神马品牌网战舰世界五级驱逐舰:请帮忙翻译
来源：百度文库 编辑：神马品牌网 时间：2024/04/30 11:25:23
Australia's highest court rules that owner of damaged cargo who fails to show that vessel's crew negligently stowed cargo or navigated ship carelessly in major storm is subject to "perils of the sea" defense under Hague Rules on bills of lading
In 1989, Great China Metal Industries Co. Ltd. (GCM) contracted with the Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC) to carry a cargo of 40 cases of aluminum coils weighing five tons each from Sydney, Australia to Keelung, Taiwan in the "MV Bunga Seroja."
Three bills of lading embodied the contract and each of them incorporated the Hague Rules [International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, 51 Stat. 233, TS 931, implemented in Australia by the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act of 1924. See the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) of 1936 that adopted the Hague Rules for the United States].
Because there is no land mass between the southern coast of Australia and Antarctica, storms in the "Roaring Forties" commonly build up mountainous swells, high seas and strong and variable winds. The Southern Ocean in the vicinity of the Great Australian Bight is one such stretch of sea, long known to navigators.
The Burnie to Fremantle leg of the Bunga Seroja's voyage crossed the Bight along the southern coast. Not surprisingly, the vessel ran into a series of violent storms of sub-hurricane force that damaged the coils and even swept some over the side.
GCM then sued MISC in Admiralty in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, claiming damages for breach of the carriage contract and negligence. The trial judge exonerated the master and crew from negligence in handling or stowing the cargo. He also upheld MISC's defense that "perils of the sea" had caused the cargo damage. The New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed GCM's subsequent appeal.
On further appeal to the High Court of Australia, GCM argued that the lower courts erred in upholding MISC's defense. In its view, the master had received advance notice of impending bad weather and had failed to take reasonable methods to guard against cargo damage.
The High Court disagrees and unanimously dismisses the appeal. Of the six justices, three agreed on one "plurality" opinion and three others wrote separate opinions, stressing various aspects of the complex situation.
In 1989, Great China Metal Industries Co. Ltd. (GCM) contracted with the Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC) to carry a cargo of 40 cases of aluminum coils weighing five tons each from Sydney, Australia to Keelung, Taiwan in the "MV Bunga Seroja."
Three bills of lading embodied the contract and each of them incorporated the Hague Rules [International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, 51 Stat. 233, TS 931, implemented in Australia by the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act of 1924. See the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) of 1936 that adopted the Hague Rules for the United States].
Because there is no land mass between the southern coast of Australia and Antarctica, storms in the "Roaring Forties" commonly build up mountainous swells, high seas and strong and variable winds. The Southern Ocean in the vicinity of the Great Australian Bight is one such stretch of sea, long known to navigators.
The Burnie to Fremantle leg of the Bunga Seroja's voyage crossed the Bight along the southern coast. Not surprisingly, the vessel ran into a series of violent storms of sub-hurricane force that damaged the coils and even swept some over the side.
GCM then sued MISC in Admiralty in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, claiming damages for breach of the carriage contract and negligence. The trial judge exonerated the master and crew from negligence in handling or stowing the cargo. He also upheld MISC's defense that "perils of the sea" had caused the cargo damage. The New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed GCM's subsequent appeal.
On further appeal to the High Court of Australia, GCM argued that the lower courts erred in upholding MISC's defense. In its view, the master had received advance notice of impending bad weather and had failed to take reasonable methods to guard against cargo damage.
The High Court disagrees and unanimously dismisses the appeal. Of the six justices, three agreed on one "plurality" opinion and three others wrote separate opinions, stressing various aspects of the complex situation.