Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 APRIL 2010

Can A Master’s Behaviour Disentitle Carriers From Relying on A Hague-Visby Defence?

A discussion on Article 4 rule 2(a) of the Hague Visby Rules and its use as a defence when challenged by a Master's behaviour. A discussion on the allocation of responsibility between the carrier, the ship and the cargo interests.

AustraliaInsurance
Neil Beadle
Neil Beadle

On 3 May 2001 the Tasman Pioneer grounded in Japanese waters on a dark and stormy night and much cargo was lost. Controversy arose from the post-grounding conduct of the master, which is described in New Zealand court judgments as 'selfish', 'outrageous' and 'reprehensible' and said to have caused the loss of deck cargo. Cargo interests asserted that such conduct disentitled the carrier from reliance on the defence under Article 4 rule 2(a) of the Hague Visby Rules.

Last week, in Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Limited & Ors [2010] NZSC 37 the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled in favour of the carrier and clarified the scope of the carrier's exception to liability under the Rules for nautical fault by the master and crew.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from