Any equipment which has relevance to the loading/discharging operations has

to be in a state of readiness; such equipment may include derricks, cranes, winches, hatches, pumps, crude oil washing machines, shifting boards, vacuvators, etc. The state of readiness only has to be such that the equipment can be made ready and available for use when actually required. Not only is it a pointless exercise to have equipment such as derricks rigged to work while waiting at an anchorage but, in some circumstances, it might even be dangerous. On the other hand, if the relevant equipment is not ready and available for use when required, after the vessel has reached the agreed destination, then the vessel will not be ready so as to satisfy the

second requirement needed for the commencement of laytime; further, it would appear that the readiness must be such that the equipment is capable of loading/ discharging the whole of the cargo at the time that the notice of readiness is tendered. The cases Armement Adolf Deppe v. Robinson,24_{Sun Shipping v. Watson and} Youell,25_{Noemijulia v. Minister of Food,}26 _{The ‘‘Demosthenes V ’’ (No. 1)}27 _{and The} ‘‘Virginia M’’28_{are important cases to look at in order to see the approach of the} courts over the years regarding the required degree of readiness for a vessel’s equipment. The recent Virginia M case is considered since it indirectly concerned equipment, albeit that the case focused upon the lack of fresh water to supply steam for the vessel’s winches.

In Armement Adolf Deppe24_{the ship was to proceed to Avonmouth for discharge.} She reached that port and entered the dock on 28 October; since no discharging berth was available, she moored at buoys. Discharge could have been carried out at the buoys but the consignees of the cargo did not want this. The hatches had not been removed nor had the owners’ stevedores brought all their discharging gear on board. The Court of Appeal held, reversing the High Court judge, that the vessel was ready to discharge and that the laydays began to run on 28 October. Lord Justice Swinfen Eady in his judgment said:

‘‘It is the duty of the merchants to co-operate with the owners in the receipt of cargo, and upon the facts I am satisfied that the only reason why the ship did not take on board the gang and rig the gear to fulfil the owners’ duty in discharging was that the receivers were not desirous of receiving the cargo at the buoys and were so not willing to co-operate in her discharge there and made no preparations for doing so. The ship was lying at a waiting berth, her voyage being ended; it would have been an idle form to take on board and open hatches and make other preparations at the buoys when there was no desire or intention of the merchants to receive cargo until the ship was berthed at the quay. The ship was ready to discharge in a business and mercantile sense, and the idle formality of incurring useless expense was not necessary as a condition precedent to the commencement of the lay days.’’

The judgment is full of common sense; the only surprising thing about the case is that the High Court decided the matter in the reverse way. The case is to be contrasted very much with that of Sun Shipping v. Watson and Youell25_{where the} court was concerned with shifting boards and the loading of grain in bulk. The vessel had to load a cargo of grain at certain Danube ports and she arrived at Braila on 4 June where a portion of the cargo was loaded; she then went to Galatz and continued the loading which was completed on 20 June. The charterers claimed that laytime should not count on 5, 6 and 7 June because the vessel was not ready in all holds as work was in progress on the erection of shifting boards. At the time that the notice of readiness was given the vessel had not finished putting up her shifting boards (fixed to prevent the grain from working from one side to the other); it was possible to commence loading when the boards were only partly fixed.

24. [1917] 2 K.B. 204. 25. (1926) 24 Ll.L.Rep. 28.

26. (1949–50) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 500, and (1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 354 (C.A.). 27. [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275.

It was decided by Mr Justice Rowlatt that

‘‘it was quite clear that, if no shifting boards had been put in, the ship was not ready to load; if that was so, and though she may be ready to load when some, but not all, of the boards were put in, you get into the case a question of degree and fact and I think that the construction should be adopted that the shifting boards have got to be ready and fitted before the ship could be said to be ready. Further, it is said that there is no evidence that the Charterers were prevented from loading; that probably is the case but, as far as I know, that has nothing to do with it; the ship to be ready to load before the time begins to run; and there is an end of it.’’

This judgment appears on the harsh side rather in line with The ‘‘Tres Flores’’29_but, of course, the decision is very much different, in principle, to that of the Court of Appeal in the Armement Adolf Deppe case.24

73. The next case in chronological order is that of Noemijulia v. Minister of Food.30