A carrier’s right to an indemnity for damage resulting from the transport of dangerous goods, does not depend on whether the shipper knew of the dangerous nature and character of the goods or was at fault in permitting their shipment or not warning the carrier of their dangerous nature.
Judge Diamond, QC identified what a carrier has to prove in order to recover under the Rules: ‘In my view it is clear as a matter of construction that if the carrier is able to prove the three matters specified in art. IV, r. 6 then he is entitled to recover compensation from the shipper for the loss sustained by him as the result of the shipment of a dangerous cargo. What the carrier has to prove is (a) that the shipper shipped goods of an ‘inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature’; (b) that neither the carrier, the master nor any agent of the carrier consented to the shipment of such goods with knowledge of their nature and character and (c) that the carrier suffered damages or expenses ‘directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment’ (i.e. from the shipment of the goods of the described class).’
Judges:
Judge Diamond, QC
Citations:
[1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 257
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona) CA 27-Jul-1994
A ship owner is to have made his ship seaworthy in order to claim an indemnity for dangerous fuel set alight by a third party. He was not entitled to claim where the failure to keep the ship seaworthy was his own.
Hirst LJ said: ‘The inclusion . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.462286