CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA

ASSOCIATE PROF. HAJI HAIRUDDIN MEGAT LATIF

COLGIS
 SEAWORTHINESS

The implied undertaking is that the ship shall, when the

voyage begins, be seaworthy for that particular voyage
and for the crago.
Field J. in Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 Q.B.D 377 said:
…a seaworthy vessel ‘fit to meet and undergo the perils
of the sea and other incidental risks to which of
necessity she must be exposed in the course of the
voyage.’
 Continue…
Per Channell J. in McFadden v. Blue Star Line
[1905] 1 K.B 697: The test of seaworthiness
“The vessel must have the degree of fitness
which an ordinary careful and prudent owner
would require his vessel to have at the
commencement of her voyage, having regard to
all probable circumstances of it”
This obligation is absolute. It is no defence that
the shipowner did not know the existence of a
defect.
Continue…
The standard of seaworthiness “…nothing more or less than the
duty to furnish a ship and equipment reasonably suitable for the
intended use or service.”
Incidence of obligation
1)The vessel must be suitably manned and equipped to meet the
ordinary perils likely to be encountered while performing the
services required of it
-The vessel is unseaworthy
a)Where it has defective engine
i)Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. v. Kawasaki [1962] 2 Q.B 26
ii)The Amstelslot [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223.
 Continue…
b) Where it has defective compass
i) Patterson Steamships Ltd. v. Robin Hood Mills(1937) 58 Ll.L.R.
33

c) Where deck cargo is stowed in such a way as to render the vessel

unstable
i) Kish v. Taylor [1912] A.C 604
The master of a vessel took on board an excessive load of deck
cargo to such an extent that she rendered unseaworthy. As a
result of the unseaworthiness she was obliged to deviate from
her normal route on order to proceed to a port for repairs.
Held, that the deviation was justifiable.
ii) The Friso [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 469

d) Where shipowner employs an incompetent

engineer or other officer
i) The Makedonia [1962] 3 W.L.R 343
ii) Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. v. Kawasaki [1962]
2 Q.B 26
iii) The Farrandoc [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 276.
 Continue…

e) Where inadequate bunker are taken on board for the voyage

i) Mciver v. Tate Steamers
ii) Northumbrian Shipping Co. v. Timm & Sons [1939] A.C 397
f) Where the documentation for the voyage is inadequate
i) The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224.

2) Cargoworthiness of the vessel

In Tattersall v. National Steamship Co.(1884) 12 Q.B.D 297, the
ct. said:
…an obligation to ensure that his ship in a fit state to receive the
contractual cargo.
 Continue…
…the implied undertaking as to cargoworthiness is operative as
from the commencement of loading.

In McFadden v. Blue Starline the ct. said:

The warranty is that at the time the goods are put on board, she is
fit to receive them and encounter the ordinary perils that are likely
to arise during the loading stage…there is no warranty after the
goods once on board that the ship shall continue fit to hold the
goods during that stage and until she is ready to go to sea
notwithstanding any accident that may happen to her in the
meantime.
 Continue…
Not cargowothiness
a) Where the vessel’s hold need fumigating or cleaning
before being in a fit state to receive cargo
i) Tattersall v. National Steamship Co. (1884) 12 Q.B.D
297
ii) The Tres Flores [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 247
b) Where frozen meat was to be shipped and there was a
defect in the vesel’s refrigeration planet
i) Cargo per Maori King v. Hughes [1895] 2 Q.B. 550.
 Continue…
c) Where the pumps were inadequate to drain surplus water from the
cargo
i) Stanton v. Richardson (1875) L.R. 9 C.P. 390.
A ship was chartered to take a cargo including wet
sugar. When the bulk of the sugar had been loaded, it
was found that the pumps were not of sufficient capacity
to remove the drainage from the sugar, and the cargo
had to be discharged. Adequate pumping machinery
could not be obtained for a considerable time, and the
charterer refused to reload.
Held, the ship was unseaworthy for the cargo agreed on,
and, as she could not be made fit within a reasonable
time, the charterer was justified in refusing to reload.
The burden to prove rests on the party alleging the
unseaworthiness
…the claimant to establish that unseaworthiness
caused the loss of which he complaints
International Packers v. Ocean Steamship Co.
[1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 218.
 REASONABLE DISPATCH

In voyage charterparty that the ship will proceed to the port

of loading, load the cargo and carry out the voyage with
due dispatch i.e all reasonable speed, or by a stated
date, or with reasonble time
-innominate term or intermediate term
i) Freeman v. Taylor (1831) 8 Bing 124
ii) M’Andrew v. Adams (1834) 1 Bing NC 29
 Continue…

Freeman v. Taylor
Facts:
A ship chartered to take cargo to Cape Town after that
proceed with all reasonable speed to Bombay to load
cargo of cotton. At the Cape Town the master on his
account took on board cargo of mules and cattle to
Mauritius en route to Bombay. This caused 6-7 weeks
late.
Held: Delay sufficiently long to frustrate the object of the
charter.
 M’Andrew v. Adams (1834) 1 Bing NC 29

By the terms of the charter-party dated 20 October

1832, a vessel was to proceed from Portsmouth where
she was then lying to St. Michaels (in the Azores) and
there load a cargo of fruit and return to London. On 7
November, instead of proceeding direct to St Michaels
she went on an intermediate voyage to Oporto, and
returned later to Portsmouth, from where she finally
sailed for St. Michaels on 6 December.
Held, that the shipowner was liable to the charterer for
breach of the implied undertaking that the voyage
should be commenced within a reasonable time.