Infested cargo was dangerous to other ships
LAW REPORT 6 February 1996
A cargo of processed nuts infested at shipment with a tropical beetle of voracious appetite was, in terms of article IV, rule 6 of the Hague Rules, "dangerous" to other feedstuff cargoes in the same vessel so as to make the shipper liable to the carrier for damages arising out of the need to destroy the infested cargo and fumigate the ship.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the second defendant shipper, Sonacos, against the decision of Mr Justice Longmore ( 2 Lloyd's Rep 171) that it was liable to the plaintiff shipowner, Effort Shipping Co Ltd, for damages of $477,848.38 plus interest.
Edmond Broadbent (Richards Butler) for the shipper; Alistair Schaff (Bentleys Stokes & Lowless) for the plaintiff.
Lord Justice Hirst said the action arose out of the shipment of a cargo of ground-nut extraction meal pellets by the shipper at Dakar in Senegal, for carriage to Rio Haina in the Dominican Republic, in one hold of the plaintiff's vessel Giannis NK. The bill of lading incorporated the Hague Rules. The ship was carrying two cargoes of wheat pellets in other holds.
The ground-nut cargo was at the time of shipment infested with Khapra Beetle (Trogoderma Granarium Everts) which in its larval form was voracious and would rapidly devour a cargo of feedstuffs. As a result, the cargo was rejected at destination and both the ground-nuts and the wheat pellets eventually had to be dumped at sea and the ship chemically fumigated, causing loss and delay to the plaintiff.
The judge concluded that the shipper was liable under article IV, rule 6 of the Hague Rules, which provided:
Goods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof the carrier . . . has not consented . . . may at any time before discharge be landed at any place or destroyed or rendered innocuous by
the carrier without compensation,
and the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment.
The plaintiff had claimed that the ground-nut cargo was dangerous not only to the wheat cargoes, as the judge held, but also to the ship itself, which the judge rejected.
The shipper contended that, in order to qualify, goods must be inherently dangerous, and that was not so here. All that happened was that the United States Department of Agriculture issued a directive giving the owner the choice between removing the cargoes from the United States, returning them all to their country of origin or dumping them at sea 25 miles from shore, and for commercial reasons the plaintiff elected to do the latter. The danger thus flowed not from any inherent danger in the ground-nut cargo but from the plaintiff's choice.
The uncontradicted expert evidence showed that the remaining wheat cargo was unsaleable. His Lordship agreed with the plaintiff that the whole cargo, including the wheat, was blighted, and the decision to dump it all was in reality Hobson's Choice. Thus from the moment the ground- nut cargo was loaded, the wheat cargo was subjected to the physical peril of being dumped, and consequently the losses and expenses incurred thereafter by the plaintiff arose from the shipment of the infested cargo.
Were it necessary to decide the point, his Lordship would have been very reluctant to hold that the infested cargo presented any threat of physical danger to the ship itself, although the chemical fumigation which the ship was required to undergo amounted to more than mere routine cleaning, and did at least temporarily impair its usefulness. In the circumstances, however, the point did not arise.
His Lordship then rejected the shipper's argument that it was divested of liability by virtue of section 1 of the Bills of Lading Act 1855.
Paul Magrath, Barrister
- 1 Tourist films plane's descent just metres above packed Caribbean beach
- 2 Kate Moss: Previously unpublished nude photo revealed by Mert and Marcus
- 4 World Book Day: Boy 'excluded' from school after dressing up as Fifty Shades' Christian Grey
- 5 Bad Jews poster 'censored' on London Tube
Tourist films plane's descent just metres above packed Caribbean beach
Indian woman creates 'Marriage CV' after parents put her on dating site: 'Definitely not marriage material. Won’t grow long hair, ever'
Becky Watts: Four appear in court charged with hiding body parts after teenager's death
Isis 'bulldozes' Nimrud: UNESCO condemns destruction of ancient Assyrian site as a 'war crime'
Professor Brian Cox brands astrology-believing Tory MP David Tredinnick an 'outlier on the spectrum of reason'
Nearly 100,000 of Britain's poorest children go hungry after parents' benefits are cut
Durham Free School: 'Creationism taught at' free school facing closure
End of the licence fee: BBC to back radical overhaul of how it is funded
Elif Shafak: Turkish author warns against rise of British nationalism
Most people think legal tax avoidance is just as wrong as illegal tax evasion, poll suggests
Nigel Farage promises Ukip will not 'stigmatise' would-be migrants – and says he wants 'everyone to speak the same language'
Negotiable: Recruitment Genius: Have you been doing a brilliant job in an admi...
£50000 - £60000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Are you an innovative, senior H...
£20000 - £22000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Our client, a very well respect...
£25000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: An HR Consultant is required to join thi...