Key takeaways
- Agree event descriptions and document contacts before the call begins.
- Record interruptions precisely, including sources and disputed descriptions.
- Preserve the original chronology when correcting or supplementing the document.
Define the record before events accumulate
BIMCO publishes a Standard Statement of Facts recommended with FONASBA. A recognised format can help organise the record, but accurate completion still depends on the participants and evidence from the particular call. BIMCO Standard Statement of Facts.
Ask the agent which format will be used and who will supply event updates. Identify the ship, terminal, cargo and voyage references that should appear consistently. Agree how separate berths, parcels or cargo operations will be distinguished so the final record does not merge unrelated activity.
Prepare an event list tailored to the call. It may include arrival, notices, inspections, berth movements, cargo commencement and completion, interruptions and departure. The list is a prompt for factual collection, not permission to insert expected events as if they occurred. Leave uncertain items visibly pending until their source is established.
Establish a clear time and source convention
State the time reference used throughout the document. Where source records use another reference, keep the original and document the conversion separately. Pay attention to events crossing midnight and any local clock changes. A date omitted from a short interruption entry can later cause an entire period to be placed on the wrong day.
Every material entry should be traceable to a source, such as a ship report, terminal log or agent observation. The source need not crowd the face of the statement if a separate index links it reliably. What matters is that a reviewer can identify where the event description originated.
Distinguish the time an event occurred from the time it was reported. An email received after a shift change may describe an earlier occurrence. Copying its receipt time into the chronology creates an artificial sequence. Ask the reporter to clarify the event time instead of guessing from the message header.
Describe interruptions without deciding the claim
An interruption entry should identify what was reported to have stopped, when it stopped, when it resumed and the stated reason. If only one part of cargo work was affected, say so where the evidence supports it. Broad wording such as “operations stopped” can conceal continued activity elsewhere.
Avoid substituting commercial labels for factual descriptions. “Time not counting” is an interpretation, while “shore conveyor reported unavailable” describes an event. The calculation team can assess the former question later using the contract and supporting records. The factual document should not be engineered to produce a preferred account.
When participants disagree about the cause, preserve both attributed accounts and identify the unresolved point. Ask for the underlying records rather than forcing an artificial consensus. A transparent disagreement is easier to review than a neat statement that erases the reason the parties differ.
Use an event-quality review table
| Entry type | Quality check | Supporting material |
|---|---|---|
| Arrival or movement | Location and event are clearly described | Ship and agent reports |
| Readiness notice | Tender, receipt and response are distinguished | Original notice correspondence |
| Inspection | Start, completion and result are not conflated | Relevant inspection record |
| Cargo work | Parcel and activity can be identified | Ship or terminal cargo log |
| Interruption | Scope, reported cause and resumption are stated | Contemporaneous communications |
| Correction | Previous entry and amendment remain traceable | Dated correction explanation |
Apply this review while the vessel is still in port when possible. Missing context is usually easier to obtain from the people who observed the event than from a later office reconstruction. The review should ask specific questions, such as which cargo stream continued during an interruption, rather than a general request to “confirm all times”.
Keep the distinction between unavailable evidence and conflicting evidence. An absent terminal record needs a retrieval request. Two inconsistent records need comparison and explanation. Treating both situations as ordinary missing data can delay the right response.
Manage signatures, reservations and revisions
Establish the intended circulation and signature process with the relevant participants. A signature should not be assumed to settle every issue of contractual interpretation. If the significance of signing is unclear, obtain guidance from the authorised reviewer before asking someone to endorse a disputed document.
Where a participant has a factual reservation, keep the reservation connected to the relevant version. Do not detach the qualification when forwarding the signed page. A scan containing only the signature sheet may give a later reader a materially incomplete picture of the record.
For corrections, issue a clearly identified revision or supplement and explain the changed entries. Retain the earlier version and source material. Avoid renaming a corrected file “original” or erasing the edit history. The correction may be entirely legitimate, but the process should allow another person to verify why it was made.
Fictional case: two cargo streams and one stoppage entry
In this fictional case, a vessel discharges separate parcels through different shore arrangements. The draft statement records a general stoppage when one shore conveyor fails, although another cargo stream continues. The operator notices that the terminal log and the draft chronology describe different scopes of activity.
The agent asks the relevant participants to clarify the event. The revised entry identifies the affected operation and preserves the source records. The correction note explains that the earlier wording was too broad; it does not state how the period should count under the charter.
When the laytime analyst receives the file, the factual distinction is visible. The analyst can apply the agreement to the documented circumstances and seek technical clarification if needed. The preparation process has improved the evidence without taking over the separate task of determining commercial entitlement.
Common mistakes
Copying expected arrival or completion times into the final document without checking actual events creates a planning record disguised as evidence. Another error is using message receipt times where the source describes earlier activity. Check both event and report timestamps.
Avoid treating every disagreement as a formatting problem. If participants give different accounts, preserve the difference and seek supporting material. Finally, do not circulate a signed document without its attached reservations or correction schedule. The complete record is the useful record, even when it is less tidy.
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
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Is a statement of facts a laytime calculation?
It should primarily record the port chronology. A laytime calculation applies contractual rules to relevant events and may rely on additional evidence. Keeping the two tasks distinct makes it easier to correct a factual entry without implying agreement about the financial treatment of that period.
Who should prepare the document?
The agreed port-call process should identify the preparer and contributors, commonly involving the agent and vessel or terminal records. The essential control is clear responsibility for collecting, checking and circulating the information. No single contributor should be assumed to know every event without supporting reports.
Can an unsigned statement still be useful?
It can provide a working chronology, but its status should be explicit and supporting evidence retained. The significance of an unsigned or disputed document depends on the circumstances. Do not label it as agreed simply because no response has yet arrived from another participant.
What if a mistake is found after departure?
Request a traceable correction supported by the relevant records. Keep the original version, explain the amendment and circulate the revised document to the appropriate participants. Late correction should improve accuracy, not silently replace the historical record with a more convenient account.