The fuller facts and background to the case can be found in the background section of the Court of Appeal case note, which can be found here [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Alize_1954_and_CMA_CGM_SA_v_Allianz_Elementar_Versicherungs_AB_-_The_CMA_CGM_Libra]].

Lord Hamblen (with whom the other Lords and Lady Arden agreed) gave the sole speech of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which dismissed Owners’ appeal for the following key reasons:

Further, save for exceptional cases, the prudent shipowner test, that is, whether a prudent shipowner would have required the relevant defect to be made good before the vessel was sent to sea had he known of it, is an appropriate test of seaworthiness. That test was well suited to adapt to differing and changing standards. It confirms that a defect that is remediable may mean the vessel is not unseaworthy; this is likely to depend on whether or not the defect in question would reasonably have been expected to be put right before any danger to the vessel or the cargo arose.

On that basis, on the proper interpretation of the Hague Rules, the ‘nautical fault’ exception cannot be relied on as a defence to a causative breach of Owners’ obligation to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage when, in applying the prudent shipowner test, a vessel is likely to be unseaworthy if she begins her voyage with a defective passage plan that endangers the safety of the vessel.

In light of the above, the Court concluded that the Admiralty Judge directed himself properly in law and the findings he made amply supported the conclusion he reached that the defective passage plan involved a want of due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy by Owners before and at the beginning of the voyage under Article III, Rule 1, to which Article IV, Rule 2(a) was no defence.

This judgment represents the final word in this jurisdiction on the relationship between Article III, Rule 1 and Article IV, Rule 2(a) of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules, having resulted from a relatively novel factual scenario.

Footnote 1:

1. The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to:

Footnote 2:

2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from:

Footnote 3:

2. Subject to the provisions of article 4, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried."