Australia: Package limitation of container cargo reconsidered


The recent decision in the English High Court in Kyokuyo v AP Moller Maersk [2017] EWHC 654 (Comm.) concerned the proper construction of the Hague-Visby Rules in the context of the per package and unit limitation provisions contained in Article IV. It also considered (and rejected) aspects of the 2004 decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2004] FCAFC 202.


The claimant, Kyokuyo, was the receiver of three container loads of frozen tuna that were shipped from Cartagena in Spain by sea carriage by Maersk to Japan. The cargo consisted of frozen Bluefin tuna loins, each weighing between 25kg and 75kg, as well as bags of frozen Bluefin tuna parts, each bag weighing about 20kg.

Containers A, B and C, as they were described in the decision, were received by Maersk Line at Cartagena pursuant to contracts of carriage incorporating Maersk's terms and conditions, and containing an implied term entitling the shippers to demand that a bill or bills of lading be issued by Maersk Line. The contract was for carriage to and discharge at Yokohama and the booking was for the carriage of 12 "Super Freezer" 40 foot containers at minus 60 degrees Centigrade from Cartagena Terminal to Maersk Yokohama Terminal via Valencia and Singapore.

Containers A, B and C were transhipped at Valencia onto Maersk Eindhoven. Due to an alarm triggering on Container C, it was discharged from Maersk Eindhoven at Barcelona and its contents were restuffed into the replacement container.

No bills of lading for Containers A, B, C or the Replacement Container were ever issued. To avoid further delay in delivery, the claimant and Maersk agreed to the issue of sea waybills rather than bills of lading.


The frozen loins had been stuffed into the containers as individual items of cargo without wrapping, packaging or consolidation. The bags of tuna parts were stuffed into the containers as individual bags without any additional wrapping or packaging and without consolidation.

Container A was stuffed with 206 loins and 460 bags of tuna meat. Container B was stuffed with 520 loins and Container C and its replacement container were stuffed with 500 frozen loins.

It was alleged by the claimant that the tuna suffered temperature damage during carriage and/or rough handling when the contents of container C, due to the malfunction with the container at Valencia, had to be repacked into a replacement container. The amount of the damage was said to be Ł858,000 (about AU$1.5 million at current rates).

The carriage was governed by Maersk's standard terms and conditions of carriage and either the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules.

The parties requested the Court to determine a number of preliminary issues.


  1. Was liability limited pursuant to Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague Rules or Article IV Rule 5 of the Hague-Visby Rules?
  2. Were the individual tuna loins "units" for the purpose of limitation under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules?
  3. Were the pieces of tuna, packages or units enumerated in the relevant document as packed in each container for the purpose of Article IV rule 5?
  4. Is the limitation of liability to be calculated by reference to the cargo in all three containers collectively or should it be calculated by reference to each unit or package damaged?


The Hague-Visby Rules are expressed to apply only where there is a contract of carriage covered by a bill of lading. Article II of the Hague-Visby Rules provided that the carrier is entitled to the rights and immunities, set out in the Rules "under every contract of carriage of goods by sea".

Article I(b) provides that:

"Contract of carriage" applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title...

The contracts of carriage provided for the issue of a bill of lading on demand but no bills of lading had ever been issued for containers A, B and C or the replacement container. Instead, sea waybills were issued by agreement.

The issue before the Court was essentially whether these facts could be said to involve a contract of carriage covered by a bill of lading, such that the Hague-Visby Rules applied. The Court held that it did.

The Court concluded that:

  1. The requirement under the Hague-Visby Rules that there be a contract of carriage covered by a bill of lading for the rules to apply will be satisfied where the terms of the contract of carriage require a bill of lading to be issued but no bill of lading is in fact issued.
  2. It is immaterial if a right to a bill of lading is not insisted upon.


One of the key issues in dispute between the parties was whether for the purpose of the package limitation the relevant packages or units were, as argued by Maersk, the containers themselves or, as argued by the claimant, the individual tuna loins or bags.

Article IV Rule 5(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules provides:

Unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading, neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the goods in an amount exceeding 666.67 units of account per package or unit or 2 units of account per kilogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is the higher.

The bags of frozen tuna parts were items that were naturally to be described as packaged goods. It seems there was no dispute that each of the bags of frozen tuna parts constituted a package for the purpose of the Hague-Visby Rules.

The principal dispute related to the tuna loins and how they were to be treated for the purpose of the package or unit limitation under the Hague-Visby Rules. There were over 1200 frozen tuna loins in the aggregate across all containers and this was, understandably, a point of contention between the parties.

The frozen tuna loins were unwrapped and stuffed into the containers without packaging or consolidation.

Did a "unit" (in the context of Article IV of the Hague-Visby Rules) describe an item that could be transported without packaging and that could simply be shipped "as is", if not containerised (as argued by Maersk) or was it simply one physical unit irrespective of whether it needed to be packed in order to be shipped (as argued by the claimant).

Maersk argued that the tuna loins could not have been shipped without containerisation, therefore could not be shipped "as is". Maersk relied upon a passage from the Australian case of El Greco to support this argument, the majority view of which was that a "unit" referred to an item that could be transported without packaging.

The Court rejected Maersk's argument and held that units should be identified by reference to the characteristics of the cargo as stuffed into the container. Each one of the tuna loins was held to be a unit for the purpose of the limitations under the Hague-Visby Rules.


Article IV Rule 5(c) provides:

Where a used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units enumerated in the Bill of Lading as packed in such article of transport shall be deemed the number of packages or units for the purpose of this paragraph as far as these packages or units are concerned. Except as aforesaid such article of transport shall be considered the package or unit.

The effect of Article IV rule 5(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules is that the container itself will be the package or unit for the purpose of calculating the total amount recoverable from the carrier, unless the number of packages or units as packed in the container is enumerated on the bill of lading.

The waybill for container A made no mention of bags of tuna or the number of tuna loins. Therefore, the package or unit for the purpose of the carrier's liability was held to be the container itself - with liability for the loss of the bags of tuna in container A limited to 666.67 units of account in total.

The analysis was less straightforward in relation to the tuna loins. The waybills for the containers stated:

1 Container Said to Contain [No.] PCS FROZEN BLUEFIN TUNA LOINS.

The number of pieces noted for containers A, B and C was 206, 520 and 500 respectively. It was argued by the claimant that by specifying the number of loins on the waybill, that was sufficient to displace the default position that the container itself is the package or unit for the purpose of calculating the limitation of liability.

Maersk in turn (relying upon the majority decision in the Australian El Greco case) argued that the notation was not sufficient because in effect the words used did not specify that the tuna loins were packed as to be packages or units.


At the time of the hearing in the UK case, the El Greco case was the only authority regarding the meaning of the word "enumerated" in the context of Article IV Rule 5(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules.

The cargo that was the subject of the El Greco case was a cargo of posters and prints that was carried from Sydney to Piraeus. The container carrying the cargo was described on the bill of lading as one container, said to contain:

200945 pieces
posters and prints

The cargo was in fact bundled into 2,000 packages. No reference was made on the bill of lading to the 2,000 bundles.

In El Greco, the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court found that the expression "as packed" in Article IV Rule 5(c) meant that individual items enumerated on a bill of lading would be "units" for the purpose of calculating the limitation of liability only if it was made clear from the terms of the bill of lading that those items had been packed into the container directly as opposed to being packaged up separately in cartons or bundles. It had to be made clear on the bill of lading how many items were in a container, as well as whether those items were packaged together.

Because the bill of lading in El Greco stated that the container was said to contain 200,945 pieces, the Court determined that the cargo had not been described "as packed" such as to bring it within the requirements of Article IV Rule 5(c). Accordingly, as only one container was noted on the bill there was a single package limitation.

The English High Court in Kyokuyo declined to follow the Full Court's decision in El Greco and held that all that was required was a statement identifying and putting a number of the items that did in fact comprise the cargo "as packed".

There was, however, no requirement for the words "as packed" to be included on a bill of lading to displace the default position that the container is the unit or package for the purpose of limitation.


The claimant had argued that Article IV Rule 5 created a single limit of liability that was calculated by reference to the total number of packages or units which had been damaged. In this way, any unused balance in respect of one unit of package could in effect be carried over to another unit or package.

The Court rejected the claimant's argument that the limit was based upon the aggregate limit in respect of all units and found that under the Hague-Visby Rules, each frozen loin had a separate limit of 666.67 units of account, rather than there being a limitation based upon an aggregate of the limits for each of the frozen loins.


By way of summary, the Court held that:

  1. The Hague-Visby Rules will apply when the contract of carriage provides for the issue of bills of lading on demand, even if that demand is not made and the parties agree for the issue of sea waybills instead.
  2. When determining what is a unit for the purpose of Article IV Rule 5, this should be done based upon a consideration of what was stuffed into the container. There should not be a focus upon how (if at all) the cargo could have been shipped if not containerised.
  3. For cargo to constitute a "package or unit enumerated in the bill of lading as packed" it is sufficient for the physical items of cargo to be accurately stated in the bill of lading. There is no additional requirement that the physical items must be described "as packed".
  4. The package or unit limitation in the Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules should be calculated by reference to each individual package that has suffered damage.

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been granted recently in this matter.


Under Australian law, the issue of whether the Hague-Visby Rules applied compulsorily to the carriage may not have arisen, as under the modified Hague-Visby Rules in place in Australia, a contract of carriage is not confined to bills of lading or similar documents of title but extends to sea carriage documents, arguably catching sea waybills.

Marcus Saw
Transport and logistics
Colin Biggers & Paisley

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.