This decision addresses two significant questions regarding the Hague-Visby Rules: the requirements for bringing “suit” to stop the one-year time bar, and the level of specificity required to exclude deck cargo from the definition of “goods” under Art.I(c). The dispute arose from the alleged misdelivery of New Zealand pine logs in India. The cargo was discharged without production of bills of lading against a letter of indemnity (“LOI”).

While the cargo holders validly commenced proceedings in Singapore for the arrest of a sister ship to obtain security within one year, they did not commence the substantive arbitration required by the bills of lading until after the one-year period had expired. Seeking to defeat the claim entirely, the owners argued that it was time-barred under Art.III, r.6. To salvage at least part of their claim, the holders relied on the fact that two of the bills of lading noted specific quantities of logs stowed “on deck” (without identifying the precise parcels or values). If this notation was sufficient under Art.I(c) to exclude the deck cargo from the definition of “goods”, the Hague-Visby Rules—and the strict one-year time bar—would not apply to that portion of the cargo. Instead, because the owners had neglected explicitly to exclude their liability for deck cargo in the underlying contract, they would be left fully exposed to liability.

The judgment does not give us any clue as to what precise cause of action the cargo owners relied on—referring to the claim simply as a claim for “misdelivery”—but such claims are typically pleaded concurrently as a breach of contract, breach of bailment, and the tort of conversion. As such, they are subject to the standard six-year limitation period under English law, and crucially, the owners would also be stripped of the Hague-Visby package and unit limitation defences.

Decision: Both the appeal and the cross-appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996, s.69 failed. The judge agreed with the arbitrator on both points: the owners succeeded on the time bar question, while the holders succeeded on the deck stowage question (meaning the claim for the deck cargo survived).

Held: (1) As to Art.III, r.6, “suit” means proceedings that can actually decide the claim and establish liability. Although the ordinary meaning of “suit” could include security proceedings, the commercial purpose of the Hague-Visby time bar is to achieve finality