Statement of facts corrections: preserve the event

Key takeaways

• A factual correction should explain what was wrong or incomplete.
• Preserve issued copies and identify each later change.
• Separate event descriptions from contractual time treatment.
• Obtain clarification from the relevant source where accounts conflict.
• Tell the account preparer which factual changes affect its working assumptions.

Identify the kind of correction being proposed

BIMCO publishes the Standard Statement of Facts, recommended with FONASBA. That document identity provides context; it does not determine the effect of a particular entry or signature. Check the current text of the charter and obtain advice where contractual consequences are disputed.

A proposed correction can concern a time, an event description, an omitted activity or a stated reason for an interruption. The reviewer should identify which kind it is. “Please amend the SOF” is too broad to show whether the sender disputes the event itself or only the commercial conclusion drawn from it.

Ask the requesting party to describe the factual proposition and its source. A request based on a contemporaneous terminal record differs from an internal claim calculation that assumes a different time. The calculation may expose a question, but it is not automatically independent evidence of the underlying event.

The correction process should improve the factual record. It should not become a way to insert a favourable contractual label into an otherwise neutral chronology.

Preserve the issued record before editing

Keep the version that was circulated or signed, including relevant qualifications and attachments. A later edit should not erase what the parties previously saw. The historical copy may be important to understand the origin and progress of the disagreement.

Use an explicit comparison note. Identify the original entry, the proposed replacement or addition, the source and the reason. If only part of an entry is disputed, retain the agreed part rather than reopening the entire port-call record without explanation.

The reviewer should distinguish a correction issued by the document's preparer from an internal annotated copy. Both can be useful, but they have different status. An internal markup should not circulate as though it were the agent's revised statement.

If a new issued version is received, compare it with the earlier one rather than assuming it contains only the requested change. An unrelated alteration may have been made in the same revision. Each material change should have a clear source and status.

Compare changes by their factual effect

The comparison should avoid using “correct” as a substitute for evidence. Explain why the proposed entry more accurately describes the event, or state that the matter remains disputed. If a source cannot distinguish between competing accounts, preserve the uncertainty.

Some changes will matter to the time account; others may simply improve clarity. Identify the consequence without allowing it to determine the factual answer. The desired financial result is not a reason to prefer one record over another.

Keep causes and contractual labels apart

An event description such as “operation stopped” does not necessarily identify the reason. A reason reported by one participant may also require qualification. The correction should make clear whether it records an observation, a reported explanation or an agreed factual account.

Avoid replacing that description with a term such as “excluded time” merely because one party argues for that treatment. The charter's counting rules belong in the separate analysis. The statement can record the relevant facts without purporting to decide the account.

Where the reason changed during an interruption, a single label may become misleading. Ask whether the record should distinguish the phases, supported by evidence. Do not divide the period into precise segments without a reliable basis simply to make a calculation possible.

Conversely, do not merge separate events because they ultimately receive the same treatment in one party's account. The factual sequence should remain useful if the contractual analysis changes or another reviewer needs to examine causation.

Fictional case: weather becomes the label for the whole delay

In a fictional loading call, operations stop during adverse weather. The weather later improves, but another issue prevents immediate resumption. The first statement of facts summarises the entire interruption as weather delay because that was the initial reason recorded by the desk.

The account preparer challenges the entry after receiving a later operational report. It asks the agent to separate the phases. The agent can confirm the changed circumstances but needs further evidence before identifying the precise transition time.

The corrected record therefore distinguishes the known sequence and marks the unresolved timing question. The parties do not insert a convenient dividing time simply to finish the account. They also keep the question of contractual treatment outside the factual correction.

This produces a less superficially tidy document but a more reliable basis for review. The fictional case does not decide whether either phase counts as laytime or demurrage. It shows why correcting a cause description may require a more careful event sequence rather than a single replacement label.

Carry the correction into the commercial account

Once a correction is issued or a dispute is recorded, notify the people using the statement. Identify the affected entry and any calculation assumption that needs review. Do not expect the account preparer to discover the change by comparing every attachment in a shared folder.

If the factual correction is accepted, the contractual treatment may still remain disputed. State that distinction. Agreement that an operation stopped for a particular reason does not necessarily mean agreement about the financial consequences under the charter.

Where the correction remains unresolved, the commercial team may need to present alternative positions or request focused advice. The account should identify the disputed factual input rather than hide it inside a final total. Any numerical alternatives should use transparent assumptions and checked arithmetic.

Keep the closure record proportionate: what changed, the source, the status of agreement and the decision still required. This gives later reviewers enough context without turning the correction history into an unmanageable duplicate voyage file.

Common mistakes

Overwriting the issued statement destroys the comparison needed to explain a correction. Another mistake is treating a claim spreadsheet as conclusive evidence of an event time. Return to the relevant source and identify what it actually records.

Do not insert contractual treatment into the factual chronology merely to simplify the account. Avoid false precision when the transition between causes cannot be established. Finally, communicate the correction to the desks using the record; a revised statement that never reaches the account preparer will not improve the commercial decision.

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