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, i.e. first, last or performing carrier. Therefore, it was that defendant’s branch or agency and that defendant’s contract or sub-contract of carriage which were in issue. Where a successive carrier comes into being on what has been called the ‘statutory contract’ made by reason of acceptance of the goods and the consignment note, the judge observed that there can be no branch or agency in question. Therefore, ‘The only contract which can . . be concluded through a branch or agency is the contract between carriers’, i.e. the sub-contract.
Cooke J
[2012] EWHC 694 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [2013] 1 WLR 397, [2012] WLR(D) 98, [2012] 1 CLC 549
Bailii, WLRD
Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBritish American Tobacco Switzerland SA and Others v Exel Europe Ltd CA 30-Oct-2013
Large quantities of tobacco had been stolen from containers whilst in transit across Euurope. The consignors, now the appellants sought recovery from the sub-contractors who had custody of them at the time.
Held: The consignors appeal . .
At first instanceBritish American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 April 2021; Ref: scu.452390