The plaintiff contended that the ‘unless’ clause in the air waybill did not comply with Article 8 (q) of Unamended Warsaw Convention, so that the Article 22 limitation on its right to receive the full value of four lost boxes of gold was inapplicable.
Held: Lord Denning disposed of the contention: ‘I do not think we should give a strict interpretation to article 8(q) in the Convention. We should not give it so rigid an interpretation as to hamper the conduct of business. I do not interpret the article as meaning that the waybill must contain the statement verbatim. It is sufficient if it contains a statement to the like effect. Moreover, the carriage cannot be subject to all the rules relating to liability established by the Convention: for some relate to goods, others to passengers, others to luggage. It follows that (q) is satisfied if the statement says that the carriage is subject to the rules so far as the same are applicable to the carriage. If that is sufficient, it must also be sufficient to say that the carriage is subject to the rules except in so far as the same are not applicable to the carriage. The next step is plain. If that is sufficient, it must also be sufficient to say that the carriage is subject to the rules except so far as it is not international carriage. Hence it is sufficient to say ‘unless such carriage is not international carriage as defined by the Convention’. It is just another way of saying that the carriage is subject to the rules so far as the same are applicable.
Another way of looking at the statement is to read it in conjunction with the carriage stated on the face of the document, which was London to Zurich. Everyone concerned with the waybill knew that carriage from London to Zurich was international carriage. To those persons (and no one else matters) the words ‘unless such carriage is not international carriage as defined by the Convention’ were mere surplusage. They added nothing. They were inapplicable to the circumstances of this carriage and could be ignored.’
Judges:
Lord Denning
Citations:
[1966] 2 QB 306, [1966] 1 All ER 814, [1966] 2 WLR 854
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Fujitsu Computer Products Corp and others v Bax Global Inc and others ComC 9-Nov-2005
A substantial number of hard disk drives were to be transported by the defendants by air. They were stolen. The defendant sought to limit its liability onder the Act. The claimant said it had been an inside job within Bax. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Damages
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.234849