Fujitsu Computer Products Corp & Ors v Bax Global Inc & Ors

Fujitsu Computer Products Corp & Ors v Bax Global Inc & Ors

The HAWB did not contain a discrete, clear notice as required by Article 8(c) of the Warsaw-Hague Convention. The information in the conditions of contract and on the face of the HAWB was insufficient to constitute 'a notice' to the consignor as required. Therefore, by virtue of Article 9, the carrier is not entitled to rely on the limitation of liability provisions in Article 22.

Parties
Claimant: Fujitsu Computer Products Corp; Claimant: Fujitsu Limited; Claimant: Fujitsu Europe Limited; Defendant: Bax Global Inc; Defendant: Bax Global (UK) Limited; Defendant: Bax Global Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
For the claimants on the preliminary issue
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Warsaw Convention, Limitation of Liability, Notice Requirements in Air Waybills
Carriage by Air International Trade Law Interpretation of Warsaw Convention Limitation of Liability Notice Requirements in Air Waybills

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fujitsu Computer Products Corp

Claimant

Fujitsu Limited

Claimant

Fujitsu Europe Limited

Claimant

Bax Global Inc

Defendant

Bax Global (UK) Limited

Defendant

Bax Global Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the House Air Way Bill (HAWB) complied with Article 8(c) of the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol (Warsaw-Hague) regarding notice requirements
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply disentitles the carrier from relying on limitation of liability under Article 22

Ratio Decidendi

The HAWB did not contain a discrete, clear notice as required by Article 8(c) of the Warsaw-Hague Convention. The information in the conditions of contract and on the face of the HAWB was insufficient to constitute 'a notice' to the consignor as required. Therefore, by virtue of Article 9, the carrier is not entitled to rely on the limitation of liability provisions in Article 22.

Court Disposition

For the claimants on the preliminary issue

Orders

  • The question posed by the preliminary issue is answered in the affirmative: the HAWB did not comply with Article 8(c) and the carrier cannot rely on the limitation of liability under Article 22.