JB Cocoa Sdn Bhd & Ors v Maersk Line AS
[2023] EWHC 2203 (Comm)
Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S
7 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2494 (Comm)
High Court
A company bought copper, but got concrete instead. They sued the shipping company (Maersk) for issuing paperwork saying the containers were full of copper despite huge weight discrepancies. The judge said Maersk's systems weren't perfect, but they didn't *know* there was a problem at the time, so they weren't at fault. Maersk won, and the copper-buying company has to pay them back for their losses.
Key Facts
- •The Claimant purchased three consignments of copper, but the containers arrived filled with concrete blocks.
- •The Shippers disappeared after the Claimant obtained a default judgment against them in Dubai.
- •The Defendant, Maersk, issued clean Bills of Lading despite a significant discrepancy between the declared weight and the actual Verified Gross Mass (VGM).
- •Maersk's systems in 2019 did not cross-check declared weights with VGM data.
- •The Claimant made balance payments based on the incorrect weights stated in the Bills of Lading.
- •Maersk later implemented new procedures to cross-check weights after a container collapse incident.
Legal Principles
Breach of Article III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules requires the carrier to accurately record the apparent order and condition of goods, but not if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting inaccuracy.
Hague Rules, COGSA 1992
A carrier's statement in a bill of lading as to the apparent order and condition of the cargo refers to its external condition, as would be apparent on a reasonable examination. Weight is not apparent from external examination.
The Peter de Grosse [1875] 1 P 414, The Tromp [1921] P 337, The Tai Prize [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 3611
The implication of a representation by the carrier as to the particulars of the cargo is excluded by the proviso to Article III rule 3 of the Hague Rules.
Hague Rules
To establish a new duty of care, foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and fairness and reasonableness of the duty must be shown. The court may proceed incrementally by analogy with established authority.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] AC 736
A carrier may be liable for a counterclaim for indemnity if the shipper breaches warranties in the bill of lading regarding the accuracy of the particulars.
Bills of Lading, clauses 14.3 and 15.2
Outcomes
Claimant's claims dismissed.
Maersk did not breach the Hague Rules or owe a duty of care to the Claimant. Maersk had no reason to suspect fraud in 2019, and their systems, while improvable, did not create an obvious risk of fraud.
Maersk's counterclaim allowed.
The Claimant is liable to indemnify Maersk for losses arising from the Shippers' breach of warranty in the Bills of Lading, as Maersk was not in breach of contract or duty.
Similar Cases
AMS Ameropa Marketing and Sales AG v Ocean Unity Navigation INC
[2024] EWCA Civ 1312
Maersk Guiné-Bissau SARL & Anor v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL
[2024] EWHC 993 (Comm)
Unicredit Bank A.G. v Euronav N.V.
[2023] EWCA Civ 471
Yangtze Navigation (Asia) Co Limited & Anor v TPT Shipping Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2371 (Comm)