Changes

Cargo interests sought to recover damages from the carrier. Their ability to do so turned on the interpretation and application of the Hague-Visby Rules. In particular it was necessary to determine whether the carrier was entitled to rely on the exemption of error in navigation and management of the ship under Art.IV Rule 2(a), which provides as follows: “(2) Neither the carrier not the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from—(a) Act neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot or servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship;”.

The Judge at first instance found in favour of cargo interests. Hugh Williams J held that the Art.IV Rule 2(a) exemption was only available where the actions of those in charge of the ship were “bona fide” (in the navigation or management of the ship) and those of the master in this case were not. (The Judge did, however, dismiss the claim of one cargo interest, the New Zealand Dairy Board. This issue is not explored in any length in this case note because the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court did not maintain the distinction between the Dairy Board and the other cargo interests.)