UK: UK Supreme Court Clarifies Burden Of Proof In Cargo Damage Cases Under The Hague Rules

Last Updated: 10 December 2018
Article by Andrew Nicholas, Mouna Moussaoui and Callum Gerrish

Most Read Contributor in UK, March 2019

The UK Supreme Court has clarified the nature of the burden of proof upon carriers of goods by sea who seek to rely upon the inherent vice exception under Article IV.2 of the Hague Rules, in a successful appeal by cargo interests represented by Andrew Nicholas and his team at Clyde & Co LLP.

Volcafe Ltd and others v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA [2018] UKSC 61 – reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal - confirms the relevance of bailment as a common law concept to the burden of proof in modern cases involving contracts for the carriage of goods by sea under the Hague Rules.

Lord Sumption, with whom the other Justices unanimously agreed, held that the carrier has the legal burden of proving that he took due care to protect the goods from damage, including due care to protect the cargo from damage arising from its inherent characteristics. As a result, in order to rely on the inherent vice exception under article IV.2(m) of the Hague Rules, the carrier must first disprove negligence by establishing that he took reasonable care to protect the cargo in relation to the anticipated contractual voyage. 

Background to the case:

Between January and April 2012, nine consignments of bagged coffee beans were carried in 20 unventilated containers from Buenaventura, Colombia to Northern Germany.  The bills of lading issued by the carrier incorporated the Hague Rules and recorded the carrier's receipt of the cargo in good order and condition.  The bills were issued on LCL/FCL terms, meaning that the carrier was contractually responsible for preparing and stuffing the containers for the voyage.

Coffee beans are a hygroscopic cargo, i.e. the cargo absorbs, stores, and emits moisture.  During carriage of such cargoes from warm climates to cooler climates in unventilated containers, condensation inevitably forms on the walls and roof of the containers.  Therefore, it is necessary to line the roof and walls of the containers with an absorbent material – such as Kraft paper used in this case - to protect the cargo from water damage. 

Upon delivery, it was discovered that the cargo in 18 of the 20 containers had suffered wet damage as a result of the condensation which had formed inside the containers dripping onto the bagged coffee beans.  

Cargo interests brought claims against CSAV as carrier for the loss and damage to cargo, arguing under the common law of bailment that the carriers had failed to re-deliver the cargoes in the same good order and condition recorded on the face of the bills of lading, in breach of the carrier's duties as bailee. Alternatively, it was argued that the carrier had negligently breached its obligation under article III.2 of the Hague Rules to "properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge" the cargoes.  This negligence primarily concerned the carrier's failure to adequately prepare the containers in its use of the Kraft paper.

The carrier argued that the sole cause of the damage was inherent vice on the basis that the coffee beans were unable to withstand the ordinary levels of condensation forming in containers during the voyage.  Cargo interests argued in reply that any inherent characteristic of the cargo which resulted in damage, did so only because of the carrier's negligent failure to adequately dress the containers to protect the cargoes.

The High Court

The trial judge in this case, Mr Justice Donaldson QC, found for the cargo claimants, see: [2015] EWHC 516 (Comm).  He determined that the damage to the cargo created a justifiable inference of breach of Article III.2 and the onus was then on the carrier to prove that the lining of the containers with the Kraft paper for the subject shipments constituted a sound system to prevent damage from condensation.

The trial judge found that there was no evidence of any generally accepted industry practice to which the carrier could claim to have conformed in relation to a sound system for prevention of damage.  The trial judge also found that there was no clear evidence of the number of layers of Kraft paper in place during the shipments – photos being inconclusive - and there was no evidence of the weight of the paper other than that it was more than 80 gsm.   On this basis, the judge held that the carrier had failed to discharge the burden to prove there was a sound system for the prevention of damage.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the first instance court, see: [2016] EWCA Civ 1103.  Mr Justice Flaux took a different view of the application of the burden of proof.  He considered that the legal burden of proof was on the carrier to prove that one of the exception circumstances listed in Article IV.2 existed at the relevant time, after which the cargo owner had the legal burden of proving the carrier's negligence in those circumstances, i.e. that the relevant excepted peril only resulted in damage to the cargo because of the carrier's failure to take reasonable care of the cargo.

Contrary to the trial judge's findings of fact, the Court of Appeal found that there was an accepted industry practice in 2012 for lining unventilated containers for the carriage of bagged coffee, which was said to involve using two layers of paper of at least 80 gsm or one layer of at least 125 gsm.  The Court of Appeal decided on examination of the photographs and of the pre-loading documentation that two layers of paper had been used.  The Court of Appeal therefore considered that it followed from the trial judge's findings that the paper used weighed at least 80 gsm and that the containers had been lined in accordance with accepted industry practice, ruling in favour of the carrier on the basis that cargo interests had not established any negligence on the part of the carrier.

Decision of the UK Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the carrier bore the burden of disproving negligence under both Article III.2 and Article IV.2 of the Hague Rules.  Having failed to discharge this burden of proving the exercise of reasonable care for the cargo in respect of the preparation of the containers, the carrier was liable to the cargo claimants for the loss and damage sustained.

The issue of burden of proof arose at two stages.  First, it arose in respect of Article III.2, where it was necessary for the Supreme Court to determine whether the burden of proof lies on the cargo owner to prove breach of Article III.2, or whether the burden of proof rests with the carrier to prove compliance with Article III.2 once damage to the cargo has been determined.

Second, the issue of burden of proof arose in relation to the exceptions to a carrier's liability under Article IV.2.  Whilst the carrier accepted that they must prove the facts which bring the case within an exception in Article IV.2, the carrier argued that once he had done so, the onus was on the cargo owner to prove that the negligence of the carrier caused the excepted peril (in this case, inherent vice) to operate on the cargo.

Their Lordships first considered the position in the common law of bailment. Whilst the subject bills of lading incorporated the Hague Rules, the Supreme Court viewed the common law of bailment a vital feature of the background against which the Hague Rules were drafted; and the common law authorities decided before the Hague Rules came into force remain influential.  Their Lordships stressed that the delivery of goods for carriage by sea is a bailment for reward on terms of the bill of lading and nothing in the Hague Rules alters the status of a contract of carriage by sea as a species of bailment for reward on terms.  

The rule on burden of proof in English law is that in circumstances where goods are redelivered in damaged condition, the onus is on the bailee to show that the damage was not due to the absence of reasonable care on its part.  The Court held that this legal burden to disprove negligence is an important principle because the bailee is in possession of the goods and is therefore likely to be the only person in a position to account for the circumstances which resulted in the damage.

Article III.2:   The Supreme Court highlighted that the common law obligation of a bailee to take reasonable care has always been treated as consistent with a rule imposing on the bailee the burden of disproving negligence.  The Court held that the imposition of a corresponding duty of care on the carrier under Article III.2 of the Hague Rules also imposes a similar burden of disproving negligence.  The Court held that, on the basis that Article III.2 is expressly subject to Article IV (under which it is well-established that the carrier bears the burden of proving facts which bring the carrier within an Article IV exception), it would be incoherent for the law to impose the burden of proving the same fact on the carrier for the purpose of Article IV but on the cargo owner for the purpose of Article III.2.  The Supreme Court agreed with the cargo claimants that the Hague Rules must therefore logically impose on the carrier the obligation of disproving negligence in respect of the damage to the goods sustained during the carriage.

Article IV.2(m): Inherent vice:   CSAV argued that once it had been proved that the cargo suffered from inherent vice, it was for the cargo owner to prove that it was only because of the carrier's negligence that those inherent characteristics of the cargo resulted in damage, citing the Court of Appeal decision in The 'Glendarroch'[1894] P 226.  The Supreme Court deemed that The 'Glendarroch'  should no longer be regarded as good law as the source of a general rule governing the burden of proof and, importantly, deemed it out of place in the context of the Hague Rules.

The Court highlighted that cargo does not suffer from inherent vice in the abstract, but only in relation to some assumed knowledge and diligence on the part of the carrier.  The Court cited The 'Albacora' [1966] SC(HL) 19 when stating that the operation of the inherent vice exception must depend on the circumstances of the carriage envisaged by the contract.  Their Lordships determined that if the carrier could and should have taken precautions to prevent damage from being caused by some foreseeable inherent characteristic of the cargo on the contractual voyage – such as the hygroscopic nature of a cargo of coffee beans – then that characteristic is not inherent vice. The Supreme Court held that the carrier must first have positively proved that it took reasonable care of the cargo and that the damage occurred regardless.

As to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court noted that for a cargo of coffee beans in an unventilated container, for a voyage from Colombia to Germany, this reasonable care obligation on the carrier must necessarily include the taking of adequate steps to address the inevitable formation of condensation on the inside of the container upon transportation from the warmer climate of the South American port of loading to the cooler destinations of Northern Europe.  The Supreme Court endorsed the decision of the Court at first instance by noting that bagged coffee was commonly carried in unventilated containers from warm climates to cooler ones without damage and that the cargo in this case was not out of the ordinary in character.  It followed that with reasonable care the cargo was perfectly capable of withstanding the risks reasonably to be expected during unventilated carriage.

The Supreme Court stressed the importance of the notion that a trial judge's findings of fact should not be overturned simply because the Court of Appeal would have found them differently.  In this case the Court of Appeal had done so unjustifiably. 

Given the absence of evidence concerning the weight of the paper employed, the Supreme Court held that the carrier had failed to prove that the containers were properly dressed for the contractual voyage.  As a result, CSAV had failed to disprove negligence, thereby preventing them from being able to rely on an exception contained in article IV.2.  The Supreme Court found in favour of the cargo claimants and restored the decision of the trial judge.


This Supreme Court ruling provides an important clarification of the law for parties involved in cargo disputes where the Hague Rules regime governs the relationship between the parties. For similar disputes concerning the dressing of containers, its effect may be limited to cases where it is carriers who are contractually responsible for preparing and stuffing the containers, rather than shippers.  However, the clarification found in this ruling should be a welcome development for cargo insurers and P&I Clubs alike, in its pursuit of certainty in Hague Rules cases, with cargo interests likely to be placed in the more advantageous position going forward. It reflects both common sense and the commercial realities of the carriage of goods by sea that the legal burden of proof should be placed on carriers to have to account for the circumstances of cargo damage when they are the best-placed and often only party in a position to account for - and prevent - what happens during the carriage.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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