Carriage of Goods

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: [[1]]

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: [[2]]

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:[[3]]

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[[4]]

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»[[5]]

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[[6]] 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[[7]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 106/2008: 25 February 2010 [[8]]

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”[[9]]

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

[[10]]

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)

[11]

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