Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd & Anor. v United Parcels Service Ltd & Anor.

Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd & Anor. v United Parcels Service Ltd & Anor.

The court found that the three packages were not delivered to the consignee (L&A), and that UPS was liable for their loss under the CMR Convention. However, the claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the loss was caused by wilful misconduct of a UPS employee, so the limitation of liability under Article 23 of the CMR applied. The US$50,000 contractual value restriction did not defeat the claim, nor did UPS have a defence under Article 17.2 or 17.4 of the CMR. Damages were therefore limited to £657.73.

Parties
Claimant: Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd.; Claimant: Incoparts BV; Defendant: United Parcels Service Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; damages limited by CMR
Legal Topics
CMR Convention, Limitation of Liability, Wilful Misconduct, Breach of Contract, Bailment, Tort, Proof of Delivery
Contract Law Carriage of Goods International Law CMR Convention Limitation of Liability Wilful Misconduct Breach of Contract Bailment +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd.

Claimant

Incoparts BV

Claimant

United Parcels Service Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UPS is liable for the loss of the consignment under the CMR Convention
  2. 2 Whether the loss was caused by wilful misconduct of UPS employees, removing the limitation of liability
  3. 3 Whether the contractual limitation of US$50,000 per package applies

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the three packages were not delivered to the consignee (L&A), and that UPS was liable for their loss under the CMR Convention. However, the claimants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the loss was caused by wilful misconduct of a UPS employee, so the limitation of liability under Article 23 of the CMR applied. The US$50,000 contractual value restriction did not defeat the claim, nor did UPS have a defence under Article 17.2 or 17.4 of the CMR. Damages were therefore limited to £657.73.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; damages limited by CMR

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimants for £657.73 under Article 23 of the CMR
  • All other claims and arguments dismissed