Great China Metal Industries Co Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corporation Berhad

Great China Metal Industries Co Ltd (the cargo owner) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Court of Appeal had upheld a decision of the Supreme Court, Admiralty Division, which entered a verdict for Malaysian International Shipping Corporation Berhad (the carrier) in an action brought by the cargo owner for damages. The cargo owner sought compensation for damage sustained to a shipment of aluminium coils during carriage from Sydney to Keelung.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the carrier could rely on the immunity from liability provided by Article IV Rule 2(c) of the Hague Rules, which exempts carriers from liability for damage "arising or resulting from... perils, dangers and accidents of the sea". The cargo owner contended that this defence was inapplicable because the severe weather conditions encountered during the voyage were foreseeable and could have been guarded against by the carrier. The Hague Rules, incorporated into the bills of lading and by operation of the *Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924* (Cth), govern the responsibilities and immunities of carriers in international sea carriage.

The High Court considered the meaning and application of the "perils of the sea" defence. It reasoned that the foreseeability of a peril, while relevant, is not determinative of whether the defence applies. The foreseeability of the peril and the possibility of guarding against its consequences are factors to be considered in determining if the damage truly arose from the perils of the sea. However, the mere foreseeability of a peril does not, in itself, preclude a carrier from relying on this exemption. In this case, the damage was found to have resulted from the severe weather conditions encountered in the Great Australian Bight, which were characterised as a "violent storm" with significant wave action and rolling of the vessel.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The appeal was dismissed with costs.