publication . Article . 2010

Hamburg rules V Hague Visby rules an English perspective

Tozaj Dorian; Xhelilaj Ermal;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Jan 2010 Journal: Constanta Maritime University Annals, Vol. 13, 2010, volume 13, issue 1, pages 30-34
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 convention, merely the Hamburg Rules, need be incorporated in all countries in order to address this issue and fully satisfy the intentions of the parties for the establishment of international rules in international trade
free text keywords: jel:R0
Related Organizations
40 references, page 1 of 3

[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)

[14] Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1927] 29 Lloyds Rep 190 and Article III (2) Hague Visby Rules [1968]

[15] Constantine SS v Imperial Smelting Corp [1942] AC 154, States : µif the carrie r pleads an exception the cargo-owner may counter by pleading fault on the carrier, but the onus of proving that is on the party who makes the claim¶

[16] F.C. Bradley & Sons Ltd v Federal Steam Navigation Company Ltd [1927] 27 L.J.L. Rep 395.

[17] Albacora SRL v Westcott & Laurence Line [1966] 2 Lloyd¶s Rep 53

[18] C. Ezoeke µAllocating the Onus of Proof in Sea Cargo Claims: the Contest of Conflicting Principles¶ [2001], Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, pp. 177-320.

40 references, page 1 of 3
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue