Laytime review: separate allowances or one pool?

Key takeaways

• Identify the agreed relationship between loading and discharge allowances.
• Do not assume that unused time at one operation offsets excess elsewhere.
• Review the counted-time inputs independently of the allowance structure.
• Keep alternative calculation methods clearly labelled as assumptions.
• Separate unused time and excess time from any final monetary entitlement.

Determine the structure before checking the total

BIMCO's voyage-charter workshop programme includes reversible and fixed laytime among its review topics. The actual agreement determines which arrangement applies. Check the current text and seek appropriate advice where the relationship between allowances is unclear.

The account reviewer should locate the provisions addressing the relevant operations and any agreed options or qualifications. A spreadsheet's combined total is not evidence that pooling was agreed. Nor does the existence of separate operational tabs prove that the contract requires separate treatment.

Start with a plain-language description of the proposed method. Is each operation being compared with its own allowance, or is a combined allowance being compared with combined counted time? If the preparer cannot answer that question clearly, the final number is not ready for commercial reliance.

The distinction is important because the same operational performance can produce different balances under different assumed bargains. The review must therefore confirm the method before judging whether the arithmetic is correct.

Verify each operation before combining anything

A combined account still needs reliable inputs from each relevant operation. Confirm the allowance basis and counted-time analysis separately before carrying their results into an overall comparison. Pooling unsupported inputs does not make them more reliable.

Check that the operations included match the contractual scope being analysed. If the account covers additional ports or activities, the reviewer needs to know why they belong in the same comparison. A convenient workbook structure should not determine the scope of the bargain.

Preserve unresolved issues at their source. A disputed discharge interruption should remain visible even if the loading account is settled. A combined summary that hides the dispute may mislead the principal about the certainty of the final position.

Also distinguish elapsed time from counted time. The worked comparison below assumes counted time has already been established. In a live account, commencement, interruptions and completion require their own evidence and contractual review before those values can be used.

Worked fictional comparison of different assumptions

This ILLUSTRATIVE example uses a loading allowance of 24 hours and a discharge allowance of 36 hours. Assume reviewed counted time of 30 hours for loading and 28 hours for discharge. The methods below are alternative assumed bargains, not a choice the preparer may make for convenience.

Under the separate assumption, the loading excess and discharge unused time remain distinct results. They are not automatically netted. Under the expressly assumed pooled method, the combined counted time is below the combined allowance. Neither unused balance establishes a despatch payment, and the excess figure alone does not establish demurrage entitlement.

The example shows why reviewing only the grand total can miss a substantive method issue. The event inputs have not changed; the relationship between the allowances has. The actual contract must supply that relationship.

Route an unclear pooling assumption for decision

The routing should produce a clear method instruction for the account preparer. Avoid a broad “check laytime” request that leaves the central structure unanswered. The reviewer should identify the actual ambiguity and the relevant document package.

If the issue remains unresolved, an internal comparison of alternatives may help the principal understand its significance. Label the alternatives and their assumptions. Do not circulate one as the agreed account merely because it produces the preferred commercial outcome.

Review monetary treatment as a separate layer

An unused-time balance does not, by itself, tell the reviewer whether any payment is due. A separate arrangement may govern despatch, its basis and its application. Similarly, excess time must be considered with the actual provisions governing the claimed financial consequence.

Do not use a single money formula to conceal these questions. The allowance structure, counted-time result, applicable rate and payment basis need to be identifiable. An apparently elegant net figure can hide an unsupported assumption about offsetting distinct positions.

Where the parties negotiate a commercial settlement, distinguish that agreement from the underlying contractual calculation. They may choose a practical net outcome without agreeing that the original charter required that exact method. Record the settlement's actual scope with appropriate review.

This separation helps future reviewers understand whether a result comes from the original bargain, an adopted interpretation or a later compromise. Those origins can matter when similar questions arise under another fixture.

Approve the account against the adopted method

The final reviewer should reproduce the structure from the stated inputs. Confirm that the worksheet compares the intended quantities and does not mix separate and pooled treatment at different stages. Check the summary as well as the detailed tabs.

A common inconsistency is to show separate excess and unused balances in the detail but silently offset them in the cover email. Another is to calculate a combined balance while describing the result as though it came from independent port accounts. The narrative and arithmetic should reflect the same adopted method.

The approval note should identify any unresolved factual or interpretive issue. If the account is provisional, state what could change it. If the method has been agreed, preserve the evidence of that agreement without extending it to unrelated questions.

A useful review leaves the principal able to explain why the operations are treated separately or together. That explanation is more important than the visual neatness of the total.

Common mistakes

The principal mistake is pooling allowances because the spreadsheet makes it convenient. Another is assuming that unused time creates an automatic credit against another operation's excess. Establish the agreed method and payment treatment.

Avoid hiding a disputed input inside a combined balance. Do not confuse separate worksheets with separate contractual allowances. Finally, reconcile the account's narrative with its formulas so the recipient understands which method produced the result and which issues remain open.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.

Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.

Explore Zeaclub

Explore Zeaclub