Abstract
The law of the Nordic countries and England shall, respectively, be presented in the following chapter in accordance with the legal traditions of the jurisdiction in question. Whereas in the Nordic countries, adhering to the civil law tradition, statutory law is the primary source of law, supplemented by case law and travaux préparatoires as secondary sources of law, in England case law is the primary source of law. Nonetheless also English law contains a limited amount of statutory law. This includes, inter alia, statues incorporating international Conventions, such as the 1971 COGSA, through which the Hague-Visby Rules have been incorporated into English law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term is used in this study for practical purpose, although it is recognised that there are as a matter of fact four separate national “laws”.
- 2.
‘Sjölagen m.m.’ (1975), p. 116, footnote 1.
- 3.
Gorton (2012), p. 37.
- 4.
Schelin (2007), p. 140.
- 5.
Sjölag (1891:35 s. 1).
- 6.
Lov nr. 56 af 1ste april 1892.
- 7.
Lov 20. juli 1893 nr. 1.
- 8.
Sjölagen av den 9 juni 1939 (167/39).
- 9.
Selvig (1976), pp. 3–4.
- 10.
Regeringens proposition 1993 /1994:195, p. 131.
- 11.
SOU 1990 :13, p. 70. It should be noticed however, that special provisions apply in the area of domestic Norwegian trade, prescribing a liability consistent with liability in railway and road transport. The decision is based on the structural and organisational characteristics of the Norwegian trade, where the mode of transportation is commonly unknown at the conclusion of the contract of carriage: NOU 1993 :36, pp. 13–14.
- 12.
Sjölag (1994:1009).
- 13.
Lov nr. 39 om sjøfarten av 24. juni 1994.
- 14.
Lov nr. 170 af 16. marts 1994.
- 15.
Sjölagen av den 15 juli 1994 (674/94).
- 16.
Selvig (1976), p. 6.
- 17.
Gorton (2012), pp. 49–50.
- 18.
Schelin (2007), pp. 144–147.
- 19.
Gorton (2012), pp. 35–36.
- 20.
Schelin (2007), p. 147.
- 21.
Ibid., p. 140.
- 22.
Regeringens proposition 1993/1994:195, p. 134.
- 23.
Selvig (1976), p. 3.
- 24.
Sweden: Den särskilda lagen (1936:277) om konossement; Denmark: Lov nr. 150 af den 7 maj 1937 om gennemførelse af den internationale konvention af 15 aug 1924 om konnossementer; Norway: Lov nr. 3 om gjennemføring av den internasjonale konvensjon om konnossementer av den 4. juli 1938 and; Finland: Lag i anledning av Finlands tillträde till 1924 års internationella konvention rörande konossement av den 9 juni 1939 (168/39).
- 25.
Hagbergh (1974), p. 36.
- 26.
Pursuant to Section 71 (later 72) of the 1891 SMC.
- 27.
Regeringens proposition 1993 /1994:195, pp. 134–135.
- 28.
- 29.
Selvig (1976), p. 3.
- 30.
Regeringens proposition 1993 /1994:195, p. 135.
- 31.
With exception for four sections (Sections 79, 88, 106 and 115) introduced through the 1936 amendments, specifically dealing with the loading and discharge of general cargo, introduced through the 1936 amendments.
- 32.
Regeringens proposition 1993 /1994:195, pp. 135–136.
- 33.
Hagbergh (1974), p. 38.
- 34.
The Code thus, functioned as a “default regime” similar to the common law “default regime” in England today – see Sect. 4.2.1 below.
- 35.
Section 168.
- 36.
The legal position has been the same long since. Pursuant to Section 86 of the 1864 Swedish Maritime Code (Sjölag gifwen Stockholms slot den 23 februari 1864, nr 22), for example, the commander was not allowed to stow goods in the vessel’s boats or hang it on the outside of the vessel without the shipper’s permission. Neither was he entitled to stow the cargo on deck without express permission, except for cargo which was considered deck cargo by local custom.
- 37.
Jantzen (1938), p. 150.
- 38.
In the then-Section 117 of the 1891 SMC.
- 39.
In Chapter 7 on general average. Section 190 paragraph 2 stated essentially (author’s translation): Not only cargo that has been stowed on the vessel’s open deck or in its boats or hung on its outside shall be considered deck cargo, but also cargo, which has been stowed in such covered space that is not part of the vessel’s permanent structure or that otherwise does not sufficiently protect the cargo against damage by the sea or from being washed overboard.
- 40.
Wikander (1936), p. 352.
- 41.
In connection with that the 1950 York Antwerp Rules were implemented into the Code.
- 42.
See Sect. 2.1.
- 43.
For this purpose, a printed general clause in the bill of lading, however, seems to have been sufficient: ND 1918.241 “Juno” (Bergens sjøret (Norwegian court of first instance)), pp. 243–244.
- 44.
Wikander (1936), p. 352.
- 45.
ND 1956.526 “Seine” (Sø- og Handelsretten (Danish court of first instance)).
- 46.
This dual legitimisation was the result of Norway and Denmark wanting to stress particularly in Section 91 that there were exemptions from the general prohibition against deck stowage: Wikander (1936), p. 353.
- 47.
Ibid., p. 352.
- 48.
- 49.
Pursuant to Gezelius, the carrier ought not to have been entitled to stow sensitive cargo on deck based on an option to stow on deck. Gezelius is not, however, clearly separating the matter of authorisation from that of negligence: Gezelius (1964), pp. 55–56. According to Krüger, an optional right to stow on deck would possibly only be accepted only in relation to containers: Krüger (1973), pp. 494–495. Cf. the 1994 NMCs, under which the carrier is authorised to stow any type of cargo under a clearly drafted liberty clause – see Sect. 5.2.1.3.
- 50.
- 51.
In the original 1891 version of the Code, the possibility for the carrier to exclude liability for deck carriage was not conditioned on a statement in the transport document. This changed in 1936, as the carrier’s possibility to exclude liability was made subject to a statement in the bill of lading, with the purpose of protecting third-party interests: Wikander (1936), pp. 528–529. Through the 1973 amendments, the exclusion of liability was additionally made subject to actual deck carriage, as prescribed by Art. I(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules (all carriages governed by the Hague Rules had already been subject to this additional requirement since 1936, when the Hague Rules, as stated above, were adopted into Swedish law as a result of the 1936 Bill of Lading Act).
- 52.
In Internordic trade, any contract of carriage would be subject to the Code’s mandatory scope of application pursuant to Section 168 paragraph 1 and Section 169 paragraph 1.
- 53.
This follows by an a contrario reading of Section 168 paragraph 1 together with 169 paragraph 2.
- 54.
ND 1992.132 “Anthony Rainbow” (Sø- og Handelsretten (Danish court of first instance)).
- 55.
ND 1996.164 “Anthony Rainbow” (Højsteret (Danish Supreme Court)), p. 171.
- 56.
Gezelius (1964), p. 57.
- 57.
Karlgren (1955), pp. 367–371.
- 58.
Brinck (1994), p. 61.
- 59.
Karlgren (1955), pp. 367–371.
- 60.
ND 1993.57 “Ni-Nu” (Högsta Domstolen (Finnish Supreme Court)).
- 61.
As developed in Sect. 6.2.3.4, in the absolute majority of cases it will be a negligent act to stow cargo on deck without authorisation.
- 62.
- 63.
ND 1997.161 “Bakkafoss” (Hæstiréttur Íslands (Icelandic Supreme Court)). The case was tried under the 1985 Icelandic Maritime Act, whose provisions on deck cargo (Section 41) and liability limitation (Section 70) correspond essentially to those in the Earlier Nordic Maritime Codes – see Sect. 4.1 above.
- 64.
- 65.
ND 1954.183 “Brødrene” (Bergen byrett (Norwegian court of first instance)).
- 66.
Ibid., p. 186.
- 67.
Gezelius (1964), p. 57.
- 68.
In Art. IV.2 of the Hague and the Hague-Visby Rules.
- 69.
Grönfors and Gorton (1982), pp. 158–161.
- 70.
See Sect. 6.2.3.4.
- 71.
Grönfors and Gorton (1982), p. 99.
- 72.
This rule was introduced in the 1891 SMC in 1936 (originally in Section 162). Before this point of time the carrier could escape liability vis-á-vis such a third party, in spite of having issued a clean bill of lading. In ND 1922.49 for example, the Norwegian Supreme Court established that the carrier had no duty vis-á-vis the consignee to state where the cargo was stowed, at least not as long as the shipper had not especially required him to: ND 1922.49 “Lyngenfjord” (Høiesteret (Norwegian Supreme Court)), p. 50.
- 73.
See Sect. 6.2.3.4.
- 74.
ND 1954.183 “Brødrene” (Bergen byrett (Norwegian court of first instance)). It is noted that Grönfors seems to have advocated instead the use of the principle of casus mixtus cum culpa in the case of unauthorised deck stowage: Grönfors and Gorton (1982), p. 99.
- 75.
Ibid., pp. 99 and 117.
- 76.
SOU 1990 :13, p. 79.
- 77.
Selvig (1976), p. 4.
- 78.
Schelin (2007), pp. 140–142.
- 79.
Regeringens proposition 1993 /1994:195, pp. 147–149.
- 80.
See Sect. 4.1.2.1 above.
- 81.
Hellner (1996), p. 333.
- 82.
See the cross-references in 14:16 (336) and 14:27 (347).
- 83.
In which case the mandatory provisions in Chapter 13 shall apply to the bill of lading when the latter determines the relationship between the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading pursuant to 13:3 (253).
- 84.
Cf. 13:4 (254) with 14:2 (322). The exceptions for Internordic trade and bills of lading under a charter party are found in 14:2 (322) paragraphs 2 and 4.
- 85.
Hellner (1996), p. 343.
- 86.
Translation: Axel Ax:son Johnsons institut för sjörätt och annan transporträtt (2006), p. 99.
- 87.
This is criticised by Tiberg (1995), p. 323.
- 88.
13:2 (252) paragraph 2 reads: “the provisions apply to contracts of carriage by sea”.
- 89.
13:24 (274) paragraph 1.
- 90.
There is no provision in the 1994 NMCs allowing the exclusion of liability for goods stowed on deck with authorisation corresponding to that of Section 168 paragraph 2 of the 1891 SMC and its Nordic equivalents.
- 91.
13:34 (284) respectively 13:27 (277).
- 92.
Skovby (1996), pp. 579–580.
- 93.
Tiberg (1995), p. 324.
- 94.
Hellner (1996), pp. 337–338.
- 95.
Regeringens proposition 1993 /1994:195, p. 1.
- 96.
SOU 1990 :13, p. 14.
- 97.
As amended by the 1979 SDR Protocol.
- 98.
Regeringens proposition 1983 /84:77, p. 146.
- 99.
See Sect. 4.1.4.1 above.
- 100.
Regeringens proposition 1993 /1994:195, pp. 142–147.
- 101.
SOU 1990 :13, p. 14.
- 102.
Tiberg, a major opponent to the way in which the 1994 NMCs were drafted, strongly questions the decision to, in principle, base the Codes on the 1978 Hamburg Rules, a set of Rules which at the time of drafting, despite being in existence for some 20 years, lacked general international acceptance. Yet if the Nordic Codes were to be based on the Hamburg Rules at any price, would it not, he questions, have been better to simultaneously denounce the Hague-Visby Rules? The chosen alternative according to Tiberg resulted in nothing but yet another set of rules leading to an even more scattered international system of regulations: Tiberg (1995), p. 325; Skovby takes aim with similar criticism. She, too, questions the decision to adopt the “Hamburg Rules system” without ratifying the actual Convention and denouncing the Hague-Visby Rules. By adopting a set of rules corresponding neither to the Hague-Visby nor the Hamburg Rules, the Nordic maritime legislation has “fallen between two stools”, she states: Skovby (1996), p. 589; Ramberg emphasises that the important thing in international trade is not whether the risk allocation is fair but whether it provides a clear and foreseeable distribution of risk, resulting in a reduction of transaction costs. He regrets that the 1994 NMCs seem too add to the on-going proliferation of various liability systems: Ramberg (1994), p. 1223; Similar criticism has also been voiced from outside of the Nordic sphere for example by Tetley: Tetley (2008), p. xvi.
- 103.
Tiberg (1995), pp. 338–341.
- 104.
- 105.
CMI (1990), pp. 437–438.
- 106.
See Sect. 4.2.2.1 below.
- 107.
Honka (1997), pp. 21–22.
- 108.
Hellner (1996), p. 336.
- 109.
- 110.
Through: Lov nr. 618 af 12. juni 2013.
- 111.
According to information received from the Danish Maritime Authority upon request by the author. Pursuant to Section 10 paragraph 2 of the 2013 Act, The Danish Ministry of Business and Growth is given the authority to decide when the amendments in question shall enter into force.
- 112.
Denmark: Betænkning nr 1536 /2012, p. 8.
- 113.
See Sect. 3.2 above.
- 114.
Cf. the Nordic countries that have a legal tradition of transforming international Conventions into national law and have done so with the Hague-Visby Rules – see Sect. 4.1.1 above.
- 115.
With the exception of the extended application through Section 1(3)–(6) – see Sect. 4.2.2.2 below.
- 116.
See Sect. 3.1.
- 117.
Treitel et al. (2011), p. 592.
- 118.
See Sect. 6.2.2.
- 119.
See Sect. 6.2.3.
- 120.
Treitel et al. (2011), p. 638.
- 121.
Tetley (2008), p. 43.
- 122.
Treitel et al. (2011), p. 634.
- 123.
Ibid., pp. 632–636.
- 124.
One may, however, reach the same conclusion through an interpretation of Art. X(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules: Ibid., p. 635.
- 125.
Browner International Ltd v Monarch Shipping Co Ltd “European Enterprise”, [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 (Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court)), p. 188.
- 126.
Ibid., p. 189. Cf. however: McCarren & Co v Humber International Transport and Truckline Ferries (Poole) “Vechscroon”, [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 (Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court)), pp. 304–305.
- 127.
Baughen (2012), p. 99.
- 128.
Treitel et al. (2011), p. 634.
- 129.
Cooke et al. (2007), p. 963.
- 130.
Treitel et al. (2011), p. 630.
- 131.
Owners of Cargo on Board the Morviken v Owners of the Hollandia “Hollandia”, [1983] 1 Appeal Cases 565 (House of Lords).
- 132.
Ibid., p. 574.
- 133.
Ibid., p. 575.
- 134.
Ibid., pp. 576–577.
- 135.
Mann (1983), pp. 398–399.
- 136.
Dicey et al. (2012), pp. 1832–1833. The House of Lords, unfortunately, did not elaborate upon the matter, but explicit references to public policy were made by Lord Denning and Sir Sebag Shaw in the Court of Appeal: Owners of Cargo on Board the Morviken v Owners of the Hollandia “Hollandia”, [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 (Court of Appeal), pp. 329 and 330.
- 137.
Kenya Railways v Antares Co Pte Ltd “Antares (No 1)”, [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 424 (Court of Appeal), p. 429.
- 138.
Tetley (2008), pp. 1255–1256.
- 139.
Treitel et al. (2011), pp. 657–658; Scrutton and Eder (2011), pp. 420–422. Art. I(e) under English law is considered merely as identifying the first operation in the series which constitutes the carriage of goods: Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 321 (Queen’s Bench Division), p. 328.
- 140.
Ibid., p. 328. Adopted inter alia in: GH Renton & Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corp of Panama “Caspiana”, [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 (House of Lords).
- 141.
Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 321 (Queen’s Bench Division), p. 328.
- 142.
Treitel et al. (2011), pp. 659–660.
- 143.
Ibid., pp. 657–658. The position as to the Rules’ application for cargo delivered to the carrier but not yet loaded is unclear: Ibid., pp. 660–663.
References
Axel Ax:son Johnsons institut för sjörätt och annan transporträtt (2006) The Swedish Maritime Code (unofficial translation): in Swedish and English, 3. uppl., per den 30 juni 2006. Jure, Stockholm
Baughen S (2012) Shipping law, 5th edn. Routledge, London
Betænkning nr 1536/2012: 4. betænkning afgivet af Sølovsudvalget: Aftaler om transport af gods helt eller delvist til søs (Rotterdam-reglerne). Søfartsstyrelsen, Copenhagen, 2013
Brinck J (1994) Deviation vid godsbefordring till sjöss. Juristförl, Stockholm
CMI (1990) The 1922–23 Brussels conference report Procès-Verbaux. In: Sturley MF (ed) The legislative history of the carriage of goods by sea act and the Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague Rules: essential sources. F.B. Rothman, Littleton, CO, pp 343–518
Cooke JHS, Kimball JD, Young T, Martowski D, Taylor A, Lambert L (2007) Voyage charters, 3rd edn. Informa, London
Dicey A, Morris J, Collins L, Briggs A (2012) Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws, 15th edn. Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, London
Gezelius H (1964) Några frågor om ansvaret för däckslast. Ekonomiskt forum, 53–61
Gorton L (2012) Regional harmonization of maritime law in Scandinavia. In: Basedow J, Magnus U, Wolfrum R (eds) The Hamburg lectures on maritime affairs 2009 & 2010. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 29–50
Grönfors K, Gorton L (1982) Sjölagens bestämmelser om godsbefordran. Norstedt, Stockholm
Hagbergh E (1974) Sjölagen: Med 1973 års regler om gods- och passagerarbefordran, sjöpanträtt och skeppshypotek m.m. jämte sjömanslagen och sjöarbetstidslagen, 2nd edn. Norstedt, Stockholm
Hellner J (1996) Sjölagen 1994: Några lagstiftningstekniska synpunkter. In: Wetterstein P, Beijer A (eds) Essays in honour of Hugo Tiberg: professor of maritime law, 1st edn. Juristförl, Stockholm, pp 333–350
Honka H (1997) New carriage of goods by sea: the Nordic approach. In: Honka H (ed) New carriage of goods by sea: the Nordic approach including comparisons with some other jurisdictions. Institute of Maritime and Commercial Law, Åbo, pp 15–216
Jantzen J (1938) Ny håndbok o godsbefordring til sjøs: Befraktning. Fabritius, Oslo
Karlgren H (1955) Perpetuatio obligationis. Tidsskrift for rettsvitenskap 1955(68):361–385
Krüger K (1973) Transportomlegning: Saerlig om deviasjon i sjøtransport. s.n., Oslo
Mann F (1983) Uniform statues in English law. LQR 99:376–406
NOU 1993:36: Godsbefordring til sjøs. Statens forvaltningstjeneste, Seksjon Statens trykning, Oslo, 1993
NOU 2012:10: Gjennomføring av Rotterdamreglene i sjøloven. Departementenes servicesenter, Informasjonsforvaltning, Oslo, 2012
Ramberg J (1994) New Scandinavian maritime codes. Dir mar 2:1222–1224
Regeringens proposition 1983/84:77: Om uppsägning av 1924 års internationella konvention rörande fastställande av vissa gemensamma bestämmelser i fråga om konossement (Haagreglerna). Norstedts tryckeri, Stockholm, 1983
Regeringens proposition 1993/1994:195: Om ny sjölag. Regeringen, Stockholm, 1994
Schelin J (2007) Sjölagen: En åldrande nordisk dinosaurie? In: Källström K (ed) Juridisk tidskrift jubileumshäfte. Jure, Stockholm
Schmidt F (1962) Huvudlinjer i svensk frakträtt, 2nd edn. Norstedt, Stockholm
Scrutton TE, Eder B (2011) Scrutton on charterparties and bills of lading, 22nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Selvig E (1976) Revision of the uniform Scandinavian maritime codes: Vortrag von Professor Dr. Erling Chr. Selvig gehalten vor dem Deutschen Verein für Internationales Seerecht am 18. Dezember 1975. s.n., Hamburg
Sjölagen m.m. (1975). NJA II a 100:112–492
Skovby L (1996) Nogle refleksioner over de nordiske søloves kapitel 13. In: Wetterstein P, Beijer A (eds) Essays in honour of Hugo Tiberg: professor of maritime law, 1st edn. Juristförl, Stockholm, pp 571–589
SOU 1990:13: Översyn av sjölagen 2: Godsbefordran till sjöss. Allmänna Förl, Stockholm, 1990
Tetley W (2008) Marine cargo claims, 4th edn. Thomson Carswell, Cowansville
Tiberg H (1995) Styckegodstransport enligt nya sjölagen. SvJT 80:323–351
Treitel GH, Reynolds FMB, Carver TG (2011) Carver on bills of lading, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Wikander H (1936) 1936 års sjölagsändringar. NJA II 61:269–572
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wiedenbach, L. (2015). National Law. In: The Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 33. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46851-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46851-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46850-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46851-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)