Hague Visby Rules
Scope of Application
Factors determining applicability
Type of Document covering the Contract of Carriage
Kind of Carriage
Kind of Cargo carried
Documents
Article 1(b)
Rules come into operation where a Bill of Lading or similar document of title covers
the contract of carriage by sea.
Incorporation of the Hague Visby Rules
Section 1(6) CGSA 1971
“…the Rules shall have the force of law in relation to…
(a) any bill of lading, if the contract contained in or evidenced by it expressly provides
that the Rules shall govern the contract, and
(b) any receipt which is a non-negotiable document marked as such, if the contract
contained in or evidenced by it is a contract for the carriage of goods by sea which
expressly provides that the Rules are to govern the contract as if the receipt were a
bill of lading,
Kinds of Carriage – Article X
Where the carriage is between ports in two different states in the following
circumstances:
Where a bill of lading is issued in a Contracting State; or
Where carriage is from a port in a Contracting State; or
Where the contract contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading specifies that the
Hague-Visby Rules or the legislation of a state giving mandatory effect to them are to
govern the contract.
Then the rules will apply
Kinds of Cargo- Article 1(C)
The Hague-Visby Rules are applicable to all goods, wares, merchandise and articles
of every kind except
live animals and
cargo which by the terms of the contract of carriage is stated as being carried
on deck [deck cargo], and is so carried.
Deck Cargo
The rules will only be excluded when both requirements are met:
, (1) The Cargo must in fact be stowed on deck; and
(2) The stowage of the cargo on deck must be made explicit on the face of the bill of
lading.
Svenska Traktor v Maritime Agencies [1953]- Svenska Traktor v Maritime
Agencies
A consignment of tractors had been shipped from Southampton under a bill which
conferred a liberty on the carrier to stow the cargo on deck. During the voyage one of
the tractors was washed overboard. The Court held that the Rules were applicable. A
mere general liberty to carry goods on deck was not a statement in the contract of
carriage that the goods were in fact being carried on deck.
The carrier was held for a breach of Art III rule 2 in failing to look after the cargo
properly and carefully during the transit.
Period of Coverage
Article 1(e)
The Hague-Visby Rules apply to the contract of carriage from the ‘time when the
goods are loaded to the time when they are discharged from the ship.’
Pyrene Co v Scindia Navigation [1954]
Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402
Facts
The plaintiff delivered a fire tender which was sold by a contract of sale. As the
tender was being lifted onto the ship, before it crossed the rail on the ship, it was
dropped and subsequently damaged. As per the contract of sale between the parties,
the possession of the property had not passed at this stage. A bill of lading had been
drawn up but was not issued. The sellers sued the owners of the ship for the cost to
repair the tender. The owners of the ship admitted liability but argued their liability
would be limited by the Hague Rules, Article 4 (5).
Issue
The sellers of the tender claimed that as the goods had not crossed the rail of the
ship, the incident had occurred off of the ship and therefore outside the scope of
the Hague Rules. Further to this, because the bill of lading had not been conveyed,
these terms had not been included in the contract between the parties. Lastly, the
seller argued that even if the term had been included in the contract, they could not
be applied in the agreement between the ship-owners and themselves.
Held
The court held that limited liability under the Hague Rules did extend to the loading
of the cargo on to the ship. Moreover, it was found that the bill of lading was
irrelevant and the contract could be regarded as the incomplete bill of lading on the
basis that all three parties were deemed to have a benefit from the agreement. As a
result of this finding, the plaintiffs could only recover £200 as per the Hague
Rules which were considered to be included in the contract.
Scope of Application
Factors determining applicability
Type of Document covering the Contract of Carriage
Kind of Carriage
Kind of Cargo carried
Documents
Article 1(b)
Rules come into operation where a Bill of Lading or similar document of title covers
the contract of carriage by sea.
Incorporation of the Hague Visby Rules
Section 1(6) CGSA 1971
“…the Rules shall have the force of law in relation to…
(a) any bill of lading, if the contract contained in or evidenced by it expressly provides
that the Rules shall govern the contract, and
(b) any receipt which is a non-negotiable document marked as such, if the contract
contained in or evidenced by it is a contract for the carriage of goods by sea which
expressly provides that the Rules are to govern the contract as if the receipt were a
bill of lading,
Kinds of Carriage – Article X
Where the carriage is between ports in two different states in the following
circumstances:
Where a bill of lading is issued in a Contracting State; or
Where carriage is from a port in a Contracting State; or
Where the contract contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading specifies that the
Hague-Visby Rules or the legislation of a state giving mandatory effect to them are to
govern the contract.
Then the rules will apply
Kinds of Cargo- Article 1(C)
The Hague-Visby Rules are applicable to all goods, wares, merchandise and articles
of every kind except
live animals and
cargo which by the terms of the contract of carriage is stated as being carried
on deck [deck cargo], and is so carried.
Deck Cargo
The rules will only be excluded when both requirements are met:
, (1) The Cargo must in fact be stowed on deck; and
(2) The stowage of the cargo on deck must be made explicit on the face of the bill of
lading.
Svenska Traktor v Maritime Agencies [1953]- Svenska Traktor v Maritime
Agencies
A consignment of tractors had been shipped from Southampton under a bill which
conferred a liberty on the carrier to stow the cargo on deck. During the voyage one of
the tractors was washed overboard. The Court held that the Rules were applicable. A
mere general liberty to carry goods on deck was not a statement in the contract of
carriage that the goods were in fact being carried on deck.
The carrier was held for a breach of Art III rule 2 in failing to look after the cargo
properly and carefully during the transit.
Period of Coverage
Article 1(e)
The Hague-Visby Rules apply to the contract of carriage from the ‘time when the
goods are loaded to the time when they are discharged from the ship.’
Pyrene Co v Scindia Navigation [1954]
Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402
Facts
The plaintiff delivered a fire tender which was sold by a contract of sale. As the
tender was being lifted onto the ship, before it crossed the rail on the ship, it was
dropped and subsequently damaged. As per the contract of sale between the parties,
the possession of the property had not passed at this stage. A bill of lading had been
drawn up but was not issued. The sellers sued the owners of the ship for the cost to
repair the tender. The owners of the ship admitted liability but argued their liability
would be limited by the Hague Rules, Article 4 (5).
Issue
The sellers of the tender claimed that as the goods had not crossed the rail of the
ship, the incident had occurred off of the ship and therefore outside the scope of
the Hague Rules. Further to this, because the bill of lading had not been conveyed,
these terms had not been included in the contract between the parties. Lastly, the
seller argued that even if the term had been included in the contract, they could not
be applied in the agreement between the ship-owners and themselves.
Held
The court held that limited liability under the Hague Rules did extend to the loading
of the cargo on to the ship. Moreover, it was found that the bill of lading was
irrelevant and the contract could be regarded as the incomplete bill of lading on the
basis that all three parties were deemed to have a benefit from the agreement. As a
result of this finding, the plaintiffs could only recover £200 as per the Hague
Rules which were considered to be included in the contract.
