Bunge SA v ADM DO Brasil Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 845 (Comm) (24 April 2009)

Bunge SA v ADM DO Brasil Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 845 (Comm) (24 April 2009)

The presence of rats in the cargo did not render the cargo 'dangerous' within the meaning of Article IV Rule 6 of the Hague Rules or at common law, as there was no physical danger to the vessel or other cargo, and no legal obstacle or violation of law at the port of discharge was established. Bunge failed to prove...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 845 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Bunge S.A.; Respondent: ADM do Brasil Ltda; Respondent: C&A Modas Ltda; Respondent: Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda; Respondent: CIA Importadora e Exportadora Coimex; Respondent: Glencore Importadora e Exportadora S/A; Respondent: MGT Brasil Ltda; Respondent: Produtos Alimenticios Orlandia S/A – Comercia e Industria; Respondent: Rutherford Trading S/A c/o Granol Industria Comercio
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; arbitration awards upheld.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Cargo Under Hague Rules, Implied Terms in Contracts of Carriage, Burden of Proof in Dangerous Cargo Claims, Interpretation of 'dangerous' Under Article IV Rule 6 Hague Rules, Common Law Liability for Shipment of Dangerous Goods
Arbitration Shipping and Maritime Law Contract Law Dangerous Cargo Under Hague Rules Implied Terms in Contracts of Carriage Burden of Proof in Dangerous Cargo Claims Interpretation of 'dangerous' Under Article IV Rule 6 Hague Rules Common Law Liability for Shipment of Dangerous Goods

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bunge S.A.

Claimant

ADM do Brasil Ltda

Respondent

C&A Modas Ltda

Respondent

Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda

Respondent

CIA Importadora e Exportadora Coimex

Respondent

Glencore Importadora e Exportadora S/A

Respondent

MGT Brasil Ltda

Respondent

Produtos Alimenticios Orlandia S/A – Comercia e Industria

Respondent

Rutherford Trading S/A c/o Granol Industria Comercio

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the presence of rats in cargo render the cargo 'dangerous' under the Hague Rules and/or common law?
  2. 2 What is the correct legal test for establishing shipper liability for dangerous cargo?
  3. 3 Is proof required that a particular shipper's parcel contained a rat to establish liability?

Ratio Decidendi

The presence of rats in the cargo did not render the cargo 'dangerous' within the meaning of Article IV Rule 6 of the Hague Rules or at common law, as there was no physical danger to the vessel or other cargo, and no legal obstacle or violation of law at the port of discharge was established. Bunge failed to prove which shipper, if any, introduced a rat, and thus no liability attached to any respondent. The arbitrators' conclusions were correct in law and fact.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; arbitration awards upheld.

Orders

  • No liability found against any respondent shipper.
  • No damages awarded to claimant.