The Taikoo Brilliance

The Court had to consider if arrest proceedings for obtaining security were a “suit” that had interrupted the HVR 12-month time bar, or whether it was necessary for the “suit” to deal with the substantive claims. The Court decided as a matter of construction of the HVR, “suit” required the commencement of substantive proceedings within the 12-month time bar.  This is a welcomed clarification and serves as a useful reminder of the importance of ensuring that proceedings are properly commenced within applicable time limits. 

As to the deck cargo point and what had to be “stated” on the bill of lading, Owners stated that it was not good enough that the “quantity of the cargo” was stated, but also the “precise parcels” carried should also have been clearly marked on the bills of lading. Charterers said a more practical approach was needed. In this case the bills of lading only mentioned the quantity of cargo carried, but the Judge found in this instance that that was sufficient to ascertain the amount and the value of the cargo (which was relevant for the purposes of the misdelivery claim). The adequacy of the shipped on deck statement will involve a factual enquiry that ultimately has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Those who issue the bills of lading should ensure they use clear wording to identify the cargo shipped on deck and this will involve taking into consideration the type of cargo carried, the number of receivers under the bills, etc.  

Fanos Theophani, Tim Guyer and Amy Stafford from Preston Turnbull acted for the holders of the bills of lading and were instructed by Oon & Bazul (Prakaash Silvam, Bazul Ashhab and Tan Yu Hang).

A link to the judgment can be found here: Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA (Re The Taikoo Brilliance) [2025] EWHC 1878 (Comm) (22 July 2025)