1.

Good Weather Performance Speed

There are two kinds of performance speeds assessed by weather routing companies. One is the
Good Weather Performance Speed, analyzed based on the good weather analysis methodology with
thresholds taken from the vessel Charter Party, and the other is the Entire Voyage Performance Speed,
which applies a weather factor. In maritime Arbitration, the former is the only acceptable method. The
latter is a useful performance analysis tool for owners' and operators' scheduling and other business
decisions, but not for legal purposes.
The Good Weather Performance Speed is assessed based on a good weather analysis method as
set out in two English Law precedents, namely: LMLN 357 (1993) B.P. Shipping Ltd. v. Exmar N.V.
(The Gas Enterprise) - Court of Appeal (Lloyd, Butler-Sloss and Roch L.JJ.) - 23 June 1993 and The
Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 108. This methodology is widely accepted in London legal circles. As both
judgments were made in the Court of Appeal, this means the judgments are binding on all lower
English Courts.
London Maritime Arbitration Award LMLN 549 (2000) explains the method as follows:
The appropriate approach was as follows (see The Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 108):
(i) The vessel's performance should be assessed in good weather conditions (generally Beaufort
wind force 4 or below or as defined in the Charter Party) on all sea passages from sea buoy to
sea buoy excluding any slow steaming at charterers' request.
(ii) If a variation of speed from the warranted Charter Party speed was shown, the variance
should be applied with all necessary adjustments and extrapolated to all sea passages and in all
weather conditions (excluding slow steaming at charterers' request).
(iii) If a variation of fuel consumption from that warranted in the Charter Party was shown the
variation should be applied with the necessary adjustments and extrapolated to all sea
passages and in all weather conditions (including slow steaming at charterers' request).
Complying with the method, Weathernews analyzes the average vessel speed during good weather
days as stipulated by the Charter Party and applies the appropriate good weather current factor, unless
otherwise stipulated in the Charter Party.
Therefore: Good Weather Performance Speed = Good Weather Average Speed Good Weather
Current Factor
The accuracy of current measurement now is very high indeed and Weathernews no longer uses
Pilot Charts which are deemed obsolescent - please read point 5. Current Factor
It should be noted that in this analysis a weather factor (as used in entire voyage analyses) is not
employed.
To complete a Good Weather Analysis all ship noon positions for all days of the voyage are
needed.

2. Good Weather Analysis Method

A Good Weather Analysis is the correct methodology for speed & bunker analysis calculations as set
out in two English Law precedents, namely: LMLN 357 (1993) B.P. Shipping Ltd. v. Exmar N.V. (The
Gas Enterprise) - Court of Appeal (Lloyd, Butler-Sloss and Roch L.JJ.), and The Didymi [1988] 2
Lloyd's Rep 108. This methodology is widely accepted in London legal circles.

Step 1: Assessing Which Days are the Good Weather Days

The first step of a Good Weather Analysis is the selection of good weather days. This selection is
based on a 6-hourly analysis which depicts weather / seas / current conditions experienced by the
vessel. The analysis process follows:
1. The overall voyage is separated into individual days, where a day is taken to be the
period of time between consecutive daily noon positions. Therefore the duration of a day
can range from 23 to 25 hours depending on the direction and number of time zones a
vessel passes through.
2. The weather / seas at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, and 18Z for each day is analyzed and categorized
as either Good (within the fair weather definition) or Bad.
3. If the majority of the above time slots (over half the day) are categorized as Good
regarding wind force and sea height, then the whole day is considered a fair weather day
- i.e. of the day.

Step 2: Analyzing the Vessel Speed on the Good Weather Days

The second step of the good weather analysis method is to calculate the ship performance
speed. We assess the ship performance speed by calculating an average speed in good weather
periods, and taking into account a current factor during the good weather periods, unless otherwise
specified. The equation is:
Good Weather Performance Speed = Good Weather Average Speed Good Weather Current
Factor.
London Maritime Arbitration award LMLN 670 (2005) explains this as below.
In the event, the good weather performance of the vessel (between 0130 on 19 and 0200 on 20
November) could be assessed in round terms as 12.21 knots (305.3 miles 24.50 hrs less 0.25 knots
current factor) against her warranted performance speed of 13.00 knots (13.50 less 0.5 knots for
about). There was therefore an under-performance.
The tribunal had accepted the overall mileage steamed as 5,224.60 nautical miles. Thus, had the
vessel steamed throughout at 13.00 knots she would have taken approximately 401.89 hrs (5,224.60
nms 13.00 kts). At her actual good weather speed of 12.21 knots she would have taken
approximately 427.89 hrs (5,224.60 nms 12.21 knots) - a loss of approximately 26 hours.

3. Good Weather Analysis with No Adverse Current

If the good weather definition has a no adverse current stipulation in the Charter Party, currents
should be taken into account in selecting good weather days, as demonstrated in London Maritime
Arbitration award LMLN 723 (2007).
The charterers first calculated the vessels average speed and consumption for the voyage during
periods when the weather was up to Beaufort Force 4 and the vessel was not encountering a head
current. The average good weather performance was then applied to the full sea passage from sea
buoy to sea buoy (as in The Didymi [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 166).
This means that any day where the vessel experienced, on average, negative currents, has to be
excluded from the good weather analysis period.

CORRECT METHOD
Once the good weather days are selected (for example, all days that were equal to or less than BF4
and/or DSS3 and with no adverse currents) then the performance speed of the vessel can be
calculated.
Ship performance speed = Average Speed - Current Factor
Good Weather Days
POSITIONS
DATE

GMT
LAT

LON

4.8

3:00

6.17S

81.23W

4.8

6:00

5.97S

81.28W

4.8

12:00

4.78S

81.55W

WIND
DISTANCE
(NM)

DIR

Daily
SIG.
Av.
WAVE
Current
SPEED
BF (M)
(KTS)
(KTS)

SSE

15.0

1.2

SSE

17.0

1.2

285.5

-0.41

4.8

18:00

3.60S

81.50W

13.0

1.0

4.9

0:00

2.44S

81.37W

10.0

1.2

4.9

3:00

1.48S

81.27W

4.9

6:00

1.30S

81.24W

SW

11.0

1.1

4.9

12:00

0.20S

81.05W

SW

13.0

1.0

275.0

-0.10

4.9

18:00

0.91N

80.86W

SSE

15.0

0.9

4.10

0:00

2.05N

80.67W

SSE

15.0

1.1

4.10

3:00

3.03N

80.50W

4.10

6:00

3.22N

80.47W

SW

13.0

1.1

283.3

0.10

4.10

12:00

4.38N

80.26W

WSW

13.0

1.0

4.10

18:00

5.49N

80.06W

SW

9.0

1.0

4.11

0:00

6.88N

79.85W

SW

7.0

0.8

4.11

3:00

7.67N

79.67W

Good weather average speed = 11.80 knots

Good weather current factor = 0.10 knots
Performance Speed = 11.70 knots

INCORRECT METHOD
Days having adverse current are NOT excluded from good weather period below which goes against
the Charter Party definition and therefore is incorrect.
Ship performance speed = Average Speed - Current Factor
Good Weather Days selected incorrectly
POSITIONS
DATE

GMT
LAT

LON

4.8

3:00

6.17S

81.23W

4.8

6:00

5.97S

81.28W

4.8

12:00

4.78S

81.55W

WIND
DISTANCE
(NM)

DIR

Daily
SIG.WAVE
Av.
(M)
Current
SPEED
BF
(KTS)
(KTS)

SSE

15.0

1.2

SSE

17.0

1.2

285.5

-0.41

4.8

18:00

3.60S

81.50W

13.0

1.0

4.9

0:00

2.44S

81.37W

10.0

1.2

4.9

3:00

1.48S

81.27W

4.9

6:00

1.30S

81.24W

SW

11.0

1.1

4.9

12:00

0.20S

81.05W

SW

13.0

1.0

275.0

-0.10

4.9

18:00

0.91N

80.86W

SSE

15.0

0.9

4.10

0:00

2.05N

80.67W

SSE

15.0

1.1

4.10

3:00

3.03N

80.50W

4.10

6:00

3.22N

80.47W

4.10

12:00

4.38N

80.26W

SW

13.0

1.1

WSW

13.0

1.0

283.3

0.10

4.10

18:00

5.49N

80.06W

SW

9.0

1.0

4.11

0:00

6.88N

79.85W

SW

7.0

0.8

4.11

3:00

7.67N

79.67W

Good weather average speed = 11.72 knots (843.8 miles / 72 hours)

Good weather current factor = - 0.14 knots
Performance Speed = 11.86 knots

4. Good Weather Definition missing parameters

For days to be selected as Good Weather Days, they must meet all parameters defined in the
charter party. The definition of what constitutes good weather (the conditions under which the
definition of the vessel's speed and consumption warranties are valid) varies widely from Charter Party
to Charter Party. Some definitions only mention wind speed; others mention wind speed, wave height,
swell, current, sea surface temperature and more. Generally, the less terms are included in the CP
description of what constitutes good weather, the better from a charterers' point of view.
When a Charter Party only mentions wind speed such as Beaufort Force 4, we do not take into
account other parameters such as wave height, swell, or currents. The Charter Party is the Charter
Party and anything to be added as a factor for performance analysis should have been written.
This means high seas will not be taken into consideration even if the vessel encountered such
conditions. Likewise, even if the vessel encountered adverse currents which might have impeded the
vessel's progress, the good weather days selected would include days with adverse currents.
London maritime Arbitration precedent LMLN682 (2006) shows that, the Charter Party good weather
definition is taken to mean exactly what it says, no more:
Nothing was said in clause 29 about weather or sea conditions. The charterers said that that meant
that the owners warranted that the ship would perform under the charter at the stated speed and
consumption, whatever the weather. The owners said that, on the contrary, the warranties only
applied in perfect conditions, and that since between Algeciras and the Brazilian discharge port the
ship performed at 12.09 knots, ie "about" 12.50 knots, there was no breach.
Held, that the tribunal did not accept the owners' argument. In the tribunal's experience it was very
unusual to find such an unqualified warranty in a normal charter. Nevertheless, the tribunal did not see
how it could fairly read the relevant words in clause 29 as the owners suggested. The natural meaning
of the words was that the ship was to perform at the stated speed and consumption throughout the
trip. If the owners had wanted to qualify their obligations in some way, they should have inserted
words such as the common in good weather and smooth water, or even without guarantee.
Otherwise the words had to given the broad meaning argued for by the charterers.
(2006) 699 LMLN 1 opted for BF4 only when good weather was described in the Charter Party:
[Details of the vessel were then set out] speed / consumption (under good weather and smooth sea
condition): about 13.5 knots on about 79 long tons fuel oil 380 CST at 50 deg C under laden condition;
no Diesel oil consumption during normal steaming at sea

What weather and / or sea conditions were covered by the description good weather conditions?
There was a dispute as to whether good weather conditions meant winds of force 4 or below or force
3 or below on the Beaufort scale. Held , that the correct answer was winds of force 4 or below on the
Beaufort scale. There was no absolute yardstick by reference to which one could measure what
parties objectively intended by referring to good weather conditions. However, the figure of Beaufort
force 4 or below was so widely applied that unless parties expressly agreed another figure, their
objective contractual intention could be considered to be to adopt the generally applied figure of force
4 or below.

6. Time Lost and Over-consumption Calculation

The concepts used in time lost and over-consumption calculations are explained in the DIDYMI
case and the GAS ENTERPRISE case. The MV Gas Enterprise case (LMLN 357, 1993) explains
them as follows.
The first step in the exercise is to find the average speed for each passage in accordance with sub-cl
(4) during period when the weather was force 4 or less. That established the speed (and
consumption) of which the vessel was capable during the passage in question and therefore
determines whether or not the owners were in breach. To have included periods during which the
weather was worse than force 4 at that stage of the exercise would have been unfair on the owners,
just as it would have been unfair to include periods when the vessel's speed was reduced by reason
of poor visibility or congested waters. Once the speed of which the vessel was capable in fair weather
had been established for each passage, the warranty took effect. If the speed was less than the
warranted speed or if the consumption of bunkers was greater than the warranted consumption for
that speed, the charterers were entitled to recover compensating over the whole of the passage in
question, not just that part of the passage which was performed in good weather. If the bad weather
was such as to effect the vessel's performance on any particular passage, the owners could take that
into account in reduction of damages. The warranty was an undertaking as to the speed at which the
vessel was capable of performing, not the speed at which she would actually perform.
This indicates that the correct way to analyze a vessel's performance is to separate out the periods
when the vessel is sailing in good weather conditions and calculate the vessel's good weather
speed/consumption. This can then be applied to the overall period as follows: The good weather speed
and consumption are applied to the whole voyage and the time / consumption for the whole voyage at
the good weather speed/consumption can be compared to the time / consumption for the whole voyage
at the Charter Party speed/consumption. The difference represents a time loss or fluel over consumption or under - consumption.
This methodology can be seen in several Arbitration judgments (an example per below):

TIME LOST
Example 1:
LMLN 723 (2007)
Comparing the time required to perform the voyage of 10,900.50 miles at the warranted speed of 13
knots (838.50 hours) with the time taken at the average good weather speed of 12.28 knots (887.66
hours) the vessel lost a total of 49.16 hours between Tubarao and Majishan, equivalent to
US$130,819.28, net of address commission but including brokers' commission payable, according to
clause 27, by the owners to the brokers involved.
To summarize:
Total distance: 10,900.50 nm
Good weather distance: 1162.80 nm
Good weather time: 95.0 hours
Good weather performance speed: 12.28 knots
(Note: It looks like this is a miscalculation, because 1162.80 / 95 = 12.24 knots)

It should be noted that good weather current factor was discussed, but it was rejected because of
no proof of the same was submitted ? Weathernews can always provide evidence.
Therefore time lost should be calculated;

Example 2:
LMLN 670 (2005)
In the event, the good weather performance of the vessel (between 0130 on 19 and 0200 on 20
November) could be assessed in round terms as 12.21 knots (305.3 miles 24.50 hrs less 0.25 knots
current factor) against her warranted performance speed of 13.00 knots (13.50 less 0.5 knots for
about). There was therefore an under-performance. The tribunal had accepted the overall mileage
steamed as 5,224.60 nautical miles. Thus, had the vessel steamed throughout at 13.00 knots she
would have taken approximately 401.89 hrs (5,224.60 nms 13.00 kts). At her actual good weather
speed of 12.21 knots she would have taken approximately 427.89 hrs (5,224.60 nms 12.21 knots) a loss of approximately 26 hours.
To summarize:
Total distance: 5,224.60 nm
Good weather distance: 305.3. nm
Good weather time: 24.5 hours
Good weather performance speed: 12.21 knots
Good weather current factor: 0.25 knots

Bunker Calculations
Bunker calculations consist of an over-consumption evaluation and a fuel saving evaluation, where
the former applies an allowance of usually 5% upwards, but the latter does not give any allowance
(unless otherwise specified in the Charter Party). Complying with maritime Arbitration standards, Speed
and Bunker Analysis is not applied when there are no good weather days.

It should be noted that there are some other calculation methods, employing a weather factor for
the entire voyage, but they are not accepted in maritime Arbitration. (Please see 8 Weather Factor and
Entire Voyage Performance Speed.)
Nowadays almost all Charter Parties apply an about on speed and consumption with the word
about before speed and consumption values, and/or a phrase All details about in the vessel's
particulars section.
It seems that owners and charterers generally agree on an application of 0.5 knots for speed
about, but there are still some arguments regarding the consumption about. Weathernews' Speed
and Bunker Analysis applies an allowance of 0.5 knots on speed, 5% on fuel over-consumption and no
allowance on fuel saving when the Charter Party includes an about for both speed and consumption.
As English Law is about damages, there is no damage to the charterer if they are having to give
owners credit for bunkers under-consumed. This interpretation is reasonable for both owners and
charterers. London maritime Arbitration precedent LMLN723 (2007) expressed the same idea as
below. In this case, the consumption warranty stipulated in the Charter Party was 46 MT/day:
With regard to the extent of the allowance to be given for the term about, although on some
occasions in the past, Arbitration tribunals had referred to allowances of less than 5% on bunker
consumption, the current practice was almost invariably to apply an allowance of 5% unless there
were special circumstances. There was no reason to depart from that practice in the present case.
Accordingly, in considering whether the vessel had over performed, reference was to be made to a
daily consumption of 48.3 mts, whilst in determining if bunkers had been saved, reference was to be
made to a daily consumption of 46 mts.
Over-consumption:
LMLN 723 (2007)
The charterers calculated that on the days of contractually good weather conditions the vessel
consumed an average of 44.90 mts of IFO and 0.87 mts of MDO each day. Performing the entire
voyage of 10,900.50 miles on that daily consumption at the average good weather speed of 12.28
knots the vessels voyage consumption would have been 1,660.67 mts of IFO and 32.17 mts of MDO.
Those figures were to be compared with consumption for the voyage at the minimum warranted speed
of 13 knots on a daily consumption of 48.3 mts IFO and 1.05 mts of MDO, namely 1,687.48 mts of
IFO and 36.68 mts of MDO. There was therefore no over consumption of bunkers. Was there a
saving? Whether a speed of 13 knots or 13.5 knots was adopted, the vessels good weather
consumption figure of 1,660.67 mts IFO and 32.37 mts MDO exceeded consumption for the voyage at
a daily rate of 46 mts and 1 mt respectively. The vessels bunker consumption therefore neither
exceeded the maximum permitted nor fell below the level at which savings were made. In short, the
vessels consumption fell within the permitted range for the voyage and gave rise to no claim or credit.
To summarize:
Total distance: 10,900.50 nm
Good weather distance: 1162.80 nm
Good weather time: 95.0 hours
(Note: It looks like this is a mis-calculation, because 1162.80 / 95 = 12.24 knots)
It should be noted that good weather current factor was discussed, but it was rejected because of
no proof submitted.

8. Weather Factor and Entire Voyage Performance Speed

The vessel's Entire Voyage Performance Speed is another Performance Speed utilized in weather
routing operations, but it is at odds with English Law and therefore not preferred.
The vessel's Entire Voyage Performance Speed is determined from an average speed, a current
factor, and a weather factor of the entire voyage. The average speed is calculated as follows: Average
speed = Total distance / Total time en route. Ocean current data at all points along the vessel's route
are analyzed to calculate how much effect each current had on the vessel at any given time.
The Weather Factor is a numerical representation of the speed reduction experienced by the vessel
due to the wind and sea conditions it encountered. The weather factor can be determined by speed
down curves to determine how much the vessel would be affected by a given set of conditions. The
speed down curve is applied to all conditions experienced throughout the voyage and the resulting
speed down is the weather factor.
One of the major drawbacks of using this method is that often times an accurate weather factor is
not provided because it requires a speed down curve tailored for each individual ship that takes into
account all characteristics of that ship, including load condition. Since this is not a realistic or feasible
solution, a generic speed down curve is employed and the resulting speed downs are adjusted by a
certain percentage based on the vessel type. Provided a sufficient data set taken from many voyages,
an accurate weather factor could be obtained by tailoring the reduction percentage, but such
meticulous and detailed data sets are not usually available.
It should be also pointed out that the Weather Factor was rejected in a recent London Maritime
Arbitration award, LMLN 738 (2008), as below:
Moreover, on the facts, the charterers were not entitled to make any deductions in relation to the
alleged speed claim. The charterers' case was based on a number of days, some of which plainly fell
to be excluded since the weather was at the acceptable limit on them, not below it. The charterers had
also said that the deck logs should be ignored, and that a weather factor should be brought into
account in order to establish what the actual speed was. That approach was impermissible.
As the two judgments in the Court of Appeal LMLN 357 (1993) B.P. Shipping Ltd. v. Exmar N.V.
(The Gas Enterprise) - Court of Appeal (Lloyd, Butler-Sloss and Roch L.JJ.) - 23 June 1993 and The
Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 108 both outlined the correct method to analyze a vessels performance
(in good weather only) then this is binding on all lower courts and as such is the correct method to use.

FAQs

Q1. How to determine whether or not a vessel under-performed

Weathernews analyzes and selects the periods that can be considered good weather days
according to the good weather definition in the Charter Party and then calculates the vessel
performance based on how the vessel performed on average within these good weather days.
As per London Maritime Arbitration precedent LMLN 357 (1993):
The first step in the exercise was to find the average speed for each passage in accordance with subclause 4 during periods when the weather was force 4 or less. That established the speed (and
consumption) of which the vessel was capable during the passage in question and therefore
determined whether or not the owners were in breach.
Once the speed of which the vessel was capable in fair weather had been established for each
passage, the warranty took effect. If the speed was less than the warranted speed or if the
consumption of bunkers was greater than the warranted consumption for that speed, the charterers
were entitled to recover compensation over the whole of the passage in question, not just that part of
the passage which was performed in good weather.
Thus any underperformance for a vessel during the good weather period would be extrapolated to
the entire voyage to arrive at the true loss for the charterers.

Q2. Shouldn't time lost be calculated only for The Good Weather
Period?

Weathernews' stance is to provide objective ship performance auditing reports based on London
maritime arbitration standards, using a good weather analysis method, as explained in English Law
precedents such as the MV Didymi case [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 108) and the MV Gas Enterprise case

(LMLN 357, 1993). London Maritime Arbitration Award LMLN 549 (2000) explains the method as
follows:
The appropriate approach was as follows (see The Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 108):
- (i) The vessels performance should be assessed in good weather conditions (generally Beaufort
wind force 4 or below or as defined in the charterparty) on all sea passages from sea buoy to sea buoy
excluding any slow steaming at charterers' request.
- (ii) If a variation of speed from the warranted charterparty speed was shown, the variance should be
applied with all necessary adjustments and extrapolated to all sea passages and in all weather
conditions (excluding slow steaming at charterers' request).
- (iii) If a variation of fuel consumption from that warranted in the charterparty was shown the variation
should be applied with the necessary adjustments and extrapolated to all sea passages and in all
weather conditions (including slow steaming at charterers' request).
Gas Enterprise case (LMLN 357, 1993):
Prima facie the charterers were entitled to be compensated for any breach of that warranty. A vessel
which could not comply with her contract speed or consumption in good weather was unlikely to be
able to comply with the contract when the weather was bad. One would therefore expect sub-clauses
4 and 5 to provide the machinery for assessing compensation for any breach of warranty irrespective
of the weather. There was no sensible business reason why the parties should have intended
that the charterers should be compensated for under performance in periods of good weather,
but not in periods of bad weather.
The extrapolation of a vessel's performance in good weather to the entire length of the voyage is the
correct method for assessing damages due to the ship under-performance and / or over-consumption.

Q3. How are Good Weather Days selected?

The evaluation method applied by Weathernews is analyzed on a 6 hourly basis to determine a good
weather period is as follows:
1. The overall voyage is separated into individual days, where a day is taken to be the
period of time between consecutive daily noon positions. Therefore the duration of a day
can range from 23 to 25 hours depending on the direction and number of time zones a
vessel passes through.
2. The weather / seas at 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, and 18Z for each day are analyzed and categorized
as either Good (within the good weather definitions) or Bad.
3. If the majority of the above slots (over half the day) are categorized as Good, then the
whole day is considered a good weather day.

When the good weather definition includes no adverse current or an equivalent stipulation, step 3)
above should abide by this stipulation by taking into consideration the current factor when selecting
good weather days: wind / sea conditions need to be within the good weather definition thresholds and
the average daily current factor must be zero or a positive value. If this stipulation is neglected, the
analysis results in incorrect conclusions.

Q4. Is the Good Weather Definition used by Weathernews correct?

The correct good weather definition can only be verified by a look at the charter party. This is usually
not provided by the operators who order service from a weather routing company. Therefore, routing
companies must rely on the correct interpretation of the charter party good weather definition provided
by the operator. When the interpretation of the good weather definition comes into question, a routing
company may request a scanned copy of the charter party sections detailing the good weather
definition.

Q5. Does BF4 imply DSS3 even when it is not explicitly stated in the
Charter Party?
Usually, the correct good weather definition can be verified by analyzing the charter party good
weather definition, but there are some cases when the charter party itself is not clear enough and
causes disputes. One example: The charter party good weather definition is up to and including BF4;
there is no mention of wave height thresholds.
In such a case, it could be argued that, as there is a causal relationship between winds and waves,
the good weather definition for a charter party that only states BF4 should also include the threshold
DSS3 for waves. Owners may take this point of view if it suits the limitations that sets on the number of
days selected as good weather days. Charterers may argue that the charter party good weather
definition should be read exactly as it is and needs no interpretation: If it does not state a wave height
limit, then there is none. Sometimes owners and charterers can find a way to negotiate on the correct
reading of the charter party. But sometimes these disputes go to arbitration.
In Arbitration, good weather definitions have in the past been interpreted very strictly as meaning
exactly what they state, and no more. One example for such a case is 2006 LMLN 682:
Nothing was said in clause 29 about weather or sea conditions. The charterers said that that meant
that the owners warranted that the ship would perform under the charter at the stated speed and
consumption, whatever the weather. The owners said that, on the contrary, the warranties only
applied in perfect conditions, and that since between Algeiras and the Brazilian discharge port the
ship performed at 12.09 knots, ie about 12.50 knots, there was no breach.
Held, that the tribunal did not accept the owners' argument. In the tribunal's experience it was very
unusual to find such an unqualified warranty in a normal charter. Nevertheless, the tribunal did not see
how it could fairly read the relevant words in clause 29 as the owners suggested. The natural meaning
of the words was that the ship was to perform at the stated speed and consumption throughout the
trip. If the owners had wanted to qualify their obligations in some way, they should have inserted
words such as the common in good weather and smooth water, or even without guarantee.
Otherwise the words had to given the broad meaning argued for by the charterers.
This is a very strict interpretation, and it was surely a painful reminder that, as it stands, the risk of
signing unclear charter parties lies with the signatories. Weathernews therefore strongly urge all
owners and charterers to ensure that the contracts they sign are as clear as possible.

Q6. The Good Weather Period for this voyage is too short. Surely it
can not be sufficient?

The shortest allowable good weather period for a good weather analysis in London arbitration was
24.5 hours. It is important that charterers understand this condition for the good weather analysis and
that shorter time periods are not sufficient.
If the vessel does not perform to the Charter Party warranted speed & consumption for 24 hours or
longer in good weather during the voyage (excluding periods of bad weather, off hire, periods of slow
steaming at the Charterer's request, canal transit etc) then there must be a good reason given by the
Master for the speed reduction.
The award 670 LMLN 1 (2005, London Arbitration 15/05):
In the event, the good weather performance of the vessel (between 0130 on 19 and 0200 on 20
November) could be assessed in round terms as 12.21 knots (305.3 miles 24.50 hrs less 0.25 knots
current factor) against her warranted performance speed of 13.00 knots (13.50 less 0.5 knots for
about). There was therefore an under-performance.
The tribunal had accepted the overall mileage steamed as 5,224.60 nautical miles. Thus, had the
vessel steamed throughout at 13.00 knots she would have taken approximately 401.89 hrs (5,224.60
nms 13.00 kts). At her actual good weather speed of 12.21 knots she would have taken
approximately 427.89 hrs (5,224.60 nms 12.21 knots) - a loss of approximately 26 hours.
The calculations shown above indicate that the good weather period during a journey of well over
400 hours was only 24.5 hours. Important to note: When the good weather period is less than 24 hours,
it would be seen as insufficient.
(2007) 718 LMLN 3 London Arbitration 9/07
As to whether the voyages of less than 36 hours duration could be taken into account for the purpose
of assessing the vessel's good weather capability, the charterers had conceded that very short
voyages of less than 24 hours duration should not be taken into account. However, the charterers
were correct in contending that the vessel should have been able to achieve her warranted speed in
good weather on any voyage of 24 hours of more.
As the above stated, voyages of 24 hours or longer should be included in performance calculations.

Q7. Can bunker under-consumption be offset against time loss

and/or other bunker over-consumption?
Offset of fuel savings against under-performance is a standard procedure in London Arbitration
circles unless the Charter Party stipulates otherwise. There are four Arbitration awards relevant to this
issue which conclude that off-set is allowed.
1980 LMLN 17
Held, that the owners were entitled to compensation for the difference in fuel consumption. When the
charter had been drawn up in 1973 and entered into in July, 1974, fuel prices had been relatively
unimportant: prices had risen to such an extent in the meantime that saving on bunkers could be more
important in financial terms than saving time. Bearing this, and the terms of the charter, in mind, it was
not incongruous if the charterers only received compensation for excess fuel consumption if the
vessel was slowsteaming, while the owners received compensation for reduced fuel consumption
even when she was slow-steaming.
1987 LMLN 188
Held, that to the extent that the charterers' claim had been put as one for damages for breach of
contract, the owners were entitled to credit for any under-consumption of fuel oil when the charterers'
damages were calculated.
2002 LMLN 587

Held, that there had been an over-consumption as contended for by the charterers, but the tribunal
would agree with the owners that the charterers' claim had to lie in damages, and that in calculating it,
credit had to be given for any savings in time or fuel oil consumption. .... In the present case, it was
sufficient to say that on any view the lower than warranted consumption of fuel oil substantially
outweighed, in terms of the value of the bunkers in question, the over-consumption of diesel oil. Thus,
although there was a breach, there were no damages and the charterers' claim had to fail.
2007 LMLN 718
Held, that dealing, first, with the cargo heating point, the owners' case was that on those voyages
where heating did take place less fuel was used in cargo heating than was warranted and therefore
they could set that off against any over-consumption in other respects. All the charterers had done, in
their calculations, was to give credit for the fuel actually used in heating............................
Therefore, the tribunal concluded that any under-consumption in cargo heating, whether at sea or in
port, should be credited against over-consumption or under-performance at sea measured by
reference to the relevant warranties.