\n<\/p>\n
In The Alion<\/a> (Tanga Pharmaceuticals Plastics Limited and others v Emirates Shipping Line FZE<\/em>\u00a0[2025] EWHC 368 (Comm), the High Court of Justice examined whether a group of cargo interests brought their claims too late after their goods were carried aboard the MV Alion. <\/em>At the heart of the dispute was the clash between standard industry protections under the Hague Rules and additional time-limiting clauses found in the bills of lading issued by Emirates Shipping Line.<\/p>\n The outcome hinged on whether the standard one-year limitation period was displaced by more restrictive provisions added contractually. The Commercial Court rejected an attempt by a carrier to rely on contractual terms imposing a shorter time-bar than Article III.6 of the Hague Rules.<\/p>\n In September 2021, 548 containers were loaded aboard the MV Alion <\/em>for shipment to Mombasa, Kenya, under identical Bills of Lading<\/a> governed by English law and jurisdiction. Emirates Shipping Line acted as the contractual carrier, having chartered the vessel under a time charter. Partway through the journey, the vessel experienced engine failure in the Arabian Sea.<\/p>\n This led to salvage efforts being carried out under a Lloyd\u2019s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement, followed by the declaration of general average. The cargo eventually reached Mombasa in December 2021, where it was released after appropriate security was posted.<\/p>\n Settlements with the salvors were finalised in mid-2022. A few months later, the cargo interests informed the carrier of their intent to seek compensation for amounts paid during the salvage settlement, as well as for some particular average losses. The Defendant agreed to two extensions, first until March 2023 and then to June 2023, on the condition that the claims weren\u2019t already time-barred. The claim form was issued on 16 June 2023.<\/p>\n The carrier\u2019s case rested on two specific provisions found in Clause 18 of the Bills of Lading:<\/p>\n On the other hand, the cargo interests relied on Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules<\/a>, which provides a one-year time limit from delivery for legal claims. More importantly, Article III Rule 8 nullifies any contractual clause that reduces the carrier\u2019s liability or shortens the time allowed to bring a claim. The central legal question became: which set of rules controlled, Clause 18 or, the Hague Rules as incorporated by Clause 2, also known as the \u201cClause Paramount\u201d?<\/p>\n The court ultimately sided with the cargo interests, rejecting the Defendant\u2019s application for summary judgment. It held that the Bills of Lading were governed by the Hague Rules as incorporated, and that any attempts to contractually reduce the limitation period or impose extra requirements, such as early notice or service, were void and unenforceable. The cargo interests\u2019 case was therefore allowed to proceed. This case once again emphasises the importance of using clear wording in contracts.<\/p>\n Discover more about our specialised services for the\u00a0shipping and logistics sector<\/a>, or reach out to us at\u00a0online.enquiries@LA-law.com<\/a>\u00a0for expert guidance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nBackground <\/strong><\/h2>\n
The Legal Conflict<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
The Court\u2019s Analysis and Reasoning<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Need advice?<\/h2>\n