Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management S.A. (Giannis NK)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 1994 |
| Date | 30 March 1994 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Longmore
Shipping - liability for damaged cargo - "goods of a dangerous nature"
Although it was probably correct that goods of a dangerous nature, within the meaning of article IV, rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, were confined to goods which were physically dangerous, a cargo of groundnuts infested with khapra beetle came within that meaning in that, notwithstanding that it caused no physical damage to the ship, it was liable as a natural and not unlikely consequence to give rise to loss of other cargo shipped in the same vessel.
Moreover, a shippers' lack of knowledge or means of knowledge of a defect in cargo not physically dangerous but likely to cause delay to the vessel did not prevent liability at common law for delay in fact so caused.
Nor did section 1 of the Bills of Lading Act 1855 operate to divest a shipper, in virtue of his endorsement of the bill of lading to his purchasers, of all his liabilities in respect of goods shipped.
Mr Justice Longmore so held in a reserved judgment in the Queen's Bench Division when, inter alia, allowing in the agreed sum of $477,848.38 the claim of the plaintiffs, Effort Shipping Co Ltd, owners of the Giannis NK, for damages against the second defendants, Sonacos of Dakar, shippers of a cargo of groundnuts under a bill of lading signed on November 18, 1990, in respect of (i) delay to the vessel allegedly caused by the infestation of the cargo with khapra beetle and (ii) bunker and other expenses incurred during that delay.
Section 1 of the 1855 Act provides: "Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading and every endorsee of a bill of lading to whom the property in the goods therein mentioned shall pass upon or by reason of such consignment or endorsement shall have transferred to and vested in him all rights of suit and be subject to the same liabilities in respect of such goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself."
Mr Alistair Schaff for the plaintiffs; Mr Duncan Matthews for the second defendants; the first defendants did not appear and were not represented.
MR JUSTICE LONGMORE said that on November 18 1990 one hold of the Giannis NK had been loaded with a cargo of groundnut extraction meal pellets at the port of Dakar. Cargoes of bulk wheat pellets had been loaded into other holds at previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management S.A. (Giannis NK)
...by the second defendant Sonacos (the shipper) against a judgment of Longmore J. delivered on 29th March 1994 (now reported at 1994 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 171) whereby he held the shipper liable to the plaintiff Effort Shipping Company Ltd (the owner) for damages of $477,848.38 plus interest......
-
Northern Shipping Company v Deutsche Seereederei G.m.b.H. (Kapitan Sakharov)
...shipment". The shipper is so liable irrespective of its knowledge of the dangerous nature of the goods; see Effort Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Linden Management SA (The Giannis NK) [1998] AC 605, HL. But what if another effective cause of the loss is the carrier's want of due diligence in providi......
-
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v Round and Metal Ltd and Another
...whether registration should be prohibited or not. 61 Counsel for the Defendants cited the observation of Lord Steyn in Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management SA [1998] AC 605 at 623E-F: "I would be quite prepared, in an appropriate case involving truly feasible alternative interpretatio......
-
Borealis AB v Stargas Ltd
... ... at the terminal of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company at Yanbu. The vessel sailed to Stenungsund in ... in the speech of Lord Lloyd of Berwick in Effort Shipping v Linden Management [1998] AC 605 ... ...