Evaluate conflicting performance reports Feb 27, 2024 4 min read The parties rely on their appointed weather routing company’s report upon dealing with performance disputes during the negotiation stage and when the dispute comes before a tribunal. In practice, these reports are not always identical for several reasons. What follows are some practical tips to evaluate conflicting performance reports submitted by the parties during negotiation or arbitration of performance claims.    Weather Routing Companies First cited in reported cases of Lloyds Law Reports in 1976 (The Washington [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453) and later in The Evdokia [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 as “evidence” to contradict the weather conditions reported by the master during the voyage. Later, the reports were used to evaluate the Vessel’s performance. Recently, some London tribunals held that the WRC’ function derives from the parties agreement ( the contract) that permits their involvement to assess the Vessel’s performance but is strictly in line with the charter-party terms. Reports were used as performance evaluations: It is not enough for a party to assert that the Vessel underperformed in order to pursue a claim. It requires evidence (the one who asserts must prove). A tribunal could only decide on the evidence before it; understanding the evidence is part of the reasoning process. A tribunal approaches the case by considering and weighing up all relevant and admissible facts and evidence. However, when a party submits a performance report as evidence, it is not treated per se as a “fact”(a party contends that “ based on X report it is a fact that the Vessel underperformed ”). Its probative force as “evidence” needs to be analysed: It must be evaluated, tested against the other evidence and be given the weight it deserves in the circumstances. It cannot be accepted at face value. Its evidential weight would be lower when the report is not comprehensive (requests for clarifications are u