Limitation for bulk cargoes: where are we now?

Date: 01/03/2018
Author: Amanda Hastings

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the original author or contributor. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the UK P&I Club.

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgement in the Aqasia, upholding the decision at first instance - to the collective groan of bulker and tanker owners everywhere. The full judgement can be found here.

In a nutshell, the Aqasia concerned the carriage of fishoil in bulk from Iceland to Norway which suffered contamination on route. The owners had sought to limit their liability to under the Hague Rules to £100 per metric ton. This was contested by the claimant. It was agreed between the parties at arbitration that this preliminary point should be addressed by the court. At first instance, Mr Justice Cooke found the Hague Rules not to apply.

On appeal, their Lordships, contrary to the commercial opinion of many, held that a “unit” does not in fact refer to a unit of measurement, i.e. a metric ton, but instead refers to a physical item and therefore does not apply to bulk cargo.

In dismissing the Owners appeal, Flaux LJ giving the lead judgement stated:

“My conclusion that the clear meaning of “unit” is a physical item of cargo or shipping unit and not a unit of measurement or a freight unit and, hence, Article IV rule 5 does not apply to bulk cargo, is confirmed by the travaux préparatoires, by the preponderance of the authorities and textbook and academic commentaries. Like the judge I have no hesitation in rejecting the appellant’s construction of Article IV rule 5.” (para 92)

So where does this leave us now?

The Court’s decision again highlights an apparent trend towards higher limits in favour of claimants in the English courts. However, it may not all be doom and gloom for Owners. The decision in the Aqasia is limited the Hague Rules, with the Visby amendment and their clearer SDR/kg limits remaining intact.

Further, Flaux LJ did give owners an out. Referencing Lord Bingham in the Tasman Discoverer [2004] UKPC 22 and Temperley and Vaughan, he advised there was nothing stopping parties incorporating a deeming provision into the body of a charter to give “…Article IV rule 5 and “unit” a different meaning from that they would have had in the absence of the deeming provision.” 

Rate this article:

Submitting your vote...
Rating: 5.0 of 5. 2 vote(s).

About the Author:

Limitation for bulk cargoes: where are we now?

Claims Executive

Amanda joined Thomas Miller as a claims handler in January 2015 from HFW, where she worked in shipping litigation. Prior to this she worked in supply chain management for an international retailer. Amanda has recently joined LS2 from the Club’s People Claims Syndicate and now deals primarily with the German membership.  A  fluent German speaker, Amanda read Law at Sheffield University and Trier University. She is currently studying for the postgraduate diploma in Legal Practice (LPC) and is about to complete the International Group’s P&I Qualification. Amanda is actively involved with the London Shipping community and sits on the Young Maritime Professionals Committee for the London Shipping Law Centre.


Follow us: @UKPandi

Emergency Contacts


If you need to call our offices out of hours and at weekends, click After Office hours for a up to date list of the names of the Duty Executives and their mobile phone numbers. 

Ship Finder


This Ship Finder is updated on a daily basis. Members who need to advise the Club of updates to their recorded ships' details should advise their usual underwriting contact.