Tt is the shipper or his agent who is delivering the cargo and so it is the shipper who has actual or imputed knowledge as to its condition. The shipper will or ought to know whether there is any discrepancy between the description of the cargo in the sale documents or supplier’s note and the … Continue reading re “The DAVID AGMASHENEBELI”: 2003
A contract for shipping was subject to the Hague Visby Rules, but provided that jurisdiction was for the place where the carrier had his business, in this case in Mariupol. The question was: where an application is made under O.12 r.8 to set aside leave to serve out granted under O.11 r.1(1)(c) should the court … Continue reading BMG Trading Limited v A S Mckay Limited and Azov Shipping Company: CA 3 Oct 1997
Whether the limitation of liability in Article III, r.6 of the Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery of cargo after discharge from the vessel. Judges: Sir William Blair (Sitting as a High Court Judge) Citations: [2022] EWHC 2400 (Comm) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Transport Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.681471
The time limit under the Rules applied where goods had not been loaded and that time would start to run from the date when the goods ought to have been delivered. Citations: [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 435 Statutes: Hague Visby Rules Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Trafigura Beheer Bv v Golden Stavraetos … Continue reading The Ot Sonja: CA 1993
Persons employed by a carrier in the work of keeping or making a vessel seaworthy are the carrier’s agents whose diligence or lack of it is attributable to the carrier. A shipowner’s or carrier’s duty under Article III, Rule 1 would not start and he would not be responsible for work carried out until the … Continue reading Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (“The Muncaster Castle”): HL 1961
Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the carriage, for there is no set off against freight. The … Continue reading Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries: HL 1977
The court considered the limitation on a shipowner’s liability, and how this had been implemented by Belgium. Held: Given the absence of any evidence as to how Belgium had implemented the Hague Visby Rules, the court went on the basis that it was similar to the way it had been implemented in the UK. The … Continue reading Yemgas Fzco and Others v Superior Pescadores Sa: CA 24 Feb 2016
References: [1961] AC 807 Coram: Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simonds Persons employed by a carrier in the work of keeping or making a vessel seaworthy are the carrier’s agents whose diligence or lack of it is attributable to the carrier. A shipowner’s or carrier’s duty under Article III, Rule 1 would not start and he would … Continue reading Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (‘The Muncaster Castle’): HL 1961
Judges: Burton J Citations: [2008] EWHC 1036 (Comm), [2008] 1 CLC 841, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 166, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1005 Links: Bailii Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules Jurisdiction: England and Wales Transport, Contract Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.267942
Judges: Brandon J Citations: [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 416 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules III r2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract … Continue reading The Arawa: 1977
The question was whether a carrier is liable to cargo owners when the latter, or their stevedores, perform their duties improperly or carelessly; whether an agreement which transfers responsibility for these operations from the shipowners to shippers, charterers or consignees, is invalidated by article III, r. 8 of the Rules. The charterparty purported to transfer … Continue reading Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Company Jordan Inc and Another: CA 13 Feb 2003
The appeal concerns the scope of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules and their application to the carriage of goods by sea in containers. Judges: Gloster VP CA, Flaux LJJ Citations: [2018] EWCA Civ 778, [2018] WLR(D) 224, [2018] Bus LR 1481 Links: Bailii, WLRD Jurisdiction: England and Wales Transport Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.608716
A ship owner is to have made his ship seaworthy in order to claim an indemnity for dangerous fuel set alight by a third party. He was not entitled to claim where the failure to keep the ship seaworthy was his own.Hirst LJ said: ‘The inclusion of the words ‘directly or indirectly’ in art. IV, … Continue reading Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona): CA 27 Jul 1994
(Federal Court of Australia) ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – carriage of goods by sea – Hague-Visby Rules – Australian COGSA Art 3 Rules 3, 4 and 8 – method for assessing value of cargo – where no ‘commodity exchange price’ or ‘current market price’ – where ‘normal value’ of goods at destination not determined. ADMIRALTY … Continue reading El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA: 10 Aug 2004
The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied. Held: It was not yet decided that the wharehouse and deviation case law … Continue reading Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003
Cargo was damaged by rough handling during loading and/or discharging, and/or inadequate stowage due to failure to provide dunnage, failure to secure the coils and/or stacking them so that the bottom layers were excessively compressed. The House was asked to depart from an interpretation of the rules which had stood and been applied for more … Continue reading Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (“The Jordan II”): HL 25 Nov 2004
Part of an asphalt drying and mixing plant had been shipped on deck in breach of contract. The court asked whether the shipment on deck disentitled the shipowner from relying on Article IV rule 5. Held: A carrier by sea, who carries cargo on deck in breach of a contract of carriage which is governed … Continue reading The Chanda: ChD 1989
Judges: Lord Denning MR Citations: [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 489 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract … Continue reading The Ciechocinek: CA 1976
The owners of cargo claimed damages from the carriers for a cargo of jet oil rejected at the port of destination because of contamination suffered on board. Held: In interpreting the rules, the court must adopt a process of construction which is appropriate to a set of rules agreed internationally and enacted into United Kingdom … Continue reading Trafigura Beheer Bv v Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc: CA 15 May 2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination. Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A straight bill of lading requires delivery of the goods to the named consignee … Continue reading J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, “The Rafaela S”: CA 16 Apr 2003
The court was asked whether article IV rule 2(b) of the Hague-Visby Rules is capable of exempting the carrier from liability to the cargo owner for damage caused by fire if that fire were caused deliberately or barratrously. Citations: [2019] EWCA Civ 388 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Transport Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Glencore Energy UK Ltd and Another v Freeport Holdings Ltd (The ‘Lady M’): CA 14 Mar 2019
A fire destroyed the ‘Eurasian Dream’ while in port. It was carrying cars, a fire in which got out of control. It was claimed that the ship managers had been negligent. The bill of lading contracts in the present case incorporated either the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules. Held: The vessel was unseaworthy because of deficiencies … Continue reading Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited: QBD 7 Feb 2002
Judges: Beldam LJ Citations: [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 1 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of … Continue reading The Coral: CA 1993
ComC Time trip – clause paramount – incorporation of Hague Rules or Hague-Visby Rules Judges: Thomas J Citations: [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 744;, [1998] CLY 4412 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Transport Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220779
Judges: Steyn J Citations: [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 586 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2 Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of … Continue reading The Panaghia Tinnou: 1986
Although section 3(1) of the 1934 Act expressly empowered only courts of record to include interest in sums for which judgment was given for damages or debt, arbitrators were nevertheless empowered by the agreement of reference to apply English law, including so much of that law as is to be found in the section. The … Continue reading Chandris v Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc: CA 1950
Where the terms of a statute are incorporated into a contract by reference, the contract has to be read as if the words of the statute are written out in the contract and construed, as a matter of contract, in that contractual context. The Hague Rules applied to ballast voyages: ‘My Lords, it is, I … Continue reading Adamastos Shipping v Anglo Saxon Petroleum: HL 1959
A literal interpretation of the Rules indicates that, where shippers and consignees select and pay for stevedoring, cargo claimants may recover compensation from owners for the negligence of cargo owners or the negligence of their stevedores, but ‘It would be an odd state of things if one were to hold that a shipowner who has … Continue reading Brys and Gylsen v J and J Drysdale and Co: 1920
Cargo was damaged in the course of a voyage by the failure of a fitter employed by ship repairers to secure the inspection cover on a storm valve. The cargo owner sued the shipowner in contract, and recovered. Held: It was no defence that the repairs had been carried out by a reputable independent contractor. … Continue reading Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co Ltd: HL 1961
Judges: Hobhouse J Citations: [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 378 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2 Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of … Continue reading The Holstencruiser: 1992
Judges: Lloyd J Citations: [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2 Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of … Continue reading The Filikos: 1981
A shipper’s liability for known dangerous goods is not limited by fault or by negligence. Citations: Independent 06-Feb-1996, Times 05-Feb-1996 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules Article IV R 6, 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk) QBD 5-May-1994 A danger to the … Continue reading Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk): CA 5 Feb 1996
Judges: Kerr LJ Citations: [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 219 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of … Continue reading The Strathnewton: CA 1983
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and ‘Rafaela S’. The goods were shipped from Durban aboard the ‘Rosemary,’ as evidenced by … Continue reading J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The “Rafaela S”: HL 16 Feb 2005
Under a classic FOB contract, a seller places the goods on board the ship, and procures a bill of lading in terms usual in the trade. The buyer nominates the shipper and bears all the expenses associated with the vessel including port charges, freight, customs duties, storage and arrivals charges. However, the parties to the … Continue reading Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co: QBD 1954
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules. Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should be read so as to reflect the clearly expressed intention of the parties. The … Continue reading Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’: CA 17 May 2002
A cargo of oil had been carried under bills of lading incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules. There was an alleged theft of part of the cargo, and the question was whether article III rule 6 of the rules barred the claim on the ground that it had not been brought within one year. Held: The court … Continue reading The Captain Gregos: CA 1990
An agreement transferring responsibility for loading, stowage and discharge of cargo from the shipowners to shippers, charterers and consignees is not invalidated by article III, r. 8. Lord Somervell of Harrow said as to Art III r2: ‘It is, in my opinion, directed and only directed to the manner in which the obligations undertaken are … Continue reading GH Renton and Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama: HL 1957
The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules was not to override freedom of contract to reallocate responsibility for the functions described in that rule: ‘The … Continue reading Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd: QBD 1954
The claimant appellants, arranged shipment of bagged Colombian green coffee beans, stowed in 20 unventilated 20-foot containers from Panama to Rotterdam, Hamburg or Bremerhaven for on carriage to Bremen. The bill of lading for each consignment covered the entire carriage. Such beans were commonly carried in either ventilated or unventilated containers. Unventilated containers were specified … Continue reading Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa: SC 5 Dec 2018
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill. Held: The specific terms added prevailed over the standard terms printed on the bill of lading. The bill was … Continue reading Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’): HL 13 Mar 2003
Munitions were consigned to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. A fire occurred, and part was jettisoned, the remainder being damaged. The cargo owners first claimed damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading for the . .
Munitions were being carried to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. Some was jettisoned in a fire and the remainder was damaged. The cargo owners sought damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading, as to the jettisoned cargo . .
References: [2004] UKHL 49, Times 26-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1363, [2005] 1 All ER 175 Links: Bailii, House of Lords Coram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Scott of Foscote Cargo was damaged by rough handling during loading and/or discharging, and/or inadequate stowage due to failure to provide … Continue reading Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (‘The Jordan II’): HL 25 Nov 2004
References: [2004] FCAFC 202, [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537 Links: Austilii Coram: Black, Beaumont, Allsop JJ (Federal Court of Australia) ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – carriage of goods by sea – Hague-Visby Rules – Australian COGSA Art 3 Rules 3, 4 and 8 – method for assessing value of cargo – where no ‘commodity exchange … Continue reading El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA; 10 Aug 2004
