Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S

A carrier’s statement that goods are shipped in apparent good order and condition ordinarily concerns their external condition, assessed by reasonable examination in the circumstances at shipment. The weight of goods inside a sealed container is not ordinarily apparent from external inspection. Clear evidence of serious defects known to the carrier may nevertheless require clausing or refusal to issue the bill.

A carrier is not generally required to compare shipper-declared weights with verified gross mass data obtained for safety purposes. A duty to named consignees under straight bills may arise where the carrier knew or ought to have known of a substantial discrepancy indicating that the bill was being used as an instrument of fraud. On the facts, that threshold was not met.

The claimant purchased three consignments described as copper scrap. The goods were shipped in containers by the defendant, which issued clean bills of lading recording the shipper’s declared weights. The containers in fact contained concrete blocks and the shipper’s declared weights materially exceeded the verified weights recorded at the terminal.

The claimant, as named consignee under straight bills, claimed the balance payments and related sums for breach of art III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules, negligent misstatement and breach of a tortious or implied contractual duty of care. The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed under the bills’ indemnity provisions.

The issues included the scope of apparent order and condition, the effect of the weight-unknown wording and clause 14.2, whether a carrier must compare declared and verified weights, and whether the proposed fraud-prevention duty should be recognised.

1. The claims were dismissed. The defendant’s counterclaim for AED 35,541.66, EUR 8,409.60 and EUR 5,420 succeeded.
2. Article III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules requires a statement about the apparent order and condition of goods as would be revealed by reasonable examination at shipment. The inquiry concerns external condition. What amounts to a reasonable examination depends on the circumstances at the load port. The weight of goods inside a sealed container is not apparent from inspection of the container’s external shell.
3. A carrier cannot ignore clear evidence known to it that goods inside a container are in poor condition. A very substantial known discrepancy between the declared weight and the actual weight could require the carrier to draw attention to the discrepancy. That principle did not assist the claimant because Maersk had no reason in 2019 to suspect that the shipper’s weights were fraudulent or to compare them with terminal-generated verified gross mass data.
4. The bills complied with the shipping instructions. Clause 14.2 made clear that Maersk accepted no responsibility or made no representation as to the weight or contents of the goods. The claimant therefore failed to establish breach of art III rule 3(c).
5. The proviso to article III rule 3 left no room for the implied representation alleged in negligent misstatement. The bills expressly stated that the particulars were declared by the shipper without responsibility or representation by the carrier. The negligent misstatement claim was rejected.
6. Applying the incremental approach described in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, a duty of care may arise where a carrier issuing a straight bill knows or ought to know of a substantial discrepancy between shipper-declared and verified weights. In such circumstances it may be fair, just and reasonable to require the carrier to ensure that its bills are not used as an instrument of fraud. The proposed duty was not established on the facts because Maersk had no duty to compare the weights in the circumstances prevailing in 2019.
7. Because Maersk was not in breach of contract or duty, the claimant had no defence based on circuity of action to the counterclaim, and Maersk was entitled to the sums proved.

First-instance judgment in the High Court (Commercial Court). No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.