Control Chemicals v Safbank Line Ltd. and Others (584/97) [2000] ZASCA 12; 2000 (3) SA 357 (SCA) (28 March 2000)

Control Chemicals v Safbank Line Ltd. and Others (584/97) [2000] ZASCA 12; 2000 (3) SA 357 (SCA) (28 March 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the explosion was caused by a defect or contaminant in the calcium hypochlorite or improper stowage. The expert evidence presented by the respondents was largely theoretical and did not exclude other remote possibilities. The appellant's manufacturing and packaging processes were shown to be rigorous, and the evidence did not support the inference that the goods were defective or contaminated at the time of shipment. The court found that something extraordinary and unexplained must have occurred, but the cause remained unknown. In such circumstances, the...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 12
Parties
Appellant: Control Chemicals; Respondent: Safbank Line Limited; Respondent: South African Marine Corporation Ltd; Respondent: Argonaut Shipping Inc; Respondent: The Bank Line Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2000
Case Number
584/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld; absolution from the instance granted with costs, subject to a reduction in costs for perusal of the record.
Judges
Nienaber, Schutz, Scott, Zulman, Streicher
Legal Topics
Carriage of Goods by Sea, Strict Liability, Burden of Proof, Dangerous Goods, Contractual Liability, Expert Evidence
Admiralty and Maritime Delict Commercial and Corporate Carriage of Goods by Sea Strict Liability Burden of Proof Dangerous Goods Contractual Liability +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Control Chemicals

Appellant

Safbank Line Limited

Respondent

South African Marine Corporation Ltd

Respondent

Argonaut Shipping Inc

Respondent

The Bank Line Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as shipper, was liable in contract for damages caused by an explosion of dangerous goods shipped by sea.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents discharged the burden of proving that the explosion was caused by a defect or contaminant in the calcium hypochlorite or improper stowage.
  3. 3 Whether the shipment was without the carrier's informed consent under article IV, rule 6 of the Hague Visby Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the explosion was caused by a defect or contaminant in the calcium hypochlorite or improper stowage. The expert evidence presented by the respondents was largely theoretical and did not exclude other remote possibilities. The appellant's manufacturing and packaging processes were shown to be rigorous, and the evidence did not support the inference that the goods were defective or contaminated at the time of shipment. The court found that something extraordinary and unexplained must have occurred, but the cause remained unknown. In such circumstances, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; absolution from the instance granted with costs, subject to a reduction in costs for perusal of the record.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, save that 50 percent of the costs of the appellant's local and Bloemfontein attorneys in respect of the perusal of the appeal record is disallowed.
  • The order made by the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'Absolution from the instance is granted with costs.'