Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2024] EWHC 2494 (Comm) (07 October 2024)

Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2024] EWHC 2494 (Comm) (07 October 2024)

Maersk was not in breach of Article III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules because, in 2019, it was industry practice for carriers to rely on shipper-declared weights for bills of lading and use VGM data solely for stowage planning. There was no evidence Maersk knew or ought to have known of the fraud or that it was unreasonable not to cross-check VGM and declared weights at that time. The bills of lading expressly disclaimed responsibility for weight, and no actionable misstatement or duty of care to the consignee arose on these facts. The Claimant's losses were not recoverable from Maersk.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2494 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE; Defendant: Maersk A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (breach of Contract, Tort, Carriage of Goods by Sea) / High Court (commercial Court) Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Carrier's Liability, Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Hague Rules, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, Container Fraud, Verified Gross Mass (vgm), International Sale of Goods
Commercial Law Shipping Law Contract Law Tort Law Bills of Lading Carrier's Liability Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care +5 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE

Claimant

Maersk A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (breach of Contract, Tort, Carriage of Goods by Sea) / High Court (commercial Court) Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Maersk was in breach of Article III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules by issuing clean bills of lading despite weight discrepancies
  2. 2 Whether Maersk made a negligent misstatement or owed a duty of care to the consignee regarding the accuracy of shipper's particulars in the bills of lading
  3. 3 Whether Maersk is liable in contract or tort for losses suffered by the Claimant due to container fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Maersk was not in breach of Article III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules because, in 2019, it was industry practice for carriers to rely on shipper-declared weights for bills of lading and use VGM data solely for stowage planning. There was no evidence Maersk knew or ought to have known of the fraud or that it was unreasonable not to cross-check VGM and declared weights at that time. The bills of lading expressly disclaimed responsibility for weight, and no actionable misstatement or duty of care to the consignee arose on these facts. The Claimant's losses were not recoverable from Maersk.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim against Maersk is dismissed.
  • No liability found against Maersk for breach of contract, tort, or duty of care.