The Eems Solar 1 concerned a claim by a bill of lading holder against a shipowner in respect of damage to cargo caused by bad stowage,2 for which, under terms of the charterparty incorporated into the bills of lading, the shipowners were not responsible. The cargo-owner was unsuccessful in an argument that such terms were rendered void by Art.III r.8 of the Hague Rules, which were incorporated into the carriage contract by clause paramount. The case is a refinement and extension of principles established by the House of Lords in Court Line Ltd v Canadian Transport Ltd 3 and The Jordan II,4 principles which arguably undermine, at least in part, the purpose of the Hague Rules.

A significant proportion of the judgment was devoted to determining the facts, and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. The cargo-owner argued that the vessel was improperly equipped to preserve the cargo from damage, in that she carried insufficient lashings, and that the crew had failed to inspect and relash the cargo on the voyage. This would presumably have involved breaches respectively of the Hague Rules, Art.III rr1 and 25 but (crucially) would have been unaffected by any clause shifting responsibility for stowage away from the shipowners. Jervis Kay QC, the Admiralty Registrar, rejected this argument, principally because it would have been difficult or impossible for a crew to relash the cargo at sea.6 He found instead that the sheets had not initially been properly