Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd (The Muncaster Castle)  1 Lloyd¶s Rep 57
 Union of India v NV Reederij Amsterdam (The Amstelslot)  2 Lloyd¶s Rep. HL 223.
 The Hellenic Dolphin  2 Lloyds Rep 336
 Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine  AC 589
 Meredith Jones & co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co. Ltd  2 Llloyds Rep 241, welding carried on the ship exposed the cargo of cotton to the risk of ignition.
 Eridania SpA (formerly Cereol Italia Srl) v Oetker (The Fiord Wind)  AC 2 Lloyds Rep. 191
 Hague Visby Rules , 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¶.
 Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Marine Ltd  AC 589 µcovered from at least the beginning of loading until ship started sailing¶
 ³The Subro Valour´  Lloyds Rep 509.
 Hague Visby Rules , Art III (2)
 Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine  29 Lloyds Rep 190 and Article III (2) Hague Visby Rules 
 Constantine SS v Imperial Smelting Corp  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¶
 F.C. Bradley & Sons Ltd v Federal Steam Navigation Company Ltd  27 L.J.L. Rep 395.
 Albacora SRL v Westcott & Laurence Line  2 Lloyd¶s Rep 53
 C. Ezoeke µAllocating the Onus of Proof in Sea Cargo Claims: the Contest of Conflicting Principles¶ , Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, pp. 177-320.