The Carrier’s Obligations over Deck Cargo

Djadjev, Ilian

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62440-2_4

Ilian Djadjev²

1098 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the problems associated with the carriage of goods on deck and the obligations of the carrier over such cargo. In particular, the notions of deck and deck cargo are explained, as well as of the various reasons and considerations behind the carriage of goods on the weather deck of a commercial seagoing vessel. Taking into consideration that new technology and modern shipping practices have remodeled the old doctrine on the carriage of goods on deck, the chapter comprises a factual study and statistical data to measure the risks of deck carriage. These are followed by the legislative and judicial issues related to deck cargo in the context of the Hague-Visby Rules. A comment is made on why such carriage arrangement is considered an exception from the Convention and why declared deck carriage may often step outside the ambit of the Rules and be regulated by the applicable national regime. That is why the current law on deck cargo is stated not only from the English law perspective, but a reference is also made to the national regimes of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. In line with the tenor of the book, the position under the Rotterdam Rules is also examined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 119.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The carriage below deck is also known as “belly cargo”, although that term is typical for air cargo and it is rarely used in sea transportation.
2.
Knauth, A.W. (1947) The American Law of Ocean Bills of Lading (3rd ed), p. 194.
3.
Lossiebank (Massce & Co. Inc. v Bank Line) 1938 AMC 1033 (Sup. Ct. of Cal. 1938). See Tetley, W. (2008) Marine Cargo Claims (4th ed). Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc., Volume 1, Chapter 31, p. 1569.
4.
This can be, for instance, timber cargo or concrete blocks carried on deck.
5.
For containerized cargo, see Chap. 5 below.
6.
Project cargo is a general term broadly describing large, bulky and heavy cargo that cannot be transported in a container. These may be cranes, wind power plants, various kinds of turbines and ship propellers.
7.
Although livestock carriage often takes place on deck for safety and ventilation reasons, this type of carriage, being an exception to the Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules (Article I(c)) regardless whether on deck or below deck, is beyond the scope of the current work.
8.
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code is a uniform international code for the transport of dangerous goods and marine pollutants by sea, written under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Code contains mandatory instructions on terminology, packaging, labelling, placarding, markings, stowage, segregation, ventilation, handling, training of shore-based personnel, and emergency response. It covers cargo that is considered dangerous due to its flammable, corrosive, poisonous or other hazardous nature and properties. The IMDG Code, which supplements the principles laid down in the SOLAS and MARPOL conventions, has been changed and updated every two years in order to keep pace with the shipping industry. The Code’s latest edition is the IMDG Code 2016 (Amendment 38-16).
9.
See the IMDG Code Section 7.1.3.
10.
For example, substances liable to spontaneous combustion (IMDG Code, Class 4.2), and also some oxidizing substances (IMDG Code, Class 5.1) such as barium permanganate (UN 1448), potassium chlorate (UN 1485), sodium chlorate (UN 1495), zinc chlorate (UN 1513), and ammonium nitrate (UN 1942), are allowed only on the basis of direct discharge by the South Africa’s Transnet National Port Authority (TNPA).
11.
Baughen, S. (2000) The Perils of Deck Cargo (The Imvros). Ll. Mar. & Com. L.Q., p. 295.
12.
Knauth, A.W. (1947) The American Law of Ocean Bills of Lading (3rd ed), p. 193.
13.
See Sect. 4.6 below.
14.
Sideridraulic Systems SpA and Another v BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co KG (The “BBC Greenland”) [2012] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 230, p. 232, para 2.
15.
The Rhone : Analysis and Comments, JIML 12 [2006] 1 13, at p. 14.
16.
Cooke, J., Young, T., Kimball, J., Lambert, L., Taylor, A. & Martowski, D. (2014) Voyage Charters (4th ed), Chapter 85, para 85.75.
17.
See Cooke, J., Young, T., Kimball, J., Lambert, L., Taylor, A. & Martowski, D. (2014) Voyage Charters (4th ed), Chapter 85, para 85.75; and Treitel, G.H. & Reynolds, F.M.B. (2005) Carver on Bills of Lading (2nd ed), Chapter 9, para 9–116. However, see an opposing view in Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed) (1996), Chapter XX, p. 424, where the authors “prefer the view that, when once the contract has become a “contract of carriage” within the meaning of this Rule [Article I(b)], the Rules apply and relate back to the beginning of the carriage of the good, i.e. the beginning of the loading.”
18.
Cooke, J., Young, T., Kimball, J., Lambert, L., Taylor, A. & Martowski, D. (2014) Voyage Charters (4th ed), Chapter 85, para 85.75.
19.
Treitel, G.H. & Reynolds, F.M.B. (2005) Carver on Bills of Lading (2nd ed), Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, London, p. 558, para 9–116.
20.
Timberwest Forest Ltd v Gearbulk Pool Ltd (The “Rhone”) [2005] 681 Ll. Mar. L.N. 2. See Sect. 4.5.2.2 below.
21.
See Wooder, J.B. (1991) Deck Cargo: Old Vices and New Law. 22 J. Mar. L. & Com. 131; Bauer, R.G. (1991) Deck Cargo: Pitfalls to Avoid Under American Law in Clausing Your Bills of Lading. 22 J. Mar. L. & Com. 287.
22.
See Sect. 4.4.3 below.
23.
For the Clause Paramount, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.1.3 above.
24.
Article X: “The provisions of these Rules shall apply to every bill of lading relating to the carriage of goods between ports in two different States if […] (c) the contract contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading provides that these Rules or legislation of any State giving effect to them are to govern the contract.”
25.
Wooder, J.B. (1991) Deck Cargo: Old Vices and New Law. 22 J. Mar. L. & Com. 131, pp. 133–134.
26.
UK COGSA (1971), section 1(7).
27.
UK COGSA (1971), section 1(6).
28.
See The “BBC Greenland” [2012] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 230.
29.
See The “Tilia Gorthon” [1985] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 552.
30.
The “Tilia Gorthon” [1985] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 552, pp. 553–554.
31.
The carriage of containerized cargo will be further discussed in more details in Chap. 5 below on the carriage of containers.
32.
For an informative comparison of the deck cargo regimes in several European jurisdictions, see Sect. 4.6 below.
33.
Bauer, R.G. (1991) Deck Cargo: Pitfalls to Avoid Under American Law in Clausing Your Bills of Lading. 22 J. Mar. L. & Com. 287, pp. 288–289.
34.
See Sect. 4.5 below.
35.
The “BBC Greenland” [2012] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 230, p. 235, para 21.
36.
The “BBC Greenland” [2012] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 230, p. 235, para 21.
37.
The “BBC Greenland” [2012] 1 LL. L. Rep. 230.
38.
A fixture recap is a document transmitted when a fixture has been agreed between a shipowner and a charterer, setting forth all of the negotiated terms and details. The fixture recap is the operative document until the charter party is drawn up. See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2.1 above.
39.
The “BBC Greenland” [2012] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 230, pp. 234–236, para 18–25.
40.
The “BBC Greenland” [2012] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 230, p. 237, para. 30.
41.
The “BBC Greenland” [2012] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 230, p. 237, para. 30.
42.
For the permissibility of the carrier's defenses under English law, see Sect. 4.5.4 below.
43.
For the evolving views on deck cargo under English law, see Sect. 4.5.
44.
Croake, D J. in Encyclopedia Britannica v Steamship Hong Kong Producer [1968] A.M.C. 169 at p. 170: “The court recognizes that there has been an increase in the use of containers in the shipping industry. The United States Supreme Court in constituting the meaning of the term “clean” bill of lading had indicated that a general port custom permitting above deck stowage could modify the meaning of a “clean” bill.”
45.
Cooke, J., Young, T., Taylor, A., Kimball, J.D., Martowski, D. & Lambert, L. (2007) Voyage Charters (3rd ed). Informa, London, p. 962, para 85.71.
46.
See Sect. 4.5.1.3 below.
47.
Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft (2003) Guidelines for the Carriage of Refrigerated Containers on Board Ships. Hamburg, Section I, point A, item 3.
48.
See all the WSC member companies at http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-council/member-corporations.
49.
When catastrophic losses are included, the figures rise up to 675 containers per year on average for the period 2008–2010 and to 2,683 containers per year on average for the period 2011–2013, respectively. However, catastrophic losses are the result of relatively rare events such as groundings, structural failure, or collisions, which expose both below-deck and deck cargo to more or less the same risks. Examples of such disasters are the M/V Rena (2011), which ran aground and broke in two with the aft section sunk, and the MOL Comfort (2013), which broke in two and sank together with all containers on board. Accordingly, data from such catastrophic events could not highlight and express in numbers the additional risks to which deck cargo is exposed as opposed to cargo stowed below deck, and that is why it will be disregarded. The WSC safety survey can be found at: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_Overboard__Final.pdf, and the updated results in 2014 of the containers lost at sea are accessible at http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_Dist.pdf.
50.
Such assumption can be made on the basis of the ship design of nowadays container vessels. For example, the design of the Germanischer Lloyd and the Korean yard Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) for a typical 13,000+ TEU container vessel provides for 6,230 containers stowed below deck and 7,210 containers stowed on deck.
51.
Examples of efforts targeting flaws affecting deck carriage are: the 2006–2009 project Lashing@Sea promoted by the Maritime Research Institute of the Netherlands (MARIN) aimed towards preventing lashing failure and improving the lashing procedures and rules; the 2008 guide with best practices Safe Transport of Containers by Sea issued by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC); the new Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU Code) for the handling and packing of shipping containers, which is a joint product of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Labour Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE); a WSC project to amend the ISO standards of containers so that the latter are accordingly marked and easy to identify if they have reduced stacking capacity, thus preventing structural failure of the container.
52.
For example, the 500 containers lost from Svendborg Maersk in 2014 in the Bay of Biscay were considered a serious threat by the French maritime authorities, which required Maersk to conduct a search to locate and pull back the lost containers. Even containers on the sea bottom were seen as a danger for local fishermen, whereas empty containers were considered to be able to float on the surface for weeks.
53.
The Santa Clara I case study is accessible at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/hmcrp/hmcrp_w002CS.pdf.
54.
See SOLAS Chapter VI/5.6 on stowage and securing.
55.
American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU) On Deck Stowage of Containers. Technical Services Committee, p. 11.
56.
American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU) On Deck Stowage of Containers. Technical Services Committee, p. 13.
57.
American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU) On Deck Stowage of Containers. Technical Services Committee, p. 13.
58.
Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) (2008) Report on the Investigation of the Structural Failure of MSC Napoli. Report No. 9/2008, p. 29.
59.
Standing Commission for Maritime Accident and Incident Investigations (CIAIM) (2012) Investigation of the Capsizing of Merchant Vessel DENEB at the Port of Algeciras on 11 June 2011. Technical report A-20/2012.
60.
Angus, W.D. (1968) Legal Implications of “The Container Revolution” in International Carriage of Goods. 14(3) McGill Law Journal 395–429, p. 405.
61.
American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU) On Deck Stowage of Containers. Technical Services Committee, p. 18.
62.
These are also known as open top or hatchless container ships. Although there is a vast variety of vessels designed to transport containers, most open-hatch containerships still have two forward holds covered with hatches, which are intended for the carriage of special, noncontainerized, or hazardous cargo.
63.
American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU) On Deck Stowage of Containers. Technical Services Committee, p. 7.
64.
Deadweight tonnage (DWT) is a measurement of weight that describes the carrying capacity of a vessel figured by metric tons. It equals the displacement “loaded” minus the displacement “light”, where the former is the actual weight, which is displaced by a loaded vessel when floating, and the latter represents the weight displaced by a floating vessel (including fuel and supplies) when there is no cargo on board.
65.
American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU) Open-Top Container Ships. Technical Services Committee, pp. 1–2.
66.
The term “coasters” refers to smaller ships, regardless of the category of cargo they carry, which usually do not go on ocean-crossing routes as their service is restricted to coastal trades. Such vessels have significantly shallow hulls, which allows them to pass through reefs or underwater rocks, which are unapproachable for ocean-crossing vessels.
67.
On a ro-ro vessel, cargo is loaded or discharged on wheels. This method of cargo handling is most often employed in the ferry traffic.
68.
The cargo is loaded or discharged by means of the vessel’s on-board loading gear, which lifts the cargo on and off. Such on-board gear may comprise derricks, cranes, or gantries.
69.
The cargo is either ‘rolled on’ or ‘lifted on’ but then it is stowed on board the vessel in a conventional manner, using forklift trucks.
70.
Cargo is loaded either by means of a floating dock-like holds, or via the vessels (a semi-submersible ship) semi-submerging under the cargo and then refloating and lifting it onto the predetermined on-deck space. Discharging takes place following the same method but in the reverse.
71.
This method of cargo handling allows live cargo to walk on and off the vessel. It refers to the carriage of live animals but the term is employed also to passenger vessels.
72.
See Sect. 4.5.1 below on the traditional doctrine on deck carriage.
73.
The carriage of containerized cargo will be further discussed in more details in Chap. 5 on the carriage of containers.
74.
Angus, W.D. (1968) Legal Implications of “The Container Revolution” in International Carriage of Goods. 14(3) McGill Law Journal 395–429, p. 403. Note, however, the decision of Charles Brieant, Jr., D.J. in The “Mormacvega” [1973] 1 Ll. Rep. 267: “the practice [of carrying containers on deck], however, was not sufficiently ancient to make it a trade custom.”
75.
Hoque, N. (2013) Container on Deck: an International Standard Banking Practice?. DCInsight, Vol. 19, No. 4.
76.
van Aerde, C. (2003) The Belgian Courts Hold Carriers Fully Liable. The Swedish Club Letter, No. I, p. 14.
77.
van Aerde, C. (2003) The Belgian Courts Hold Carriers Fully Liable. The Swedish Club Letter, No. I, p. 14.
78.
Cooke, J., Young, T., Kimball, J., Lambert, L., Taylor, A. & Martowski, D. (2014) Voyage Charters (4th ed), Informa Law, p. 1018, para 85.74.
79.
Hoque, N. (2013) Container on Deck: an International Standard Banking Practice?. DCInsight, Vol. 19, No. 4.
80.
Sturley, M.F., Fujita, T. & van der Ziel, G. (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Sweet & Maxwell, Chapter V, p. 125, para 5.125.
81.
Sturley, M.F., Fujita, T. & van der Ziel, G. (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Sweet & Maxwell, Chapter V, p. 125, para 5.125.
82.
Hristov, B. (1977) The Responsibility of the Sea Carrier in Containerized Shipments, issued by the Library to the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI), Sofia, signature №105, p. 22 [Original Cyrillic alphabet publication: Божидар Христов – “Отговорност на морския превозвач при контейнерните превози”, Библиотека “Българска търговско-промишлена палата” (БТТП), София (1977), сигнатура №105, стр. 22].
83.
See Maersk terms for carriage available at http://terms.maerskline.com/carriage.
84.
It must be conceded, however, that the Rules require the carrier to exercise a different standard of care, in accordance with Article III rule 2, when deck cargo is concerned. See Sect. 4.5.3.
85.
Cioarec, V. (2005) Containers as Deck Cargo. Forwarderlaw.
86.
Houlden & Co, Ltd v SS Red Jacket (The “Red Jacket”) [1978] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 300.
87.
Williams, R. (2005) The Developing Law Relating to Deck Cargo. 11 JIML 100, p. 107.
88.
The “Sormovskiy 3068” [1994] 2 Ll. Rep. 266, p. 275.
89.
Williams, R. (2005) The Developing Law Relating to Deck Cargo. 11 JIML 100, p. 107.
90.
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, issued by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as stated above, is a uniform international set of regulations for the safe carriage of hazardous cargo and marine pollutants. The Code aims at enhancing “the safe carriage of dangerous goods while facilitating the free unrestricted movement of such goods and preventing pollution to the environment” (The IMDG Code 2012, Preamble, para 1.). It contains mandatory instructions on terminology, packaging, labelling, stowage, segregation, ventilation, and handling of cargo that is considered dangerous because of its flammable, corrosive, toxic or other hazardous nature. The Code classifies dangerous goods into 9 classes such as explosives (Class 1), gases (Class 2), flammable liquids (Class 3), flammable solids (Class 4), etc. Since dangerous cargo presents risks in maritime transport that emanate mostly from packaging, stowage, segregation, and separation, the Code specifies that such cargo must be stowed and segregated according to the cargo’s hazard, class, and compatibility.
91.
The IMDG Code is supported by a variety of international conventions, codes and recommendations, one of which is the International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code, which is also mandatory. The Code lays down both general and specific requirements for carrying solid bulk cargos, and, if the substances are also considered dangerous goods, they are further regulated by the IMDG Code.
92.
These stowage categories are applicable for all classes of substances but for explosives, whereas for Class 1 substances there are separate stowage categories: 01, 02, 03 (on deck in closed cargo transport unit, or below deck), 04 (on deck/below deck in closed cargo transport unit), and 05 (on deck only in closed cargo transport unit).
93.
The IMDG Code 2012, Chapter 3.2 – Dangerous Goods List, UN number 2644.
94.
The IMDG Code 2012, Chapter 3.2 – Dangerous Goods List, UN number 2643.
95.
See the IMSBC Code, Regulation 9.3.3: 1) “Away from”: Effectively segregated so that incompatible materials cannot interact dangerously in the event of an accident but may be carried in the same hold or compartment or on deck provided a minimum horizontal separation of 3 metres, projected vertically, is provided. 2) “Separated from”: In different holds when stowed under deck. Provided an intervening deck is resistant to fire and liquid, a vertical separation, i.e., in different compartments, may be accepted as equivalent to this segregation.
96.
Debattista, Ch. (1998) The Sale of Goods by Sea (2nd ed), p. 148, fn. 17.
97.
Svenska Traktor Aktiebolaget v Maritime Agencies (Southampton), Ltd. [1953] 2 QB 124, at p. 130.
98.
Svenska Traktor Aktiebolaget v Maritime Agencies (Southampton), Ltd. [1953] 2 QB 124, pp. 130–131.
99.
Tetley, W. (1963) Selected Problems of Maritime Law under the Hague Rules. McGill Law Journal, April-53.
100.
Tetley, W. (1963) Selected Problems of Maritime Law under the Hague Rules. McGill Law Journal, April-53, p. 64.
101.
Tetley, W. (1963) Selected Problems of Maritime Law under the Hague Rules. McGill Law Journal, April-53, p. 64.
102.
See Sect. 4.5.1.3 below on fundamental breach.
103.
Kenya Railways v. Antares Co. Pte Ltd. (The “Antares”) (Nos. 1 and 2) [1986] 2 Ll. Rep. 626; [1987] 1 LL. Rep. 424. See Sect. 4.5.1.3 below.
104.
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v The “Hong Kong Producer” and Universal Marine Corporation (The “Hong Kong Producer”) [1969] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 536.
105.
The short form bill of lading contained, inter alia, the following provisions: “This Short Form Bill of Lading is issued for the shipper’s convenience and at its request, instead of the carrier’s regular form of Bill of Lading. It shall have effect subject to the provisions of the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936 […] so far as they may be applicable. All the terms of the carrier’s regular form of Bill of Lading are incorporated herein with the like force and effect as if they were written at length herein. A copy of such Bill of Lading may be obtained from the carrier, its agents or the master.” See The “Hong Kong Producer” [1969] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 536, p. 537, fn. 2.
106.
See Treitel, G.H. & Reynolds, F.M.B. (2005) Carver on Bills of Lading (2nd ed), Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London, p. 556, para 9–113, fn. 53. See also Scrutton, Th.Ed., Boyd, St.C., Burrows, A.S., & Foxton D. (1996) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed). Sweet & Maxwell, Article 88—Deck Cargo, p. 169.
107.
See The “Mahia” [1955] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 264, p. 266; The “Hong Kong Producer” [1969] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 536, p. 538; Evans v Merzario [1976] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 165, p. 169.
108.
See Sect. 4.3 above.
109.
The Rhone : Analysis and Comments, JIML 12 [2006] 1 13, p. 14.
110.
A rule from the general contract law, which requires that the words to be construed should be construed against the party who drafted them. Contra proferentem (from Latin) means “against the offeror.”
111.
Pardessus, J.M. (1837) Collection des Lois Maritimes Antérieures Au XVIIIe Siècle. Tome Quatrième, p. 275.
112.
Lüddeke, Ch.F. (1996) Marine Claims: A Guide for the Handling and Prevention of Marine Claims. LLP, p. 42.
113.
Deutsch, E.P. (1939) Deck Cargo. Cal. L. Rev. 535.
114.
van Hooydonk, E. (2014) Towards a worldwide restatement of the general principles of maritime law. 20 JIML 170. Professor Hooydonk speaks of lex maritima as a specific part of the wider lex mercatoria. The former represents the foundations of general maritime law, and comprises of maritime customs, principles, codes, conventions and practices, which have existed up until the present time and which are not restricted internationally.
115.
van Hooydonk, E. (2014) Towards a worldwide restatement of the general principles of maritime law. 20 JIML 170, p. 180–181.
116.
van Hooydonk, E. (2014) Towards a worldwide restatement of the general principles of maritime law. 20 JIML 170, p. 173.
117.
Scrutton, Th.Ed., Boyd, St.C., Burrows, A.S., & Foxton D. (1996) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed). Sweet & Maxwell, Art. 88, p. 168.
118.
Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1886) LR 12 App Cas 11.
119.
Tetley, W. (2008) Marine Cargo Claims (4th ed). Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc., p. 1573.
120.
See Sect. 4.5.2.1 below.
121.
Deutsch, E.P. (1939) Deck Cargo. Cal. L. Rev. 535, p. 546.
122.
J. Evans & Sons (Portsmouth) Ltd. v Andrea Merzario Ltd. (Evans v Merzario) [1976] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 165. This was a very peculiar case, where the defendants were the forwarding agents and not the carrier; the latter validly carried the cargo on deck under a master’s bill of lading stating on its face “Shipped on deck at shippers risk.” What the plaintiff cargo owners disputed was actually the printed conditions of the house bill of lading issued by the freight forwarder, coupled with the express promise, which he had given to the plaintiffs at a business meeting that their container would be carried under deck.
123.
Given the circumstances, the oral agreement was portrayed by the Honourable Lords as the following: “If we continue to give you our business, you will ensure that those goods in containers are shipped under deck.” See the dictum of Lord Denning M.R. in Evans v Merzario [1976] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 165, pp. 168–169.
124.
See the dictum of Geoffrey Lane, L.J. in Evans v Merzario [1976] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 165, p. 170.
125.
On the carriage on deck of containerized cargo, see Sect. 4.4.2.1.
126.
Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1886) LR 12 App Cas 11, Lord Halsbury L.C. at p. 16.
127.
Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1886) LR 12 App Cas 11, Lord Watson at p. 18.
128.
Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1886) LR 12 App Cas 11, Brett M.R.
129.
This is not the case, however, with the Hamburg Rules, which provide in Article 9(1) on deck cargo that deck carriage is allowed not only if it is in accordance with an agreement with the shipper or if it is required by statutory rules or regulations, but also if it is in accordance “with the usage of the particular trade.”
130.
Cooke, J., Young, T., Kimball, J., Lambert, L., Taylor, A. & Martowski, D. (2014) Voyage Charters (4th ed), Informa Law, p. 168.
131.
Hodges, S. & Glass, D.A. (2010) Deck Cargo: Safely stowed at last or still at sea?. In: Thomas, D.R. (ed) (2010) The Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Informa Law, London, p. 240.
132.
Scrutton, Th.Ed., Mocatta, A.A., Mustill, M.J. & Boyd, St. C. (1984) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (19th ed). Sweet & Maxwell, p. 167.
133.
The cases Mallet v Great Eastern Railway Company [1899] 1 Q.B. 309, Gunyon v South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies’ Managing Committee [1915] 2 K.B. 370, and Lilley v Doubleday (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 510 are all examples where the fundamental breach argument was held valid, meaning that a party that was guilty of such a breach could not rely on his contractual protections and defenses.
134.
See the dictum of Lord Justice Lloyd in The “Antares” [1987] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 424, p. 429.
135.
Suisse Atlantique Societe D’Armement Maritime S.A. v N.V. Rotterdamische Kolencentrale [1966] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 529.
136.
Photo Production Ltd. v Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 545. This was not a maritime case but a contract law case.
137.
Suisse Atlantique v N.V. Rotterdamsche [1966] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 529, p. 541.
138.
Suisse Atlantique v N.V. Rotterdamsche [1966] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 529, p. 541.
139.
Photo Production v Securicor [1980] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 545, p. 549.
140.
Photo Production v Securicor [1980] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 545, p. 549.
141.
Scrutton, Th.Ed., Boyd, St.C., Burrows, A.S., & Foxton D. (1996) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed). Sweet & Maxwell, p. 168.
142.
Scrutton, Th.Ed., Boyd, St.C., Burrows, A.S., & Foxton D. (1996) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed). Sweet & Maxwell, p. 168.
143.
The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505.
144.
The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505.
145.
Whitehead, J.F. (1981) Deviation: Should the Doctrine Apply to On-Deck Carriage?. 6 Mar. Law. 37.
146.
See the dictum of Viscount Dilhorne in Suisse Atlantique v N.V. Rotterdamsche [1966] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 529, p. 540: “[D]eviation is a fundamental breach – or a breach of a fundamental term…”
147.
Whitehead, J.F. (1981) Deviation: Should the Doctrine Apply to On-Deck Carriage?. 6 Mar. Law. 37, p. 38: “Deviation [under COGSA] has come to mean any breach of contract of carriage so fundamental that a shipper of cargo would be justified in considering the contract repudiated.”
148.
Lüddeke, Ch.F. (1996) Marine Claims: A Guide for the Handling and Prevention of Marine Claims. LLP, p. 42.
149.
Note that the doctrine of deviation is not addressed or defined by the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules. The only reference to deviation can be found in Article IV rule 4: “Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea or any reasonable deviation shall not be deemed to be an infringement or breach of these Rules or of the contract of carriage, and the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom.”
150.
Glass, D.A. (2013) Freight Forwarding and Multimodal Transport Contracts (2nd ed). Informa Law from Routledge, p. 437, para 4.102.
151.
Glass, D.A. (2013) Freight Forwarding and Multimodal Transport Contracts (2nd ed). Informa Law from Routledge, p. 437, para 4.102.
152.
American Dornier Machinery Corp and Anr v "MSC Gina" and Ors [2002] 579 Ll. Mar. L. N. 3.
153.
See Du Pont de Nemours International SA v SS Mormacvega (The “Mormacvega”) 493 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1974); [1973] 1 Ll. Rep. 267; [1974] 1 Ll. Rep. 296. For the carriage of containerized cargo, see Chap. 5 below.
154.
Du Pont de Nemours International SA v SS Mormacvega (The “Mormacvega”) 493 F2d 97 (2nd Cir 1974); [1973] 1 Ll. Rep. 267; [1974] 1 Ll. Rep. 296.
155.
Du Pont de Nemours International SA v SS Mormacvega (The “Mormacvega”) [1973] 1 Ll. Rep. 267, p. 272.
156.
See the factual study in Sect. 4.4.1 above.
157.
Du Pont de Nemours International SA v SS Mormacvega (The “Mormacvega”) [1974] 1 Ll. Rep. 296.
158.
Extension of Time, Deck Stowage and Time Bar (The Antares): Case and Comment (1987) Ll. Mar. & Com. L. Q. 146, p. 147.
159.
Gaskell, N.J.J., Debattista, C. & Swatton, R.J. (1987) Chorley and Giles’ Shipping Law’ (8th ed), p. 237, para 12.6.1.
160.
Suisse Atlantique v N.V. Rotterdamsche [1966] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 529, p. 545.
161.
Suisse Atlantique v N.V. Rotterdamsche [1966] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 529, p. 545.
162.
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, p. 12, para 12.
163.
Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”, describing a doctrine of law where the duty of care and breach can be inferred by the nature of the accident even if there is no direct evidence of an act of negligence. See Svenska Traktor Aktiebolaget v Maritime Agencies (Southampton), Ltd. [1953] 2 QB 124, p. 133.
164.
Scrutton, Th.Ed., Boyd, St.C., Burrows, A.S., & Foxton D. (1996) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed). Sweet & Maxwell, Article 88, p. 168.
165.
See Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, pp. 12–13, para 14.
166.
The “Rhone” (2003) BCCA 39 (Court of Appeal for British Columbia), at p. 3, para [1].
167.
The Letter of Credit, known also as a documentary credit, is a written instrument issued by a bank at the request of its customer, the buyer of the goods, guaranteeing that the bank will pay to the seller for the goods or services rendered, provided that the seller presents all required documents and meets all terms and conditions as stated in the Letter of Credit. Thus, the bank deals only with documents and not with goods. The Letter of Credit is a very important mechanism of payment in today’s international trade.
168.
Timberwest Forest Ltd v Gearbulk Pool Ltd (The “Rhone”) [2005] 681 Ll. Mar. L. N. 2.
169.
The “Rhone” (2003) BCCA 39 (Court of Appeal for British Columbia), p. 17, para [42].
170.
See Sect. 4.3 above on the position under the Hague-Visby Rules.
171.
The Rhone : Analysis and Comments, JIML 12 [2006] 1 13.
172.
Svenska Traktor Aktiebolaget v Maritime Agencies (Southampton), Ltd. [1953] 2 QB 124, pp. 133–134.
173.
Shaw Savill & Albion Company, Ltd. v Electric Reduction Company of Canada, Ltd., and Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand, Ltd. (The “Mahia”) [1955] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 264.
174.
On the one hand, the correspondence between the carrier’s agent and the shipper did not suggest any agreement between the parties but just the opposite; while, on the other hand, the master of the Mahia testified that he had never seen the bills of lading before the drums with the dangerous cargo were stowed on deck. See The “Mahia” [1955] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 264, p. 266.
175.
The “Mahia” [1955] 1 Ll. L. L. Rep. 264, pp. 267–268.
176.
Article IV rule 6 of the Hague Rules/Hague-Visby Rules states: “Goods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof the carrier, master or agent of the carrier has not consented with knowledge of their nature and character, may at any time before discharge be landed at any place, or destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier by the carrier without compensation and the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment. […].”
177.
See Hirst J in The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505.
178.
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v The “Hong Kong Producer” and Universal Marine Corporation (The “Hong Kong Producer”) [1969] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 536.
179.
See Sect. 4.4.3 above.
180.
Article IV rule 1, rule 2(q), and rule 3.
181.
Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1886) LR 12 App Cas 11.
182.
Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1886) LR 12 App Cas 11, Lord Halsbury, L.C., p. 16.
183.
Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1886) LR 12 App Cas 11, Lord Watson, p. 19.
184.
The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505. See Sect. 4.5.1.3 above on fundamental breach.
185.
See Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, p. 14, para 21 (Lord Justice Longmore) and p. 16, para 33 (Lord Justice Judge).
186.
J. Evans & Sons (Portsmouth) Ltd. v Andrea Merzario Ltd. (Evans v Merzario) [1976] Ll. L. Rep. 165. See Lord Denning, M.R at p. 168; Lord Justice Roskill at pp. 169–170; Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane at p. 170.
187.
J. Evans & Sons (Portsmouth) Ltd. v Andrea Merzario Ltd. (Evans v Merzario) [1976] Ll. L. Rep. 165, p. 170.
188.
J. Evans & Sons (Portsmouth) Ltd. v Andrea Merzario Ltd. (Evans v Merzario) [1976] Ll. L. Rep. 165. See Lord Roskill at p. 170.
189.
Kenya Railways v. Antares Co. Pte Ltd. (The “Antares”) (Nos. 1 and 2) [1987] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 424, Lord Justice Lloyd at p. 430.
190.
Scrutton, Th.Ed., Boyd, St.C., Burrows, A.S., & Foxton D. (1996) Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed). Sweet & Maxwell, p. 435.
191.
Article IV rule 5(e) of the Hague-Visby Rules reads as follows: Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be entitled to the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for in this paragraph if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.
192.
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, p. 15, para 27.
193.
See The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505 and The “Pembroke” [1995] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 290, p. 295.
194.
The “Nea Tyhi” [1982] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 606.
195.
The “Nea Tyhi” [1982] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 606, p. 608.
196.
The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505.
197.
The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 501.
198.
The main points of criticism were that: (1) by applying the “repugnancy” principle to Article IV rule 5, which was anyway inappropriate as a matter of construction because of the words “in any event”, Hirst J. failed to follow the well-established approach that “if two or more provisions of a contract are inconsistent or “repugnant” the court will nonetheless seek to make sense of them in the light of the commercial context and the deduced intentions of the parties” (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda” [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm), Langley J at para 23–24); (2) nothing in the reasoning of Hirst J. addressed the wording of Article IV rule 5 and in particular the words “in any event” (ibid.); (3) the reasoning in The “Chanda” did not take into account the judgment in The “Happy Ranger” [2002] 2 Ll. Rep. 357, where the package limitation provision was applied to a breach of the seaworthiness obligation (ibid., para 25); (4) Hirst J. made too broad a proposition that the limitation clause can hardly have been intended to provide a protection to a party, who committed such a serious breach by exposing the cargo to “such palpable risk of damage”; just the contrary, exemption and limitation clauses arise precisely when there is a breach (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda” [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, Judge L.J. at p. 17, para 41–42).
199.
Nelson Pine Industries Ltd. v Seatrans New Zealand Ltd. (The “Pembroke”) [1995] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 290.
200.
The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505.
201.
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1.
202.
Treitel, G.H. & Reynolds, F.M.B. (2001) Carver on Bills of Lading (1st ed). Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London, p. 525.
203.
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2002] EWHC 1306 (Commercial Court) (Langley, J.), para 13.
204.
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, p. 13, para 16.
205.
The “Happy Ranger” [2002] 2 Ll. Rep. 357, p. 364, para 38.
206.
The “Happy Ranger” [2002] 2 Ll. Rep. 357.
207.
For the term overriding obligation, see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.4.1.1.
208.
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda”) [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, p. 13, para 18.
209.
See The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda” [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm), Langley J. at para 27; The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda” [2003] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 1, Longmore L.J. at p. 15, para 27.
210.
The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda” [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm), Langley J. at para 27.
211.
The “Kapitan Petko Voivoda” [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm), Langley J. at para 27.
212.
The “Chanda” [1989] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 494, p. 505.
213.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2.2 (Essence of the Charter Party Agreement); Chap. 2, Sect. 2.4.4 (The Carrier’s Cargo-related Duties under Charter Parties); and Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.4 (FIOS(T) Clauses in Charterparty Agreements).
214.
Treitel, G.H. & Reynolds, F.M.B. (2005) Carver on Bills of Lading (2nd ed), Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London, p. 478, para 8–071.
215.
Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v JSC Arcadia Shipping (The “Socol 3”) [2010] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 221.
216.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2 above on charter parties.
217.
Cooke, J., Young, T., Kimball, J., Lambert, L., Taylor, A. & Martowski, D. (2014) Voyage Charters (4th ed), Informa Law, para 8.12.
218.
Gencon Charter (As Revised 1922, 1976, and 1994), Part II, lines 10–11.
219.
Coghlin, T., Baker, A.W., Kenny, J. & Kimball, J.D. (2008) Time Charters (6th ed), Informa, London, p. 362, para 20.31.
220.
Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The “Fantasy”) [1991] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 391; [1992] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 235.
221.
See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.4 (FIOS(T) Clauses in Charterparty Agreements).
222.
Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The “Fantasy”) [1991] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 391, p. 394.
223.
Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The “Fantasy”) [1991] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 391, p. 395.
224.
Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The “Fantasy”) [1991] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 391, p. 396: “Charterers sought the liberty to load deck cargo in the form of containers which would be carried on the hatch covers. Owners would not normally accept liability for such cargo (witness the definition of “cargo” in the Hague Rules) but they were prepared to undertake that the crew would attend to it during the voyage. On that basis, charterers could load the cargo at their own risk, subject to negligence of the master in supervising its loading and stowage, for which owners would be liable without any transfer of responsibility under cll. 8, 42 and 50. The two parts of cl. 63 therefore represent an easily understood compromise; in return for the owner’s undertaking that the crew would check and protect deck cargo during the voyage, such cargo was to be carried at charterers’ risk, meaning that owners did not otherwise accept responsibility for it.”
225.
Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The “Fantasy”) [1991] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 391, p. 396.
226.
Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The “Fantasy”) [1991] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 391, p. 395.
227.
The “Visurgis” [1999] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 218.
228.
Baughen, S. (2009) Shipping Law (4th ed), Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 213–214.
229.
Kuwait Maritime Transport Co v Rickmers Linie K.G. (The “Danah”) [1993] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 351, p. 354: “In this regard it seems to me to be clear that the clause is apt to exclude loss of or damage to deck cargo caused by want of care on the part of the owners in and about the carriage of such cargo.”
230.
Kuwait Maritime Transport Co v Rickmers Linie K.G. (The “Danah”) [1993] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 351, pp. 353–354.
231.
Kuwait Maritime Transport Co v Rickmers Linie K.G. (The “Danah”) [1993] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 351, p. 354.
232.
Kuwait Maritime Transport Co v Rickmers Linie K.G. (The “Danah”) [1993] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 351, p. 354.
233.
The “Imvros” [1999] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 848.
234.
However, it should be mentioned that Langley, J., took into account the fact that the due diligence obligation under COGSA was expressly deleted in the amended NYPE time charter party. Also, there were express absolute obligations of seaworthiness, although limited, in lines 21–22 and clause 1 of the NYPE charter, and these were not breached by the shipowners. See: The “The Imvros” [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Law Report 848, at p. 851.
235.
The “Imvros” [1999] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 848, pp. 852–853.
236.
Baughen, S. (2000) The Perils of Deck Cargo (The Imvros). Ll. Mar. & Com. L. Q. 295, p. 299.
237.
See Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd-Thasis Pacific Region v The Beltimber (The “Beltimber”) [1999] 4 FC 320, at para [6] to [8].
238.
Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v JSC Arcadia Shipping (The “Socol 3”) [2010] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 221.
239.
With regard to the latter cause, the shipowners were held responsible for the cargo operations, regardless of the FIOST clause which, in general, is to transfer the cargo-related obligations to the charterers. This is because the factual matrix in The “Socol 3” allowed the charterers to invoke and rely on the second exception to the transfer of a cargo-related duties via a FIOST clause as established in Court Line Ltd. v Canadian Transport Co Ltd [1940] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 161, namely, responsibility stays with the shipowners if the damage or loss to the cargo are attributed to the want of due care in matters related to the vessel, for which the master had, or should have had knowledge, but the charterers did not. Therefore, the principal issue in The “Socol 3” turned to be whether the wording of the deck cargo clause was wide enough to cover the shipowners’ liability and to provide them a defense against negligence and unseaworthiness. For the FIOST clause, see Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.4 (FIOS(T) Clauses in Charterparty Agreements).
240.
L.D. Seals N.V. v Mitsui Osk Lines Ltd (The “Darya Tara”) [1997] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 42.
241.
L.D. Seals N.V. v Mitsui Osk Lines Ltd (The “Darya Tara”) [1997] 1 Ll. L. Rep. 42, p. 49.
242.
The “Darya Tara” [1997] 1Ll. L. Rep. 42, p. 49.
243.
Limbert, St. (1997) Deck Cargo—Financial Responsibility for Shifting (The Darya Tara). 2 The International Journal of Shipping Law 81, p. 83.
244.
Coghlin, T., Baker, A.W., Kenny, J. & Kimball, J.D. (2008) Time Charters (6th ed), Informa, London, p. 363, para 20.33.
245.
See Tassel, Y. (2008) Le régime juridique de la « pontée » : un arrêt d’espèce malheureux. 693 DMF 538; De Cet Bertin, C. (2010) Obligations du transporteur en pontée. 718 DMF 796; de Sentenac, J. (2012) Pontée irrégulière, pontée fautive. 737 DMF 534; Raison, O. (2013) Régimes applicables au transport en pontée : les confusions persistent (v. la note). 752 DMF 899.
246.
Raison, O. – ‘Régimes applicables au transport en pontée : les confusions persistent (v. la note). 752 DMF 899, p. 901.
247.
Tassel, Y. (2008) Le régime juridique de la « pontée » : un arrêt d’espèce malheureux. 693 DMF 538, p. 540.
248.
Décret n°87-922 du 12 novembre 1987 modifiant le décret n° 66-1078 du 31 décembre 1966 sur les contrats d'affrètement et de transport maritimes, tel que modifié et complété par le décret n° 69-679 du 19 juin 1969. [Decree n°87-922 from 12 November 1987, amending the decree n° 66-1078 from 31 December 1966 on contracts of affreightment and maritime transport as amended and supplemented by the decree n° 69-679 from 19 June 1969.]
249.
Loi du 18 juin 1966, art. 22: “Le consentement du chargeur est supposé donné en cas de chargement en conteneur à bord de navires munis d’installations appropriées pour ce type de transport.” [Law of 18 June 1966, Art. 22: “The consent of the shipper is assumed to be given in case of loading of containers on board of vessels, which are provided with appropriate equipment for this type of transportation.”]
250.
Le Droit Maritime Française, 62^e année, n° 14, Juin 2010, p. 70, para. 76. See Cour d’Appel de Paris (Pôle 5, 5^e Ch.) – 11 février 2010 – Navire Contship Germany n°06-0653, where undeclared containerized deck cargo carried on a specially-designed container vessel was held an inexcusable breach because the containers were open-top (flat type). See also De Cet Bertin, C. (2010) Obligations du transporteur en pontée. 718 DMF 796, p. 802.
251.
Raison, O. (2013) Régimes applicables au transport en pontée : les confusions persistent (v. la note). 752 DMF 899, p. 902.
252.
Tassel, Y. (2008) Le régime juridique de la « pontée » : un arrêt d’espèce malheureux. 693 DMF 538, p. 541: “L’arrêt de rejet commenté doit être considéré comme un arrêt d’espèce malheureux.” [The commented judgment should be considered as an unfortunate decision.]
253.
Cour d’Appel d’Aix-en-Provence, 16 novembre 2006, Ville de Tanya : BTL 2007; Cour de Cassation (ch. com.) – 18 mars 2008 – Navire Ville de Tanya n° 07-11777.
254.
Cour d’Appel d’Aix-en-Provence, 16 novembre 2006, Ville de Tanya : BTL 2007. 573, obs. M. Tilche: “un transport en pontée relevant de la Convention de Bruxelles amendée n’est pas « régulier » que dans la mesure où le chargeur a consenti à ce type de chargement” [Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal: a carriage on deck under the Brussels Convention, as amended, is “regular” only insofar as the shipper has consented to this type carriage].
255.
Le Droit Maritime Française, 62^e année, n° 14, Juin 2010, p. 70, para. 76.
256.
Cour d’Appel d’Aix-en-Provence, 16 novembre 2006, Ville de Tanya : BTL 2007. 573, obs. M. Tilche: “pour apprécier si le chargeur a consenti régulièrement ou non au chargement en pontée, il convient de se référer à la seule Convention de Bruxelles amendée et non à la loi française” [in order to assess whether the shipper has regularly consented or not to deck carriage, it is necessary to refer only to the Brussels Convention, as amended, and not to French law].
257.
Tassel, Y. (2008) Le régime juridique de la « pontée » : un arrêt d’espèce malheureux. 693 DMF 538, p. 541.
258.
Tassel, Y. (2008) Le régime juridique de la « pontée » : un arrêt d’espèce malheureux. 693 DMF 538, p. 541.
259.
Cour de Cassation (Ch. Com.) – 18 mars 2008 – Navire Ville de Tanya n° 07-11777: “la faute pour avoir chargé en pontée sans recueillir l’autorisation du chargeur prive [le transporteur maritime] de la possibilité de s’exonérer même partiellement de sa responsabilité en faisant la preuve du cas excepté prévu à l’article 4.2.c de la Convention de Bruxelles” [Court of Cassation (Commercial Division): the breach of having loaded the cargo on deck, without obtaining permission from the shipper, deprives [the maritime carrier] of the opportunity to exonerate himself, even partially, from liability which he could otherwise do by proving an excepted case as laid down in Article 4 rule 2(c) of the Brussels Convention]. See also Cour d’Appel d’Aix-en-Provence (2e Ch.) – 14 septembre 2011 – Navire Cap Camarat – n° 10-01309, where undeclared deck carriage was considered a breach that could not be exonerated by the “perils of the sea” exception.
260.
Cour d’Appel d’Aix-en-Provence (2^e Ch.) – 14 septembre 2011 – Navire Cap Camarat n° 10-01309. See also de Sentenac, J. (2012) Pontée irrégulière, pontée fautive. 737 DMF 534, pp. 540 and 543.
261.
For carriage on deck under the Rotterdam Rules, see Sect. 4.7 below.
262.
Herber, R. (1997) German Law on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. In: Honka, H. (ed) (1997) New Carriage of Goods By Sea: The Nordic Approach Including Comparisons With Some Other Jurisdictions. Åbo: Institute of Maritime and Commercial Law, Åbo Akademi University, p. 343, at pp. 344–346.
263.
Herber, R. (1997) German Law on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. In: Honka, H. (ed) (1997) New Carriage of Goods By Sea: The Nordic Approach Including Comparisons With Some Other Jurisdictions. Åbo: Institute of Maritime and Commercial Law, Åbo Akademi University, p. 343, at p. 344.
264.
Germany did not ratify the 1968 Visby Protocol for political reasons, namely to support the Hamburg Rules. Although the latter were opposed by the German shipowners and insurers, and although by 1986 it was already obvious that the Hamburg Rules would not be supported by the major maritime countries and, hence, would not become a leading maritime regime, the German Government and Parliament did not want to disappoint the states that took part in the Hamburg Conference by leaving the impression that Germany had completely given up on the Hamburg Rules. On the other hand, the country needed to modernize the outdated Hague Rules regime, and the wide incorporation of the provisions of the Visby Protocol was considered an appropriate step. As far as the ratification of the Hague-Visby Rules by the German Democratic Republic is concerned, that ratification expired when the country reunified with the Federal Republic of Germany. Herber, R. (1997) German Law on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. In: Honka, H. (ed) (1997) New Carriage of Goods By Sea: The Nordic Approach Including Comparisons With Some Other Jurisdictions. Åbo: Institute of Maritime and Commercial Law, Åbo Akademi University, p. 343, at p. 346.
265.
See Article 6 para. 1 EGHB.
266.
See Article 6 para. 2 of EGHB.
267.
Karschau, M. (2013) Reform of German maritime law underway. Maritime Risk International, p. 16.
268.
Karschau, M. (2013) Reform of German maritime law underway. Maritime Risk International, p. 16.
269.
Horbach, Ch. (2014) New German Maritime Legislation, Hamburg.
270.
Horbach, Ch. (2014) New German Maritime Legislation, Hamburg, p. 3.
271.
Karschau, M. (2013) Reform of German maritime law underway. Maritime Risk International, p. 16.
272.
Harbs, G. (2013) Germany Introduces New Maritime Law: An update of the 150-year old German Maritime Code. Gard News, Issue 211, p. 28.
273.
Article 486 HGB, para 4: “Der Verfrachter darf das Gut ohne Zustimmung des Befrachters nicht auf Deck verladen. Wird ein Konnossement ausgestellt, ist die Zustimmung des Abladers (§ 513 Absatz 2) erforderlich.[…]” [The carrier must not load the goods on deck without the consent of the charterer. If a bill of lading is issued, the consent of the merchant (§ 513, paragraph 2) is required.]
274.
Herber, R. (1997) German Law on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. In: Honka, H. (ed) (1997) New Carriage of Goods By Sea: The Nordic Approach Including Comparisons With Some Other Jurisdictions. Åbo: Institute of Maritime and Commercial Law, Åbo Akademi University, p. 343, at p. 355.
275.
Tetley, W. (2008) Marine Cargo Claims (4th ed). Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc., Vol. 1, Chapter 31, p. 1573, fn. 13.
276.
Article 486 HGB, para 4: “[…] Das Gut darf jedoch ohne Zustimmung auf Deck verladen werden, wenn es sich in oder auf einem Lademittel befindet, das für die Beförderung auf Deck tauglich ist, und wenn das Deck für die Beförderung eines solchen Lademittels ausgerüstet ist.” [The cargo may, however, be loaded on deck without consent if it is in or on a loading device suitable for the carriage on deck, and when the deck is equipped for the carriage of such cargo.]
277.
Article 500 HGB: “Hat der Verfrachter ohne die nach § 486 Absatz 4 erforderliche Zustimmung des Befrachters oder des Abladers Gut auf Deck verladen, haftet er, auch wenn ihn kein Verschulden trifft, für den Schaden, der dadurch entsteht, dass das Gut auf Grund der Verladung auf Deck verloren gegangen ist oder beschädigt wurde. Im Falle von Satz 1 wird vermutet, dass der Verlust oder die Beschädigung des Gutes darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass das Gut auf Deck verladen wurde.” [In case the carrier loaded the goods on deck without the required consent of the shipper (required under Article 486 paragraph 4), he is liable, even if he is not at fault for the damage caused by the fact that the goods are lost or damaged due to the loading on deck. In the case of the first sentence, it is assumed that the loss or damage to the goods is due to the fact that the material was loaded on deck.]
278.
Article 507 HGB: ”Die in diesem Untertitel und im Stückgutfrachtvertrag vorgesehenen Haftungsbefreiungen und Haftungsbegrenzungen gelten nicht, wenn: […] 2. der Verfrachter mit dem Befrachter oder dem Ablader vereinbart hat, dass das Gut unter Deck befördert wird, und der Schaden darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass das Gut auf Deck verladen wurde.” [The measures provided for in this subtitle on general cargo contract liability exemptions and limitations of liability shall not apply if: […] 2. the carrier has agreed with the charterer or the shipper that the cargo will be transported under cover, and the damages are due to the fact that the cargo was loaded on deck.]
279.
Article 427 HGB, para 1: “Der Frachtführer ist von seiner Haftung befreit, soweit der Verlust, die Beschädigung oder die Überschreitung der Lieferfrist auf eine der folgenden Gefahren zurückzuführen ist: 1. vereinbarte oder der Übung entsprechende Verwendung von offenen, nicht mit Planen gedeckten Fahrzeugen oder Verladung auf Deck; […]” [The carrier shall be relieved of liability to the extent that the loss, damage or delay in delivery is due to the following hazards: 1. Agreed and exercised appropriate use of open vehicles or loading on deck.]
280.
Article 427 HGB, para 2: “Ist ein Schaden eingetreten, der nach den Umständen des Falles aus einer der in Absatz 1 bezeichneten Gefahren entstehen konnte, so wird vermutet, daß der Schaden aus dieser Gefahr entstanden ist. Diese Vermutung gilt im Falle des Absatzes 1 Nr. 1 nicht bei außergewöhnlich großem Verlust.” [The occurrence of damages that could arise from the risks referred to in paragraph 1 to the circumstances of the case, it is assumed that the damages have resulted from this danger. This presumption does not apply in the case of paragraph 1, number 1 when there is an exceptionally great loss.]
281.
Article 427 HGB, para 3: “Der Frachtführer kann sich auf Absatz 1 Nr. 1 nur berufen, soweit der Verlust, die Beschädigung oder die Überschreitung der Lieferfrist nicht darauf zurückzuführen ist, daß der Frachtführer besondere Weisungen des Absenders im Hinblick auf die Beförderung des Gutes nicht beachtet hat. ” [The carrier may only invoke paragraph 1, number 1 to the extent that the loss, damage or delay in delivery is not due to the fact that the carrier has not complied with any special instructions of the consignor with respect to the carriage of goods.]
282.
Karschau, M. (2013) Reform of German maritime law underway. Maritime Risk International, p. 16, at p. 17.
283.
Although the Netherlands was a party to the Hague Rules as of 1956, these Rules are nowadays denounced by the country.
284.
The relevant provisions are to be found in section II of Book 8 of the Civil Code, which is dedicated to maritime law.
285.
Burgerlijk Wetboek Boek 8, Artikel 382:

1. Nietig is ieder beding in een vervoerovereenkomst onder cognossement, waardoor de vervoerder of het schip wordt ontheven van aansprakelijkheid voor verlies of beschadiging van of met betrekking tot zaken voortvloeiende uit nalatigheid, schuld of tekortkoming in het voldoen aan de verplichtingen in de artikelen 381, 399, 411, 414 eerste lid, 492, 493 of in artikel 1712 voorzien of waardoor deze aansprakelijkheid mocht worden verminderd op andere wijze dan in deze afdeling of in de artikelen 361 tot en met 366 is voorzien. Een beding, krachtens hetwelk de uitkering op grond van een gesloten verzekering aan de vervoerder komt of elk ander beding van dergelijke strekking, wordt aangemerkt als te zijn gemaakt teneinde de vervoerder van zijn aansprakelijkheid te ontheffen.

2. Niettegenstaande het eerste lid is een beding, als daar genoemd, geldig mits het betreft:
1. a.
  
  een geoorloofd beding omtrent averij-grosse;
2. b.
  
  levende dieren;
3. c.
  
  zaken, die feitelijk op het dek worden vervoerd mits deze in het cognossement als deklading zijn opgegeven.
286.
Boonk, H. (1993) Zeevervoer onder cognossement, Gouda Quint BV, Arnhem, pp. 64–65.
287.
Boonk, H. (1993) Zeevervoer onder cognossement, Gouda Quint BV, Arnhem, pp. 65–66.
288.
Boonk, H. (1993) Zeevervoer onder cognossement, Gouda Quint BV, Arnhem, p. 66.
289.
Hof Den Haag 3/1/75 S & S 75, 42 (Anna-Bella).
290.
Rechtbank Amsterdam 23/3/60 S & S 60, 54 (Lijnbaansgracht).
291.
Rechtbank Amsterdam 1/3/72 S & S 72, 72 (Jeannie).
292.
Rechtbank Amsterdam 5/10/88 S & S 91, 136 (Westfjord).
293.
Hoge Raad 7/3/69 NJ 69, 249 (Gegaste Uien).
294.
See Boonk, H. (1993) Zeevervoer onder cognossement, Gouda Quint BV, Arnhem, p. 68; Schadee, H. (1956) Het Nieuwste Zeerecht. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Reedersvereeniging, p. 18.
295.
Boonk, H. (1993) Zeevervoer onder cognossement, Gouda Quint BV, Arnhem, p. 67.
296.
Falkanger, Th., Bull, H.J. & Brautaset, L. (2011) Scandinavian Maritime Law (3rd ed). Universitetsforlaget AS, p. 26.
297.
Falkanger, Th., Bull, H.J. & Brautaset, L. (2011) Scandinavian Maritime Law (3rd ed). Universitetsforlaget AS, p. 300.
298.
See ND 2005.395 DCA (Royal Arctic Line) and ND 2005.574 DCC FEDERAL MACKENZIE.
299.
Falkanger, Th., Bull, H.J. & Brautaset, L. (2011) Scandinavian Maritime Law (3rd ed). Universitetsforlaget AS, p. 301.
300.
See Sect. 4.7.3 below.
301.
Comité Maritime International, The Travaux Préparatoires Of The International Convention For The Unification Of Certain Rules Of Law Relating To Bills Of Lading Of 25 August 1924 The Hague Rules And Of The Protocols Of 23 February 1968 And 21 December 1979 The Hague-Visby, p. 109.
302.
Some of the drafters of the Hague Rules went that far to also consider excluding even “perishable goods” from the scope of the Convention, to which a valuable remark was made by another delegate at the Hague Conference. Mr. Dor: “If we exclude everything except bricks and iron bars there is not much use in having such rules. If we exclude all the goods which may be damaged, then the rules are not of much good.” See Comité Maritime International, The Travaux Préparatoires Of The International Convention For The Unification Of Certain Rules Of Law Relating To Bills Of Lading Of 25 August 1924 The Hague Rules And Of The Protocols Of 23 February 1968 And 21 December 1979 The Hague-Visby, para [79] at p. 131 and p. 648.
303.
Comité Maritime International, The Travaux Préparatoires Of The International Convention For The Unification Of Certain Rules Of Law Relating To Bills Of Lading Of 25 August 1924 The Hague Rules And Of The Protocols Of 23 February 1968 And 21 December 1979 The Hague-Visby, p. 132.
304.
However, it is worth noting that deck cargo was within the drafters’ agenda but eventually this proposal was rejected because deck carriage was considered being not “of sufficient practical importance.” See CMI Stockholm Conference Report (1963), p. 87.
305.
Thomas, D.R. (2009) A New Convention for the Carriage of Goods by Sea – The Rotterdam Rules: An Analysis of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, Witney, United Kingdom: Lawtext Pub, p. 80.
306.
Hodges, S. & Glass, D.A. (2010) Deck Cargo: Safely stowed at last or still at sea?. In: Thomas, D.R. (ed) (2010) The Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Informa Law, London, p. 238.
307.
Working Group III (Transport Law), 10th session (Vienna 16–20 September 2002), para 78: “It was explained that approximately 65% of the container-carrying capacity of a vessel was usually on or above its deck, such that for operational reasons it was important for container carriers to have the operational flexibility to decide where to carry the containers.”
308.
Sturley, M.F., Fujita, T. & van der Ziel, G. (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Sweet & Maxwell, p. 126.
309.
Hodges, S. & Glass, D.A. (2010) Deck Cargo: Safely stowed at last or still at sea?. In: Thomas, D.R. (ed) (2010) The Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Informa Law, London, p. 240, at p. 257.
310.
The Rotterdam Rulers, Article 81: Special rules for live animals and certain other goods.
311.
Sturley, M.F., Fujita, T. & van der Ziel, G. (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Sweet & Maxwell, p. 127.
312.
Hodges, S. & Glass, D.A. (2010) Deck Cargo: Safely stowed at last or still at sea?. In: Thomas, D.R. (ed) (2010) The Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Informa Law, London, p. 240, at p. 264.
313.
Sturley, M.F., Fujita, T. & van der Ziel, G. (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Sweet & Maxwell, p. 127.
314.
The authors of The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (2010) on p. 129 describe the special risks as: “…those that, for the specific goods and under the circumstances of the voyage, generally follow from their carriage on deck.”
315.
Article 17.2 of the Rotterdam Rules reads: “The carrier is relieved of all or part of its liability pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article if it proves that the cause or one of the causes of the loss, damage, or delay is not attributable to its fault or to the fault of any person referred to in article 18.”
316.
Sturley, M.F., Fujita, T. & van der Ziel, G. (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Sweet & Maxwell, p. 128.
317.
Sturley, M.F., Fujita, T. & van der Ziel, G. (2010) The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea. Sweet & Maxwell, p. 130.
318.
Moreover, Article 24 on Deviation expressly excludes the of doctrine of deviation from the Rules: “When pursuant to applicable law a deviation constitutes a breach of the carrier’s obligations, such deviation of itself shall not deprive the carrier or a maritime performing party of any defence or limitation of this Convention, except to the extent provided in article 61.”
319.
Working Group III (Transport Law), 10th session (Vienna 16–20 September 2002), para 79.
320.
General average is a maritime principle, which applies when cargo must be jettisoned in order to save the vessel and/or the remainder of the cargo. It specifies that all parties involved in a common maritime adventure must proportionally share any losses that result from such sacrifice.
321.
The “Mormacvega” [1984] 1 Ll. Rep. 296, p. 300.
322.
DMF 2014, p. 69: “Il serait temps d’unifier une fois pour toute le régime de la pontée. C’est à quoi tendent les Règles de Rotterdam (Art. 25) qui, à nouveau ouvrent le chemin de la modernité.” [It is time to unite, once and for all, all the regimes on deck cargo. This is what lies behind the Rotterdam Rules (Art. 25), which, again, opens the way to modernity.]

References

American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU). On deck stowage of containers. Technical Services Committee. Available at: https://www.aimu.org/aimupapers/OnDeck.pdf
American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU). Open-top container ships. Technical Services Committee. Available at: http://www.aimu.org/aimupapers/OPEN.pdf
Angus, W. D. (1968). Legal implications of “The Container Revolution” in international carriage of goods. McGill Law Journal, 14(3), 395–429.
Google Scholar
Bauer, R. G. (1991). Deck Cargo: Pitfalls to avoid under American Law in clausing your Bills of Lading. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 22, 287.
Google Scholar
Baughen, S. (2000). The Perils of Deck Cargo (The Imvros). Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, p. 295.
Google Scholar
Baughen, S. (2009). Shipping Law (4th ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge-Cavendish.
Google Scholar
Boonk, H. (1993). Zeevervoer onder cognossement (pp. 64–65). Arnhem, the Netherlands: Gouda Quint BV.
Google Scholar
Cioarec, V. (2005). Containers as Deck Cargo. Forwarderlaw.
Google Scholar
Coghlin, T., Baker, A. W., Kenny, J., & Kimball, J. D. (2008). Time charters (6th ed.). London: Informa.
Google Scholar
Comité Maritime International. The Travaux Préparatoires Of The International Convention For The Unification Of Certain Rules Of Law Relating To Bills Of Lading Of 25 August 1924 The Hague Rules And Of The Protocols Of 23 February 1968 And 21 December 1979 The Hague-Visby.
Google Scholar
Comité Maritime International, Stockholm Conference Report (1963).
Google Scholar
Cooke, J., Young, T., Kimball, J., Lambert, L., Taylor, A., & Martowski, D. (2014). Voyage Charters (4th ed.). Informa Law.
Google Scholar
Cooke, J., Young, T., Taylor, A., Kimball, J. D., Martowski, D., & Lambert, L. (2007). Voyage Charters (3rd ed.). London: Informa.
Google Scholar
De Cet Bertin, C. (2010). Obligations du transporteur en pontée. 718 Droit Maritime Français 796.
Google Scholar
de Sentenac, J. (2012). Pontée irrégulière, pontée fautive. 737 Droit Maritime Français 534.
Google Scholar
Debattista, C. (1998). The sale of goods by sea (2nd ed.). ISBN: 0-406-02091-4.
Google Scholar
Deutsch, E. P. (1939). Deck Cargo. California Law Review, 535.
Google Scholar
Extension of Time, Deck Stowage and Time Bar (The Antares): Case and Comment (1987) Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 146.
Google Scholar
Falkanger, T., Bull, H. J., & Brautaset, L. (2011). Scandinavian maritime law (3rd ed.). Universitetsforlaget AS.
Google Scholar
Gaskell, N. J. J., Debattista, C., & Swatton, R. J. (1987). Chorley and Giles’ shipping law (8th ed.).
Google Scholar
Germanischer Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft. (2003). Guidelines for the carriage of refrigerated containers on board ships. Hamburg.
Google Scholar
Glass, D. A. (2013). Freight forwarding and multimodal transport contracts (2nd ed.). Informa Law from Routledge. ISBN-13: 978-1842145951.
Google Scholar
Harbs, G. (2013). Germany introduces new maritime law: An update of the 150-year old German Maritime Code. Gard News, Issue 211, p. 28.
Google Scholar
Herber, R. (1997). German law on the carriage of goods by sea. In H. Honka (Ed.), New carriage of goods by sea: The Nordic approach including comparisons with some other jurisdictions (p. 343). Åbo, Finland: Institute of Maritime and Commercial Law, Åbo Akademi University.
Google Scholar
Hodges, S., & Glass, D. A. (2010). Deck Cargo: Safely stowed at last or still at sea? In D. R. Thomas (Ed.), The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules (p. 240). London: Informa Law.
Google Scholar
Hoque, N. (2013). Container on deck: an International Standard Banking Practice? DCInsight, 19(4).
Google Scholar
Horbach, C. (2014). New German Maritime Legislation. Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.standard-club.com/media/973952/maritime-law-reform.pdf
Hristov, B. (1977). The Responsibility of the Sea Carrier in Containerized Shipments, issued by the Library to the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI), Sofia, signature №105 [Original Cyrillic alphabet publication: Божидар Христов – “Отговорност на морския превозвач при контейнерните превози”, Библиотека “Българска търговско-промишлена палата” (БТТП), София (1977), сигнатура №105].
Google Scholar
Karschau, M. (2013). Reform of German maritime law underway. Maritime Risk International, p. 16.
Google Scholar
Knauth, A. W. (1947). The American Law of Ocean Bills of Lading (3rd ed.).
Google Scholar
Limbert, S. (1997). Deck Cargo—Financial responsibility for shifting (The Darya Tara). The International Journal of Shipping Law, 2, 81.
Google Scholar
Lüddeke, C. F. (1996). Marine claims: A guide for the handling and prevention of marine claims. LLP. ISBN-10: 1859780474.
Google Scholar
Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). (2008). Report on the Investigation of the Structural Failure of MSC Napoli (Report No. 9/2008). https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/547c703ced915d4c0d000087/NapoliReport.pdf
Pardessus, J. M. (1837). Collection des Lois Maritimes Antérieures Au XVIIIe Siècle. Tome Quatrième.
Google Scholar
Raison, O. (2013). Régimes applicables au transport en pontée: les confusions persistent (v. la note). 752 Droit Maritime Français 899.
Google Scholar
Schadee, H. (1956). Het Nieuwste Zeerecht. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Reedersvereeniging.
Google Scholar
Scrutton, T. E., Boyd, S. C., Burrows, A. S., & Foxton D. (1996). Scrutton on charterparties and bills of lading (20th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN-10: 0421525800.
Google Scholar
Scrutton, T. E., Mocatta, A. A., Mustill, M. J., & Boyd, S. C. (1984). Scrutton on charterparties and bills of lading (19th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN: 0421297107.
Google Scholar
Standing Commission for Maritime Accident and Incident Investigations (CIAIM) (2012) Investigation of the Capsizing of Merchant Vessel DENEB at the Port of Algeciras on 11 June 2011. Technical Report A-20/2012. http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/7501ACC9-94FA-44B7-B543-B66873C31A16/114289/ITA202012DenebINGOPTIMIZADOWEB.pdf
Sturley, M. F., Fujita, T., & van der Ziel, G. (2010). The Rotterdam Rules: The UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Sweet & Maxwell.
Google Scholar
Tassel, Y. (2008). Le régime juridique de la « pontée »: un arrêt d’espèce malheureux. 693 Droit Maritime Français 538.
Google Scholar
Tetley, W. (1963, April). Selected problems of maritime law under the Hague Rules. McGill Law Journal, p. 53.
Google Scholar
Tetley, W. (2008). Marine cargo claims (4th ed.). Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc. ISBN: 978-2-89635-126-8.
Google Scholar
The Rhone:. Analysis and Comments, JIML 12 [2006] 1 13.
Google Scholar
Thomas, D. R. (2009). A new convention for the carriage of goods by sea – The Rotterdam Rules: An analysis of the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Witney, England: Lawtext Pub.
Google Scholar
Treitel, G. H., & Reynolds, F. M. B. (2001). Carver on bills of lading (1st ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. ISBN-13: 978-0421564701.
Google Scholar
Treitel, G. H., & Reynolds, F. M. B. (2005). Carver on bills of lading (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.
Google Scholar
van Aerde, C. (2003). The Belgian Courts Hold Carriers Fully Liable. The Swedish Club Letter, No. I – 2003.
Google Scholar
van Hooydonk, E. (2014). Towards a worldwide restatement of the general principles of maritime law. JIML, 20, 170.
Google Scholar
Whitehead, J. F. (1981). Deviation: Should the doctrine apply to on-deck carriage? Maritime Lawyer, 6, 37.
Google Scholar
Williams, R. (2005). The developing law relating to Deck Cargo. JIML, 11, 100.
Google Scholar
Wooder, J. B. (1991). Deck Cargo: Old vices and new law. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 22, 131.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Private International Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Ilian Djadjev

Authors

Ilian Djadjev
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Djadjev, I. (2017). The Carrier’s Obligations over Deck Cargo. In: The Obligations of the Carrier Regarding the Cargo. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62440-2_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62440-2_4
Published: 23 August 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62439-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62440-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics