Statement of facts: build an evidence trail

Overview

The objective is not to produce a document that appears to settle every disagreement. It is to preserve a chronology that the relevant commercial and legal reviewers can examine without reconstructing the voyage from scattered messages.

Key takeaways

• Record events with a clear time basis and source.
• Separate factual descriptions from decisions about whether time counts.
• Preserve qualifications and conflicting accounts.
• Make corrections traceable instead of overwriting history.

Define the event before assigning a consequence

A stoppage description should explain the reported event. Replacing it with a conclusion such as “charterer's responsibility” may obscure the evidence needed to assess that conclusion. Record the observation and its source, then keep the proposed contractual treatment in a separate review layer.

This separation does not prevent a party from recording its position. It makes clear which part is an observation and which part is an argument about the agreement. Both may be relevant, but they should not be merged into an apparently neutral event description.

In a fictional loading file, a terminal message says equipment was available while the vessel log says cargo work had not resumed. Preserve both descriptions: they concern different observations. The first review question is what each recorder actually saw, rather than which timestamp produces a preferred total.

Establish the clock used by the record

Every timestamp needs an understandable basis. Messages can arrive from different locations, and the timestamp shown by an email application may not be the time of the event described inside it. Preserve both where that distinction matters.

State the time convention used in the event chronology and retain the original source. If times are converted for a working sheet, identify that transformation. Avoid silently mixing local and universal time or assuming that every source already follows the same convention.

For an event that spans a date change, record both dates clearly. A short entry containing only start and finish times can leave the duration ambiguous. The goal is reproducibility, not unnecessary precision unsupported by the source.

Build a source hierarchy for the task

Identify which records are available and what each can actually show. Vessel logs, terminal reports, agent messages and survey material may describe different aspects of the call. Their existence does not mean that every account is complete or mutually consistent.

Do not establish a universal rule that one source always wins. Instead, record the source's relationship to the event and refer discrepancies for review. An agent may relay a terminal estimate, while a vessel report records an observed occurrence. Those statements should not be treated as interchangeable observations.

Where a source is missing, mark the gap. A blank interval is a question to investigate, not permission to invent a plausible sequence. The reviewer should know whether the chronology relies on contemporaneous records or later recollection.

Use an event-evidence worksheet

The following original worksheet structure makes a chronology auditable without deciding the contractual effect of any interval.

Link the worksheet to the actual documents. Copying a reference number without ensuring that the receiving team can access the record creates an appearance of evidence without a usable trail.

A fictional conflicting-time case

Suppose an agent's message states that cargo work resumed, while the vessel record gives a later time for the relevant operation. The difference might concern the meaning of “resumed,” the activity being described or the source's observation time.

Do not automatically select whichever timestamp favours a commercial position. Preserve both accounts, identify the activity each refers to and request clarification from the appropriate parties. The working chronology can show a disputed interval while the review continues.

Once clarification arrives, link it to the original entries and explain any correction. If the discrepancy remains unresolved, the claim or laytime reviewer should receive it explicitly rather than discovering it after relying on a single unqualified total.

Keep arithmetic separate from interpretation

A spreadsheet can calculate the duration between two timestamps. It cannot establish whether the selected timestamps are factually correct or whether the interval counts under the charter. These are separate review steps.

For each interval used in a later calculation, retain its event reference and the reason for the proposed treatment. If a contractual interpretation changes, the reviewer can revise the treatment without altering the underlying chronology.

This structure also helps explain disagreements. Parties may agree about the event and disagree about its contractual consequence, or disagree about the event itself. Combining both disputes into one unexplained adjustment makes resolution harder.

Correct the record through a visible process

Errors happen: a date may be mistyped, an event omitted or a description shortened too far. A controlled correction identifies the original entry, the replacement and the supporting basis. It should also show who proposed or confirmed the change.

Do not erase an objection simply to produce a cleaner document. Follow the authorised process for recording the parties' positions. Questions about signatures, reservations or legal effect require the appropriate qualified advice and the particular circumstances.

Working files should distinguish draft, circulated and corrected versions. A reviewer should not have to rely on a filename such as “final latest” to determine which document the parties actually received.

Assemble the handover for review

1. Provide the current chronology and its stated time convention.
2. Attach or link the original source records.
3. Identify missing evidence and disputed entries.
4. Separate any draft laytime treatment from the factual record.
5. Include the correction history and relevant correspondence.
6. Name the person responsible for further clarification.

This package is useful even when the analysis is not finished. The receiving reviewer can see what is ready for assessment and what still requires evidence, rather than assuming that a polished spreadsheet represents a settled account.

Common mistakes

Avoid using an email receipt time as the event time without checking the message. Do not round an uncertain timestamp to a more convenient figure. Do not attach a legal conclusion to a neutral event label without distinguishing the two.

Another mistake is presenting only the final laytime total. The underlying sequence, sources and contested intervals are what allow another person to assess whether the calculation deserves reliance.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.

Zeaclub provides 24/7 operating systems and worldwide coverage.

Explore Zeaclub

Learn about Zeaclub