Case: Fimbank Plc v KCH Shippping Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 38
With further reference to:
- Kamil Export (Aust) Pty Ltd v NPL (Australia)Pty Ltd [1996] 1 VR 538
- China Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v PS Chellaram and CoLtd (The “Zhi Jiang Kou”) (1990) 28 NSWLR 354
Guest: Matthew Harvey KC of Owen Dixon Chambers (Melbourne, Australia).
In this episode, Luke Zadkovich had the privilege of sitting down with Matthew Harvey KC to discuss Fimbank Plc v KCH Shippping Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 38, a recent case of the UK Supreme Court, dealing with the time bar under Article 3(6) of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules.
Luke and Matthew dissect Lord Hamblen’s sole judgment, which gives finality to the question of whether the one-year time bar to bring a claim under the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery of cargo, which occur after the completion of discharge.
Fimbank argued that that the Rules only created a period of responsibility between loading and discharge, from ship’s rail to ship’s rail, so that claims arising outside of this period, would not be subject to the time bar.
Interestingly, Lord Hamblen, in reaching his conclusion, considered two diverging Australian judgments, one from the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Samuels JA, China Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v PS Chellaram and Co Ltd), and another from the Appeal Division of the Victorian Supreme Court (Fullagar, Marks and Ormiston JJ, Kamil Export (Aust) Pty Ltd v NPL). This episode’s discussion considers the rationale behind all of these decisions, the practical implications for carriers, shippers and consignees alike, as well as touching on the broader principles of the interpretation of international law.
An episode with a distinct Australian flavour, not to be skipped!
