Court confirms applicable package limit when cargo interests have to pay salvage

News / / London

Court confirms applicable package limit when cargo interests have to pay salvage
Trafigura Pte Ltd v. TKK Shipping Pte Ltd (Thor Lineage) [2023] EWHC 26 (Comm)

Article IV 5(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules (HVR) provides that the carrier shall not 

“…become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the goods in an amount exceeding the equivalent of 667.67 units of account per package or 2 units of account per kilogram of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is the higher.” (our emphasis)

If only part of the cargo is damaged but all of the cargo is liable to pay salvage, should you calculate the limit on the basis of the weight of the physically damaged cargo, all the cargo or is the carrier’s liability unlimited?

The background facts

The Claimant cargo owner loaded zinc calcine onboard the Thorco Lineage which ran aground. Salvors were engaged under LOF terms. A small percentage of the cargo was physically damaged but the whole cargo was subject to the salvors’ maritime lien.

The Claimant argued that the vessel grounded due to the carrier’s breach of the HVR. Consequently, it claimed damages based on the physical damage, on-shipment costs and the sums payable to salvors as “economic damage to cargo”. The Defendant Carrier denied liability but argued that it was in any event entitled to limit any liability by applying the HVR limits to the damaged portion rather than the full cargo. Although the Claimant had commenced arbitration, it was agreed that the limitation point would be decided by the Court.

The arguments

The Defendant relied on the The Limnos [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 166, in which the Court had held that cargo which had not suffered physical loss or damage could not be said to be “goods lost or damaged”. 

The Claimant’s primary argument was that The Limnos was wrongly decided and that the words “goods lost or damaged” in Art IV 5(a) HVR cover both physical and economic damage.   Accordingly, the limit should be based on the weight of the whole salved cargo.

The Commercial Court decision

The Court had to determine the correct interpretation of the words “goods lost or damaged” in Art. IV 5(a) HVR. After an exhaustive review of the authorities, it declined to follow the reasoning in The Limnos. 

The Court stated that the purpose of HVR is to protect the interests of both the carrier and the shipper by establishing clear and consistent standards for the international carriage of goods by sea. In the Court’s view, it cannot have been intended that goods that were economically damaged were outside the limitation regime. Rather, the Court thought that the phrase “goods lost or damaged” means “goods lost or damaged physically or economically”.  Accordingly, the Court held that the limit had to be calculated by reference to the weight of the entire cargo. The Court went on to find that even if the reasoning in The Limnos were correct, on the facts of this case the entire cargo was damaged because the salvors’ lien damaged the Claimant’s proprietary interest in the whole cargo.


The decision was a substantial victory for cargo interests because it meant that the claim was in practice unlimited as the value of the claim was less than the limit calculated on the weight of the full cargo.

However, the decision is not unmitigated bad news for owners. It sets a higher limit of liability where there is a mixture of economic and physical loss but the Court’s reasoning would apply a limit where there is only economic loss, whereas The Limnos indicated that in such cases the claim would be unlimited.

Leave to appeal was denied so the decision stands and there are now two conflicting first instance decisions. It remains to be seen which of the two decisions will be followed in future.  
However, the Court’s reasoning was more fully set out in this case than in The Limnos.  Moreover, the earlier decision has been heavily criticised by some academic writers. 

It is submitted that this decision avoids some of the somewhat surprising outcomes that could result in future cases. For example, it is interesting to compare what the results would be if two identical bulk cargoes on identical ships were subject to salvage, and on one vessel a single ton of cargo is physically damaged and on the other none.  If The Limnos is followed, any claim by cargo on the first ship would be limited to 2 SDRs per kilo of the physical damage (less than US$3,000 at the time of writing) but on the other ship there would be no limit at all. On the reasoning in this case, if the cargo weights were the same, so would the limits be.  

This article was written by William Chetwood with the assistance of trainee, Eleni Achnioti.

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

News / One-off pilot error did not render port unsafe

21-03-2023 / Maritime

In this charterparty dispute, the arbitral tribunal rejected the Owners’ claim for damages for breach of the safe port warranty in a time charterparty, after a laden bulk carrier grounded at the entrance to the port of Chaozhou, China, while under compulsory pilotage. It also held that the vessel was unseaworthy, in breach of Article III.1 of the Hague Rules, due to lack of proper charts, but found on the facts that this was not causative of the grounding.

One-off pilot error did not render port unsafe

News / UK’s Electronic Trade Documents Bill progresses through Parliament

15-03-2023 / Maritime

On 15 March 2022, the UK’s Law Commission published its report, with draft legislation, for the legal recognition of electronic trade documents. One year later, the Electronic Trade Documents Bill introduced to the House of Lords is at the Report stage of the legislative process.

UK’s Electronic Trade Documents Bill progresses through Parliament

News / Court declines further adjournment of contempt application against sanctioned defendant

07-03-2023 / Maritime

In the recent case of PJSC National Bank Trust v. Boris Mints, the Court confirmed that sanctioned entities have a fundamental right of access to the English courts. In this case, the Court has made it clear that a defendant will not be permitted to delay any legitimate proceedings against him beyond what is reasonable on the basis that his sanctioned status may prevent him getting a fair trial.

Court declines further adjournment of contempt application against sanctioned defendant

News / Court finds hold reinspection should have been arranged with reasonable diligence

01-03-2023 / Maritime

On appeal from an arbitration award, the Court has agreed with the tribunal that there should be an implied term in the charterparty regarding the charterers’ obligations to arrange for a hold reinspection after a failed inspection. However, it has disagreed with the tribunal’s conclusion on whether this implied term had been breached.

Court finds hold reinspection should have been arranged with reasonable diligence

News / Admiralty Court tackles crossing rule head on

24-02-2023 / Maritime

This is the first collision case since the Supreme Court decision in the Ever Smart, in which the Admiralty Court has applied the crossing rules. This article discusses the Court's decision, which is unusual because of the finding of 100% liability against one vessel.

Admiralty Court tackles crossing rule head on

News / Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) – the work continues

24-02-2023 / Maritime

The international maritime industry is increasingly developing and relying on various levels of automation both onshore and on board. The IMO is leading the way forward and, among other things, has been taking a leading and proactive role in the introduction of commercially operated ships in autonomous mode.

Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) – the work continues