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 was defunct along with the doctrine of fundamental breach of contract. Whether a clause operates to limit liability or excuse it entirely is a matter of construction of each clause. The carrier in this might still be able to take advantage of the rules limiting his liability.
Judges:
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Judge And Lord Justice Longmore
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 451, Times 17-Apr-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another ChD 2002
. .
Cited – Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale HL 1966
No magic in the words “fundamental breach”
There is no rule of law which prevents parties to a contract agreeing to limit their respective liabilities. It is a question of the construction of the particular clause as to whether it applies to a fundamental breach or not. The court doubted the . .
Cited – The Chanda ChD 1989
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 . .
Cited – Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an . .
Cited – Gibaud v Great Eastern Railway Co CA 1921
Scrutton LJ said: ‘If you undertake to do a thing in a certain way, or to keep a thing in a certain place, with certain conditions protecting it, and have broken the contract by not doing the thing contracted for in the way contracted for, or not . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd HL 26-Nov-1981
Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable . .
Cited – Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango and Company HL 1931
English statutes which give effect to international conventions need to be interpreted with the international origin of the rules well in mind. The Act only applies to contracts of carriage of goods outwards from ports in the United Kingdom, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.180735