Click the case name for better results:

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Company Jordan Inc and Another: CA 13 Feb 2003

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

Trafigura Beheer Bv v Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc: CA 15 May 2003

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

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

The Coral: CA 1993

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

Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co Ltd: HL 1961

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

Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (“The Muncaster Castle”): HL 1961

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

Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries: HL 1977

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

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

GH Renton and Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama: HL 1957

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

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 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

Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa: SC 5 Dec 2018

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

Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (‘The Muncaster Castle’): HL 1961

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

Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd: ComC 28 Sep 2022

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

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (“The Jordan II”): HL 25 Nov 2004

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

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (‘The Jordan II’): HL 25 Nov 2004

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