Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, “The Rafaela S”: CA 16 Apr 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

J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The “Rafaela S”: HL 16 Feb 2005

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

Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’: CA 17 May 2002

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

The Captain Gregos: CA 1990

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

Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’): HL 13 Mar 2003

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

Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk): HL 22 Jan 1998

A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an appropriate case involving truly feasible alternative interpretations of a convention, to allow the … Continue reading Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk): HL 22 Jan 1998

Yemgas Fzco and Others v Superior Pescadores Sa: CA 24 Feb 2016

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

Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another: SC 10 May 2017

The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and indemnity risks. The grounding occurred during a combination of severe weather events. Each of the two elements … Continue reading Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another: SC 10 May 2017

The Clifford Maersk: QBD 25 May 1982

The defendants contracted to carry a cargo for the plaintiff. The plaintiffs asserted that it was delivered in a damaged condition. The Act required an action to be brought within one year. The defendants granted extensions of time until at last ‘up to and including 21 June 1981’. The 21st was a Sunday, the court … Continue reading The Clifford Maersk: QBD 25 May 1982

Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others: HL 27 Mar 2001

The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a demand. An assertion of a formal right was required. A … Continue reading Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others: HL 27 Mar 2001

SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall and Son Ltd: CA 1970

The defendants’ workmen damaged an electric cable belonging to the electricity board, cutting off several factories, including the plaintiff’s. The defendant sought to have the claim struck out. Held: The part of the claim arising from physical damage was not struck out, but that for economic loss was. Economic loss ought not to be put … Continue reading SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall and Son Ltd: CA 1970