Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:03:50.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cargo Risks: “Dangerous” Goods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

F. D. Rose
Get access

Extract

A shipper does not have unlimited freedom as to what he may have transported by sea. Restrictions on the goods which a charterer or cargo-owner may ship are imposed by the common law, the terms of the contract and statute. The statutory sources of control of what are normally referred to as dangerous goods may be divided into three categories: those under the Hague-Visby Rules (principally art. IV(6)); those under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995; and other legal sources. Provision is also made by the Hamburg Rules. Where a prohibition against the shipment of goods is not laid down by an express contractual obligation or specific rule of law, it is likely to be treated as depending on an implied term or collateral warranty.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , November 1996 , pp. 601 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., King, P.E., “The Carriage of Dangerous and Nuclear Cargoes” (1986) 14 A.B.L.R. 86;Google ScholarBulow, L.C., “‘Dangerous’ Cargoes: The Responsibilities and Liabilities of the Various Parties” [1989] L.M.C.L.Q. 342Google Scholar (an American viewpoint). See also Girvin, S.D., “Shippers” Liability for the Carriage of Dangerous Cargoes by Sea” [1996] L.M.C.L.Q. 487.Google Scholar

2 Independently of contract, a defendant may be liable for the tort of negligence: Losinjska Plovidba v. Transco Overseas Ltd. (The Orjula) [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 395;Google ScholarTettenborn [1996] L.M.C.L.Q. 6Google Scholar; Farrant v. Barnes (1862) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 553;Google ScholarBamfield v. Goole & Sheffield Transport Co. Ltd. [1910] 2 K.B. 94, 104–105;Google ScholarThe Alhanasia Comninos [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277, 282.Google Scholar

3 See Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, Sched.

4 United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978.

5 See The Amphion [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 101, 105 (Evans J.).Google Scholar

6 Mitchell, Colts & Co. v. Steel Bros. & Co. Ltd. [1916] 2 K.B. 610;Google ScholarEffort Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Linden Management Co. S.A. (The Giannis NK) [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 577, 588.Google ScholarCf. Owners of Spanish SS Sebastian v. De Vizcaya [1920] 2 K.B. 332;Google ScholarThe Domald [1920] P. 56.Google Scholar

7 Or the shipowner, if the legal carrier is not the shipowner.

8 Atlantic Oil Carriers Ltd. v. British Petroleum Co. Ltd. (The Atlantic Duchess) [1957] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 55, 95–96,Google Scholarper Pearson, J.; Micada C.N. S.A. v. Texim (The Agios Nicolas) [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 57;Google ScholarThe'Athanasia Comninos [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277, 283 (Mustill J.).Google ScholarCf. Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 470, 487,Google Scholarper Lord Campbell C.J.; Acatos v. Burns (1878) 3 Ex.D. 282;Google ScholarGreenshields. Cowie & Co. v. Stephens & Sons [1908] 1 K.B. 51, 61–62Google Scholar, per Kennedy, L.J., [1908] A.C. 432, 436,Google Scholarper Lord, Halsbury L.C.; Bamfield. Goole & Sheffield Transport Co. [1910] 2 K.B. 94, 109,Google Scholarper Fletcher Moulton L.J.

9 Art. IV(6).

10 The Giannis NK[1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 171;Google Scholaraffd [1996] I Lloyd's Rep. 577.Google Scholar

11 M.S.A. 1995, ss. 85(1), 87(5). 313(1). See also section 86.

12 “United Kingdom ships” are defined in section 85(2).

13 Section 85(1). Exemptions from specified provisions of the regulations may be granted, on such terms as may be specified, for classes of cases or individual cases: section 85(6).

14 Section 85(3)(b).

15 Section 85(3)(e).

16 Section 85(3)(h).

17 Section 85(3)(i).

18 Section 85(3)(j).

19 Section 85(3)(m).

20 Section 85(3)(n).

21 S.I. 1990 No. 2605, made under legislation consolidated in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The Regulations give effect to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (“SOLAS”), Chapter VII (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, thereby giving effect to a number of International Maritime Organisation Codes namely the Bulk Cargoes Code (IMO Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes 1989), the BCH Code (IMO Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk 1990), the Gas Carrier Code (IMO Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquified Gases in Bulk 1983), the Gas Carrier Code for Existing Ships (IMO Code for Existing Ships Carrying Liquified Gases in Bulk 1976), the IBC Code (IMO International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk 1990), the IGC Code (IMO International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquified Gases in Bulk 1983) and the IMDG Code (the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code 1990); together with the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods 1989. These Codes are subject to periodic amendment. See also the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 as amended. See generally Henry, C.E., The Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea (The Role of the International Maritime Organisation in International Legislation) (London 1985).Google Scholar

22 Reg. 2

23 See above, n.21.

24 See Reg. 1(3).

25 Reg. 1(3).

26 The Giannis NK [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 577, per curiam.Google Scholar

27 See e.g.. The Berge Sund [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 460 (implied term in charterparty not to ship dangerous goods).Google Scholar

28 See, e.g., The Amphion [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 101.Google Scholar

29 See Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 19th ed. (1984) [hereafter “Scrutton”], pp. 82–90, 433–435, and authorities there cited.Google Scholar

30 The Athanasia Comninos [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277, 283,Google Scholarper Mustill J. See also The Iron Gippsland [1994] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 335 (N.S.W. S.C.).Google Scholar

31 See The Athanasia Comninos [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277, 282, per Mustill J.;Google ScholarRederi Aktiebolaget Transatlantic v. Board of Trade (1924) Com. Cas. 117, 128, per Roche J.Google Scholar (“there is much to be said for the view that the true basis of the doctrine is apt to be a little obscured if one thinks only of dangerous goods. The real foundation of the principle is to be found in Lord Tenterden's statement in his Treatise on Shipping, that the hirer of anything [e.g., a charterer] must use it in a lawful manner and according to the purposes for which it is lent.”)

32 The Amphion [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 101.Google Scholar

33 The Amphion [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 101.Google Scholar

34 See below, part VIII.

35 Hamburg Rules, art. 13(1).

36 Hamburg Rules, art. 13(2).

37 Hamburg Rules, art. 15(l)(a).

38 Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990, Reg. 7.

39 Regs 10–11.

40 Reg. 17.

41 (1856) 6 E. & B. 470. Lord Campbell C.J. and Wightman J. favoured an absolute warranty of safety; Crompton J. disagreed.

42 Mitchell Colts v. Steel Bros. [1916] 2 K.B. 610;Google ScholarThe Giannis NK [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 577, 588, per curiam.Google Scholar

43 Williams v. East India Co. (1802) 3 East 192;Google ScholarBrass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 470;Google ScholarAcatos v. Burns (1878) 3 Ex.D. 282;Google ScholarBamfield v. Goole & Sheffield Transport Co. Ltd [1910] 2 K.B. 94;Google ScholarOwners of Spanish S.S. Sebastian v. De Vizcaya [1920] 2 K.B. 332;Google ScholarTransoceanica Societa Italiana di Navigazione v. H.S. Shipton & Sons [1922] 1 K.B. 31Google Scholar (no implied warranty that barley, containing sand and stones which choked suction pump and delayed unloading, was capable of being handled and unloaded expeditiously by machinery and appliances in ordinary use at port of discharge); G.N.R. Co. v. LEP Transport & Depository Ltd. [1922] 2 K.B. 742;Google ScholarMinistry of Food v. Lamport & Holt Line Ltd. [1952] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 371;Google ScholarHeath Steel Mines Ltd v. The Erwin Schröder [1969] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 370Google Scholar (Can. Ex. Ct: N.S. Adm. Dist.); The Athanasia Comninos [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277;Google ScholarThe Giannis NK [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 577.Google Scholar See also Shaw Savill & Albion Co. Ltd. v. Electric Reduction Sales Co. Ltd. (The Mahia) [1955] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 264 (Montreal S.C.).Google Scholar Cf Readhead v. Midland Ry. Co. (1867) L.R. 2 Q.B. 412;Google ScholarFarrant v. Barnes (1862) 11 C.B. (N.S.) 553.Google Scholar The (strictly speaking, unresolved) debate as to whether the undertaking is absolute or qualified (generated by the differing judgments in Brass v. Maitland) seems to be answered by the formulation in the text, especially since, so far as the shipper is under a duty, he is bound not simply to take reasonable measures to discharge it but actually to do so. Cf. C. Burley Ltd. v. Stepney Borough Council (1947) 80 LI.L.R. 289, 294,Google Scholarper Hallett J. (“it seems to me that the balance of authority is in favour of the view that there is an implied warranty that goods delivered for carriage are safe to be carried, and that is so irrespective of whether the person delivering the goods to be carried knows of the danger, and irrespective of whether the person to whom they are delivered is under a common law duty or a statutory duty to carry them”).

44 Hutchinson v. Guion (1858) 5 C.B. (N.S.) 149.Google Scholar

45 Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 470.Google Scholar

46 Emphasis added.

47 [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 577.

48 This is not an entirely convincing argument anyway, given the high standard of due diligence required to provide a seaworthy ship under the Hague-Visby Rules, art. III, r. 1 in Riverstone Meat Co. Lids. Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Muncaster Castle) [1961] A.C. 807.Google Scholar

49 The Giannis NK [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 577,Google Scholar following The Fiona [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 257.Google Scholar

50 [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277, 283–284.

51 See also The Domald [1920] P. 56Google Scholar (cargo owner not liable for loss from detention through seizure as prize of “suspicious” but lawful cargo); The Rio de Janeiro [1919] P. 242n.;Google ScholarThe Heim [1919] P. 237;Google ScholarThe Einar Jarl [1920] P. 64n.Google Scholar

52 The Amphion [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 101, 105, per Evans J.Google Scholar

53 See The Domald [1920] P. 56.Google Scholar

54 Thus, a charterer who loads goods for a port which, unknown to the shipowner, has insufficient discharging facilities, will be liable for freight to the nearest port and must bear the cost of onshipment to the original destination: see Rederi Aktiebolaget Transatlantic v. Board of Trade (1924) 30 Com. Cas. 117, 128–129, per Roche J.Google Scholar

55 Hague-Visby Rules, art. IV(6).

56 E.g., Manchester Trust v. Furness [1895] 2 QB 539, 544–546, per Lindley L.J.Google Scholar

57 Scrutton, at p. 456, n.43.Google Scholar

58 See The Athanasia Comninos [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277, 283, per Mustill J. (apparently referring to this point). His Lordship rejected the view that the shipowner's claim is barred only if the dangerous characteristics of the cargo are universally known.Google Scholar

59 Hamburg Rules, art. 13(4). However, liability to general average remains and there may be liability to compensate if the carrier is liable in accordance with art. 5 (basis of liability).

60 C. Burley Ltd. v. Stepney Borough Council (1947) 80 Ll.L.R. 289.Google Scholar

61 Scrutton, at p. 103.Google Scholar

62 Chandris v. Isbrandlsen-Moller Inc. [1951] 1 Q.B. 240.Google ScholarCf. Micada C.N. S.A. v. Texim (The Agios Nicolas) [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 57.Google Scholar

63 (1802) 3 East 192.

64 [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 277, 283.

65 The Amphion [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 101, 106, per Evans J.Google Scholar

66 Greenshield, Cowie & Co. v. Stephens & Sons [1908] A.C. 431.Google Scholar

67 Micada C.N. S.A. v. Texim (The Agios Nicolas) [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 57.Google Scholar

68 Hague-Visby Rules, art. 1V(6).

69 (1854) 9 Ex. 341.

70 The Fiona [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 506Google Scholar (C.A.), per curiam. That would also exclude the Hadley v. Baxendale limitation: ibid.. 522, per Hoffmann L.J.

71 The Fiona [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 506, 522, per Hoffmann LJ.Google Scholar

72 The Fiona [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 506.Google ScholarSee also Total Transport Corp v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. (The Eurus) [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 408 (Rix J).Google Scholar

73 Cf. Kish v. Taylor [1912] A.C. 604.Google Scholar

74 Hamburg Rules, art. 13(3).

75 Designated as such by safety regulations: section 87(5).

74 Section 87(1)-(2). These powers are exercisable notwithstanding: that the owner of the goods has not committed any offence under safety regulations relating to dangerous goods, is not before the court, and has no notice of the proceedings; and that there is no evidence to shew to whom the goods belong (s. 87(3)). Nevertheless, the court may, in its discretion, require such notice as it may direct to be given to the owner or shipper of the goods before they are forfeited (s. 87(4)).

77 Section 85(7). For the Regulations, see A.R.M. Fogaerty, Merchant Shipping Legislation (1994–), para. 17.40.Google Scholar

78 Also non-compliance by the ship renders it liable to detention: Reg. 18.

79 For breaches of Regs 7–17.

80 Reg. 19(2).