Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S

Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S

Maersk was not in breach of Article III Rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules, did not make negligent misstatements, and did not owe or breach a duty of care to the consignee, as there was no evidence in 2019 that Maersk knew or ought to have known of the shipper's fraud or that it should have compared shipper-declared weights with VGM data. The bills of lading expressly disclaimed responsibility for weight, and Maersk complied with its contractual and legal obligations.

Parties
Claimant: Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE; Defendant: Maersk A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Shipping Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Hague Rules, Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Container Fraud, Verified Gross Mass (vgm), International Sale of Goods
Carriage of Goods by Sea Contract Law Tort Law Bills of Lading Hague Rules Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Container Fraud +2 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE

Claimant

Maersk A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Shipping Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Maersk breached Article III Rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules by issuing clean bills of lading despite weight discrepancies
  2. 2 Whether Maersk made negligent misstatements in the bills of lading
  3. 3 Whether Maersk owed and breached a duty of care to the consignee to prevent use of bills of lading as instruments of fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Maersk was not in breach of Article III Rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules, did not make negligent misstatements, and did not owe or breach a duty of care to the consignee, as there was no evidence in 2019 that Maersk knew or ought to have known of the shipper's fraud or that it should have compared shipper-declared weights with VGM data. The bills of lading expressly disclaimed responsibility for weight, and Maersk complied with its contractual and legal obligations.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claimant's claims dismissed
  • Defendant's counterclaim allowed for AED 35,541.66, EUR 8,409.60, and EUR 5,420