<center><span class="news-text_medium">Court:</span> Court of Appeal (Civil Division)</center>
<center><span class="news-text_medium">Judgment Date:</span> 4 September 2026</center>
In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA [2026] EWCA Civ 1158</span>, the owners of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Taikoo Brilliance</span> carried a cargo of New Zealand pine logs to India under bills of lading providing for London arbitration. Two bills stated the number of pieces carried on deck, but did not identify which pieces they were. The cargo was discharged in September 2019 without production of the bills, against a letter of indemnity. The bill holders alleged misdelivery.
Within a year, the holders began proceedings in Singapore to arrest a sister ship and obtain security. Those proceedings were stayed in favour of arbitration. The holders did not commence the London arbitration until December 2020, more than a year after the alleged misdelivery. The dispute therefore turned on whether the Singapore proceedings had preserved their claim under the Hague–Visby Rules’ one-year time bar and whether the cargo carried on deck fell outside those Rules.
Under Article III rule 6, the carrier and ship are discharged from liability in respect of the goods unless “suit” is brought within one year of delivery or the date when delivery should have occurred. The Court of Appeal held that “suit” means substantive proceedings capable of determining the carrier’s liability. Although the holders had pleaded their underlying claim to obtain the arrest in Singapore, they could not pursue its merits there consistently with the London arbitration agreement. For this purpose, the Singapore proceedings were therefore proceedings for security alone.
The court considered that Article III rule 6 requires more than notice that a claim may follow: it is intended to secure the prompt pursuit of the substantive claim. Allowing security proceedings alone to satisfy the rule could leave the holder free to begin the liability proceedings much later. The holders’ appeal on this issue was dismissed.
Article I(c) excludes cargo from the Hague–Visby Rules where the contract of carriage states that it is carried on deck and it is carried there. Excluded cargo is not subject to the Rules’ one-year time bar. The question was whether stating the number of logs carried on deck, without identifying which logs they were, met that requirement.
The Court of Appeal held that it did not. The pieces of timber varied significantly in weight and value. A statement that an unidentified portion of such a cargo was on deck could not establish which items were subject to the Rules and which were not. Specific identification, such as by parcel or serial number, was needed so that shippers and subsequent bill holders could assess the risks and arrange insurance.
The court left open what level of identification would be required for homogeneous cargo, or cargo whose constituent items did not differ in value. The owners’ appeal was accordingly allowed. All parts of the cargo remained within the Hague–Visby Rules and the one-year time bar applied to the holders’ entire claim.
Obtaining security in one forum should not be assumed to preserve a cargo claim subject to a London arbitration clause: substantive proceedings must be commenced within the applicable time limit. Where a carrier intends to exclude only part of a mixed or varying-value cargo as deck cargo, the bill of lading must identify that part, not merely state its quantity.
