Click the case name for better results:

British American Tobacco Switzerland Sa and Others v Exel Europe Ltd and Others: ComC 23 Mar 2012

Defendants (companies registered in Holland) denied that the UK court had jurisdiction to try the claim against them. Held: The consignors could not succeed, and the court set aside the proceedings against the sub-contractors. The ‘defendant’ who is the subject-matter of article 31.1 is any successive carrier who can be sued pursuant to article 36, … Continue reading British American Tobacco Switzerland Sa and Others v Exel Europe Ltd and Others: ComC 23 Mar 2012

Cummins Engine Co Ltd v Davis Freight Forwarding (Hull) Ltd: CA 1981

Cummins as consignor had contracted with Davis, another English company, for the carriage of engines from England to Amsterdam. Davis instructed Charterway to undertake the leg from Rotterdam to Amsterdam, and Charterway in turn asked Graaf, who asked Boers to do this. Charterway, Graaf and Boers were all Dutch firms and all successive carriers under … Continue reading Cummins Engine Co Ltd v Davis Freight Forwarding (Hull) Ltd: CA 1981

ITT Schaub-Lorenz Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH v Birkart Johann lnternationale Spedition GmbH and Co KG: CA 1988

Bingham LJ considered dicta in Cummins Engine, and said: ‘although it could not be regarded as ‘having more than persuasive authority . . I think (with respect) that it is plainly right’. Judges: Bingham LJ Citations: [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 487 Statutes: Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1 … Continue reading ITT Schaub-Lorenz Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH v Birkart Johann lnternationale Spedition GmbH and Co KG: CA 1988

Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage: 1975

The carrier who contracts with the sender is the first carrier, even if he does not undertake any stage of the carriage himself. Judges: Donaldson J Citations: [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 502 Statutes: Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – … Continue reading Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage: 1975

Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BV: ComC 23 Mar 1999

CMR Convention: Articles 31(2) and 36 – relating on jurisdiction. Brussels Convention: Article 57. Applicability in cases covered by the CMR convention.Article 31.2 of CMR to be limited to proceedings brought by same claimant against the same defendant, and that, on that basis, the lis pendens provisions of articles 21 and 22 of the Brussels … Continue reading Frans Maas Logistics (UK) Ltd v CDR Trucking BV: ComC 23 Mar 1999

Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage: CA 1977

A carrier who contracts with the sender is the first carrier, even if he does not undertake any stage of the carriage himself.The court noted the sometimes great difficulty in finding consistent interpretations of European Law Citations: [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 346, [1997] 1 WLR 625 Statutes: Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage … Continue reading Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage: CA 1977