To someone who is unfamiliar with the law and practice of carriage of goods by sea and charter-parties, the proliferation of charter-party forms, the variations on the terms commonly found therein and the numerous disputes arising as to their interpretation might appear at least odd and inconvenient, at worst intolerable. Such an impression by itself tends, of course, to ignore differing needs and practices within the industry. The result of these has indeed been a number of detailed provisions relating to the distribution between charterer and shipowner of responsibility for the consequences of time spent in port for the loading and unloading of cargoes. Some provisions clearly remain in use because they have been well drafted and serve well. Others survive because judicial interpretation has rendered their meaning more certain and made them more reliable. Others no doubt owe their continued existence to habit alone. These factors have all contributed to a varied situation. This is not at all uncommon in commerce, where actual or potential disputes can frequently be resolved amicably or with the minimum of fuss. This is no less true in the chartering industry. In the shipping world, however, there are several reasons why inherent difficulties in practice may be exacerbated. Large sums of money are involved. Difficult times in the world economy tend to make the outcome of disputes more important and encourage arbitration and litigation. London’s prominence as the principal international centre for the resolution of such disputes has led to a large number of decisions being reported in the United Kingdom. This is particularly so in the specialist Lloyd’s Law Reports, which have traditionally reported not only decisions on points of legal principle but cases which mainly illustrate the practice in this area. The English lawyer’s traditional adherence to the doctrine of precedent and respect for the authority of decided cases has tended to elevate all such decisions into cases with at least some impact on the legal principles to be applied in subsequent disputes, so requiring their consultation. This tendency has been encouraged by the similar stress placed on the legal aspects of arbitrator’s decisions in order to get them before the courts. If arbitrators’ decisions are systematically reported, matters can to this extent only get worse!

These problems cannot happily be resolved simply by reporting fewer cases. This is unlikely to happen. Indeed, it would run counter to the trend promoted by computer