge to dismiss the maritime lien. Laches is applied on a case by case basis, and thus there are no hard-and-fast rules that would allow one to predict whether the defense will succeed on the particular facts of a specific case. We know, however, that transfers of ownership are a crucial factor. Here, it seems the Vessel Khanged owners not once but twice since the services were rendered . Further, the debt itself is almost 6 years old. If the analogous State statute of limitation in local for a contract claim is less than 6 years, that could also be a very significant factor towards making a case for a Laches defense. We would need advice from US counsel (preferably licensed in Local) in order to ascertain how good the case for Laches is, but our sense is that perhaps Laches might be a very viable defense on the facts of the case known so far.
经与当地律师商议，我们认为美国实体法确实适用于这一主张。根据巴拿马《海事程序法》所载的法律冲突规则，除非双方另有合同约定，向船舶提供服务的索赔应适用提供服务地的法律。在该案例中，服务是在美国提供的。我们对美国法律的理解是，对装卸服务的索赔将导致对服务对象的海事优先权。其，一般来说，即使在船舶所有权进行私人转让之后，也保有对船舶的索赔权。然而，海事优先权可以通过衡平法下的懈怠原则进行对抗。根据这一原则，从对等的观点来看，某些对等的因素，例如已经过了较长一段时间，加上有关船舶已经多次出售，而索赔人均为采取对物诉讼的方式维护其权益，法官可能会驳回现在的海事优先权主张。懈怠原则需要具体案件具体分析，因此没有硬性的条款可以预测辩护是否会在特定的案件中取得成功。但我们知道，所有权的转让是一个关键因素。在该案中，自从X公司提供服务以来，船舶已经不止一次，而是两次更换了船东。此外，债务本身几乎已经有6年了。如果当地类似的合同索赔时效不到6年，那这就可能作为一个非常重要的因素来主张符合懈怠原则。我们需要美国律师的建议（最好是在当地获得许可），以确定主张适用懈怠条款的情况如何，但我们的感觉是，根据目前已知的情况，主张适用懈怠原则是有成功的几率的。
Regarding security to release a vessel in Panama, the options under our CMP are:
关于安全释放扣留在巴拿马的船舶，我们的CMP的选择是：
- A cash bond from Panama’s central bank (the BNP).
- A certified check from a private Panamanian licensed bank.
- An LG from a Panamanian licensed bank.
- An LG from a Panamanian licensed insurance company.
- Any other security the parties jointly agree to (such as an LOU)
- 巴拿马中央银行（BNP）出具的的现金债券；
- 巴拿马私人持牌银行出具的保付支票；
- 巴拿马持牌银行的担保书（LG）；
- 巴拿马持牌保险公司的担保书（LG）；
- 双方一致同意的任何其他担保函（如LOU）。
The amount to be posted to release the vessel, as of today, is US$677,520.00 broken down as follows:
到目前为止，释放该轮所需金额为677,520.00美元，具体分解如下：
i) US$460,000.00 (quantum of claim)
ii) US$140,000.00 (3 years of legal interest, at 10% p.a.)
iii) US$75,000.00 (legal fees as per Panama’s Official Tariff)
iv) US$2,500.00 (arrest expenses as of today)
i) 460,000.00美元（索赔金额）
ii) 140,000.00美元（3年法定利息，年息10%）
iii) 75,000.00美元（按巴拿马官方关税计算的法律费用）
iv) US$2,500.00（截至目前为止的扣船费用）
Finally, we will make some brief comments about possible defense strategies. If, as it appears, the vessel has a viable Laches defense, we could articulate that in either of two ways:
最后，我们对可能的抗辩战略做一些简短的评论。如果船舶真的可以符合懈怠原则，我们可以用以下两种方式中的一种来主张：
I. As an Apremio challenge to the arrest. An Apremio is an summary challenge to an arrest, in this case on the premise that clearly claimants do not have a maritime lien under US law. Whether or not that is the case, is something for US counsel to opine. An Apremio must be filed before the arrest is lifted. Otherwise, the right to file an Apremio is waived. The attractive thing about an Apremio challenge is that, even though they are hard to win, if the Judge concludes the arrest is wrongful, the arrest is lifted immediately, and the security is likewise immediately returned to the defendants. The decision may be appealed by the claimant, but that appeal will not prevent the immediate return of the security. The drawback of the Apremio is that it must be filed prior to the posting of security, and we must present with sufficient evidence that in the case at hand there is not maritime lien (i.e.- that the lien has lapsed due to Laches). We can file the Apremio and then immediately post security after that, but we could not file an Apremio without having a supporting opinion from US counsel. Thus, if a decision is made to file an Apremio challenge, we need to start working with US counsel at once.
1）使用Apremio对扣船提出质疑。Apremio是对错误扣船的质疑，在该案中，若根据美国法律，索赔人显然没有海事留置权。无论情况是否如此，这是美国律师的意见。在解除扣船之前，必须提交Apremio。否则，将视为放弃提交Apremio的权利。利用Apremio进行质疑的好处是，尽管他们很难获胜，只要法官断定扣船是错误的，那么扣船令就会立即解除，而担保也会立即返回被告手中。索赔人可就该判决提出上诉，但该上诉并不会妨碍该担保的立即归还。Apremio的缺点是必须在提交担保之前提交，而且我们必须提供足够的证据证明该案不涉及海事留置权（即该留置权已因懈怠原则而失效）。我们可以提交Apremio，然后立即发布担保声明，但如果我们没有得到美国律师的支持，就无法提交Apremio。因此，如果决定提出Apremio，我们需要立即开始与美国律师合作。
II. Alternatively, the Laches defense may be subsequently raised as a special interlocutory defense. This defense will be heard at a Special Hearing. Like in the case of the Apremio, the moving party will have the burden of proof (but, in our view, such burden is a lot less than it is in an Apremio challenge). If the Judge decides then that maritime lien has become extinct due to Laches, this again can be appealed by the claimant, but that appeal would be suspensive – meaning that the security will remain lodged in court, pending the ruling on appeal. We would also need an opinion from US counsel to substantiate this defense, but there will be much more ample time to file this, since the defense need only be raised when it comes time to answer the complaint (30 days after the arrest). Courts are now official closed for regular business due to COVID-19. Technically speaking, today is a non-working day in Panama, and things will remain as such until courts official reopen for business (on 4 May 2020). Once courts re-open, the 30 day term to answer the complaint starts to run.
2）另一种选择是，懈怠原则可随后提出作为一种特殊的中间辩护，该辩护将在特别听证会上进行。就像提出Apremio一样，动议方将有举证责任（但在我们看来，这种责任比提出Apremio要少得多)。如果法官裁定，根据懈怠海事优先权已经消失，这也可以由原告提出上诉，但该上诉将是暂停的，这意味着在上诉裁决之前，担保仍将提交法庭。我们还需要来自美国律师的意见来证实这一辩护方式，但我们会有更充足的时间来提交材料，因为辩护只需要在应诉到期前提出（扣船后30天）。由于COVID-19的原因，法院现在正式对日常业务关闭。从技术上讲，今天是巴拿马的非工作日，直到法院正式重开营业（2020年5月4日），情况仍将如此。一旦法院重新开放，为期30天的应诉期限开始起算。
The advise of US counsel is key in order be able to effectively formulate a defense strategy. Please, let us know if you have a particular US law firm (in Texas, preferably) that you work with. Otherwise, we can recommend one.
美国律师的建议是能够有效地制定辩护战略的关键。如果您有特定的合作美国律师事务所（当地的在德克萨斯州最好)，请告诉我们。如果没有，我们可以为您推荐。
We look forward to your questions/comments.
我们期待您的问题和意见。
UNQUOTE
各位亲爱的CTX的客户和朋友：
据我们所知，大中华地区的船东很少有海事优先权保险来保护他们的财务损失以及由于这些不良（且无辜）的风险而产生的附带法律和辩护费用。CTX的专家们可为您在这方面提供帮助。
(CTX原创)
原创：Ronel Bridge
翻译：Michelle Miao
改编审核：David Di / Thomas Cheung
联系客服
