Rosewood Trucking Ltd. v Balaam
The claimant's payment to P&O was made under a private contract and not in compliance with the provisions of the CMR; therefore, the claimant is not entitled to recover from the defendant under Article 37. The CMR regime is self-contained and does not allow recovery for contractual indemnities outside its express terms.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Rosewood Trucking Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Brian Balaam
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 04 November 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Carriage of Goods by Road, Successive Carriers, Indemnity and Contribution, Interpretation of International Conventions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rosewood Trucking Ltd
Claimant/appellant
Brian Balaam
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether payment by a sub-contractor to a main contractor under a private contract constitutes 'compensation in compliance with the provisions of the Convention' under Article 37 of the CMR, entitling recovery from the carrier responsible for the loss.
Ratio Decidendi
The claimant's payment to P&O was made under a private contract and not in compliance with the provisions of the CMR; therefore, the claimant is not entitled to recover from the defendant under Article 37. The CMR regime is self-contained and does not allow recovery for contractual indemnities outside its express terms.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs assessed in the sum of £5,750
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment