Hamburg rules V Hague Visby rules an English perspective

Article OPEN
Tozaj Dorian; Xhelilaj Ermal;
(2010)
  • Journal: Constanta Maritime University Annals, Vol. 13, 2010,volume 13,issue 1,pages30-34
  • Subject:
    • jel: jel:R0

It has often been argued for the effect of defences provided to carriers under Art IV (2) of Hague Visby Rules to almost nullify the protection guaranteed to shippers in other provisions of this convention. Therefore an all embracing universal shipper friendly conventio... View more
  • References (40)
    40 references, page 1 of 4

    [4] Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd (The Muncaster Castle) [1961] 1 Lloyd¶s Rep 57

    [5] Union of India v NV Reederij Amsterdam (The Amstelslot) [1963] 2 Lloyd¶s Rep. HL 223.

    [6] The Hellenic Dolphin [1978] 2 Lloyds Rep 336

    [7] Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1959] AC 589

    [8] Meredith Jones & co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co. Ltd [1997] 2 Llloyds Rep 241, welding carried on the ship exposed the cargo of cotton to the risk of ignition.

    [9] Eridania SpA (formerly Cereol Italia Srl) v Oetker (The Fiord Wind) [2000] AC 2 Lloyds Rep. 191

    [10] Hague Visby Rules [1968], Art III(1) µMake the ship Seaworthy, properly man equip and supply the ship, make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship fit and safe for the particular cargo¶.

    [11] Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Marine Ltd [1959] AC 589 µcovered from at least the beginning of loading until ship started sailing¶

    [12] ³The Subro Valour´ [1995] Lloyds Rep 509.

    [13] Hague Visby Rules [1968], Art III (2)

  • Related Organizations (1)
  • Metrics
Share - Bookmark