Carriage of Goods
DMC/SandT/23/03
England
UniCredit Bank AG v Euronav NV (“The Sienna”)
English Commercial Court: [2022] EWHC 957 (Comm) 28 April 2022: [[1]]
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/957.html
CARRIAGE OF FUEL OIL: VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: NOVATION OF CHARTERPARTY TO NEW CHARTERERS: FAILURE TO ENDORSE THE BILL OF LADING: TITLE TO SUE SHIPOWNERS FOR MISDELIVERY: NEW CHARTERERS HAVING “LIQUIDITY DISTRESS: WHETHER A NEW CONTRACT “SPRANG UP” WHERE THE BILL OF LADING AS A RECEIPT WAS NOT ENDORSED
DMC/SandT/23/01
England
FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The “Giant Ace”)
English Commercial Court: Sir William Blair: [2022] EWHC 2400 (Comm): 28 September 2022: [[2]
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2022/2400.html
BILLS OF LADING: MISDELIVERY OF CARGO: WHETHER TIME LIMIT FOR CLAIMS AGAINST THE CARRIER IN ARTICLE III, RULE 6 OF THE HAGUE VISBY RULES APPLIES TO CLAIMS FOR MISDELIVERY OF CARGO AFTER DISCHARGE FROM THE VESSEL: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW
DMC/SandT/22/01
England
Herculito Maritime Limited v Gunvor International BV (The “Polar”)
Court of Appeal: Peter Jackson and Males LJJ and Sir Patrick Elias: [2021] EWCA Civ 1828: 1 December 2021:[[3]]
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1828.html
BILL OF LADING: VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER BILLS OF LADING INCORPORATED CHARTERPARTY “CODE” BY WHICH CHARTERERS’ OBLIGATION TO PAY ADDITIONAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE PREMIUMS HAD BEEN ASSUMED TO ENTITLE THEM TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCES: WHETHER BILL OF LADING HOLDERS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE OWNERS FOR CARGO’S PROPORTION OF GENERAL AVERAGE ARISING FROM PAYMENT OF RANSOM TO PIRATES: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL ON POINT OF LAW
DMC/SandT/21/17
England
Alize 1954 and CMA CGM SA v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and Others (The “CMA CGM Libra”)
United Kingdom Supreme Court: Lords Reed (President), Briggs, Hamblen, Leggatt and Lady Arden: [2021] UKSC 51: 10 November 2021:[[4]]
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/51.html
OWNERS’ CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION IN GENERAL AVERAGE (“GA”): NEGLIGENT VOYAGE PLANNING BY MASTER CAUSED GROUNDING OF VESSEL LEADING TO GA EXPENDITURE TO REFLOAT THE VESSEL: WHETHER CARGO INTERESTS ENTITLED TO DEFEND CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT OWNERS FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE THE VESSEL SEAWORTHY BEFORE AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE VOYAGE: ARTICLE III, RULE 1 AND ARTICLE IV, RULE 2(A) OF THE HAGUE/HAGUE-VISBY RULES
DMC/SandT/21/10
England
Sea Tank Shipping AS v (1) Vinnlustodin HF & (2) Vatryggingafelag Islands FH – the “Aqasia”
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), on appeal from the Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: Lady Justice Gloster, David Richards and Flaux LJJ: [2018] EWCA Civ 276: [[5]]
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: PACKAGE LIMITATION: 1924 HAGUE RULES ARTICLE IV RULE 5: MEANING OF UNIT: WHETHER PACKAGE LIMITATION APPLIES TO BULK CARGO
DMC/SandT/21/08
England
Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV
English High Court: Teare J.: [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm): 4 December 2020: [[6]]
ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL ON POINT OF LAW: VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER BILL OF LADING INCORPORATED CHARTERPARTY “CODE” REGARDING ADDITIONAL WAR RISKS PREMIUMS: WHETHER BILL OF LADING HOLDERS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE SHIPOWNERS FOR LOSSES COVERED BY INSURANCE AGAINST PIRACY RISKS
DMC/SandT/21/02
England
Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd v Noble Chartering Inc, the “Tai Prize” [2020] EWHC 127 (Comm)
English Commercial Court (Queen’s Bench Division): HH Judge Pelling QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court): [[7]]
SHIPPERS ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE CHARTERERS PRESENTED ‘CLEAN ON BOARD’ BILL OF LADING FOR MASTER’S SIGNATURE: CARGO DID APPEAR TO BE IN GOOD ORDER SO BILL OF LADING ISSUED STATING CARGO IN APPARENT GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION:: ON DISCHARGE CARGO FOUND TO BE DAMAGED: WHETHER CHARTERERS LIABLE TO OWNERS AS CARRIER FOR MISREPRESENTATION: EFFECT OF INCLUSION OF HAGUE RULES IN BILL OF LADING
DMC/SandT/20/09
England
Alize 1954 and CMA CGM SA v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and Others (The “CMA CGM Libra”)
English Court of Appeal: Flaux, Haddon-Cave and Males LLJ: [2020] EWCA Civ 293: 4 March 2020: [[8]]
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/293.html
CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION IN GENERAL AVERAGE: NEGLIGENT VOYAGE PLANNING BY THE VESSEL’S OFFICERS CAUSED GROUNDING OF VESSEL LEADING TO EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF GENERAL AVERAGE TO REFLOAT THE VESSEL: WHETHER CARGO INTERESTS ENTITLED TO DEFEND THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT OWNERS HAD FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE THE VESSEL SEAWORTHY BEFORE AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE VOYAGE: ARTICLE III, RULES 1 AND 2 AND ARTICLE IV, RULE 2(A) OF THE HAGUE/HAGUE-VISBY RULES
DMC/SandT/20/07
England
Globalink Transportation & Logistics Worldwide LLP v DHL Project & Chartering Ltd
English Commercial Court: Nicholas Vineall QC: 29 January; 19 February: [2019] EWHC 225 (Comm): [[9]]
CONTRACT FOR FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES: WHETHER CLAIM FOR CARGO DAMAGE COULD BE SET-OFF AGAINST CLAIM FOR FREIGHT
DMC/SandT/20/06
Singapore
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation v Jiang Xin Shipping (“YUE YOU 902”)
Singapore High Court: Pang Khang Chau, Judicial Commissioner: [2019] SGHC 106:[[10]]
BILLS OF LADING: MISDELIVERY: WHETHER HOLDER’S KNOWLEDGE THAT CARGO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED BEFORE TAKING UP THE BILLS OF LADING DEFEATED A MISDELIVERY CLAIM: WHETHER HOLDER IN FACT HAD THAT KNOWLEDGE AT THAT TIME
DMC/SandT/20/04
England
Volcafe Ltd and Others v Cia Sud Americana de Vapores SA
Supreme Court: Lord Reed DPSC, Lords Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Kitchin JJSC; [2018] UKSC 61; 5 December 2018: [[11]]
SHIPPING: BILL OF LADING: HAGUE RULES: WHETHER BURDEN ON CARRIER TO PROVE DAMAGE TO GOODS CAUSED WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR DUE TO INHERENT VICE: INHERENT VICE
DMC/SandT/20/01
England
Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd
English Court of Appeal: Longmore, Hamblen, Henderson LJJ: [2017] EWCA Civ 2107:[[12]]
CHARTERPARTY (TIME): NYPE INTER-CLUB AGREEMENT 1996, CLAUSE 8(D): WHETHER “ACT” REQUIRES FAULT
DMC/SandT/19/07
England
Deep Sea Maritime Limited v Monjasa A/S (The “Alhani”)
English Commercial Court: David Foxton QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court): [2018] EWHC 1495 (Comm): 15 June 2018:
[[13]]
BILL OF LADING: CARGO MISDELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF ORIGINAL BILL: CLAUSE 1 OF BILL INCORPORATING EXCLUSIVE ENGLISH JURISDICTION & LAW CLAUSE OF A CHARTERPARTY: CLAUSE 2 OF BILL INCORPORATING HAGUE RULES 1924: WHETHER ONE-YEAR TIME BAR IN ARTICLE III RULE 6 OF 1924 RULES APPLIES TO CARGO MISDELIVERY CLAIMS: WHETHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED IN TIME IN WRONG (FOREIGN) FORUM CAN STOP TIME BAR EXPIRING IN CORRECT (ENGLISH) FORUM: WHETHER CARRIER (OWNERS) ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF NON-LIABILITY ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASIS
DMC/S&T/19/03
England
Yemgas FZCO & Ors v Superior Pescadores SA
English Court of Appeal; Longmore, Tomlinson, McCombe LJJ; [2016] EWCA Civ 101; 24 February 2016: [[14]]
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: BILLS OF LADING: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: CLAUSE PARAMOUNT: WHETHER REFERENCE IN THAT CLAUSE TO HAGUE RULES MEANT HAGUE RULES LIMITS OF LIABILITY APPLIED EVEN WHERE HAGUE-VISBY RULES OTHERWISE APPLIED
DMC/SandT/18/07
England
Troy Maritime SA v Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd
English Commercial Court: Butcher J.: [2018] EWHC 2310 (Comm): 31 July 2018:[[15]]
DEVIATION FROM THE CONTRACT VOYAGE: WHETHER DEVIATION REASONABLE IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES: FINDING OF FACT BY ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL: WHETHER COURT BOUND BY THAT FINDING
DMC/SandT/18/06
England
Dera Commercial Estate v Derya Inc (The“SUR”)
English Commercial Court: Carr J.: 13 July 2018: [2018] EWHC 1673 (Comm)[[16]]
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: HAGUE RULES: WHETHER GEOGRAPHIC DEPARTURE [‘DEVIATION’] FROM THE AGREED VOYAGE CONSTITUTED A ‘FUNDAMENTAL BREACH OF CONTRACT’: WHETHER CARRIER ENTITLED TO RELY ON ONE-YEAR TIME LIMIT IN ARTICLE 3 RULE 6
DMC/SandT/18/05
England
Agile Holdings Corporation (Claimant) v Essar Shipping Ltd (Defendant):
English Commercial Court: Judge Waksman QC: [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm): [[17]]
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: [[18]]
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:[[19]]
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:[[20]]
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): [[21]]
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: [[22]]
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): [[23]]
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:[[24]]
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: [[25]]
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:[[26]]
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:[[27]]
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:[[28]]
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: [[29]]
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: [[30]]
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:[[31]]
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: [[32]
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:[[33]]
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: [[34]]
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: [[35]]
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:[[36]]
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[[37]]
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»[[38]]
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[[39]] 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[[40]]
Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 106/2008: 25 February 2010 [[41]]
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”[[42]]
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
[[43]]
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)
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
