Clearing the decks: the Hague-Visby Rules reaffirmed in “The Taikoo Brilliance” 

In a significant decision handed down on 22 July 2025, the High Court in Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte. Ltd. v Pedregal Maritime S.A. ([2025] EWHC 1878 (Comm)) (The Taikoo Brilliance) provided important clarification on the interpretation and application of Articles III(6) and I(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules (the Rules). The case, arising from the misdelivery of a timber cargo carried on board The Taikoo Brilliance, underscores the continuing relevance of these international rules in modern maritime commerce. 

Background 

The dispute concerned four bills of lading issued for a shipment of New Zealand pine logs from New Zealand to Kandla, India. A portion of the cargo was carried on deck, and the bills of lading reflected this. However, the cargo was discharged in India without presentation of the bills, leading to a claim for misdelivery by the cargo interests (the BL Holders). The bills of lading were subject to arbitration. 

Rather than commence substantive arbitration, the BL Holders initiated proceedings in Singapore to arrest a sister ship for security. Substantive arbitration was not commenced until over a year later. 

The carrier argued that the claim was time-barred. Firstly, because the arrest proceedings did not amount to “suit being brought” for the purpose of validly protecting time under Article III(6) of the Hague-Visby Rules, and secondly, because the logs carried on deck were inadequately identified, the result was that they did not fall within the deck-carriage exclusion in the Hague-Visby Rules.  

The arbitration tribunal found that the claim was time-barred under Article III(6) of the Hague-Visby Rules, but only in respect of the under-deck cargo. Both parties appealed on points of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. 

Key Issues and the court’s findings 

1. What constitutes a “suit” under Article III(6)? 

Article III(6) provides that carriers are discharged from liability unless “suit” is brought within one year of delivery, or the date when delivery should have occurred. As explained above, the BL Holders initiated proceedings in Singapore to arrest a sister ship for security, but substantive arbitration was not commenced until over a year later. 

Mr Justice Robin Knowles, dismissing the appeal, held that proceedings for security do not constitute a “suit” under Article III(6). He emphasised that the purpose of the time bar is to provide commercial finality and allow carriers to “clear their books.” Only proceedings that seek to determine liability, i.e. substantive proceedings, satisfy the requirement of a “suit.” 

This interpretation aligns with the UK Supreme Court’s reasoning in The Giant Ace ([2024] UKSC 38), reinforcing a strict reading of the time bar provision to promote certainty in maritime commerce. 

2. What must be stated in the Bill of Lading for deck cargo to be excluded from the Rules? 

Article I(c) of the Rules excludes from the definition of “goods” (which would otherwise be subject to the time bar at Article III(6)) any cargo “which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried.” The owners argued that for goods to meet this definition, precise identification of the specific parcels carried on deck is required. 

The court rejected this narrow interpretation. It upheld the arbitrator’s finding that a statement of quantity – e.g. “22,994 pieces as carried on deck” – was sufficient in the circumstances. Mr Justice Knowles favoured a pragmatic and commercial approach, but noted that the level of detail required may vary depending on the nature of the cargo and the context. 

This flexible interpretation avoids imposing unrealistic burdens on shippers and carriers to describe goods carried in bulk, while still ensuring that the bill of lading provides meaningful information about the stowage of that cargo. 

Significance 

This judgment is a valuable reaffirmation of the commercial purpose of and interpretive principles which are central to the Hague-Visby Rules. It highlights: 

1. strict enforcement of time bars: proceedings must be substantive (i.e. have some bearing on determining liability) to interrupt the one-year limitation period 

2. practical interpretation of deck cargo exclusions: the court resisted a rigid, formalistic reading of Article I(c), favouring a context-sensitive approach. 

This decision also reinforces the importance of international uniformity in interpreting maritime conventions, drawing on comparative jurisprudence from Canada and Singapore.