Proceeding from commercial necessity, the charterer has an option to choose whether to send the vessel to a particular berth or to limit his instructions by nomination of a port only. This choice is expressed in terms of voyage charterparty in form of either a port or a berth charter
In Yiacoub v The Queen  UKPC 22;  1 WLR 2996 per Lord Hughes at para 12:
That and similar formulations use the word "biased", which in other contexts has far more pejorative connotations, to mean an absence of demonstrated independence or impartiality.
In Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another  UKHL 62;  1 WLR 2416 per Lord Mance at para 39:
The question is one of law, to be answered in the light of the relevant facts, which may include a statement from the [here, arbitrator] as to what he or she knew at the time, although the court is not necessarily bound to accept any such statement at face value, there can be no question of cross-examining the [arbitrator] on it, and no attention will be paid to any statement by the [arbitrator] as to the impact of any knowledge on his or her mind: Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd  QB 451, para 19 per Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ, Lord Woolf MR and Sir Richard Scott V-C. The fair-minded and informed observer is "neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious", to adopt Kirby J's neat phrase in Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488, para 53, which was approved by my noble and learned friends, Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Hale of Richmond, in Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  1 WLR 781, paras 17 and 39.