Question PACTS CM 12 March 2016, a company in Tasmania, Backyard Poultry, agreed to sell frown chicken to Kai Bo Supermarket in Hong Kong al a CIF price of AUS25,000 in total. Backyard Poultry aminged...

Australian Maritime Law
Running Header: Australian Maritime law
Title: Australian Maritime Law
Presented By:
Presented To:
Date: 17/6/2017
1) Case Background
Backyard Poultry is a company in Tasmania, agreed to sell the frozen chicken to supermarket in Hong Kong. The CIF price is AU$25,000 in total. ABC Line limited is the a
anged to shipment the frozen chicken on board using the ship Grand Tasmania. Totally, there are three bills of lading with date 14 march 2016 by the master of the Grand Tasmania to Backyard Poultry. Unfortunately the bills of lading did not a
ive in Hong Kong in time for the frozen chicken. They a
ived in Hong Kong on 31st March 2016. Kai Bo Supermarket asked ABC Line limited to release these frozen chicken to it on urgent basis. It has commitment to deliver the frozen chicken to its buyer in the people’s republic of China through a separate sale and purchase agreement process. Finally the frozen chicken a
ived at the depot owned by Kai Bo supermarket on 3 April 2016. The chicken a
ived is found to be in damaged condition.
Liabiilty of the ABC Lined Ltd:
The condition and the evaluation indicated by survey that it has happened during the voyage from Tasmania to Hong Kong. The problem is that one of the containers was left unplugged and the refrigerator did not operate well. Well this is the case and in accordance with the bills of lading and the contained clause 2 of the ‘General Paramount clauses’ as issued by the master of the Grand Tasmania to the Backyard Poultry there is need to follow the Hague Rules. In accordance with Hague rules that the shipper need to actually provide the loss equivalent to the amount of the damage occu
ed in the voyage. However he can prove that the ship is not sea worthy and can transfer the liability to the ca
ier. Ca
ier also has privileges to avoid the compesationary burdens, if can prove that the cargo handling is done with proper care during the voyage and the problem is only due to some other reason beyond the responsibilities of the ca
ier. The cu
ent case is quite clear and there is very clear indication of the liability of the ABC Lined Limited. As per the survey conducted by ABC shipping lines limited and the Kai Bo Supermarket personnel, it is found that one of the container remained unplugged and this is cause of the failure of the refrigeration and hence is obvious reason for the failure of the frozen chicken. There is need for the ABC Lined limited to has to take up the responsibility in this direction(Tanaka,2015). There is clear indication as per the Hague rules that the ca
ier need to show all the due diligence and the vessel should be manned in proper manner. The basic due diligence to keep the refrigerator on for the perishable frozen goods like chicken is quite mandatory and hence it is an clear case that the ABC shipping lines limited failed to show its due diligence and hence is responsible for the damage. It is potentially responsible for the damages. Infact the company agreed for the case in accordance with the bill of laden clause 2(White, 2014).
Kai-Bio supermarket entitlement to sue:
In accordance with the rights and the privileges of the consignee, as per the Hague rules and the Hague Visbly rules, the consignee along with the ca
ier have conducted joint verification of the shipment and the goods. It is completely legitimate and the consignee has right to verify the goods in collaboration with the ca
ier, ABC lines pvt Ltd. Further the root cause of the damage is found to be the negligence or improper handling of the ca
ier staff, they did not actually kept the container doors plugged and hence there is no refrigerator functioning in one of the two containers on the vessel. So it is clear case of failure of keeping up the due diligence by the ca
ier. So in accordance with the privileges the consignee is entitled as per the Hague regulations, the supermarket came forward to keep the notice. The supermarket has right for entitlement and they can sue the concerned parties for the damage of the goods. Ca
ier is responsible for the damages incu
ed in accordance with the Hague regulations handed as per the Bill of Ladings and so the company is legally bounded to pay off the damages occu
ed during the voyage.
2) Damages for the wrongful a
est of the ships in English Admiralty jurisdiction – Application in the Australian context – Reference to the ALRC interventions
The a
est of the ships is an internationally seen feature and this quite commonly seen incident in the maritime attorney domains. Infact it is highly related with the maritime commercial interests. Based on the possible huge commercial losses that can incur during the process of the a
est and in its aftermath, there generally will be large responsibility associated with the a
estors that it is worth of a
est and the remedy of the a
est will forfeit the possible misconduct and supports the security of their claims. In accordance with the Admiralty act 1988(the act) provides certain maritime claimants entitlements for taking the ships into control (a
est); the chief intention of the same is to get security for their claims. In accordance to the rules, there is no scope for the argument during the a
est of the ships. There is possibility that the ship-owners may suffer with considerable financial losses during the ship a
est process. Generally the ship owners will be under great pressure of financial losses and if there is any delay in the ship sailing schedule, it will result in considerable financial loss to the organization. The cause of action for the wrongful a
est lies within the English Traditional maritime procedure, but the test harshness made the ship-owners to rarely pursue the same. ALRC (Australian Law Reform commission) for inquiry, review and report proposed the ALRC 86 report in accordance with the critical analysis of the consequences of the damages for the wrongful ship a
ests. According to so called “Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction” (the ALRC report), the conventional test in admiralty for collection of the damages for wrong a
est and subsequent provision for providing a cause of action for such damages be included in the legislation of the Admiralty. Australian legislations intension in framing these regulations is to make the law less onerous for ship owners and by doing so, it is expected to make successful claims (Davies & Dickey, 2016).
In accordance with the law there is emphasis on the unreasonable and without good cause type of proceeding under this act (Rothwell, 2016). Alternatively...