Jindal Iron and Steel Co. et al. v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co. Jordan Inc., (2004) 332 N.R. 323 (HL)

• Case Date: November 25, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 332 N.R. 323 (HL)

Jindal Iron v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping (2004), 332 N.R. 323 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. DE.050

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Limited and others (appellant) and others v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (respondents)

([2004] UKHL 49)

Indexed As: Jindal Iron and Steel Co. et al. v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co. Jordan Inc.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Scott of Foscote

November 25, 2004.

Summary:

An agreement under a charterparty was designed to transfer responsibility for load­ing, stowage and discharge from the ship­owner to the shippers, charterers and consig­nees. At issue was whether the agreement was invalidated by article III, rule 2 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. The cargo owners requested that the court depart from its 1957 decision in GH Renton & Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama (Renton) which held that article III, rule 2 did not invalidate such an agreement.

The House of Lords refused to depart from its decision in Renton.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2392

Carriage of goods - Loading, delivery and storage - Duty of carrier - Article III, rule 2 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules provided that "Subject to the provisions of Article IV, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods carried." -At issue was whether article III, rule 2 invalidated an agreement to transfer re­sponsibility for loading, stowage and dis­charge from the shipowner to the shippers, charterers and consignees - The House of Lords adopted the following as an accurate statement of the law: "The whole contract of carriage is subject to the Rules, but the extent to which loading and discharging are brought within the carrier's obligations is left to the parties themselves to decide. Thus, if the carrier has agreed to load, stow or discharge the cargo, he must do so properly and carefully, subject to any pro­tection which he may enjoy under Article IV. But the Rules do not invalidate an agreement transferring the responsibility for these operations to the shipper, char­terer or consignee." - See paragraph 14.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2392

Carriage of goods - Loading, delivery and storage - Duty of carrier - Article III, rule 2 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules provided that "Subject to the provisions of Article IV, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods carried." -The 1957 decision of the House of Lords in GH Renton & Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama (Renton) held that article III, rule 2 did not invalidate an agreement to transfer responsibility for loading, stow­age and discharge from the shipowner to the shippers, charterers and consignees - The House of Lords held that departure from its decision in Renton was not justi­fied.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2663.1

Carriage of goods - Liability - Limitations - Hague rules - Contracting out - [See both Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2392 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pyrene Co. v. Scindia Navigation Co., [1954] 2 Q.B. 402, refd to. [paras. 2, 4].

Renton (G.H.) & Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama, [1957] A.C. 149 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 2, 4].

Jindal Iron & Steel Co. et al. v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc. et al.; Ship Jordan II, [2003] E.W.C.A. Civ. 144; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 87, refd to. [para. 4].

Ismail v. Polish Ocean Lines; Ship Ciecho­cinek, [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ship Arawa, Re, [1977] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 416, refd to. [para. 13].

Filikos Shipping Corp. of Monrovia v. Shipmair BV, [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 555, refd to. [para. 13].

Ship Strathnewton, Re, [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 219, refd to. [para. 13].

C.H.Z. Rolimpex v. Fetavrysses Compania Naviera S.A.; Ship Panaghia Tinnou, [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 586, refd to. [para. 13].

A/S Iverans Redvrai v. KG MS Holsten­cruiser, Seeschifeurtgesell-Schaft MbH & Co.; Ship Holstencruiser, [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 378, refd to. [para. 13].

Ship Coral, [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Brockhill Prison (Governor); Ex parte Evans, [2001] 2 A.C. 19; 258 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 15].

Vallejo v. Wheeler (1774), 1 Cowp. 143, refd to. [para. 16].

Ship Starsin, Re, [2004] 1 A.C. 715; 307 N.R. 100 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Homburg Houtimport BV et al. v. Agrosin Private Ltd. et al. - see Ship Starsin, Re.

R. v. G. et al., [2004] 1 A.C. 1034; [2003] N.R. Uned. 241 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co., [1951] 1 K.B. 240, refd to. [para. 19].

Riverstone Meat Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Lan­cashire Shipping Co., [1961] A.C. 807 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

Brys v. Gylsen Ltd. v. J. and J. Drysdale & Co. (1920), 4 Ll. L. Rep. 24, refd to. [para. 19].

Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd., [1981] A.C. 251 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Associated Metals and Minerals Corp. v. M/V The Arktis Sky (1992), 978 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Tubacex Inc. v. M/V Risan (1995), 45 F.3rd 951 (5th Cir. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Ship Sea Joy, Re (1998) (1) SA 487 (S. Africa), refd to. [para. 22].

Shipping Corp. of India v. Gamlen Chemi­cal Co. (A/Asia) Pty. Ltd. (1980), 147 C.L.R. 142 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Hunter Grain Pty. Ltd. v. Hyundai Mer­chant Marine Co. (1993), 117 A.L.R. 507, refd to. [para. 23].

Nikolay Malakhov Shipping Co. v. SEAS Sapfor Ltd. (1998), 44 N.S.W.L.R. 371, refd to. [para. 23].

International Ore & Fertilizer Corp. v. East Coast Fertiliser Co., [1987] 1 N.Z.L.R. 9, refd to. [para. 23].

East & West Steamship Co. v. Hossain Brothers et al. (1968), 20 P.L.D.S.C. 15, refd to. [para. 23].

New India Assurance Co. v. M/S Splosna Plovba (1986), AIR Ker 176 (India), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Carriage of Goods by Water Act - see Hague Rules.

Hague Rules, art. III, rule 2 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Carver, Bills of Lading (2001), paras. 9-114, 9-115 [para. 21].

Carver, Thomas Gilbert, Carriage of Goods by Sea (13th Ed. 1982), vol. 1, para. 448 [para. 27].

Contracts for the Carriage of Goods by Land, Sea and Air (1993-2000), para. 1.1.3.5 [para. 21].

Diamond, Anthony, The Hague-Visby Rule (1978), Lloyd's Maritime and Commer­cial L.Q. 225, generally [para. 27].

Hansard, House of Lords Debates (March 25, 1971), cols. 1028 to 1034 [para. 27].

Honoré, Tony, Oxford Dictionary of Na­tional Biography (2004), vol. 15, pp. 985 to 988 [para. 11].

House of Lords Debates - see Hansard, House of Lords Debates.

House of Lords, Practice Statement (Judi­cial Precedent), [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1234, generally [para. 10].

Scrutton, Charterparties and Bills of Lad­ing (20th Ed. 1996), pp. 430, 431 [paras. 14, 21].

Sturley, Michael F., The Legislative His­tory of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague Rules (1990), vols. 1 to 3 [para. 20].

Tetley, William, Marine Cargo Claims (4th Ed.), c. 25, p. 21 [para. 22].

United Nations Conference on Trade and De­velopment, Charterparties: A Com­parative Analysis (October 22, 1990), paras. 341, 342, 343, 354 [para. 30].

Wilford, M., Coghlin, T., and Kimball, J., Time Charters (5th Ed. 2003), paras. 20 to 39 [para. 28].

Counsel:

[not disclosed]

Agents:

[not disclosed]

This appeal was heard before Lord Bing­ham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birken­head, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Scott of Foscote.

The decision of the House was delivered on November 25, 2004, when the following opinions were filed:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see para­graph 1;

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead - see para­graph 2;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 3 to 32;

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraph 33;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraph 34.