Bunge SA v ADM DO Brasil Ltd & Ors

Bunge SA v ADM DO Brasil Ltd & Ors

The arbitrators correctly concluded that the presence of rats in the cargo did not render it 'dangerous' under the Hague Rules or common law, as there was no physical danger to ship or other cargo, nor any legal obstacle at the discharge port. Bunge failed to prove which shipper, if any, was responsible for introducing rats. The burden of proof was not met, and no breach of contract or liability under the Hague Rules was established.

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, Section 69 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; arbitration awards upheld in favour of respondents.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Cargo Under Hague Rules, Implied Terms in Contracts of Carriage, Burden of Proof in Cargo Claims, Interpretation of 'dangerous Goods', Liability of Shippers for Cargo Infestation
Arbitration Shipping Law Contract Law Dangerous Cargo Under Hague Rules Implied Terms in Contracts of Carriage Burden of Proof in Cargo Claims Interpretation of 'dangerous Goods' Liability of Shippers for Cargo Infestation

Case Brief

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 8 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, Section 69 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the presence of rats in cargo render it 'dangerous' under the Hague Rules or common law?
  2. 2 What is the correct legal test for establishing shipper liability for dangerous cargo?
  3. 3 Did the arbitrators err in their approach to the burden of proof?

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrators correctly concluded that the presence of rats in the cargo did not render it 'dangerous' under the Hague Rules or common law, as there was no physical danger to ship or other cargo, nor any legal obstacle at the discharge port. Bunge failed to prove which shipper, if any, was responsible for introducing rats. The burden of proof was not met, and no breach of contract or liability under the Hague Rules was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; arbitration awards upheld in favour of respondents.

Orders

  • Bunge's appeal against the eight arbitration awards is dismissed.
  • No remittal to arbitrators for further findings.