CML CMI Database: 80/22.8TNLSB-A.L1-7, 12 September 2023

This was an appeal against a decision of the Lisbon Maritime Court that it lacked international jurisdiction to hear a cargo damage claim against the respondent carrier, CMA CMG SA, and its insurer, because of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Commercial Court of Marseille in the relevant bill of lading, which was transferred to the appellant consignee, Transitos de Extremadura SA. The appellant argued that the jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading did not bind it because it had not signed it. The appellant invoked art 21 of the Hamburg Rules, and arts 30 and 66 of the Rotterdam Rules, to argue that only jurisdiction agreements concluded after litigation were binding on the consignee. The appellant further submitted that, as a third party to the exclusive jurisdiction clause inserted in the bill of lading, the clause could only be enforceable against it if it took over the rights and obligations of the shipper, which it did not.

#nuscml #cmi #database #carriageofgoodsbysea

https://cmlcmidatabase.org/80228tnlsb-al1-7

The CML CMI database of Judicial Decisions on International Conventions aims to make these decisions more accessible to the worldwide maritime community, in the hope that this will foster comparative research and uniformity of interpretation of international maritime law. This project, which is undertaken and hosted by the Centre for Maritime Law of the National University of Singapore in collaboration with the Comité Maritime International, builds on the foundation laid by Francesco Berlingieri in his earlier CMI database of jurisprudence on maritime conventions.

Visit the database at: https://cmlcmidatabase.org/80228tnlsb-al1-7