Australia: Package limitation of container cargo reconsidered

Last Updated: 5 July 2017
Article by Marcus Saw


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 £858,000 (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.

Marcus Saw
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions