Shtutman v. Oceane Marine Shipping Inc. et al., (2005) 283 F.T.R. 47 (FC)

• Judge: Lemieux, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 283 F.T.R. 47 (FC);2005 FC 1471

Shtutman v. Oceane Marine Shipping (2005), 283 F.T.R. 47 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.021

Phil Shtutman (plaintiff) v. Oceane Marine Shipping, Inc. and Maersk Canada Inc. and A.P. Mཻཾller and Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendbord (Svendborg) and Dampskibsselskabet af 1912, Aktieselskab (1912) and the Owners and All Others Interested in the Ship "Dragཻཾr Maersk" and the Ship "Dragཻཾr Maersk" and the Owners and All Others Interested in the Ship "Maersk Perth" and the Ship "Maersk Perth" (defendants)

(T-2273-01; 2005 FC 1471)

Indexed As: Shtutman v. Oceane Marine Shipping Inc. et al.

Federal Court

Lemieux, J.

October 31, 2005.

Summary:

Shtutman sold equipment to a buyer carrying on business in Conakry, Guinea. The defendant ship owners took custody of the container and transported it to the Port of Conakry. The buyer did not pay for the equipment and did not claim it at the Port. Shtutman sued asserting that the equipment, while in the custody of the defendants’ agent in Guinea, was misdelivered to the wrong consignee or was stolen.

The Federal Court dismissed the action.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2663

Carriage of goods - Liability - Limitations - Hague and Hague Visibility Rules - Scope of application - Shtutman sold equipment to a buyer in Conakry, Guinea - The defendant ship owners took custody of the container and transported it to the Port of Conakry - Shtutman asserted that the equipment, while in the custody of the defendants’ agent in Guinea, was misdelivered to the wrong consignee or was stolen - The defendants relied on the exclusion or limitation of liability conditions contained in the bill of lading - The Federal Court dismissed the actions where Shtutman failed to establish that a loss or damage occurred in the defendants’ hand - Alternatively, the court rejected Shtutman’s assertion that Article III.8 of the Hague-Visby Rules rendered null and void the bill of lading’s exclusion and limitation of liability conditions - Parties enjoyed the freedom to contract, as contemplated in Article VII, before and after the Rules’ mandatory application which was effective in the period between loading on board and discharge from a vessel - The parties here specifically chose to extend the application of the Rules beyond their mandatory application, but in doing so excluded some parts of the Rules as Article VII specifically allowed.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2663.1

Carriage of goods - Liability - Limitations - Hague and Hague Visibility Rules - Contracting out - [See Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2663 ].

Cases Noticed:

Francosteel Corp. et al. v. Fednav Ltd. et al. (1990), 37 F.T.R. 184 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. Geneva v. Sipco Inc., [2002] 3 F.C. 125; 211 F.T.R. 248 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Nova Steel Ltd. et al. v. Lithuanian Shipping Co. et al. (2002), 216 F.T.R. 1; 2002 FCT 100 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353, refd to. [para. 17].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4; 12 C.R.N.S. 349; 1970 CarswellAlta 80, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; 2000 CarswellMan 449; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mapara (S.) et al. (2005), 332 N.R. 244; 211 B.C.A.C. 1; 349 W.A.C. 1; 2005 CarswellBC 963; 2005 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 2 C.R.(5th) 245; 30 O.R.(3d) 641; 141 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 1996 CarswellOnt 4062, refd to. [para. 23].

Zhi Jiang Kou, Re, [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 493 (N.S.W.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Primex Forest Products Ltd. et al. v. Harken Towing Co., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. A41 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Motis Exports Ltd. v. 1912 and Svendborg, [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Redpath Industries Ltd. v. Ship Cisco et al., [1994] 2 F.C. 279; 163 N.R. 161 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gaskell, N., Bills of Lading: Law and Contracts (2000), p. 257 [para. 51].

Gold, E., Chircop, A., and Kindred, H., Maritime Law (2003), pp. 442 to 446 [para. 51].

Tetley, William, Marine Cargo Claims (3rd Ed. 1988), pp. 133, 137, 139, 142, 143, 152, 194 [para. 15].

Counsel:

Jean-François Bilodeau, for the plaintiff;

Jean-Marie Fontaine and Gassim Bangoura, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Robinson Sheppard Shapiro, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendants.

Lemieux, J., of the Federal Court, heard this action at Montreal, Quebec, on June 14, 15 and 16, 2005, and delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 31, 2005.