Rockwell Graphic Systems Limited v Fremantle Terminals Limited

The applicant, Rockwell Graphic Systems Limited, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision concerning Fremantle Terminals Limited. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Fremantle Terminals Limited, as a stevedore, could rely on the exemptions contained within a bill of lading after the goods had been discharged from the vessel and the carrier's obligations had ceased.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent stevedore was entitled to the benefits of the bill of lading's exemptions after the goods had been discharged and the carrier's obligations had ended. This question was framed as a matter of construction of the bill of lading, specifically whether the discharge of goods from the vessel constituted delivery for the purposes of the bill of lading, or if the carrier's obligations persisted beyond the point of discharge.

The respondent argued that the bill of lading clearly distinguished between discharge and delivery, unlike the bill of lading considered in *New York Star*, where discharge and delivery were found to be contemporaneous. The respondent relied on clause 17(4) of the bill of lading, which stipulated that if the merchant did not take delivery when and where the carrier was entitled to call upon them to do so, the carrier could store the goods. Crucially, the clause stated that such storage would constitute due delivery, and the carrier's liability would cease. The respondent contended that this provision clearly separated the act of discharge from the act of delivery, distinguishing the present case from *New York Star* and supporting the conclusion of the court below. The respondent also referred to *Nissho Iwai* to support its interpretation of delivery provisions in bills of lading.