UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

The system of liability of articles III and IV of the Hague (Visby) Rules

Margetson, N.J.

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

Margetson, N. J. (2008). The system of liability of articles III and IV of the Hague (Visby) Rules. Zutphen: Paris.

General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),
other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating
your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask
the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

Download date: 01 Mar 2020

Table of contents

List of abbreviations / 13

Preface / 15

1 Introduction / 17
1.1 When do the H(V)R apply? / 17
1.2 Construction of the Rules / 18
1.3 Research question / 18
1.4 Method used to answer the research question / 18
1.5 Researched legal systems / 19
1.6 Topics of research / 19
1.7 The UNCITRAL draft convention / 21

2 Construction of the Hague (Visby) Rules / 23

2.1 Introduction / 23
2.2 Terminology / 23
Treaty, convention, instrument / 23
Protocol / 24
Construction and interpretation / 24
Rules of construction / 24
Uniform construction / 25
Autonomous / 25
Uniformity / 26
Application / 26
2.3 Aids to the construction of the H(V)R / 26
2.3.1 Stag Line / 27
a) Plain meaning of the words / 27
b) Broad principles of general acceptation / 27
2.3.2 Pyrene Co. Ltd. v. Scindia Navigation Co. Ltd. / 28
c) The French text / 28
2.3.3 The Bunga Seroja / 28
d) History of the Rules: compromise character and English roots / 28
e) Reading the Hague Rules as a whole / 29
2.3.4 The Jordan II / 29
f) Purposive construction / 29
g) Travaux Préparatoires / 29
h) The views of the textbook writers / 29
i) The decisions in foreign jurisdictions / 30
Third party bill of lading holders? / 30

5
 TAB LE OF CONTENTS

Strict construction of the exceptions? / 30

2.4 Problems regarding uniform construction of the H(V)R / 31
2.4.1 Politics / 31
2.4.2 Older law dealing with the same issue / 32
2.4.3 Manner of implementation / 32
2.4.4 National legal concepts / 33
2.5 Ways to improve uniform construction of the H(V)R / 34
2.6 Conclusion / 35
Textual (or objective) / 36
Subjective / 36
Teleological / 36

3 Duties of the carrier / 37

3.1 Introduction / 37
3.2 What is meant by ‘voyage’? / 37
3.3 What is meant by ‘before and at the beginning of the voyage’? / 39
3.3.1 Before the voyage / 39
3.3.2 The beginning of the voyage / 41
3.4 Why is the requirement restricted to the period ‘before and at the beginning of
the voyage’? / 42
3.5 What is meant by ‘due diligence’? / 43
3.5.1 Common law: absolute warranty of seaworthiness / 43
3.5.2 Hague (Visby) Rules: Due diligence / 45
3.5.3 Dutch cases / 48
3.5.4 Conclusion / 48
3.6 Is the duty to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy delegable? / 49
3.7 What is the meaning of seaworthiness? / 52
3.8 What is meant by ‘properly and carefully’? / 55
3.9 Is the duty contained in art. III(2) delegable? / 58
3.9.1 English law: general remarks / 58
The Jordan II / 59
The views of the textbook writers, decisions in foreign jurisdictions and third party bill of
lading holders / 60
Decisions in foreign jurisdictions / 60
3.9.2 U.S. Law / 62
3.9.3 Dutch law / 62
3.9.4 UNCITRAL / 63
3.9.5 The intended construction of art. III(2) / 64

4 The relationship between the duties of the carrier and the exceptions / 67
4.1 Introduction / 67
4.2 Causes of damage / 67
4.3 The expression ‘overriding obligation’ / 69
4.3.1 Common law / 69
Summary / 70
4.3.2 The H(V)R / 70
Summary / 72
4.4 The requirement of causal connection / 72

6
TABL E OF C ONTE NTS

4.4.1 American law / 72

4.4.2 English law / 72
4.4.3 Dutch law / 73
4.5 Doctrines concerning the relationship between art. III and art. IV / 74
4.5.1 England / 74
The requirement of due diligence to make the ship seaworthy / 74
The requirement of care for the cargo / 74
4.5.2 The United States / 75
4.5.3 The Netherlands / 75
The requirement of due diligence to make the ship seaworthy / 75
The requirement of care for the cargo / 76
4.6 Concurrence of culpable and non-culpable causes of damage / 76
4.6.1 Common law: The Lilburn / 76
Common law: Summary / 78
4.6.2 H(V)R / 78
4.6.2.1 American law: Vallescura Rule / 79
4.6.2.2 English law / 80
4.7 Why is art. III(2) not also considered an overriding obligation under English
law? / 82
4.8 The intended construction of the relationship between the duties and the ex-
ceptions / 83

5 Art. IV(1) and some of the exceptions of art. IV(2) H(V)R / 85

5.1 Art. IV(1): loss or damage due to unseaworthiness / 85
5.1.1 Introduction / 85
5.1.2 Is art. IV(1) an exception from liability or merely a division of the burden of
proof? / 86
5.1.2.1 English law / 86
5.1.2.2 Dutch law / 88
5.1.2.3 U.S. law / 88
5.1.2.4 The intended construction of rule IV(1) / 89
5.2 The ‘nautical fault’ exception / 90
5.2.1 Introduction / 90
5.2.2 What is meant by ‘navigation of the ship’? / 90
5.2.3 What is meant by ‘management of the ship’? / 93
Conclusion / 98
5.2.3.1 The primary purpose test / 98
5.2.3.2 The author’s opinion / 99
5.2.3.3 An alternative for the primary purpose test? / 101
5.2.4 The intended construction of art. IV(2)a / 102
5.3 The fire exception / 102
5.3.1 Introduction / 102
5.3.2 The Fire Statutes and the fire exception / 103
5.3.2.1 Introduction / 103
5.3.2.2 The historical background of the Fire Statutes / 104
5.3.2.3 The English Fire Statute / 106
5.3.2.4 The American Fire Statute / 107
5.3.3 American decisions / 107

7
 TAB LE OF CONTENTS

5.3.3.1 Application of the Fire Statute on its own: breach of non delegable duty by
others than owner is not to be considered ‘design or neglect of the owner’ / 108
Earle & Stoddart v. Ellerman’s Wilson Line / 108
A/s J. Mowinckels Rederi v. Accinanto (The Ocean Liberty) / 108
5.3.3.2 When both the Fire Statute and COGSA apply: the 9th Circuit contrary to the
other circuits? / 109
Asbestos Corp v. Compagnie de Navigation Fraissinet et Cyprien Fabre (2nd Cir. 1972) / 109
Liberty Shipping (9th Cir. 1975) / 110
Sunkist (9th Cir. 1979) / 111
Ta Chi Navigation (2nd Cir. 1982) / 113
Damodar Bulk Carriers, Ltd. v. People’s Insurance Company of China (9th Cir. 1990) / 114
Hyundai Explorer (9th Cir., 1996) / 116
Conclusion: 9th Circuit contra 2nd, 5th and 11th Circuits? / 117
5.3.3.3 What if COGSA applies alone and not besides the Fire Statute? / 118
5.3.3.4 Conclusion / 118
5.3.4 The proviso ‘unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier’ in the fire
exception / 119
5.3.5 What is meant by ‘fire’ in the fire exception? / 122
Dutch law: Fire / 122
English law: Fire / 123
American law: ‘Fire’ / 124
5.3.6 What is meant by ‘actual fault or privity’? / 124
Dutch law: ‘Actual fault or privity’ / 124
English and American law: ‘Actual fault or privity’ / 125
Conclusion / 126
5.3.7 Which persons are meant by ‘the carrier’? / 126
Dutch law: ‘the carrier’ / 127
English law: ‘the carrier’ / 127
American law: ‘the carrier’ / 128
5.3.8 The relationship between the duties of the carrier and the fire exception / 130
American law / 130
Dutch law / 130
English law / 131
Conclusion / 133
5.3.9 The burden of proof / 133
Dutch law: the burden of proof / 133
English law: the burden of proof / 134
American law: the burden of proof / 134
5.3.10 The intended construction of the fire exception / 135
5.3.11 Conclusion / 136
5.4 Perils of the sea / 137
5.4.1 Introduction / 137
5.4.2 Elements that may constitute a peril of the sea / 138
5.4.3 The construction of the exception under various legal systems / 139
5.4.3.1 English law / 139
The requirement that the event was unforeseeable / 139
Extraordinary nature of the damage causing event / 142

8
TABL E OF C ONTE NTS

5.4.3.2 American law / 143

The requirement that the event was unforeseeable / 143
Extraordinary nature of the event / 145
5.4.3.3 Canadian law / 146
The requirement that the event was unforeseeable / 146
Extraordinary nature of the event / 148
5.4.3.4 Australian law / 149
The requirement that the event was unforeseeable / 150
Extraordinary nature of the event / 151
Bunga Seroja: comments / 152
5.4.3.5 Dutch law / 153
The requirement that the event was unforeseeable / 153
Quo Vadis / 154
Extraordinary nature of the event / 155
5.4.3.6 The intended construction of the perils of the sea exception / 156
5.5 The catch all exception / 157
5.5.1 Introduction / 157
5.5.2 Which events are covered by the words ‘any other cause’? / 158
5.5.3 How do the words ‘actual fault or privity’ relate to the words ‘fault or neglect’?
/ 160
5.5.4 Which persons are meant with ‘agents or servants of the carrier’? / 160
Agents / 160
The Chyebassa / 161
5.5.5 How is the burden of proof divided? / 161
5.5.6 What is the meaning of the word ‘or’ in the exception? / 164
5.5.7 Dutch law / 164
Royer’s system / 164
5.5.8 The intended construction / 167
5.5.9 Conclusion / 167

6 Division of the burden of proof under the H(V)R / 169

6.1 Introduction / 169
6.2 In general / 169
The Popi M / 169
The burden of proof under the H(V)R in general / 172
6.3 Common law / 172
6.3.1 In general / 172
6.3.2 The Glendarroch / 173
6.3.3 The Canadian Highlander / 173
6.3.4 The Maltasian. Obiter dictum grounds / 175
Court of Session (Inner House) / 175
House of Lords / 175
6.3.5 The views of some authors / 175
6.3.6 Common Law: conclusion / 176
6.4 Dutch Law / 177
6.4.1 Authors / 177
6.4.2 Dutch decisions / 177
6.4.3 Dutch law: conclusion / 178

9
 TAB LE OF CONTENTS

6.5 Some other continental authors / 178

6.6 The author’s opinion: the division of the burden of proof depends on the in-
voked exception / 178
6.7 The intended division of the burden of proof / 181
6.8 Conclusion / 182

7 Conclusions / 183
7.1 The intended construction of the H(V)R / 183
7.2 Duties of the carrier / 183
7.3 Overriding obligation / 183
7.4 Art. IV(1): loss or damage due to unseaworthiness / 184
7.5 The ‘nautical fault’ exception / 184
7.6 The fire exception / 184
7.7 Perils of the sea / 185
7.8 The catch all exception / 185
7.9 Division of the burden of proof / 185

Summary / 187
1 Introduction / 187
2 Construction of the Hague (Visby) Rules / 187
3 Duties of the carrier / 187
4 The relationship between the obligations of the carrier and the exceptions / 188
5 Some of the exceptions provided by art. IV H(V)R / 188
5.1 Art IV(1): loss or damage due to unseaworthiness / 188
5.2 The ‘nautical fault’ exception / 189
5.3 The fire exception / 189
5.4 Perils of the sea / 189
5.5 The catch all exception / 190
6 Division of the burden of proof under the Hague (Visby) Rules / 190

Samenvatting / 191
1 Inleiding / 191
2 Uitleg van de Hague (Visby) Rules / 191
3 Verplichtingen van de vervoerder / 191
4 De verhouding tussen de verplichtingen van de vervoerder en de ontheffings-
gronden / 192
5 Enige excepties uit artikel IV H(V)R / 193
5.1 Artikel IV (1): schade of verlies door onzeewaardigheid / 193
5.2 De nautische fout exceptie / 193
5.3 De brandexceptie / 193
5.4 Perils of the sea / 194
5.5 De q-exceptie / 194
6 Bewijslastverdeling onder de H(V)R / 195

Appendix I Hague Visby Rules / 197

Appendix II Harter Act / 205

10
TABL E OF C ONTE NTS

Appendix III Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 / 207

Appendix IV Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 / 217

Bibliography / 225

Case List / 233

Index / 237

Curriculum vitae / 239

11