2,065
edits
Changes
no edit summary
This was the unsuccessful appeal from [2016] EWHC 3122 (Comm), covered here in DMC/SandT/17/10 [[https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Transgrain_Shipping_(Singapore)_v_Yangtze_Navigation_(Hong_Kong)]]. The Court of Appeal upheld Teare J’s decision that the word “act” in clause 8(d) of the Inter-Club Agreement 1996 bears the ordinary and natural meaning of “act” and does not require culpability.
This case note is contributed by Justin Ganof Stephenson Harwood LLP in Singapore. The views expressed remain the contributor's views.
'''Background'''
Transgrain appealed to the Court of Appeal, but without success.
'''Judgment on Appeal'''
Similarly, the Court of Appeal was mindful of the ICA’s intent to apportion liability for cargo claims on a “more or less mechanical basis” – and indicated its agreement with Teare J for the reasons he gave.