Статья посвящена широко обсуждающемуся решению английского суда по делу Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA [2015] EWHC 516 (Comm). Уточняем, что спор возник из исполнения договора перевозки мытых необжаренных зерен колумбийского кофе из Колумбии в Германию с перевалкой груза в Бальбоа, Панама, в 20 контейнерах, предоставленных и стафированых перевозчиком. Несмотря на всю предосторожность и заботливость, проявленные перевозчиком, был обнаружен ущерб от отпотевания. Перевозчик утверждал, что Гаагские правила неприменимы, поскольку контейнеры были стафированы за несколько дней до погрузки на борт, следовательно, стафировка не была частью погрузочного процесса. Однако суд признал правильной позицию получателя груза, утверждавшего, что понятие “погрузка груза” зависит от договора перевозки. Таким образом, ненадлежащая упаковка кофе в мешки, не обеспечившая сохранную перевозку, является частью погрузочного процесса. Решение английского суда по нашумевшему делу, действительно, проливает свет на некоторые отношения, в частности, процесс погрузки может начинаться с упаковки и стафировки контейнера. Кроме того, возложение на перевозчика бремени доказывания того факта, что упаковка груза была произведена в соответствии с правилами, было, возможно, несколько неожиданно.
Думается, что тема настоящей публикации еще не исчерпана и будет иметь дальнейшее развитие.
A recent case in the English Commercial Court – Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA [2015]
EWHC 516 (Comm) – has thrown some light onto a carrier’s duty under the Hague Rules for containerised cargo, which the carrier has packed. The case focuses on the importance of the carrier’s obligations to properly and carefully load, carry and care for the cargo.
The case concerned a consignment of washed Colombian green coffee beans transported from Buenaventura in Colombia to Germany, which was transhipped in Balboa, Panama. The cargo had been stuffed by the carrier into 20 containers.
A layer of Kraft paper had been laid in the containers before packing, so as minimise moisture damage to the cargo. Notwithstanding the carrier’s efforts to protect the cargo, most of the containers on discharge were found to have suffered some degree of damage from condensation.
The terms of the bills of lading contained a standard Clause Paramount incorporating Article lll(2) of the Hague Rules. The receivers contended that the condensation discovered on discharge meant that the carrier was in breach of Article lll(2), as a result of the moisture damage, because the cargo was “in apparent good order and condition” at the load port.
The carriers claimed that the Hague Rules did not apply. This was on the basis that the cargo was stuffed several days before loading and consequently, it did not constitute part of the loading process. Article l(e) of the Hague Rules states that they only apply to carriage “from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time they are discharged from the ship”.
The Court was, however, sympathetic to the receivers’ argument that the Hague Rules covered the packing because they took the view that the parties were free to agree on what constitutes “loading”. In practical terms, if the carrier agrees to stuff the cargo inside the containers days before the loading, this would form part of the loading process.
The Court therefore decided that the coffee bags were inadequately protected inside the container during packing and that the Hague Rules applied to the period when the containers were packed.
Had the carrier properly and carefully cared for the cargo?
The carrier has a duty to properly and carefully care for the cargo under Article lll(2) of the Hague Rules. Based on previous judgments the word “properly” had been construed as “in accordance with a sound system”, whereas “carefully” referred to the implementation of that system to the specific cargo carried inside the container. The bills of lading recorded the coffee beans in good order and condition although the cargo was found damaged at the discharge destination.
The Court was of the view that this was sufficient to hold the carrier responsible for a breach of Article lll(2) of the Hague Rules.
The Court then considered whether the carrier had exercised a sound system for caring for the cargo in line with Article lll(2) of the Hague Rules. It decided that the burden of proof lay with the carrier to establish compliance with Article lll(2). Despite the carrier’s argument that he had lined the container with Kraft paper in accordance with industry standards, the Court decided that the carrier had to demonstrate the existence of a ‘rational, adequate and reliable basis’ for concluding that the system in place would prevent the cargo damage- in this case condensation. The Court was reluctant to conclude that the burden of proof had been satisfied.
This recent case highlights some important issues. The Hague Rules will be applicable from the time the carrier has packed a container sometime prior to loading and the cargo becomes damaged as a result of the systems employed at that stage.
In addition, the onus of proof on the carrier to show that the packing of goods has been done using industry standards, is perhaps higher than previously thought.
Автор: F. Gozalves
Container Management. – 2015. – June. – P. 57.