JB Cocoa Sdn Bhd & Ors v Maersk Line AS
[2023] EWHC 2203 (Comm)
FIMBank Plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd
24 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 569
Court of Appeal
A bank sued a shipping company for misdelivering coal after it was unloaded from the ship. The court decided that the shipping company wasn't liable because the bank waited too long to sue, more than a year after the problem happened, according to international shipping rules.
Key Facts
- •FIMBank (appellant) held bills of lading for a coal cargo shipped on the "GIANT ACE", discharged in India.
- •The cargo was misdelivered after discharge.
- •FIMBank claimed damages from KCH Shipping (respondent), the carrier.
- •The bills of lading incorporated the Hague-Visby Rules.
- •The dispute centered on whether the Hague-Visby Rules' one-year time limit applied to the post-discharge misdelivery claim.
- •FIMBank's notice of arbitration was outside the one-year limit.
Legal Principles
Delivery by the carrier without production of a bill of lading is a breach of contract.
Glyn Mills Currie & Co v East and West India Dock Co (1882) 7 App Cas 591; Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd [1959] AC 576; Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2023] EWCA Civ 471
Liability for misdelivery is strict; no need to prove carrier's negligence.
Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 Aktieselskab [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 211
Hague-Visby Rules apply to carriage by sea, ending on discharge. Article III, rule 6's one-year time limit applies unless suit is brought within one year of delivery or when goods should have been delivered.
Hague-Visby Rules, Articles I, II, III, rule 6, VII
International conventions should be interpreted according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, considering object and purpose.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Terms can be implied into a contract in fact or in law.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Article III, rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules applies to post-discharge misdelivery claims. The Visby amendment broadened the scope of the one-year time limit to encompass such claims, as confirmed by the travaux préparatoires.
The one-year time bar under Article III, rule 6 was not disapplied by clause 2(c) of the Congenbill.
Even if clause 2(c) didn't fully exclude liability for post-discharge misdelivery, the one-year time limit still applied.