Australasian United Steam Navigation Company Limited v Hiskens

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a dispute between Australasian United Steam Navigation Company Limited (the appellant shipowner) and Hiskens (the respondent consignee). The respondent claimed damages for the loss of a pocket of horsehair, which was part of a consignment shipped from Brisbane to Melbourne under a bill of lading. The shipowner sought to rely on clauses within the bill of lading to limit or extinguish its liability for the loss.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: firstly, whether a clause in the bill of lading stating that "all liability of the Company to cease as soon as the goods are free from the ship's tackles" was rendered void by section 5 of the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1904; and secondly, whether a further clause limiting the shipowner's liability to £10 per package was also invalidated by the same section. The respondent argued that these clauses improperly relieved the shipowner from its obligations regarding the proper delivery of goods, which were protected by the Act.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Griffith C.J., Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ., held that the cesser clause did not contravene section 5 of the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1904. They reasoned that the clause did not purport to relieve the shipowner from liability for negligence or failure in the proper delivery of goods, nor did it lessen the obligations of the ship's personnel to deliver the goods properly. Instead, it stipulated a point in time after which the shipowner's liability ceased, provided the goods were free from the ship's tackles. The Court found that the goods had been landed on the wharf and were free from the ship's tackles, and as there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the shipowner, the cesser clause operated to discharge the shipowner from liability. The majority also found that the limitation of liability to £10 per package under clause 14 of the bill of lading was not within the scope of section 5 of the Act. Isaacs and Powers JJ. dissented, taking the view that the clauses did indeed contravene the Act.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment entered for the respondent was set aside, with judgment to be entered for the appellant shipowner.