Partner Stuart Hetherington has written a two-part article on the "recent Supreme Court decision in Volcafe Ltd and the cases relied upon, which are compared with the pre- and post-Hague Rules cases that determined the liability of shipowners where goods were carried pursuant to contracts of carriage." 

This article was first published in the Journal of International Maritime Law by Lawtext Publishing Ltd in JIML (2019) vol 25 Issue 2 pp 105-117 and Issue 3 pp 188-214; see www.lawtext.com.

Part 1 "discusses the decisions of Wright J in Gosse Millard and Lord Esher in The Glendarroch and looks at the practice and procedure that has applied in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the conduct of such cases since the mid-19th century, which supports a contractual rather than a bailment approach to the onus of proof in such transactions." Read part 1 here.

Part 2 "considers the travaux préparatoires of the Hague Rules; the Rotterdam Rules; the later decision of Lord Wright in Joseph Constantine, in which he apparently changed his opinion from that expressed in Gosse Millard on the question of burden of proof in contract of carriage by sea cases (and Lord Simon LC in that case); the later decision of the House of Lords in The Albacora, as well as the Australian cases that have applied the decision in The Glendarroch and explains why, with reference to a number of other judgments by judges of great repute, the bailment approach is inappropriate." Read part 2 here.
 

This is commentary published by Colin Biggers & Paisley for general information purposes only. This should not be relied on as specific advice. You should seek your own legal and other advice for any question, or for any specific situation or proposal, before making any final decision. The content also is subject to change. A person listed may not be admitted as a lawyer in all States and Territories. © Colin Biggers & Paisley, Australia 2019.

Related Articles