River Gurara (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Nigerian National Shipping Line Ltd

Under the unamended Hague Rules, the limitation in article IV rule 5 is calculated by reference to the packages actually proved to have been loaded in a container, rather than the container itself. A bill of lading is not a private agreement defining the relevant package. It is ordinarily prima facie evidence of shipment, and the limit follows the cargo proved to have been shipped where that evidence is displaced or other evidence is used.

A clause deeming a shipper-packed container to be the package is void under article III rule 8 where it reduces the carrier's liability below that limit. The effect of the qualification said to contain was left open, although it may require proof of the contents by extrinsic evidence.

The cargo owners claimed for a total loss following the grounding and break-up of the River Gurara. Their bills of lading incorporated the unamended Hague Rules and described containerised cargo by reference to packages within the containers.

Colman J held that the relevant packages for article IV rule 5 were the items described within the containers, and that a clause deeming a shipper-packed container to be a package was void under article III rule 8: [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 530. The shipowners appealed. The central issue was whether limitation depended on containers, on the described contents, or on the packages proved to have been loaded.

1. Appeal dismissed. Phillips LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Mummery LJ agreed. Hirst LJ also agreed that the appeal should be dismissed, but preferred the approach taken by Colman J in the light of international uniformity.
2. Article IV rule 5 of the unamended Hague Rules fixes a minimum liability limit intended to protect cargo interests. A large metal container is not naturally a package where it contains separately packed cargo. The limit therefore falls to be calculated by reference to the individual packages proved to have been loaded within it, rather than by reference to the number of containers.
3. The description in a bill of lading does not amount to an agreement between shipper and carrier as to either the cargo shipped or the package to be used for limitation. Under article III rules 3 and 4, an unqualified description is prima facie evidence. If the carrier displaces that evidence, or the cargo owner proves shipment by other evidence, both loss and limitation must be determined by the cargo and packaging actually proved on loading. The carrier may have an indemnity claim against the shipper under article III rule 5 for inaccurate particulars.
4. The Court did not finally decide whether said to contain has the same evidential effect as qualifications such as weight, number and quantity unknown. On the concession made, the contents would need to be proved by extrinsic evidence. That issue did not alter the governing principle for the preliminary issues.
5. Clause 9(B), which treated a shipper-packed container as the package, was ineffective under article III rule 8 insofar as it reduced liability below the article IV rule 5 limit. If only the bill of lading were available as evidence, the bales, rather than pallets containing them, would be the relevant packages.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The shipowners' appeal was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court. Colman J held that the packages within the containers governed limitation and that clause 9(B) was void insofar as it conflicted with article III rule 8: [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 530.