The Jordan II: a foregone conclusion or missed opportunity?

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co Jordan Inc [2004] UKHL 49

The House of Lords’ recent decision in The Jordan II gave maritime lawyers and the industry alike a long-awaited opportunity to test, once again, the extent of a carrier’s duties in the performance of the contract of carriage. The heart of the matter lies in the meaning in practice of the wording of art III, r2 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules whose interpretation, some 80 or more years after their creation, continues to cause litigation. The matter is one that tends to polarise practitioners and operators alike into two opposing categories which, for want of better labels for the time being, may be described as ‘pro-owner’ or ‘pro-cargo’. In deciding for the owners and refusing cargo interests’ appeal, however, it may be said that it is not that the House displayed pro-owner allegiances but rather that it took a sidestep and deferred to certainty.