MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS

MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS

The court held that ECB cl.18.3 could not be construed to limit ECT's liability to US$2 per kg because the clause is ambiguous and must be construed contra proferentem, and because ECT's conduct amounted at least to negligence and in fact recklessness such that cl.23.2 removes the limitation; similarly Sea Waybill cl.5(1)(b) could not absolve liability for misdelivery after discharge where the carrier failed to exercise reasonable care under cl.3(2)(b). Therefore the proper measure is the invoice value of the lost goods.

Citation
MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO. LTD.; 2nd Plaintiff: SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT EUROPE LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: SONY LOGISTICS EUROPE B.V.; 4th Plaintiff: SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC.; 5th Plaintiff: MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO. LTD.; 1st Defendant: BLUE ANCHOR LINE; 2nd Defendant: TRANSPAC CONTAINER SYSTEM LTD.; 3rd Defendant: KUEHNE NAGEL LTD.; 4th Defendant: KUEHNE NAGEL N.V.; 5th Defendant: HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESCELLSCHAFT; 6th Defendant: KUEHNE & NAGEL CUSTOMS B.V.; 7th Defendant: KUEHNE & NAGEL LOGISTICS B.V.; 8th Defendant: ECT DELTA TERMINAL B.V.; 9th Defendant: CARGO LINK BV; 10th Defendant: GIERROS TRANSPORT EN VERHUUR B.V.; 11th Defendant: MTC HAVENSERVICE EN KOERIERSDIENSTEN B.V.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 March 2010
Case Number
HCAJ106/2008
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Jurisdiction Cargo Claim / Judgment on Quantum (assessment of Damages)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs for the invoice value of the goods in Container X (Euros 950,071.20); ECT's limitation and Sea Waybill defences rejected
Legal Topics
Limitation of Liability Clauses, Himalaya Clause, Sea Waybill Terms, Hague Visby Rules, Negligence, Recklessness, Misdelivery, Conversion, Construction Contra Proferentem
Source Language
EN
Admiralty Law Maritime Carriage Contract Law Tort Law Insurance Law Limitation of Liability Clauses Himalaya Clause Sea Waybill Terms +6 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO. LTD.

1st Plaintiff

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT EUROPE LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

SONY LOGISTICS EUROPE B.V.

3rd Plaintiff

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC.

4th Plaintiff

MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO. LTD.

5th Plaintiff

BLUE ANCHOR LINE

1st Defendant

TRANSPAC CONTAINER SYSTEM LTD.

2nd Defendant

KUEHNE NAGEL LTD.

3rd Defendant

KUEHNE NAGEL N.V.

4th Defendant

HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESCELLSCHAFT

5th Defendant

KUEHNE & NAGEL CUSTOMS B.V.

6th Defendant

KUEHNE & NAGEL LOGISTICS B.V.

7th Defendant

ECT DELTA TERMINAL B.V.

8th Defendant

CARGO LINK BV

9th Defendant

GIERROS TRANSPORT EN VERHUUR B.V.

10th Defendant

MTC HAVENSERVICE EN KOERIERSDIENSTEN B.V.

11th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Jurisdiction Cargo Claim / Judgment on Quantum (assessment of Damages)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ECB clause 18.3 limits carrier liability to US$2 per kg and applies to ECT as agent
  2. 2 Whether clause 18.3 covers loss caused by carrier negligence or recklessness
  3. 3 Whether clause 23.2 excludes limitation where carrier acted recklessly with knowledge of probable damage

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that ECB cl.18.3 could not be construed to limit ECT's liability to US$2 per kg because the clause is ambiguous and must be construed contra proferentem, and because ECT's conduct amounted at least to negligence and in fact recklessness such that cl.23.2 removes the limitation; similarly Sea Waybill cl.5(1)(b) could not absolve liability for misdelivery after discharge where the carrier failed to exercise reasonable care under cl.3(2)(b). Therefore the proper measure is the invoice value of the lost goods.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs for the invoice value of the goods in Container X (Euros 950,071.20); ECT's limitation and Sea Waybill defences rejected

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs in the sum of EUR 950071.20
  • Parties to be heard further on interest, costs and consequential orders