Difference between revisions of "Carriage of Goods"

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with 'DMC/SandT/09/13 Nile Dutch Africa Line B.V, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (“NDAL”) v. (1) Delta Lloyd Schadeverzekering N.V., Rotterdam, the Netherlands (“Delta Lloyd”), (2)…')
 
 
(79 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
DMC/SandT/09/13
+
DMC/SandT/24/04
−
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: J.B. Fleers, E.J. Numann, A. Hammerstein, F.B. Bakers, W.D.H. Asser; Advocate General; NJ 2008, 505; SES 2008, 46; 1 February 2008
 
−
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
 
−
Summary
 
−
The Dutch Supreme Court (“DSC”) held that the purpose of the duty of care that is placed on the carrier in Art. III r.1 (a), (b) and (c) of the Hague-Visby Rules (HVR) is to ensure that the vessel protects the cargo from perils of the sea, so that the vessel is fit to carry the cargo. This means that the carrier must ensure that containers that it provides to the shipper for carriage on board of the vessel should also be fit to carry cargo in. It follows from this duty of care that, in the same manner that applies to the hold of a vessel, no water should be able to enter into those containers. By providing rusty containers with holes in them which allowed seawater to enter the containers, the carrier had breached its duty of care. By Art.III r.8 and Art.IV r.1 HVR the carrier could not benefit from the exclusion clause contained in its bill of lading and the exceptions contained in Art.IV r.2 HVR. Furthermore, the DSC held that Dutch national law may not be applied when interpreting a treaty that contains uniform international law.
 
  
 +
'''England'''
  
−
DMC Category rating:  Developed (part (a) of the judgment as discussed) and Confirmed (part (b) of the judgment as discussed)
+
'''JB Cocoa SDN BHD & Others v Maersk Line AS (The “Maersk Chennai”)'''
  
−
Case Note contributed by Nigel Margetson, Advocaat in the Rotterdam law firm of Hampe Meyjes Advocaten and an International Contributor to this website.
+
'''English Commercial Court: HHJ Keyser KC: [2023] EWHC 2203 (Comm): 5 September 2023: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/JB_Cocoa_Sdn_Bhd_v_Maersk_Line_AS_-_The_Maersk_Chennai]]
  
−
Facts
+
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2023/2203.html
−
The shipper Cetac entered into a contract with NDAL for carriage by sea of 398 bales of raw tobacco from Douala in Cameroon to Amsterdam. Cetac loaded the bales into four containers that had been put at its disposal by NDAL for use during the carriage. The containers were carried by NDAL on board of the m.v. “NDS Provider” which vessel was owned by Staklex.
 
  
−
A clean bill of lading made out to order was issued to Cetac for this carriage. The bill of lading was on NDAL’s form and had been signed by the Master. This bill of lading named Cetac as the shipper and NDAL and Meerapfel as notify addressees. It provided that the Hague-Visby Rules (HVR) applied, as well as Dutch law. In the bill of lading the cargo was described as four “20' containers FCL/FCL disant contenir 398 balles de tabacs en feuille" (“20’ containers FCL/FCL said to contain 398 bales of leaf tobacco”). The bill of lading contained the following provisions concerning containers:
+
'''CLAIM FOR CARGO DAMAGE ARISING AFTER DISCHARGE: LIABILITY OF CARRIER: WHETHER EXCLUSION CLAUSE IN BILL OF LADING VALID'''
  
−
Container stowage
 
−
a) The Carrier shall be under no liability in the event of loss of or damage to any of the goods, directly or indirectly caused by (…) unsuitability or defective condition of the containers.
 
  
−
Container clauses (FCL only: Line’s owned containers (…)
+
DMC/SandT/24/03
−
Shipper load, stow and count. Contents, quantity and quality not checked by Master and/or agents. Container is being put at the disposal of the merchant by the carrier. Merchant to pay rental for the use of the container (…).”
 
  
−
After delivery of the containers in Amsterdam against presentation of the bill of lading by Tobacco to Vinke & Co. B.V., who were acting as agents of NDAL and Staklex, the containers were carried over the road to Meerapfel’s factory in Oudenbosch.
+
'''England'''
  
−
Several of the bales of tobacco from the four containers had been damaged by water. The parties’ surveyors came to the conclusion that the bad condition of the containers (holes resulting from rust) was the cause of the water damage.
+
'''Herculito Maritime Limited v Gunvor International BV (The “Polar”)'''
  
−
In this case Delta Lloyd, based on the clean bill of lading that had been issued to Cetac, demanded compensation from NDAL for the loss that it had suffered due to the cargo damage. NDAL did not deny that the damage was caused by the defective condition of the containers that it had provided for the carriage, but to escape liability, it invoked the exclusion of liability clauses contained in its bill of lading, quoted above, and the exceptions contained in Art.IV r.2 HVR namely, (i) (an act or omission of the shipper) and (n) (insufficiency of packing).
+
'''UK Supreme Court: Lord Hodge, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lady Rose and Lord Richards: [2024] UKSC 2: 17 January 2024:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Herculito_Maritime_v_Gunvor_International_-_Supreme_Court_Decision_-_The_Polar]]
  
−
The question that the DSC had to decide was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly held that NDAL could not escape liability by relying on Art.IV r.2 (i) and (n) HVR and the exclusion of liability clause contained in the bill of lading. In answering this question the DSC also discussed how the HVR should be construed.
+
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2024/2.html/
  
−
Judgment
+
'''BILL OF LADING: VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER BILLS OF LADING INCORPORATED CHARTERPARTY “CODE” BY WHICH CHARTERERS’ OBLIGATION TO PAY ADDITIONAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE PREMIA HAD  ENTITLED THE BILL OF LADING HOLDERS 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 QUESTION OF LAW'''
−
a. Are containers packaging or a part of the vessel?
 
−
The DSC held that the court of appeal’s decision that NDAL could not escape liability by invoking the exclusion of liability clauses contained in its bill of lading or by relying on Art.IV r.2 (i) and (n) HVR was correct for the following reasons.
 
  
−
By Art.III r.1 HVR the carrier is obliged before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to a) make the ship seaworthy, b) properly man, equip and supply the ship; c) make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation.
 
  
−
The words of Art.III r.1 HVR do not answer the question if, in a case such as this one, containers that were put at the disposal of the shipper by the carrier for the carriage of goods should be considered to be a part of the vessel in which the cargo is carried or whether they should be treated in the same way as if they were a part of the vessel. 
+
DMC/SandT/23/10
  
−
Also the Travaux Préparatoires published by the Comité  Maritime International (CMI) in 1997 (the Travaux Préparatoires of the International Convention for the Unification of certain rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading of 25 August 1924, the Hague Rules, and of the protocols of 23 February 1968 and 21 December 1979, the Hague-Visby Rules) do not shed any light upon this point.
+
'''England'''
  
−
The case law and literature cited by the Advocate General in his advice to the DSC made clear that also within the group of states whose Maritime Law Associations are members of the CMI, there is no agreement regarding the correct interpretation of this clause.
+
'''Star Axe I LLC v Royal & Sun Alliance Luxembourg S.A. and Others (The “Star Antares”)'''
−
In these circumstances, when interpreting a clause of substantive private international law such as Art.III r.1  HVR, decisive importance must be given to the purpose and intent of that clause (see DSC 29 June 1990, NJ 1992, 106; DSC 14 July 2006, NJ 2006, 599).
 
  
−
The purpose of the duty of care of the carrier set out in Art.III r.1 is that a vessel should protect the cargo from the dangers of the sea, so that it is suitable to carry cargo, also known as its “cargoworthiness”. This means that the carrier should also ensure that containers that have been provided by him specially for carriage on board of the vessel should also be suitable to carry the cargo that has been placed into those containers. This duty of care entails that, in the same manner as with the holds of a vessel, it should not be possible for water to enter those containers.  
+
English Commercial Court: Butcher J: [2023] EWHC 2784 (Comm): 10 November 2023:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Star_Axe_1_v_Royal_&_Sun_Alliance_and_Ors_-_The_Star_Antares]
  
−
This interpretation is supported by the fact that Art.III r.1 HVR corresponds with Art.16.1of the United Nations’ draft Convention on the Carriage of Goods [wholly or party] [by sea], version 13 February 2007. That convention is intended to replace the HVR in due course. Art.16.1 of that convention explicitly provides that the parts of the vessel to which the carrier’s duty of care extends include containers that the carrier has provided.  
+
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2023/2784.html
  
−
In this case, by providing containers for the carriage of goods which had holes in them caused by rust as a result of which seawater could easily enter the containers, NDAL has breached the duty of care of a carrier of goods by sea. By Art.III r.8 and Art.IV r.1HVR, NDAL could not escape its liability by invoking the exceptions contained in Art.IV r.2 HVR or the exemption of liability clause contained in the bill of lading (see DSC, 11 June 1993, NJ 1994, 235).
+
'''BILLS OF LADING: CONGENBILL 1994 FORM: GENERAL AVERAGE (“GA”): YORK-ANTWERP RULES (“YAR”): WHETHER YAR 1994 OR YAR 2016 APPLIED TO ADJUSTMENT, STATEMENT AND SETTLMENT IN LONDON OF GA INCIDENT ARISING IN 2021'''
  
−
The appeal to the Supreme Court failed and NDAL was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 
  
−
End of the Supreme Court’s judgement with regard to question a).
+
DMC/SandT/23/09
  
−
b. Should Dutch national law be applied when interpreting Art.III and IV HVR?
+
'''England'''
−
In discussing a different part of the Court of Appeal’s judgement the DSC held that Art. 8:371 Dutch Civil Code (DCC) declared the HVR directly applicable. Articles III and IV HVR govern the liability of a carrier of goods by sea under a bill of lading. The liability regime contained in Articles III and IV HVR are uniform rules in the area of the international carriage of goods. This means that there is no room for the application of other rules of national law, such as exceptions to liability derived from the requirements of fairness and reasonableness as provided in Article 6:248 of the Dutch Civil Code – see further in Comment below
 
  
−
Comment
+
'''FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The “Giant Ace”)'''
−
Re a:) Are containers packaging or part of the vessel?
 
−
This decision is important because the DSC has held that containers are not packaging but should be treated in the same manner as a part of the vessel in which goods are carried.  There was no clarity on this point before.
 
  
−
Re b) Should Dutch national law be applied when interpreting Art.III and IV HVR?
+
'''English Court of Appeal: Males, Popplewell and Nugee LJJ: [2023] EWCA Civ 569: 24 May 2023:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/FIMBank_v_KCH_Shipping_-_The_Giant_Ace]]'''
−
Reasonableness and fairness are leading principles of Dutch law. The principles are so important that they have been written into the Dutch statute which contains rules of law for contracts (book 6 of the Dutch civil code) Art. 248 of book 6 DCC can be translated as follows:
 
  
−
1) A contract does not only have the legal consequences agreed between the parties, but also those
+
Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/569.html
−
    that follow from the nature of the contract, the law, custom or the requirements of what is fair
 
−
    and reasonable.
 
−
2) A rule that has been agreed between parties in a contract does not apply if, in the given
 
−
    circumstances, standards of reasonableness and fairness would make it unacceptable for that
 
−
    rule to apply.
 
  
−
Article 6:248 DCC means that a Court will not enforce agreements made between parties if, in the circumstances of the case, by the standards of reasonableness and fairness, that would be deemed to be unacceptable. It is used not only in interpreting contracts, but also when applying rules of law. It means that in certain circumstances, parties cannot rely on the words of a contract or on the words of a treaty or other document.
+
'''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'''
  
−
In this case (“NDS Provider”) the DSC has now clearly stated that the Dutch law and its principles of reasonableness and fairness may not be applied when interpreting international treaties. The DSC had given a decision on this point before, but some doubt still existed in some quarters. Now, there is no longer any room for doubt (for a further discussion of this point see the case note of K.F. Haak under the judgment as published in the Nederlandse Jurisprudentie as NJ 2008/505).
 
  
−
[[Link title]]
+
DMC/SandT/23/06
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV  (The “Sienna”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Court of Appeal: [2023] EWCA Civ 471: Asplin, Popplewell and Falk LJJ.: 4 May 2023:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Unicredit_Bank_AG_v_Euronav_NV_-_The_Sienna]]
 +
 
 +
'''CLAIM UNDER BILL OF LADING (“BL”) FOR DELIVERY OF CARGO WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL BL: BL ‘MERE RECEIPT’ WHILE IN HANDS OF CHARTERER/SELLER: CHARTERER NOVATED CHARTERPARTY TO THE BUYER: BL SUBSEQUENTLY ENDORSED BY THE CHARTERER TO THE BANK, AFTER DISCHARGE OF CARGO: WHETHER BL WAS A CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, GIVING THE BANK RIGHTS AGAINST THE OWNERS: WHETHER, IF SO, DELIVERY OF CARGO WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF THE BL WAS CAUSATIVE OF THE LOSS'''
 +
 
 +
 
 +
DMC/SandT/23/03
 +
 
 +
'''England'''
 +
 
 +
'''UniCredit Bank AG v Euronav NV (“The Sienna”)'''
 +
 
 +
'''English Commercial Court: [2022] EWHC 957 (Comm) 28 April 2022: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/UniCredit_Bank_v_Euronav_-_The_Sienna]]
 +
 
 +
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: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/FIMBank_Plc_v_KCH_Shipping_Co_-_The_Giant_Ace]
 +
 
 +
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:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Herculito_Maritime_v_Gunvor_International_-_The_Polar]]
 +
 
 +
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:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Alize_1954_and_CMA_CGM_SA_v_Allianz_Versicherungs_AG_and_Ors_-_the_CMA_CGM_Libra]] '''
 +
 
 +
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: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sea_Tank_Shipping_v_Vinnlustodin_HF_&_Or_-_the_Aquasia]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Herculito_Maritime_Ltd_v_Gunvor_International_BV]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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): [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Priminds_Shipping_(HK)_v_Noble_Chartering_-_The_Tai_Prize]]
 +
 
 +
'''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:
 +
[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Alize_1954_and_CMA_CGM_SA_v_Allianz_Elementar)Versicherungs_AB_-_The_CMA_CGM_Libra]]
 +
 
 +
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): [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Globalink_Transportation_&_Logistics_v_DHL_Project_&_Chartering]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Overseas_-_Chinese_Banking_Corporation_v_Jiang_Xin_Shipping_-_The_Yue_You_902]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Volcafe_and_Ors_v_CSAV]]
 +
'''
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Transgrain_Shipping_(Singapore)_v_Yangtze_Navigation_(Hong_Kong)_Court_of_Appeal]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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:'''
 +
 
 +
'''[[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Deep_Sea_Maritime_v_Monjasa_-_The_Alhani]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Yemgas_FZCO_&_Ors_v_Superior_Pescadores_SA]]
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Troy_Maritime_v_Clearlake_Shipping]]
 +
 
 +
'''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)[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Dera_Commercial_Estate_v_Derya_Inc_-_The_Sur]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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): [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Agile_Holdings_v_Essar_Shipping_-_The_Maria]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Kyokuyo_v_AP_Møller-Maersk_-_trading_as_Maersk_Line]]
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Glencore_International_v_MSC_Mediterranean_Shipping_Company]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/De_Wolf_Maritime_Safety_v_Traffic-Tech_International_-_The_Zagora]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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): [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Transgrain_Shipping_(Singapore)_v_Yangtze_Navigation_(Hong_Kong)]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Volcafe_&_Ors_v_Compania_Sud_Americana_de_Vapores_-_CSAV]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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): [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/SDTM-CI_and_others_v_Continental_Lines_amd_another_-_the_Sea_Miror]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Standard_Chartered_Bank_v_Dorchester_LNG_(2)_-_The_Erin_Schulte]]
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Antwerp_Diamond_Bank-v-Brink's_Inc]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/British_American_Tobacco_&_Ors_v_Exel_Europe]]
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Trafigura_Beheer_v_Navigazione_Montanari_-_the_Valle_de_Cordoba]]
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Yuzhny_Zavod_Metall_Profil_v_Emms_Beheerder_-_the_M/V_Eems_Solar]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Maintek_Computer_(Suzhou)_v_Blue_Anchor_Line''']]
 +
 
 +
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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/CMR_Art.29_and_Contributory_Negligence]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Und_Adryatik]]
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Marcatania]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sideridraulic_Systems_v_BBC_Chartering_&_Logistics]
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/A_O_Smith_Electrical_Products_v_Blue_Anchor_Line_&_Ors]]
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/DSV_Road_v_Sneltransport_Heidenend]]
 +
 
 +
'''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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Brink's_Global_Services_v_Igrox]]
 +
 
 +
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Röhlig_(UK)_v_Rock_Unique]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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'''[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Germany_CMR_Damages]]
 +
 
 +
'''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»[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/CSAV_v_Sinochem_the_Aconcagua]]'''
 +
 +
'''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'''[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_%22Tasman_Pioneer%22]]
 +
'''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[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Maintek_Computer_v_ECT_Delta_Terminal]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 106/2008: 25 February 2010''' [[http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000106_2008-69910.html]]
 +
 
 +
'''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”[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Dolphin_1]]'''
 +
 
 +
'''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'''
 +
 
 +
[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Cheong_Yuk_Fai_and_another_v_China_International_Freight_Forwarders_(HK)_Ltd]]
 +
 
 +
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)
 +
 
 +
[http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkca/2005/CACV000463X_2002-47015.html]
 +
 
 +
'''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'''

Latest revision as of 18:01, 23 February 2024

DMC/SandT/24/04

England

JB Cocoa SDN BHD & Others v Maersk Line AS (The “Maersk Chennai”)

English Commercial Court: HHJ Keyser KC: [2023] EWHC 2203 (Comm): 5 September 2023: [[1]]

Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2023/2203.html

CLAIM FOR CARGO DAMAGE ARISING AFTER DISCHARGE: LIABILITY OF CARRIER: WHETHER EXCLUSION CLAUSE IN BILL OF LADING VALID


DMC/SandT/24/03

England

Herculito Maritime Limited v Gunvor International BV (The “Polar”)

UK Supreme Court: Lord Hodge, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lady Rose and Lord Richards: [2024] UKSC 2: 17 January 2024:[[2]]

Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2024/2.html/

BILL OF LADING: VOYAGE CHARTER: WHETHER BILLS OF LADING INCORPORATED CHARTERPARTY “CODE” BY WHICH CHARTERERS’ OBLIGATION TO PAY ADDITIONAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE PREMIA HAD ENTITLED THE BILL OF LADING HOLDERS 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 QUESTION OF LAW


DMC/SandT/23/10

England

Star Axe I LLC v Royal & Sun Alliance Luxembourg S.A. and Others (The “Star Antares”)

English Commercial Court: Butcher J: [2023] EWHC 2784 (Comm): 10 November 2023:[[3]

Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2023/2784.html

BILLS OF LADING: CONGENBILL 1994 FORM: GENERAL AVERAGE (“GA”): YORK-ANTWERP RULES (“YAR”): WHETHER YAR 1994 OR YAR 2016 APPLIED TO ADJUSTMENT, STATEMENT AND SETTLMENT IN LONDON OF GA INCIDENT ARISING IN 2021


DMC/SandT/23/09

England

FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The “Giant Ace”)

English Court of Appeal: Males, Popplewell and Nugee LJJ: [2023] EWCA Civ 569: 24 May 2023:[[4]]

Judgment Available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/569.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/23/06

England

Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV (The “Sienna”)

English Court of Appeal: [2023] EWCA Civ 471: Asplin, Popplewell and Falk LJJ.: 4 May 2023:[[5]]

CLAIM UNDER BILL OF LADING (“BL”) FOR DELIVERY OF CARGO WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL BL: BL ‘MERE RECEIPT’ WHILE IN HANDS OF CHARTERER/SELLER: CHARTERER NOVATED CHARTERPARTY TO THE BUYER: BL SUBSEQUENTLY ENDORSED BY THE CHARTERER TO THE BANK, AFTER DISCHARGE OF CARGO: WHETHER BL WAS A CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, GIVING THE BANK RIGHTS AGAINST THE OWNERS: WHETHER, IF SO, DELIVERY OF CARGO WITHOUT PRODUCTION OF THE BL WAS CAUSATIVE OF THE LOSS


DMC/SandT/23/03

England

UniCredit Bank AG v Euronav NV (“The Sienna”)

English Commercial Court: [2022] EWHC 957 (Comm) 28 April 2022: [[6]]

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: [[7]

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:[[8]]

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:[[9]]

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: [[10]]

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: [[11]]

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): [[12]]

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: [[13]]

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): [[14]]

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:[[15]]

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: [[16]]

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:[[17]]

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:

[[18]]

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: [[19]]

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:[[20]]

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)[[21]]

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): [[22]]

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: [[23]]

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:[[24]]

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:[[25]]

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): [[26]]

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: [[27]]

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): [[28]]

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:[[29]]

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: [[30]]

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:[[31]]

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:[[32]]

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:[[33]]

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: [[34]]

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: [[35]]

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:[[36]]

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: [[37]

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:[[38]]

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: [[39]]

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: [[40]]

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:[[41]]

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[[42]]

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»[[43]]

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[[44]] 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[[45]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 106/2008: 25 February 2010 [[46]]

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”[[47]]

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

[[48]]

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)

[49]

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

Retrieved from ‘https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Carriage_of_Goods&oldid=2039’