Mitsubishi Corporation v Eastwind Transport Ltd. & Ors

Mitsubishi Corporation v Eastwind Transport Ltd. & Ors

Clause 4, properly construed, does not relieve the carrier of all secondary obligations and is not repugnant to the main object of the contract; it is effective to exempt the defendants from liability for the pleaded claims of negligence and unseaworthiness.

Parties
Claimant: Mitsubishi Corporation; Defendant: Eastwind Transport Limited; Defendant: Sevrybkholodflot (Northern Transport Refrigeration Co); Defendant: Sevrybkholodflot OAO
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Determination of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Preliminary issue determined in favour of the defendants
Legal Topics
Exemption Clauses, Bills of Lading, Interpretation of Contracts
Contract Law Carriage of Goods Exemption Clauses Bills of Lading Interpretation of Contracts

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mitsubishi Corporation

Claimant

Eastwind Transport Limited

Defendant

Sevrybkholodflot (Northern Transport Refrigeration Co)

Defendant

Sevrybkholodflot OAO

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Determination of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 4 of the bills of lading is effective to exempt the defendants from liability for the claims in this case

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 4, properly construed, does not relieve the carrier of all secondary obligations and is not repugnant to the main object of the contract; it is effective to exempt the defendants from liability for the pleaded claims of negligence and unseaworthiness.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue determined in favour of the defendants

Orders

  • Clause 4 is effective to exempt the defendants from any potential liability for the claims in this case