Office: +44 203 968 0500
24/7 Emergency Response: +44 7887 710 950
Select Page

Misdelivery By A Carrier After Discharge – The Hague-Visby Rules Time Bar Applies

Misdelivery By A Carrier After Discharge – The Hague-Visby Rules Time Bar Applies | BDM Blog | BDM Law

In a recent case of interest 1 the Commercial Court confirmed that the one year time bar for bringing claims against a carrier under Article III rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules (the HVRs) can apply to claims for mis-delivery after discharge has taken place.

Prior to this judgment there had been uncertainty as to whether the time bar under the HVRs applied in cases where the cargo is delivered at a time subsequent to discharge of the cargo from the ship. This situation often arises in the shipping industry where a carrier agrees to discharge cargo pursuant to a letter of indemnity without production of the original bills of lading. In such cases, following discharge, the cargo may be stored in a warehouse or on the quayside pending delivery of the goods. Does the carrier have the protection of the HVRs time bar in that situation?

In this case the Court ruled that the HVRs do extend beyond discharge from the ship to delivery of the cargo and therefore that the carrier would be protected by the time bar in that situation. Further, the court decided that the wording in clause 2(c) of the Congenbill form bill of lading providing that “The Carrier shall in no case be responsible for loss and damage to the cargo, howsoever arising prior to loading into and after discharge from the Vessel…” did not disapply the HVR in respect of the period after discharge.

The Court therefore made it clear that the one year time bar under the HVRs applies to the carrier’s responsibilities for the cargo not only during the carriage of the goods by sea, but also during the time the goods are stored on shore following discharge, up to the time of delivery.

This judgment will be welcome news to shipowners and carriers under bills of lading. This judgment applies to the HVRs (rather than the Hague Rules) but given the general reasoning of the judge, there is a good chance that this would also apply to cases involving the Hague Rules.

  1. FIMBank p.l.c. v KCH Shipping Co., Ltd [2022] EWHC 2400 (Comm)
Pav Samothrakis - author profile
Pav Samothrakis
Gareth Thompson - author profile
Gareth Thompson
Managing Associate
BDM is a specialist shipping law firm offering high quality legal advice and representation at a reasonable price. Please follow us on social media by clicking below.

Other Recent Blogs

  • Tendering NOR does wirelessinclude email | BDM Blog | BDM Law
    November 21, 2022

    Tendering NOR – does “wireless” include email?

    In a recent arbitration under the LMAA Small Claims Procedure (1) the Tribunal had to determine the validity of a Notice of Readiness (“NOR”) which had been tendered by email. The NOR is one of the most important documents for ship owners because it acts as a trigger to [...]

    Read more >
  • Delivery without original bills – an example of what can go wrong | BDM Blog | BDM Law
    November 7, 2022

    Delivery without original bills – an example of what can go wrong

    Readers of our blog may recall an article we released back in November 2020 in which we highlighted the risks that a ship owner is required to undertake when accepting a letter of indemnity (LOI) in exchange for releasing the cargo without the production of an original bill [...]

    Read more >
  • Supreme Court gives permission to appeal in The Polar | BDM Blog | BDM Law
    October 31, 2022

    Supreme Court gives permission to appeal in “The Polar”

    We previously reported on the High Court and Court of Appeal’s decisions in one of the last Somali ransom cases still in the Court system. The Court of Appeal held that a war risks provision in a charterparty did not constitute an agreement that the owners would not claim [...]

    Read more >
+44 203 968 0500
+44 7887 710 950