The Green Sand

The Jay Bola

Two recent cases, one English and the other Australian, highlight the need for those acting on behalf of cargo owners bringing suit under bills of lading governed by the Hague Rules to take particular care in the identification of the carrier when commencing proceedings. In The Green Sand 1 the High Court of Australia affirmed a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria upholding the decision of the judge at first instance to refuse to permit cargo owners to correct the name of the carrier after the expiry of the Hague Rules’ time limit where they had proceeded against the shipowner, being unaware that the ship had been demise chartered at the material time. In The Jay Bola,2 Hobhouse, J., refused to permit cargo owners to correct, the name of the shipowners after the expiry of the Hague Rules’ time limit where they had named the former owners of the ship, which had been sold shortly before the voyage in question. In addition, his judgment suggests that it may never be possible to substitute a party after the expiry of the Hague Rules’ time bar.

The material facts of The Green Sand were straightforward. In a cargo claim under bills of lading issued on behalf of the master and to which the Hague Rules applied, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the registered owner of the ship, Grand Shipping, being unaware that the ship was demise chartered at the material time to Rainbow Line. Upon discovering the existence of the demise charter, it having been pleaded in the defence of the registered owner after the expiry of the one-year time limit, the plaintiff sought to correct the name of the defendant by substituting Rainbow Line for Grand Shipping under a rule3 which provided: