NYPE 2015 Time Charter Form: Clauses, Off-Hire, Riders

NYPE 2015 is the New York Produce Exchange Time Charter, the standard form time charter party for dry cargo tonnage jointly authored by the Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (ASBA), BIMCO and the Singapore Maritime Foundation, dated 3 June 2015 and released on 14 October 2015 as the successor to NYPE 93. It runs to 57 line-numbered clauses and a vessel description appendix, and it governs hire, delivery and redelivery, off-hire, the speed and consumption warranty, bunkers, cargo claims, liens, war risks, sanctions and arbitration for the bulk carrier, multipurpose and container fleets that fix on it.

What NYPE 2015 is

NYPE 2015 is a time charter party : the owners place a crewed, classed ship at the charterers’ commercial disposal for a period, or for a trip, against hire paid by the day, and keep the master and crew as their own servants for navigation and the technical running of the ship. The charterers direct employment within the trading limits and cargo exclusions, pay for bunkers and voyage costs, and carry the market risk. That split separates the form from the voyage charter party , where the owners perform a named voyage for freight, and from the bareboat charter party , where the charterers take the bare hull and man it themselves. The wider family is set out in the charter parties overview .

The form is used across dry bulk from Handysize to Capesize, and in the multipurpose, heavy-lift and container trades. It is not the tanker form: tankers fix on SHELLTIME 4 . The preamble requires the owners to identify themselves as registered owners, disponent owners or time chartered owners, which matters in the charter chains the dry market runs on.

Trip and period fixtures on one form

A trip time charter and a multi-year period charter use the same printed text. Clause 1 takes either a period or a trip description. Clause 9(a)(ii) offers a bunker pricing option written for trip fixtures, under which the charterers pay for estimated consumption rather than buying the fuel on board. Clause 52 then switches on four period-only sub-clauses where the minimum period exceeds five months. The choice between spot and period employment is a commercial one; the form accommodates both.

Lineage: 1913, 1946, 1981, 1993 and 2015

The form was first published by the New York Produce Exchange in November 1913, amended in 1921, 1931 and 1946, revised by ASBA in 1981 as the Asbatime form, revised jointly by ASBA and BIMCO on 14 September 1993 as NYPE 93, and revised again in 2015 as the sixth edition. NYPE 1946 had 28 clauses and, in the words of the 2015 explanatory notes, “is arguably still the most commonly used version”, fixed with long rider sets. NYPE 93 had 45 clauses. The NYPE 93 and NYPE 1946 forms remain in daily use, and most of the classic off-hire, safe port and performance authorities construed the 1946 text.

The 2015 revision took three years, with drafting seminars in London, Stamford and Singapore. Its stated purpose was to absorb into the printed form the rider clauses that two decades of practice had bolted onto NYPE 93: piracy, slow steaming, hull fouling, sanctions, electronic bills, ISM, ISPS and cargo notification regimes. The result is a form that reflects the regulatory load of a 2015 fixture rather than a 1993 one, which is also why the clause numbers no longer map onto the earlier editions.

Structure: a preamble, 57 clauses and Appendix A

NYPE 2015 is not a box-layout form. It opens with a preamble carrying blanks for the date and place of the fixture, the parties, a short vessel summary and the commercial terms, and continues into 57 line-numbered clauses and Appendix A, the vessel description. The BIMCO two-part box layout, a Part I of numbered boxes feeding a Part II of printed clauses, belongs to BALTIME , GENCON and SUPPLYTIME . A NYPE 2015 fixture is completed by filling the blanks and by the recap, not by a box grid.

The clause order is: 1 Duration and Trip Description, 2 Delivery, 3 Laydays and Cancelling, 4 Redelivery, 5 On/Off-Hire Survey, 6 Owners to Provide, 7 Charterers to Provide, 8 Performance of Voyages, 9 Bunkers, 10 Rate of Hire, 11 Hire Payment, 12 Speed and Consumption, 13 Spaces Available, 14 Supercargo, 15 Sailing Orders and Logs, 16 Cargo Exclusions, 17 Off-Hire, 18 Pollution, 19 Drydocking, 20 Total Loss, 21 Exceptions, 22 Liberties, 23 Liens, 24 Salvage, 25 General Average, 26 Navigation, 27 Cargo Claims, 28 Cargo Handling Gear and Lights, 29 Solid Bulk Cargoes and Dangerous Goods, 30 Hull Fouling, 31 Bills of Lading, 32 Electronic Bills of Lading, 33 Protective Clauses, 34 War Risks, 35 Ice, 36 Requisition, 37 Stevedore Damage, 38 Slow Steaming, 39 Piracy, 40 Taxes, 41 Industrial Action, 42 Stowaways, 43 Smuggling, 44 ISM, 45 ISPS/MTSA, 46 Sanctions, 47 Designated Entities, 48 North American Advance Cargo Notification, 49 US Census Bureau AES, 50 EU Advance Cargo Declaration, 51 Ballast Water Exchange Regulations, 52 Period applicable Clauses, 53 Commissions, 54 Law and Arbitration, 55 Notices, 56 Headings, 57 Singular/Plural.

Clause 1 consolidates what NYPE 93 scattered across Clause 5 (trading limits), Clause 12 (berths) and Clause 18 (sublet). Its trading limits sub-clause 1(b) is a blank, “such lawful trades between safe ports and safe places within the following trading limits”, with no printed reference to the International Navigating Limits . Sub-clause 1(c) requires any anchorage, berth or place to be one where the vessel “can safely enter, lie and depart always afloat”, and 1(d) is an optional NAABSA provision, reintroduced from NYPE 1946 Clause 6, that applies only where places are named and carries a charterers’ indemnity extending to any class-required underwater inspection.

Delivery, cancelling and redelivery: Clauses 2 to 5

Clause 2 splits the delivery obligation into seaworthiness and cargo readiness. On delivery the vessel must be “seaworthy and in every way fit to be employed in the intended service”, with water ballast, power to run all cargo gear at once and a full complement meeting the STCW Convention ; the NYPE 93 phrase “fitted for ordinary cargo service” is gone. Cargo readiness is a separate option, at delivery or at the first loading port. Clause 5 keeps the joint on-hire and off-hire survey , with one change: time lost on the on-hire survey is for the owners and on the off-hire survey for the charterers.

Clause 3 carries the laydays and cancelling machinery, moved forward from NYPE 93 Clause 16. Time on hire does not count before a stated local time, and if the vessel is not delivered by the cancelling time the charterers may cancel “at any time but not later than the day of the Vessel’s notice of delivery”. The 1993 requirement for a written notice of readiness was dropped because Clause 55 now governs the form of every notice: writing, by hand, email, courier or registered mail, deemed given on actual receipt.

Clause 4 is new, split out of NYPE 93 Clause 10. The charterers redeliver in like good order at the agreed place, keep the owners informed of the itinerary, and serve approximate and definite notices in the numbers of days the blanks fix; the form prints no notice ladder. After the first notice, Clause 4(b) permits only such further orders “as are reasonably expected when given to allow redelivery to occur on or before the date notified”. That is a contractual test judged at the moment of the order. The common law test in The Gregos [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 judges the legitimacy of a last voyage order when the voyage is due to begin, so the form and the House of Lords look at different moments, and a claim under an unamended form has to say which test it invokes. The wider law of redelivery and last voyage orders is treated separately.

Hire, payment and withdrawal: Clauses 10 and 11

Clause 10 fixes hire “at the rate of ___ per day or pro rata for any part of a day”, in a currency the parties must state, because, as the explanatory notes record, “previous editions of NYPE … applied United States dollars by default”. The same clause absorbs hold cleaning and the communications, victualing and entertainment lump sum, payable “per thirty (30) days or pro rata”. Intermediate hold cleaning under Clause 10(b) is at a rate per hold, with cleaning agents supplied by the charterers, accompanied by a statement under IMO resolution MEPC.219(63) on MARPOL Annex V , and with residue disposal at the charterers’ time and cost. Hold cleanliness disputes at redelivery therefore have a printed home.

Clause 11(a) requires hire “in funds available to the Owners on the due date, fifteen (15) days in advance”, first payment on delivery, and for the last fifteen days or part of them the approximate amount. NYPE 93 said “for the last month or part of same”. The hire statement mechanics that sit under that sentence, and the deductions and equitable set-off a charterer may run against it, are the everyday post-fixture work of the form.

The three Banking Days and the end of the anti-technicality label

On any failure to make punctual payment, Clause 11(b) has the owners give “three (3) Banking Days (as recognized at the agreed place of payment) written notice to rectify”. A payment made within the three days “shall stand as punctual”. Two things changed from 1993. The grace period is fixed at three Banking Days rather than left blank, and the qualification limiting it to failures caused by “oversight, negligence, errors or omissions” is removed, so every late payment is a breach and every late payment gets the notice. The explanatory notes say plainly that it “is no longer an ‘anti-technicality’ provision”, though the market still calls it one; the anti-technicality notice and the law of withdrawal for non-payment of hire are treated separately.

Clause 11(c) then gives the owners, on failure to pay within the three Banking Days, the right “(i) to withdraw the Vessel … (ii) to damages, if they withdraw the Vessel, for the loss of the remainder of the Charter Party”. That is the drafting answer to Spar Shipping v Grand China [2016] EWCA Civ 982, in which the Court of Appeal held that punctual payment under NYPE 93 is an innominate term, not a condition, so withdrawal alone does not carry loss-of-bargain damages. NYPE 2015 does not make payment a condition; it grants the damages by contract. Clause 11(d) separately lets the owners suspend performance at any time while hire is outstanding, with hire accruing and the charterers indemnifying, and the suspension right is not subject to the grace period. NYPE 93 allowed suspension only after the grace period had run.

Clause 11(e) has the charterers estimate the time to complete the last voyage and pay hire for it, replacing the 1993 “agreement to agree”, and, unless Clause 9(a)(ii) or (iii) applies, lets them deduct the value of redelivery bunkers from the last sufficient hire payment, with the balance settled within five Banking Days. The NYPE 93 cash advances sub-clause, with its 2.5 percent commission, did not survive.

Off-hire: Clause 17 and net loss of time

Off-hire is Clause 17 in NYPE 2015 and NYPE 93, and Clause 15 in NYPE 1946. The 2015 clause reads, in full:

In the event of loss of time from deficiency and/or default and/or strike of officers or ratings, or deficiency of stores, fire, breakdown of, or damage to hull, machinery or equipment, grounding, detention by the arrest of the Vessel, (unless such arrest is caused by events for which the Charterers, their sub-charterers, servants, agents or sub-contractors are responsible), or detention by Port State control or other competent authority for Vessel deficiencies, or detention by average accidents to the Vessel or cargo, unless resulting from inherent vice, quality or defect of the cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination, cleaning and/or painting of underwater parts and/or repair, or by any other similar cause preventing the full working of the Vessel, the payment of hire and overtime, if any, shall cease for the time thereby lost.

The operative words are “for the time thereby lost”. The clause is a net-loss-of-time clause: the charterers must prove that the full working of the vessel was prevented and that time was lost to the service immediately required of her, not merely that an event of a listed kind lasted for a period. The contrast is a period clause, under which the ship is off hire for the duration of the event once it starts. BALTIME Clause 11(A) is routinely given as that contrast and does not supply it: it provides that no hire is paid “in respect of any time lost thereby during the period in which the Vessel is unable to perform the service immediately required”, which is the same net measure, gated on the event hindering or preventing the working of the vessel for more than twenty-four consecutive hours. The clearest surviving period wording is the restoration end point in SHELLTIME 4 Clause 21. The Court of Appeal confirmed the net-loss construction of the NYPE wording in The Athena [2013] EWCA Civ 1723, and the burden of proof sits on the charterers, a line that runs from Hogarth v Miller [1891] AC 48 through The Mareva AS [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368. The deduction itself is arithmetic:

Four things changed in 2015. The arrest exception now names “sub-charterers”, so an arrest caused by a sub-charterer’s dispute keeps the ship on hire against the head charterers. Detention by Port State Control “for Vessel deficiencies” is an express off-hire event. Drydocking for cleaning, painting and repair is expressly listed, where 1993 said “examination or painting bottom”. And a final sentence puts bunkers consumed while off hire, and the cost of replacing them, to the owners’ account, so that the allocation works with the Clause 9(a) bunker options. Drydocking itself is otherwise prohibited by Clause 19 except in an emergency or under the Clause 52(b) period option; the clause contains no notice or approval machinery.

“Any other similar cause”: which edition the cases construed

NYPE 2015 and NYPE 93 read “any other similar cause”. Only NYPE 1946 Clause 15 reads “any other cause”, and “whatsoever” appears in no printed NYPE edition; it is a rider word. The distinction decides which authorities apply to which fixture.

Under the 1946 words, The Laconian Confidence [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 139 held that a detention of nearly 18 days at Chittagong over 15.75 tonnes of residue sweepings did not put the ship off hire: the sweep-up words are read ejusdem generis with the listed causes, all of which concern the physical condition or efficiency of the ship or crew, so an extraneous bureaucratic interference falls outside them, and the vessel remained on hire. Rix J’s observation that “whatsoever” would widen the clause was obiter. Piracy followed the same path: in The Saldanha [2010] EWHC 1340 (Comm), a vessel seized off Somalia from 22 February to 25 April 2009 under an amended 1946 clause was not off hire, because seizure is not an average accident, a refusal by the crew is not a “default of men”, and piracy is outside “any other cause” without “whatsoever”. Where a rider names capture and seizure, as in The Captain Stefanos [2012] EWHC 571 (Comm), the ship goes off hire for the seizure.

NYPE 2015 writes the ejusdem generis limit into the form with “similar”, and then lists arrest and PSC detention expressly so that the two commonest extraneous detentions no longer depend on the sweep-up words at all. It also answers piracy by drafting: Clause 39(f), taken from the BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013, keeps the vessel on hire throughout a seizure “except that hire payments shall cease as of the ninety-first (91st) day after the seizure until release”, with the charterers paying for time spent making good damage and not liable for late redelivery caused by the seizure. The arrest proviso still carries the question the Supreme Court answered in The Global Santosh [2016] UKSC 20: whether there is a nexus between the occasion for the arrest and a function delegated under the time charter. There, on an Asbatime form, the arrest arose from a sale-contract demurrage dispute that was no part of the charterers’ delegated functions, so the proviso was not engaged. Adding “sub-charterers” to the 2015 words does not remove that nexus test.

Clause 41 makes time lost through strikes or boycotts arising from the vessel’s ownership, crew or crew terms off-hire, and Clause 43 puts the vessel off hire for smuggling by the master, officers or ratings. The downstream accounting of all of these runs through off-hire and performance claims .

Speed and consumption: Clause 12

Clause 12 is new to the 2015 form. Its opening words are the change that matters: “Upon delivery and throughout the duration of this Charter Party the Vessel shall be capable of speed and daily consumption rates as stated in Appendix A in good weather on all sea passages with wind up to and including Force four (4) as per the Beaufort Scale and sea state up to and including Sea State three (3) as per the Douglas Sea Scale (unless otherwise specified in Appendix A).” Earlier NYPE editions carried the capability warranty in the preamble, where it applied only on delivery. The 2015 warranty is continuing, so underperformance in month eleven of a twelve-month period is a breach, and the speed and consumption warranty becomes the most valuable line in Appendix A.

The printed clause contains no “about”. Any about margin comes from how Appendix A is completed, and the half-knot allowance London arbitrators conventionally apply is arbitral practice under The Al Bida, not a term of the form. The printed clause also says nothing about adverse current; a no-adverse-current condition exists only where Appendix A or a rider writes it in. The good weather definition is therefore Beaufort 4 and Douglas 3 unless the parties change it. Excluded from any performance calculation are deliberate speed reductions on the charterers’ orders, unless slow steaming or eco speed warranties are given in Appendix A, and reductions for safety, in narrow or restricted waters, when assisting a vessel in distress, or when saving life or property.

Weather routing, the documented claim and the binding expert

Clause 12(b) lets the charterers use their preferred weather routing service ; the master must comply with its reporting procedure and follow its routing recommendations “provided that the safety of the Vessel and/or cargo is not compromised”. The explanatory notes describe this as consistent with The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 AC 638, where the House of Lords held that the choice of ocean route is an employment matter for the charterers rather than a navigational one for the master. Clause 12(c) makes the actual route the basis of the calculation.

A claim under Clause 12(d) is “a documented claim limited to the estimated time lost and/or the additional fuel consumed, supported by a performance analysis from the weather routing service”, and “the cost of any time lost shall be off-set against the cost of any fuel saved and vice versa”. That offset is the two-way over-performance credit written into the form. If the owners contest the claim, Clause 12(e) has them produce the deck logs and refers the matter by mutual agreement to an independent expert or alternative weather service “whose determination shall be final and binding”, with the cost shared equally. Only where no referee can be agreed does the dispute reach arbitration.

Two neighbouring clauses adjust the warranty. Clause 30 suspends the speed and consumption warranties where, on the charterers’ orders, the vessel stays at a place, anchorage or berth for an aggregated period exceeding the agreed periods in or outside the Tropical and Seasonal Tropical Zones, pending an underwater inspection, with a default of 15 days where none is agreed; the printed text predates the BIMCO Hull Fouling Clause 2019 , and hull fouling claims turn on which text applies. Clause 38, based on the BIMCO Slow Steaming Clause for Time Charter Parties 2011 , lets the charterers order reduced speed or a specified arrival time within the engine maker’s limits, and Clause 8’s due despatch obligation is made subject to it, so a slow steaming order is not a breach.

Bunkers: Clause 9, ISO 8217:2012 and off-spec fuel

Clause 9 runs to seven headed parts over about two and a half pages. Sub-clause 9(a) offers three pricing alternatives. Under 9(a)(i), the default if nothing is deleted, the charterers take over and pay for bunkers on delivery and the owners for bunkers on redelivery or any termination. Under 9(a)(ii), aimed at trip charters, the charterers do not buy the fuel on board but pay for estimated consumption at an agreed daily rate and price, trued up at redelivery. Under 9(a)(iii) the charterers redeliver about the same quantities and grades and the difference is settled at the net contract price. The quantity and price accounting is treated under bunkers on delivery and redelivery .

Sampling is fixed by 9(c)(ii): the primary sample is drawn in accordance with IMO resolution MEPC.182(59), the 2009 Guidelines for the sampling of fuel oil for determination of compliance with the revised MARPOL Annex VI , and split into no fewer than five samples, one retained on board as the MARPOL sample alongside the bunker delivery note . Quality is fixed by 9(d)(i): fuel “of a stable and homogeneous nature and suitable for burning” that complies with “ISO standard 8217:2012 or any subsequent amendments thereof”, failing which the latest ISO 8217 edition available at the bunkering port. Those carry-forward words take a fixture into ISO 8217:2024 without a rider, and the bunker quality regime under the newer edition applies to a NYPE 2015 stem made today.

Liability for off-spec bunkers sits with the charterers under 9(d)(ii), “including the off-loading of unsuitable fuels and the supply of fresh fuels”, and the owners are not liable for reduced speed or increased consumption directly attributable to unsuitable fuel, which closes the door on a Clause 12 claim built on the charterers’ own stem. Sub-clause 9(f) deals with trading inside an emission control area , where the Reg.14 sulfur limit is 0.10 percent m/m against 0.50 percent globally.

Master, employment and the indemnity: Clause 8

Clause 8 (Performance of Voyages) is the NYPE employment clause. “Subject to Clause 38 (Slow Steaming) the Master shall perform the voyages with due despatch … shall be under the orders and directions of the Charterers as regards employment and agency; and the Charterers shall perform all cargo handling, including but not limited to loading, stowing, trimming, lashing, securing, dunnaging, unlashing, discharging, and tallying, at their risk and expense, under the supervision of the Master.” The master keeps navigation and safety; the charterers direct employment. The hinge between the two is the employment and indemnity principle: because the master acts on the charterers’ commercial orders, the charterers indemnify the owners against the consequences of compliance, classically the consequences of signing bills of lading as presented. The Supreme Court in The Kos [2012] UKSC 17 applied that indemnity to the owners’ costs of caring for cargo after a withdrawal, on a SHELLTIME 3 form.

Clause 8 is also the clause the Inter-Club Agreement reads. Where the words “and responsibility” are added after “supervision of the Master”, or the charter otherwise makes the master responsible for cargo handling, the ICA’s 100 percent charterers’ allocation for cargo handling claims becomes 50/50. Clause 26 (Navigation) confirms there is no demise and that the owners remain responsible for navigation, pilots, tugs, insurance and crew, which the notes say does not extend to cargo claims; those are Clause 27.

Trading limits, safe ports and cargo exclusions: Clauses 1, 16 and 29

The charterers may trade the vessel only in lawful trades “between safe ports and safe places” within the limits the Clause 1(b) blank fixes. The safe port warranty carries the definition from The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127: a port is safe if, in the relevant period, the particular ship can reach, use and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship. The Supreme Court in The Ocean Victory [2017] UKSC 35 held that the coincidence of long waves and gale-force winds at Kashima on 24 October 2006 was an abnormal occurrence, so the charterers were not in breach. The House of Lords in The Evia (No 2) [1983] 1 AC 736, on a BALTIME form, judged prospective safety at the time of nomination and treated the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war as an abnormal occurrence, while recognizing a secondary duty to re-nominate where a port becomes unsafe after nomination and the vessel can still leave.

Clause 16 carries the cargo exclusions from NYPE 93 Clause 4(a): livestock, explosives, radioactive materials and the others listed, with a blank for additions. Clause 29 replaces NYPE 93 Clause 4(b) with a solid bulk cargoes and dangerous goods regime: the charterers give advance cargo information under the IMSBC Code with a cargo declaration, which the notes tie to cargoes prone to liquefaction , and dangerous goods are carried under the IMDG Code . Clause 35 carries the ice clause , and Clause 36 lets either party cancel if a requisition exceeds ninety days.

Stevedore damage: Clause 37

Stevedores work under the charterers’ employment, and Clause 37 makes the charterers pay for “any and all damage to the Vessel caused by stevedores provided the Master has notified the Charterers and/or their agents in writing within twenty-four (24) hours of the occurrence but in case of hidden damage latest when the damage could have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence”. The notice must describe the damage and invite the charterers to appoint a surveyor. NYPE 93 Clause 35 allowed notice “as soon as practical but not later than 48 hours after any damage is discovered” and required the charterers to repair immediately any damage affecting seaworthiness, crew safety or trading capability with the vessel on hire; the 2015 clause runs from occurrence rather than discovery, and halves the time. Late notice is the way an owner loses an otherwise good stevedore damage claim.

Cargo claims: Clause 27 and the Inter-Club Agreement

Clause 27 reads: “Cargo claims as between the Owners and the Charterers shall be settled in accordance with the Inter-Club NYPE Agreement 1996 (as amended 1 September 2011), or any subsequent modification or replacement thereof.” NYPE 93 Clause 27 incorporated the February 1970 Agreement as amended May 1984 with the same carry-forward words. The ICA is an agreement between the clubs of the International Group , and it apportions a cargo claim by category rather than by fault: claims arising from unseaworthiness or from error in the navigation or management of the vessel fall 100 percent on owners; claims arising from loading, stowage, lashing, discharge, storage or other handling fall 100 percent on charterers, reduced to 50/50 where “and responsibility” is added to Clause 8; shortage or overcarriage, and all other claims, split 50/50, in each case unless clear evidence shows the loss was caused by one party’s act or neglect.

The current text is the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 2011, as amended with effect from 14 July 2025 for charter parties entered into on or after that date. The 2025 amendment did not touch the percentages; it clarified that a claim is “settled” for recovery purposes when adjudicated as well as when compromised. Because Clause 27 already reaches “any subsequent modification”, a NYPE 2015 fixture picks the amendment up without redrafting. The ICA’s own time bar runs from the date of delivery or the date the cargo should have been delivered, and it has nothing to do with off-hire; “Inter-Club Agreement off-hire” is a conflation of two regimes.

Liens, bills of lading and letters of indemnity: Clauses 23, 31 and 32

Clause 23 gives the owners “a lien upon all cargoes, sub-hires and sub-freights (including deadfreight and demurrage) belonging or due to the Charterers or any sub-charterers, for any amounts due under this Charter Party, including general average contributions”, and the charterers a lien on the vessel for hire paid and not earned. NYPE 93 said only “sub-freights”, which could be read as voyage freight alone. The lien on cargo and sub-freights is exercised by interception, a notice to the party who owes the money, not by possession, and it is a different creature from the maritime lien that survives a change of ownership. The second paragraph of Clause 23 is the charterers’ undertaking not to procure supplies on the owners’ credit.

Clause 31 has the master sign bills of lading as presented, in conformity with mates’ receipts, and permits the charterers or their agents to sign on the master’s behalf with prior written authority. Clause 32 lets the charterers opt for electronic bills of lading : the owners subscribe to a system approved by the International Group, the fees are for the charterers, and the charterers hold the owners harmless for additional liability the system creates other than through the owners’ negligence. Where a charterparty bill is issued, the cargo liability it creates toward the holder is allocated back between owners and charterers through the ICA, not through the bill. Where the originals are not at the discharge port, delivery is made against a letter of indemnity on the International Group wordings.

General average, salvage and the protective clauses: Clauses 24, 25 and 33

Clause 25 reads: “General average shall be adjusted according to York-Antwerp Rules 1994 and settled in US dollars in the same place as stipulated in Clause 54 (Law and Arbitration).” The charterers must procure that every bill of lading issued during the charter provides for adjustment under YAR 1994 and includes the New Jason Clause, and time charter hire does not contribute to general average . The clause has no “or any subsequent modification” words, so the York-Antwerp Rules 2016 do not apply to an unamended NYPE 2015 fixture. The Star Antares [2023] EWHC 2784 (Comm), decided on 10 November 2023, construed the Congenbill 1994 words “York-Antwerp Rules 1994 or any subsequent modification thereof” as reaching YAR 2016; that reasoning bites on the bills, not on Clause 25. NYPE 93 Clause 25 named the 1974 Rules as amended 1990 or any subsequent modification.

Clause 33 carries three protective clauses that apply to the charter party as well as to the bills: (a) a General Clause Paramount applying the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules as applicable, or other similar mandatory legislation, and, new in 2015, the Hague Rules where no enactment applies mandatorily; (b) the Both-to-Blame Collision Clause , needed because the United States has signed but not ratified the 1910 Brussels Collision Convention; and (c) the New Jason Clause , preserving the carrier’s general average contribution from cargo where the casualty arose from a fault for which the carrier is exempt. Clause 24 leaves salvage and derelicts for the equal benefit of owners and charterers after deducting both parties’ expenses and the crew’s proportion.

War risks, piracy, sanctions and security: Clauses 34, 39, 45, 46 and 47

Clause 34 is headed “BIMCO War Risks Clause CONWARTIME 2013”. The 2013 text was redrafted after The Triton Lark so that the test is whether an area “is dangerous” rather than “may be” or is “likely to be” exposed to war risks, and its piracy definition was aligned with the piracy clause to include violent robbery and capture or seizure. BIMCO adopted CONWARTIME 2025 on 9 April 2025 and archived the 2013 edition, so a fixture concluded today needs a rider saying which edition applies. Additional war risks insurance premiums for entering a listed area fall on the charterers under the clause.

Clause 39, from the BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013 , lets the owners refuse an area which “in the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, is dangerous” through acts of piracy , violent robbery or capture, and, as set out under off-hire above, keeps the ship on hire for the first 90 days of a seizure.

Sanctions are printed, not bolted on. Clause 46(a) provides that the owners “shall not be obliged to comply with any orders for the employment of the Vessel in any carriage, trade or on a voyage which, in the reasonable judgement of the Owners, will expose the Vessel, Owners, managers, crew, the Vessel’s insurers, or their re-insurers, to any sanction or prohibition imposed by any State, Supranational or International Governmental Organization”. Where sanctions bite mid-employment, 46(b) requires the charterers to give alternative orders within forty-eight hours, failing which the owners may discharge at any safe port including the load port, with the vessel on hire and no deviation. Clause 47 (Designated Entities) applies to sanctions on named persons, entities, vessels or fleets under United Nations resolutions or EU or US law. Both clauses derive from the BIMCO Sanctions Clause for Time Charter Parties 2010 and the Designated Entities Clause for Charter Parties 2013, which the BIMCO Sanctions Clause for Time Charter Parties 2020 , published 19 December 2019, combined and replaced; fixtures commonly delete 46 and 47 and insert the 2020 clause. The BIMCO Designated Entities Clause 2013 survives only as the printed Clause 47.

Clause 44 has the owners procure that the vessel and “the Company” comply with the ISM Code , with the Document of Compliance and Safety Management Certificate available on request. Clause 45 requires compliance with the ISPS Code and SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and, for US trading, the Maritime Transportation Security Act 2002; 45(c) puts port facility security costs, guards, launches, escorts, fees and inspections, on the charterers unless caused solely by the owners’ negligence, the vessel’s previous trading, the crew’s nationality or visas, the flag or the managers’ identity, and leaves Ship Security Plan measures with the owners. Cyber risk has no printed clause: the BIMCO Cyber Security Clause 2019 is a rider, and the operational side is maritime cyber security .

Law and arbitration: Clause 54

Clause 54 offers four alternatives and states that “if no alternative agreed and clearly indicated then Sub-clause (a) shall apply by default”. Sub-clause (a) is New York: United States maritime law, three arbitrators, one appointed by each party and the third by the two, under the rules of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators “current at the time this Charter Party was entered into”, with a sole arbitrator under the SMA Shortened Arbitration Procedure where neither claim nor counterclaim exceeds USD 100,000. Sub-clause (b) is London: English law, the Arbitration Act 1996, the LMAA Terms current when the arbitration is commenced, three arbitrators with the 14-calendar-day mechanism under which a party that fails to appoint faces the other party’s arbitrator sitting alone, and the LMAA Small Claims Procedure where neither claim nor counterclaim exceeds USD 100,000. Sub-clause (c) is Singapore: Singapore or English law, English by default where neither or both are indicated, the International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A), the SCMA Rules current when commenced, three arbitrators, and a single arbitrator under the SCMA Small Claims Procedure where neither claim nor counterclaim exceeds USD 150,000. Sub-clause (d) leaves law and seat to mutual agreement.

The default is the point practitioners most often get backwards. An unamended NYPE 2015 goes to New York under United States maritime law; London and the LMAA are elections. NYPE 93 Clause 45 offered New York or London with an instruction to delete one and no default, and its London wording still had two Baltic Exchange arbitrators with power to appoint an umpire. The current procedural rules behind Clause 54 are the SMA Maritime Arbitration Rules as amended 1 October 2024, the LMAA Terms 2021 with the Small Claims Procedure at USD 100,000 and the Intermediate Claims Procedure between USD 100,000 and USD 400,000, and the SCMA Rules 4th Edition for arbitrations commenced on or after 1 January 2022, which replaced the Small Claims Procedure with an Expedited Procedure at USD 300,000, so the printed Singapore figure and the current rules diverge. The Arbitration Act 1996 is amended by the Arbitration Act 2025, in force 1 August 2025. The four seats are compared in maritime arbitration: LMAA, SMA, SCMA and HKMAG , and awards from all of them enforce under the New York Convention 1958 .

NYPE 93 compared with NYPE 2015

The table is a Shipping-Wiki.com construction read off the two forms and the 2015 explanatory notes.

The direction of travel is toward the owners on hire default and liens, toward the charterers on the continuing performance warranty and the bunker liability regime, and toward both on the certainty of printed rather than rider text.

NYPE 2015 against the other time charter forms

BALTIME 1939 as revised 2001 is the BIMCO box-layout time charter with a net-loss-of-time off-hire clause at 11(A), gated on twenty-four consecutive hours, and an owner-friendly liability allocation; it is the form The Evia (No 2) was decided on. SHELLTIME 4 is the tanker form, with its own off-hire and performance regime and an owner-side lien structure. SUPPLYTIME 2017 is the offshore form built on a knock-for-knock indemnity that has no counterpart in NYPE. ASBATANKVOY is ASBA’s voyage form for tankers and sits in the other family altogether. The NYPE line stands apart in being narrative rather than boxed, in its net-loss-of-time off-hire wording, and in the American default seat.

The rider stack: decarbonization, sanctions and cyber

A NYPE 2015 fixed today carries riders the 2015 form never contemplated, because the regulator holds the owners responsible for emissions while the charterers control the fuel and the voyage, and the cost has to be passed through by contract. The BIMCO time charter riders in current use are the EEXI Transition Clause for Time Charter Parties 2021 , which governs the fitting of an engine or shaft power limit to meet the EEXI requirement on a ship already on charter; the CII Operations Clause for Time Charter Parties 2022 , adopted 17 November 2022, which shares responsibility for the operational carbon intensity indicator ; the ETS Allowances Clause for Time Charter Parties 2022 , which passes the cost of EU ETS allowances to the charterers as the fuel payer; and the FuelEU Maritime Clause for Time Charter Parties 2024 , adopted 25 November 2024, which allocates the compliance balance under FuelEU Maritime from 1 January 2025. There is no “NYPE 2015 CII clause”: the form predates the CII regime introduced by MEPC.328(76) in 2021.

Alongside them sit the Sanctions Clause for Time Charter Parties 2020, which replaces printed Clauses 46 and 47; CONWARTIME 2025, which replaces Clause 34; the Cyber Security Clause 2019; the Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties 2022; and the Hull Fouling Clause for Time Charter Parties 2019, which parties may substitute for Clause 30. The IMO Net-Zero Framework has no rider yet and needs none: its adoption was adjourned at the extraordinary MEPC session in October 2025, and a charter fixed for delivery into the late 2020s has no adopted instrument to allocate.

Statutory backdrop

NYPE 2015 is a private contract, but it cross-refers to the conventions the vessel must hold certificates under. Clause 44 names the ISM Code and Clause 45 the ISPS Code and SOLAS Chapter XI-2. Clause 9 names MARPOL Annex VI through MEPC.182(59) and ISO 8217:2012, and Clause 10(b) names MARPOL Annex V through MEPC.219(63). Clause 2 names STCW. Clause 51 deals with coastal-state ballast water exchange orders, which is distinct from the Ballast Water Management Convention regime the vessel must meet regardless. Clauses 48 to 50 carry the North American advance cargo notification regime under 19 CFR 4.7 and CBSA Memorandum D3-5-2, the US Census Bureau Automated Export System, and the BIMCO EU Advance Cargo Declaration Clause for Time Charter Parties 2012, with the charterers as the filing carrier. A lapse in a statutory certificate that stops the ship working is both a breach of Clause 2 and, where it produces a PSC detention for vessel deficiencies, an express Clause 17 off-hire event.

Common drafting and citation errors

Six mistakes recur. Treating Clause 17 as a period clause, when it is net loss of time and the charterers must prove time actually lost. Quoting “any other cause whatsoever” as the NYPE 2015 wording, when the printed words are “any other similar cause” and “whatsoever” is a rider word applied to the 1946 text. Attaching York-Antwerp Rules 2016 to the form, when Clause 25 names YAR 1994 with no carry-forward words. Assuming London and the LMAA by default, when the unamended Clause 54 goes to New York under United States maritime law. Describing NYPE 2015 as a box-layout form or as having “about 57” clauses, when it is a narrative form with exactly 57. And writing that the form predates the BIMCO sanctions clauses, when Clauses 46 and 47 are printed sanctions and designated-entities clauses and only the cyber and decarbonization wordings are riders. Reading the recap and the attached riders against the form in hand avoids all six.

Limitations

This article states the structure and the English-law and United States-law construction of the printed NYPE 2015 form as read against the form text and the ASBA, BIMCO and Singapore Maritime Foundation explanatory notes. It is not legal advice, and any fixture turns on the recap, the riders and the law elected. The clause numbers given are those of the unamended 2015 form; a heavily amended fixture may renumber or override any of them. The BIMCO rider clauses described carry their own publication dates and revisions, and their default allocations are frequently varied. The Clause 54 small claims figures are contractual thresholds that the arbitral institutions’ current rules have moved past in Singapore’s case, and the interaction between the printed figure and the “current at the time” wording is a drafting point rather than a settled one. Case law moves: the off-hire and safe port authorities cited are the current frame under English law, and a New York tribunal applying United States maritime law is not bound by them. Market figures on how often each Clause 54 seat is elected, on redelivery notice ladders and on typical “about” margins are deliberately not stated, because no primary source publishes them.

Related Articles

• Time charter party
• NYPE 93 and NYPE 1946
• Voyage charter party
• Bareboat charter party
• Off-hire and performance claims
• Charter party speed and consumption warranties
• Inter-Club Agreement
• Withdrawal of the vessel for non-payment of hire
• Redelivery and last voyage orders
• Safe port and safe berth warranties
• General average and the York-Antwerp Rules
• Maritime arbitration: LMAA, SMA, SCMA and HKMAG
• BIMCO CII clauses
• Laytime
• Demurrage