A chink (or two) in the bill of lading plaintiff's jurisdictional armour? Good news for Australian maritime arbitration?
Article Abstract:
Two Australian court decisions, Hi-Fert Pty. v. Kiukiang Maritime Carriers, Inc. and Akai Pty. v. People's Insurance Co., have left in doubt whether plaintiffs can show reason to maintain a court challenge regarding a bill of lading if the bill includes a foreign arbitration clause. The courts in these cases have interpreted section 11 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 to mean arbitration clauses must stand unless 'strong reason' can be shown. This may cause future bills of lading to be written with arbitration clauses requiring arbitration to be in Australia and thus negate section 11.
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The New Act, old bills of lading and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: an interesting mix
Article Abstract:
Many bills of lading for carriage into and out of Australian ports contain a statement of the Hague Rules as part of the old Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924 which would seem meaningless given that the Hague-Visby Rules have the force of law since enactment of the new Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991. However, a conflict arises since the US uses a version of the law which requires the unamended Hague Rules as part of the bills of lading for sea-carriage into and out of American ports. The two sets of rules require different levels of liability insurance on the part of the carrier.
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
What obligations does a shipowner take over from a defaulting time charterer under charterers' bills of lading?
Article Abstract:
New South Wales courts have given differing opinions on the obligations of shipowners when withdrawing ships from time charterers in default. The Supreme Court held all obligations to bills of lading in J. Gadsden Pty v. Strider 1 Ltd (The AES Express). However, the Court of Appeal has questioned this when damage occurs, in the unreported decision of Quadro Shipping N.V. v. Bizley & Co (The Protea Trader).
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Hegemonic international law. Traditional and modern approaches to customary international law: a reconciliation
- Abstracts: New strategy in battering cases: about a third of jurisdictions prosecute even without victim's testimony. Jury deadlocks in Oswald mock trial; verdict based on "testimony" of actor-witnesses elicited by real-life lawyers
- Abstracts: New Congress plots legal reform legislation. Hurdles higher for P.C. shareholders
- Abstracts: Presidential policies and the law. Withholding consent: Senate judiciary chair says he won't approve activist judges
- Abstracts: Long after the price is forgotten; quality is what lingers in clients' minds. You want it when? Timely service keeps clients coming back