551. MT Højgaard A/S v EON Climate and Renewables 2014 [EWHC] 1088 (TCC); 2015 [EWCA] Civ 407; 2017 [UKSC] 59

Design and build contract – minimum lifespan provision taking precedence over specific design requirements agreed upon The Facts The employer, EON, accepted the tender of the contractor, MTH, to design and build the generators for two adjacent windfarms in the Solway Firth. The contract contained a provision regulating the hierarchy of documents, with the contract […]

550. MSC Depots (Pty) Ltd v WK Construction (Pty) Ltd, Wynford’s Civil and Development CC 2011 (2) SA 417 (ECP); [2011] ZA SCA 115

Contractor cannot be in breach of clause 15.3 of the JBCC on grounds of defective performance where it is not given the opportunity to remedy such defective performance. The Facts The Plaintiff shipping company contracted the Defendant paving contractor to provide paving for a container depot. The contract was on an unidentified version of the […]

398. Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd & others (the “Ocean Victory”) [2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm) ;[2015] EWCA Civ 16; [2017] UKSC 35

Safe port warranty – port of Kashima affected simultaneously with long waves and a force 9 gale – running aground and breaking up – charterers not in breach of safe port warranty The Facts The vessel, a Capesize Bulk Carrier, was ordered on a time charter trip on an amended NYPE form to carry iron […]

545. El Greco (Australia) (Pty) Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (the “MSC Melbourne”) [2004] 2 Lloyds Rep 537

Hague Visby Rules – substantial quantity of individual prints and posters packed in a container – not “units” for purposes of limitation The Facts A cargo of posters and prints were loaded on board the vessel at Port Botany, Sydney in a 20 foot general purpose container. The vessel sailed for Antwerp where the container […]

544. Kyokuyo Ltd v AP Møller v Maersk A/S t/a “Maersk Line” (the “Maersk Tangier”)[2017] EWHC 654 (Comm); [2018] EWCA Civ 778

Hague/Hague Visby Rules – limitation as applied to containerized frozen fish. The Facts Twelve containers of frozen tuna were shipped on Maersk Tangier on 24 November 2012. The vessel sailed from Cartagena, Spain to Yokohama. En route, at Valencia, nine of the twelve containers were transshipped onto Maersk Emden. The three remaining containers A, B […]

542. Navelmar UK Ltd v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi Ticaret AS (“the MV Arundel Castle”) [2017] EWHC 116 (Comm)

Port charterparty – “within port limits” defined. The Facts A fixture recap contained the following clause: “15. Notice of readiness to be tendered at both ends even by cable/telefax on vessel’s arrival at load/discharging ports within port limits. The notice of readiness not to be tendered before commencement of laydays. … Otherwise Gencon 94 printed […]

541. Patel v Mirza [2016] UK SC 42

Claim for recovery of money paid under an illegal contract The Facts Patel paid £620 000 to Mirza to bet on Royal Bank of Scotland shares, using inside information. The purpose of the contract was never carried out and Patel sued for the return of his money. Findings Deputy Judge David Donaldson QC refused the claim […]

540. Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd (the “MV Yangtze Xing Hua”) [2016] EWHC 3132 (Comm)

Interpretation of clause 8(d) of the Inter-Club Agreement, 1996 The Facts Soya bean meal was shipped from South America to Iran under a trip time charter on the NYPE form. The vessel arrived off the discharge port in Iran in December 2012. Not having been paid for the cargo, charterers ordered the vessel to wait […]

539. Volcafe Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA (trading as “CSAV”) [2016] EWCA Civ 1103; [2018] UKSC 61

Hague Rules – carrier bears the full onus to prove the absence of negligence under Art III 2 and under Article IV 2 (m) (inherent vice exception) The Facts Nine consignments of washed Columbian green coffee beans were carried in 20 dry, unventilated 20 foot containers, each loaded with 275 hessian 70kg bags from Buenaventura, […]

538. Marks & Spencer PLC v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) [2015] UKSC 72

Implied terms – Lord Hoffmann’s analysis is Belize Telecom qualified – scope for implying terms in a comprehensive written agreement is limited The Facts A written lease between the parties gave the tenant the option of premature termination on a certain date. Rent was to be paid quarterly in advance. A condition for the exercise […]

536. Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management SA (the “Giannis NK”) [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 337

Hague Rules – “dangerous goods” include those dangerous to the venture, not only vessel – shippers strictly liable – right to sue transferred by Bills of Lading Act 1855 not affecting liability of shippers – carrier’s liability for dangerous cargo at common law also strict. The Facts On 18 November 1990, a cargo of ground-nut […]

535. Vinnlustodin HF Vatryggingaffelag Islands HF v Sea-Tank Shipping AS (the “Aqasia”) [2016] EWHC 2514 (Comm); [2018] EWCA Civ 276

Hague Rules – package limitation not applying to bulk cargoes.
The Facts

Fish oil was carried pursuant to a charterparty on the “London Form”, an old tanker voyage form now replaced in common usage by Intertankvoy 76.

The vessel loaded 2,056,926 kg of fish oil in bulk at Faskrudsfjordur and Vestmannaeyjar.

The vessel sailed to Lovund in Norway and loaded a further cargo of fish oil.

On arrival at the discharge port 547,309 kg/mt of the cargo was found to be damaged.

Claimants claimed $367,836 together with interest and costs. Ship owners sought limit their liability to £54 730 i.e. £100 per metric ton of cargo damaged pursuant to Article IV r.5 of the Hague Rules.

Article IV r.5 provides:

“… neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with goods in an amount exceeding £100 per package or unit or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading”.

The shipowners sought to limit their liability to £100 per metric ton.

The counter argument was that it was not possible to equate "unit" with an undefined standard of measurement.

Findings (more…)