The Supreme Court held that the time bar in Article III Rule 6 of the Hague and Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery after discharge and other breaches occurring post-discharge but before delivery. Rejecting arguments limiting the time bar to the “period of responsibility” (loading to discharge), Lord Hamblen confirmed its broader scope, including pre-loading breaches linked to specific goods. This decision resolves a longstanding legal dispute, clarifying the Rules’ application to breaches beyond the traditional “period of responsibility”.

In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the BVI Claimant (noted by the Court to be financially challenged) was ordered to provide security for the Defendant’s costs at various stages, 12 days before trial, cleared funds for the last two tranches (totalling almost GBP 1.3m) had still not been paid into Court, nor the trial fee. The High Court allowed a further 6 days for the Claimant to comply, before striking out the claim. The Claimant appealed, citing authority that their uncleared cheque paid into Court within the deadline sufficed. The CA distinguished that case and upheld the High Court ruling of strike out.

In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the BVI Claimant (noted by the Court to be financially challenged) was ordered to provide security for the Defendant’s costs at various stages, 12 days before trial, cleared funds for the last two tranches (totalling almost GBP 1.3m) had still not been paid into Court, nor the trial fee. The High Court allowed a further 6 days for the Claimant to comply, before striking out the claim. The Claimant appealed, citing authority that their uncleared cheque paid into Court within the deadline sufficed. The CA distinguished that case and upheld the High Court ruling of strike out.

The Claimants sought a “Norwich Pharmacal” order against a firm of Solicitors requiring them to disclose the identity of a London-based intelligence consultancy which obtained a report from an alleged wrongdoer, said by the Claimants to be a forgery designed to deceive the Court and Tribunal in other proceedings, defrauding the Claimants of some USD 300m. The Court granted the Order on the grounds that it was a necessary and proportionate response to the alleged wrongdoing.

The Claimant purchased three copper consignments carried by Maersk fromDubai in containers under clean, straight-consigned bills of lading (B/Ls).Upon arrival in Piraeus, the containers were found to contain concrete blocks,weighing less than 50% of the expected amount and of no value. With theshippers having vanished, the Claimants contended that Maersk should havesuspected an issue and claused the B/Ls. However, the Court ruled that Maerskhad no reasonable means to verify the contents, absolving it of liability underHague Rules Art. III r.3(c) and for negligent misstatement (of unawareness). Nospecial duty of care applied (which might arise under a straight-consignedbill), as the carrier had no reason to suspect fraud.

Claimant “Christos Theo” claimed for damage sustained in agrounding following a ‘near miss’ with Defendant “Aliki”. Followingexchange of pleadings in which “Aliki” alleged and, in the Court’s view,demonstrated, a prima facie case that the “Christos Theo” main enginemalfunctioned, preventing it from being put astern, the Defendant applied forspecific disclosure of material capturing the incident and also as to priorproblems/ failings with the main engine.  The Court found the Claimants’assertion that searches revealed no such material “defies belief” andexplanations were demonstrably wrong or incomplete. An Order was made forsearches by the Claimant for numerous items of disclosure, supported ifnecessary by verification statement. The Court directed that the Claimant payall costs of the application, ordering an interim payment of GBP70,000.