MR PAUL KNAPFIELD v C.A.R.S HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS.

International carriage by road falls within the CMR Convention where the contractual places of taking over and delivery are in different countries, even if the claimant is not the contracting party but is the consignee. Contractual rights to declare an increased value or special interest must be exercised by the sender through the consignment note. The absence of a consignment note does not disapply CMR or create a substantial damages claim against the carrier.

Wilful misconduct requires deliberate wrongdoing or reckless indifference to whether the conduct is right or wrong, together with awareness of an increased real and substantial risk of damage. Negligence, even gross negligence, is insufficient. A contractual surrender of CMR limitation rights must be clear and unequivocal.

The claimant owned two valuable classic cars which the second defendant agreed to transport from England to France and back. During the return journey, one vehicle moved and damaged the other. The second defendant accepted liability for the physical damage.

The claimant sought damages exceeding the CMR limitation, relying on declarations of value and special interest, the absence of a consignment note, wilful misconduct, misrepresentation, and a later promise to reimburse him in full. The central issues were whether CMR applied, whether any exception to its limitation regime was established, and whether the later communications created an independent obligation to pay full damages.

1. CMR applied. The return journey was international carriage by road for reward because the goods were taken over in France for delivery in the United Kingdom. Under the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, the Convention applied to persons concerned in the carriage, including the consignee, even though the claimant was not a contracting party.
2. The claimant could not rely on Articles 24 or 26. He was not the sender; Peter Auto was the contracting customer and sender. There was no consignment note and no written agreement recording either a declared value or a special interest in delivery. The absence of a consignment note did not affect the existence, validity or application of CMR, and did not justify a counterfactual claim for substantial damages against the carrier.
3. Wilful misconduct under Article 29 was not proved. The inadequate tightening of the front wheel straps was negligence, possibly gross negligence, but there was no evidence that the driver deliberately acted knowing the conduct to be wrong or was recklessly indifferent to whether it was right or wrong. Nor was there evidence that he appreciated an additional real and substantial risk of damage.
4. The misrepresentation claim failed. The alleged statements about insurance were not untrue, and the claimant was not the contracting party to whom the representation would have been made.
5. The later agreement that the claimant could arrange repairs and be reimbursed was procedural or logistical. At most, it promised reimbursement of reasonable repair costs subject to applicable limits. It did not clearly and unequivocally surrender CARS’s CMR limitation rights, and there was in any event no valid consideration.
6. The claim was therefore limited to SDR 23,490.60. The quantum findings were made only in case the liability conclusions were wrong.