2,049
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
Upon trial, deputy High Court Judge David Donaldson QC found in favour of the Cargo Interests. He held that, while there was no legal burden on the Carrier to prove that the damage to the cargo was caused without negligence or by an excepted peril, there was a factual presumption that damage ascertained on discharge was due to negligence. And since the evidence did not establish what weight or how many layers of paper had been used and there was no evidence, or generally accepted commercial practice, to show what thickness of paper should have been used, the carrier had been unable to demonstrate that it had carried the goods in accordance with a sound system or to establish a defence of inherent vice. In particular, the judge made the following conclusions:
1. Bagged coffee can be (and at the time routinely was) carried without damage from warm to cooler countries in unventilated containers lined with kraft paper, provided that a sufficient thickness of paper or number of layers is used.
2. The evidence did not establish what weight of paper was used for these shipments, except that it was more than 80gsm. Nor did it establish how many layers were used, except that the photographs appeared to the judge to show that there was only one.
3. There was no evidence to show what thickness of paper ought to be used for a given number of layers, in order to avoid condensation damage.
