A PIECE – NEITHER A PACKAGE NOR A UNIT:
| Published date | 01 January 2005 |
| Date | 01 January 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2005.00530.x |
CASES
A Piece ^ NeitherA Package NorAUnit:
Dr. Sarah C. Derrington
n
There have been ripplesof consternation amongst maritime lawyers in Australia
following the recent decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in El Greco
(Australia) Pty Ltd vMediterranean Shipping Co SA (El Greco).
1
In a majority judg-
ment,
2
the Full Court held that the carrier’s liability pursuantto Article 4 rule 5 of
the Hague-Visby Rules
3
was limited by reference to one container in relation to
goods describedon the bill of lading as‘1 20FT FCL/FCL GENERAL PUR-
POSE CONTAINER SAID TO CONTAIN 200945 PIECES POSTERS
AND PRINTS’.The basis for the concern appears to be that there will remain
uncertainty inthe mind of any subsequent holderof a bill of lading as to thebasis
on which the carrier’s liability will be limited until a court has interpreted the
wording of the bill of lading. It is suggested, however, that the decision in fact
provides clear guidance, both for courts and merchants, as to the basis on which
the enumeration of the contents of a container is to be understood and is an
important decision given the dearth of authorityon the point.
Article4rule5(c)provides:
Where a container, pallet or similar article of transport is used to consolidate the
goods, the number of packages or units enumerated in the Bill of Lading as packed
in such article of transport shall be deemed the number of packages or units for the
purpose of this paragraph as far as these packages or units are concerned. Except as
aforesaid such article of transports hall be considered the package or unit.
At ¢rst instance, Kiefel J held that the insertion of the word ‘pieces’ clearly
conveyed a choice that the posters and prints were to be treated as individual
pieces, or units, of cargo and that the enumeration of those pieces meant that the
container was not to be regarded as the unit for the purposes of Article 4 rule 5.
4
In reaching this conclusion, herHonour relied upon an article by MrAnthony
Diamond (which was also adopted by Beaumont J, who dissented in the Full
n
Reader in Law,Centre for Maritime Law,T C Beirne School of Law,University of Queensland, Associ-
ate, QuadrantChambers.
1 [2004] FCAFC 202,10 August 2004.
2 All sop J,with whom Black CJ agreed.
3 Incorporated intoAustralian law in a ‘modi¢ed’form pursuant tothe Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
1991(Cth).
Lloyd’s Rep 469,475^476 and A.Diamond QC,‘The Hague-Visby Rules’ [1978]LMCLQ 225.
rThe Modern LawReview Limited 2005
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2005) 68(1) MLR 111^120
To continue reading
Request your trial