1 / 14

Seafreight Challenges Explored: Legal Aspects of Container Detention

Overview. MISC v VISA decisionInterrelationship of PartiesContainer Release FormConclusion. MISC v VISA. MISC carried containers which it supplied inbound to AustraliaVISA was named as consignee" in MISC ocean documentsVISA had issued house documents naming its customers as consignee"VISA'

nitesh
Download Presentation

Seafreight Challenges Explored: Legal Aspects of Container Detention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Seafreight Challenges Explored: Legal Aspects of Container Detention Peter McQueen, Partner, Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers

    2. Overview MISC v VISA decision Interrelationship of Parties Container Release Form Conclusion

    3. MISC v VISA MISC carried containers which it supplied inbound to Australia VISA was named as “consignee” in MISC ocean documents VISA had issued house documents naming its customers as “consignee” VISA’s customers unpacked containers at their own premises

    4. MISC v VISA Cl. 13(4) of MISC ocean document states: “If the Containers supplied by... the Carrier are unpacked at the Merchant’s premises, the Merchant is responsible for returning the empty Containers... within the time prescribed. Should a container not be returned within the prescribed time, the Merchants shall be liable for any demurrage, loss or expense which may arise from such non-return.”

    5. MISC v VISA Cl. 1 of the MISC ocean document states: “’Merchant’ includes the Shipper, Holder, Consignee, Receiver of the Goods, any person owning or entitled to possession of the Goods or of this Bill of Lading and anyone acting on behalf of such person.”

    6. MISC v VISA Containers were not returned to MISC within prescribed time and container demurrage accrued MISC commenced Court proceedings to recover VISA denied that it was liable to pay demurrage, arguing that as containers were not unpacked by it, it was not responsible for demurrage

    7. MISC v VISA MISC argued that, as VISA fell within definition of “Merchant”, VISA was liable for demurrage, notwithstanding fact that containers were not unpacked at its premises

    8. MISC v VISA MISC argued that use of “Merchants” in second sentence meant that anyone who fell within definition of “Merchant” is liable to pay demurrage The Court found in favour of VISA stating that “Merchants” refers only to merchant at whose premises container is unpacked

    9. Interrelationship of Parties

    10. Container Release Form AFIF has developed a Container Release Form to be used to promote discussion Container Release Form will create a contractual obligation upon ultimate consignee to shipping line to pay container detention charges to shipping line

    11. Container Release Form

    14. Conclusion Check container detention provisions in: contracts of shipping lines contracts of principal forwarders own conditions of trading Consider practicality and effectiveness of introduction of Container Release Form

    15. Seafreight Challenges Explored: Legal Aspects of Container Detention Peter McQueen, Partner, Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers

More Related