Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules
RULES GOVERNING SHIPMENT BY SEA:
HAGUE RULES, HAGUE-VISBY RULES AND HAMBURG RULES
The nature of the Hague-Visby Rules was discussed by the House of Lords in The Hollandia [1983] AC 565 (HL). The plaintiffs (shippers) shipped a piece of road-finishing machinery on board a Dutch vessel, ‘The Morviken’, belonging to the defendant carriers to Bonaire in the Dutch West Indies. The bill of lading issued in England limited the carriers liability to Dutch Florins 1,250 ($250) which was less than the 10,000 Francs per package prescribed under Article IV rule (5)(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules. The 10,000 Francs is an increase from the 100pound fixed under the Hague Rules. In addition, the bill of lading carried an express clause submitting the contract of carriage to the Dutch law and for adjudication before a Dutch court in Amsterdam. The $250 limitation was void under the Hague-Visby Rules. At that time, Netherlands had not adopted the Hague-Visby Rules, but United Kingdom had. Holland, at that time was still under the Hague Rules which permitted such a limitation of liability. The Hague-Visby Rules by Article IV rule 5(a) limited the liability to 10,000 Francs per package or unit or 30 Francs per kilo of the gross weight of the goods whichever was the higher. The defendants had the machinery transhipped in Holland upon a Norwegian vessel. Upon discharge of the cargo in Bonaire, and due to negligence of the carrier, the cargo was dropped and sustained damage amounting to about 22,000pounds. The plaintiff had ‘The Hollandia’, another one of the defendant’s vessels, seized in a United Kingdom port upon a writ in rem for this damage. The defendant upon a preliminary point of law sought to have the action stayed on the ground that the express jurisdictional clause choosing the court of Amsterdam and the express jurisdictional of the Dutch law left the English court without jurisdiction. It was clear that under the Dutch law then available, the limitation of liability clause
HAGUE RULES, HAGUE-VISBY RULES AND HAMBURG RULES
The nature of the Hague-Visby Rules was discussed by the House of Lords in The Hollandia [1983] AC 565 (HL). The plaintiffs (shippers) shipped a piece of road-finishing machinery on board a Dutch vessel, ‘The Morviken’, belonging to the defendant carriers to Bonaire in the Dutch West Indies. The bill of lading issued in England limited the carriers liability to Dutch Florins 1,250 ($250) which was less than the 10,000 Francs per package prescribed under Article IV rule (5)(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules. The 10,000 Francs is an increase from the 100pound fixed under the Hague Rules. In addition, the bill of lading carried an express clause submitting the contract of carriage to the Dutch law and for adjudication before a Dutch court in Amsterdam. The $250 limitation was void under the Hague-Visby Rules. At that time, Netherlands had not adopted the Hague-Visby Rules, but United Kingdom had. Holland, at that time was still under the Hague Rules which permitted such a limitation of liability. The Hague-Visby Rules by Article IV rule 5(a) limited the liability to 10,000 Francs per package or unit or 30 Francs per kilo of the gross weight of the goods whichever was the higher. The defendants had the machinery transhipped in Holland upon a Norwegian vessel. Upon discharge of the cargo in Bonaire, and due to negligence of the carrier, the cargo was dropped and sustained damage amounting to about 22,000pounds. The plaintiff had ‘The Hollandia’, another one of the defendant’s vessels, seized in a United Kingdom port upon a writ in rem for this damage. The defendant upon a preliminary point of law sought to have the action stayed on the ground that the express jurisdictional clause choosing the court of Amsterdam and the express jurisdictional of the Dutch law left the English court without jurisdiction. It was clear that under the Dutch law then available, the limitation of liability clause
Bibliography: 1) Lakshman Marasinghe. Principles of International Trade Law. Butterworths Asia: Singapore, 1998. 2) Reynolds, Francis. “The Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, and the Hamburg Rules.” MLAANZ Journal, No.7 (1990). https://maritimejournal.murdoch.edu.au/archive/vol_7/Hague%20Rules.PDF (accessed May 11, 2012) 3) Schmitthoff, Clive M. Schmitthoff’s Export Trade: The Law and Practice of International Trade. Sweet & Mawxell Ltd: London, 1992. 4) Tetley, William. “Application of the Rules Generally.” http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/Hague-Visby%20Comments.pdf (accessed May 11, 2012) 5) Tetley, William. “Interpretation and Construction of the Hague, Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules.” JIML 30-70, No.10 (2004). http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_3/Berlingieri_paper_comparing_RR_Hamb_HVR.pdf (accessed May 11, 2012) 6) Wanigasekera, Anomi. “Comparison of Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules.” http://www.juliusandcreasy.com/inpages/publications/pdf/comparison_of_hague_and_hamburg-AW.pdf (accessed May 12, 2012) 7) Zorlu, Ramazan. “The Main Features of the Hamburg Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules.” http://www.akellawfirm.com/yayinlar/THE_MAIN_FEATURES_OF_THE_HAMBURG_RULES_AND_THE_HAGUE-VISBY_RULES.pdf (accessed May 12, 2012) 8) Zulkifli Hassan & Nazli Ismail @ Nawang. “The Weakness of the Hague Rules and the Extent of Reforms Made by the Hague-Visby Rules.” http://zulkiflihasan.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/microsoft-word-hague-visby-rules.pdf (accessed May 12, 2012)