Carriage of Goods

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search

DMC/SandT/18/05

England

Agile Holdings Corporation (Claimant) v Essar Shipping Ltd (Defendant):

English Commercial Court: Judge Waksman QC: [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm): [[1]]

FOR CHARTERERS TO OBTAIN A 50/50 APPORTIONMENT FOR CARGO LIABILITY BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND THE OWNERS ON GROUNDS OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO CLAUSE 8(B) OF THE INTER- CLUB NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT 1996 (THE “INTER-CLUB AGREEMENT" OR "ICA”), THE CHARTERPARTY MUST CONTAIN A PROVISION WHICH IS CLEARLY INTENDED TO PASS COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARGO HANDLING TO THE SHIPOWNERS. A PARTIAL TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY, OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF CARGO HANDLING (SUCH AS STOWAGE), WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ENGAGE THE ICA 8(B) PROVISO.


DMC/SandT/18/02

England

Kyokuyo Co Ltd v AP Møller-Maersk A/S, trading as “Maersk Line”

English High Court – Commercial Court: Mr Justice Andrew Baker: [2017] EWHC 654 (Comm): 29 March 2017: [[2]]

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: WHETHER LIMITATION APPLIED TO EACH SEPARATE PACKAGE/UNIT DAMAGED OR TO TOTAL NUMBER OF PACKAGES/UNITS


DMC/SandT/17/14

England

Glencore International AG v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

English Court of Appeal; Lewison and Henderson LJJ, Sir Christopher Clarke; [2017] EWCA Civ 365; 24 May 2017:[[3]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: MISDELIVERY OF CARGO: MEANING OF “DELIVERY ORDER": ELECTRONIC RELEASE SYSTEMS IN OPERATION AT PORT OF DISCHARGE: WHETHER A RELEASE NOTE CONTAINING PIN CODES CONSTITUTED A DELIVERY ORDER: WHETHER CONSIGNEE ESTOPPED BY PREVIOUS USE OF ERS SYSTEM


DMC/SandT/17/11

Canada

De Wolf Maritime Safety BV v Traffic-Tech International Inc. (The “Zagora”)

Federal Court, Ontario: Madam Justice St-Louis; 2017 FC 23: 11 January 2017:[[4]]

HAGUE-VISBY RULES: WHETHER CARGO CARRIED ON-DECK UNDECLARED AMOUNTED TO “GOODS” AS DEFINED IN THE RULES: WHETHER A CARRIER COULD RELY ON THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO GOODS CARRIED ON-DECK WITHOUT AUTHORISATION


DMC/SandT/17/10

England

Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd.

English Commercial Court: Teare J: (2016) EWHC 3122 (Comm): [[5]]

CHARTERPARTY (TIME): NYPE INTER-CLUB AGREEMENT 1996, CLAUSE 8(D): WHETHER “ACT” REQUIRES FAULT


DMC/SandT/17/02

England

Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA (trading as “CSAV”)

English Court of Appeal: Gloster LJ, King LJ and Flaux J: (2016) EWCA Civ 1103: [[6]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: CONSIGNMENTS OF BAGGED COFFEE BEANS IN CONTAINERS CARRIED ON LCL/FCL TERMS: CARGO DAMAGED BY CONDENSATION: TEMPORAL SCOPE OF HAGUE RULES: BURDEN OF PROOF: WHETHER CARRIER FAILED PROPERLY AND CAREFULLY TO LOAD AND CARRY THE GOODS: WHETHER CARRIER ENTITLED TO RELY ON “INHERENT VICE” EXCEPTION: WHETHER DAMAGE INEVITABLE: HAGUE RULES, ARTICLE III RULE 2 AND ARTICLE IV RULE 2(M)


DMC/SandT/15/18

England

Société de Distribution de Toutes Marchandises en Côte D’Ivoire, trading as “SDTM-CI”, and others v. Continental Lines N.V. and another (the “Sea Miror”)

English High Court: Flaux J; 18 June 2015: [2015] EWHC 1747 (Comm): [[7]]

SYNACOMEX 90 CHARTERPARTY: LOADING AND DISCHARGING TO BE AT THE EXPENSE AND RISK OF THE SHIPPERS/CHARTERERS AND RECEIVERS/CHARTERERS RESPECTIVELY: WHETHER OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARGO LOSS AND DAMAGE OCCURRING DURING LOADING AND DISCHARGE


DMC/SandT/15/05

England

Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Limited (The “Erin Schulte”)

English Court of Appeal: Sir Bernard Rix, Moore-Bick and Briggs LJJ: [2014] EWCA Civ 1382: 22 October 2014:[[8]]

BILL OF LADING: LETTER OF CREDIT: INITIAL REJECTION OF THE PRESENTATION: MEANING OF “INDORSEMENT” OF BILL OF LADING: TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF SUIT: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1992 SECTIONS 2(2)(A) AND 5(2)(B)


DMC/SandT/15/03

Hong Kong

Antwerp Diamond Bank NV v Brink’s Inc

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Lam and Lunn VPP and Barman JA: CACV No.282 of 2012: [2014] 4 HKLRD 158: 17 July 2014: [[9]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY AIR: MISDELIVERY: GOODS RELEASED TO BUYER WITHOUT CONSENT OF PLEDGEE BANK AND WITHOUT PAYMENT: LOCUS OF PLEDGEE BANK TO SUE FOR CONVERSION: AGREEMENT BY SELLER TO PLEDGE FINISHED GOODS TO BANK: DELIVERY OF GOODS TO FREIGHT FORWARDER COMPLETED PLEDGE: CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY OF GOODS TO BANK


DMC/SandT/14/11

England

British American Tobacco Switzerland SA v Exel Europe Ltd; British American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Exel Europe Ltd

Court of Appeal: McFarlane L.J.; Sir Bernard Rix; Sir Timothy Lloyd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1319: 30 October 2013:[[10]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD: CMR CONVENTION: CARGO LOSS: ESTABLISHING JURISDICTION AGAINST SUCCESSIVE CARRIERS: WHETHER CLAIMANT THAT HAS ESTABLISHED JURISDICTION UNDER ART.31.1 AGAINST ONE CARRIER CAN RELY ON THAT JURISDICTION TO JOIN SUCCESSIVE CARRIERS


DMC/SandT/14/10

England

Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanari SPA [2014] EWHC 129 Comm

English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division: Andrew Smith J.: 30 January 2014:[[11]]

CHARTERPARTY: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: VESSEL CARRYING CONSIGNMENT OF MOTOR OIL ATTACKED BY PIRATES: WHETHER QUANTITY OF OIL TAKEN BY PIRATES CONSTITUTED "IN-TRANSIT LOSS" OR "LOST CARGO" FOR PURPOSES OF IN-TRANSIT LOSS CLAUSE IN CHARTERPARTY


DMC/SandT/14/09

England

Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil LLC v Eems Beheerder B.V. (“the M/V EEMS SOLAR”):

English High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Admiralty Court: Jervis K, Q.C, the Admiralty Registrar: 5 June 2013:[[12]]

BILLS OF LADING: INCORPORATION OF CHARTERPARTY TERMS PROVIDING THAT CHARTERERS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR STOWAGE: WHETHER OWNERS COULD RELY ON THAT CLAUSE AS DEFENCE TO CLAIM BY RECEIVERS FOR CARGO DAMAGE CAUSED BY BAD STOWAGE


DMC/SandT/14/04

Hong Kong

Maintek Computer (Suzhou) Co Ltd v Blue Anchor Line

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: To J: HCAJ No.106 of 2008: 2 April 013:[]

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2013/506.html

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: MISDELIVERY BY OCEAN TERMINAL: CLAIM FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CARRIER: MEANING OF “DELIVERY” FOR PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITATION: WHETEHR EXEMPTION CLAUSE FOR ANY CAUSE OR EVENT WHICH CARRIER COULD NOT AVOID APPLICABLE: WHETHER LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY REFERENCE TO WEIGHT OF CARGO APPLICABLE


DMC/SandT/13/04

Germany

German Federal Supreme Court: Date of Judgement: 13 June 2012: [[13]]

CMR TRANSPORT: APPLICATION OF ART. 29 CMR: BURDEN OF PROOF: REDUCTION OF UNLIMITED LIABILITY DUE TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SENDER IF THE CARRIER IS NOT NOTIFIED OF AN UNEXPECTEDLY HIGH VALUE OF THE TRANSPORT GOODS


DMC/SandT/13/01

Germany

German Federal Supreme Court

"Und Adryatik"; Date of Judgement: 15 December 2011: [[14]]

CMR TRANSPORT: APPLICATION OF ART. 2 CMR: FIRE ON RO-RO-CARRIER: HAGUE RULES AS ‘CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW’: FIRE AS AN EVENT WHICH COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED BY REASON OF CARRIAGE BY SEA


DMC/SandT/12/17

Hong Kong

The “Marcatania”

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.138 of 2008: 2 December 2011:[[15]]

CONTRACT: AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE SLOTS FOR USE: SLOTS ON VESSEL CHARTERED BY THIRD PARTY: FAILURE TO PAY HIRE: VESSEL WITHDRAWN BY SHIPOWNER: WHETHER SHIPOWNER OBLIGED TO ON-CARRY CARGO UNDER BAILMENT: WHETHER LIABLE IN CONVERSION FOR DELAY IN RELEASING CARGO


DMC/SandT/12/15

England

Sideridraulic Systems SpA v BBC Chartering & Logistics GmbH & Co KG

English Queen’s Bench (Commercial Court): Andrew Smith J: [2011] EWHC 3106 (Comm): 30 November 2011: [[16]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: INTERPRETATION OF MASTER’S REMARK IN BILL OF LADING: WHETHER CARGO WAS DECK CARGO UNDER HAGUE-VISBY RULES: IF DECK CARGO, WHETHER PARTIES AGREED THAT HAGUE-VISBY RULES NEVERTHELESS APPLIED: WHETHER US COURTS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE APPLIED


DMC/SandT/12/13

Hong Kong

A O Smith Electrical Products (Changzhou) Co Ltd v Blue Anchor Line & Ors

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: [2012] 1 HKLRD 301: 18 November 2011:[[17]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: WAYBILL: LETTER OF UNDERTAKING: INTERPRETATION: GOVERNING LAW OF CARRIAGE: APPLICABLE LIMIT OF LIABILITY


DMC/SandT/11/14

The Netherlands

DSV Road B.V. and Amlin Corporate Insurance N.V. v Sneltransport “Heidenend” Tegelen B.V.

Amsterdam Court of Appeal: A.S. Arnold, W.H.F.M. Cortenraad and H.M. ten Haaft, LJN BL9955, April 2, 2010: [[18]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD: CMR CONVENTION: WHETHER SHIPPER-PACKED TRAILER CAN BE CONSIDERED ‘GOODS’ WITHIN ART.17.2


DMC/SandT/11/07

English Court of Appeal

Brink’s Global Services Inc & Ors v. Igrox Ltd & Anor Court of Appeal: Longmore, Moore-Bick and Wilson LJJ.: [2010] EWCA Civ 1208: 27 October 2010: [[19]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS: THEFT FROM CONTAINER BY EMPLOYEE OF FUMIGATION COMPANY: WHETHER COMPANY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE: CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THEFT AND PURPOSE OF EMPLOYMENT


DMC/SandT/11/04

English Court of Appeal

Röhlig (UK) Ltd v Rock Unique Ltd: Court of Appeal, Sedley, Moore-Bick and Aikens LJJ.: 20 January 2011: [2011] EWCA Civ 18:[[20]]

INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS: BIFA CONDITIONS: WHETHER NO SET-OFF AND TIME BAR PROVISIONS REASONABLE UNDER UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977


DMC/SandT/11/01

Germany

German Federal Supreme Court – Assessment of Damages under the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (‘CMR’): Date of Judgment: 30 September 2010[[21]]

CMR TRANSPORT: WILFUL MISCONDUCT: ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES


DMC/SandT/10/22

England

Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Sinochem Tianjin Import & Export Corp – the « Aconcagua»[[22]]

English High Court: Christopher Clarke J.: [2009] EWHC 1880 (Comm); 24 July 2009

BILLS OF LADING : SHIPMENT OF CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE IN CONTAINER: EXPLOSION AND FIRE: DANGEROUS GOODS: WHETHER CARRIER ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY UNDER ART.IV RULE 6 OF HAGUE RULES: STOWAGE OF CONTAINER IN PROXIMITY TO HEATED BUNKER TANK: WHETHER THIS CAUSED THE EXPLOSION: WHETHER THIS RENDERED VESSEL UNSEAWORTHY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE VOYAGE: WHETHER CARRIER COULD RELY ON DEFENCE OF ERROR IN MANAGEMENT OF THE SHIP


DMC/SandT/10/15

New Zealand

Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Limited and others[[23]] Supreme Court of New Zealand (Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ) [2010] NZSC 37 (16 April 2010)

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: SHIP DAMAGED BY GROUNDING: SEAWATER ENTRY TO FORWARD COMPARTMENTS: DECK CARGO OF CONTAINERS DAMAGED BY INUNDATION: HAGUE-VISBY RULES: ART.IV RULE 2(a): DEFENCE OF ACT, NEGLECT OR DEFAULT OF THE MASTER… IN THE NAVIGATION OR MANAGEMENT OF THE SHIP: FAILURE TO NOTIFY AUTHORITIES OF CASUALTY: FAILURE TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND ACCURATE INFORMATION TO SHIP’S MANAGERS: CAUSE OF CASUALTY INITIALLY FABRICATED: ALL LEADING TO DELAY IN PROVISION OF SALVAGE SERVICES: WHETHER ELEMENT OF GOOD FAITH ESSENTIAL TO CARRIER’S ENTITLEMENT TO RULE 2(a) DEFENCE


DMC/SandT/10/13

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Maintek Computer (Suzhou) Co Ltd and others v Blue Anchor Line and others[[24]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 106/2008: 25 February 2010 [[25]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: MISDELIVERY BY OCEAN TERMINAL: SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESS: LIMITATION CLAUSE: MEANING OF ‘DELIVERY’: STAY IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATION: APPLICABILITY OF TERMINAL CONTRACT


DMC/SandT/10/12

The Netherlands

Maersk B.V., formerly “P&O Nedlloyd” and before that called Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V., Rotterdam, the Netherlands v. Irano European Co. Ireco S.A., Luxembourg - The “Dolphin I”[[26]]

Court of Appeal of The Hague (The Netherlands). J.M. van der Klooster, J.E.H.M. Pickaers, J.H.J. Teunissen, 29 September 2009, Case number 105.002.543/01 (unpublished)

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: HAGUE RULES: RECEIVED FOR SHIPMENT BILL OF LADING: CARGO DAMAGE: PERISHABLE GOODS: GROSS NEGLIGENCE: CARRIER’S KNOWLEDGE OF GOODS IN CONTAINERS: ‘BEFORE AND AFTER’ CLAUSE: LIMITATION OF APPLICABILITY OF CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES: REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS


DMC/SandT/10/03

Hong Kong

Cheong Yuk Fai and another v China International Freight Forwarders (HK) Ltd

[[27]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of Appeal: Cheung and Yuen JJA and A Chung J: CACV No. 463 of 2002: 26 January 2005: [2005] 4 HKLRD 544 (English translation; judgment handed down in Chinese)

[28]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS: CLAIM AGAINST CARRIER FOR WRONGFUL DELIVERY OF GOODS: CONVERSION: LIMITATION UNDER HAGUE-VISBY RULES AND BILL OF LADING


DMC/SandT/10/02

German Federal Supreme Court:

Date of Judgement: 18 June 2009: Case Reference: 1 ZR 140/06

CARRIER’S LIABILITY: BREAKING THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: SUB-CONTRACTING


DMC/SandT/10/01

Nile Dutch Africa Line B.V, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (“NDAL”) v. (1) Delta Lloyd Schadeverzekering N.V., Rotterdam, the Netherlands (“Delta Lloyd”), (2) Premium Tobacco Investments N.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands (“Tobacco”), (3) M. Meerapfel Söhne A.G., Basel, Switzerland (“Meerapfel”) and (4) CETAC, Douala, Cameroon (“Cetac”) - The “NDS Provider” - Dutch Supreme Court

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA UNDER BILL OF LADING: HAGUE VISBY RULES: LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE CONTAINERS SUPPLIED BY CARRIER: PACKAGING OR PART OF THE VESSEL? INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES UNDER DUTCH LAW