This case involved four claims brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for damage allegedly caused by the defendants' vessels in collisions with the plaintiff's vessels. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

Held: Judgment for the defendants.

From the statements of claim, it is clear that there was a prolonged negotiation for amicable settlement between the parties. By the end of 1977, the plaintiff failed to get any firm assurance from the defendants that the claims would be settled amicably. There had been never any binding agreement between the parties to waive the time limit. There was a bank guarantee that was allowed to expire after 24 March 1978. For the plaintiff, no attempt has been made to make out a case of waiver or estoppel. There were no convincing reasons for the plaintiff to carry on a futile exercise in epistolary persuasion and exhortation. The plaintiff has not made any attempt to explain the delay in coming to this Court. The plaintiff has also not made any application to grant an extension of time beyond the two years.

In view of the above, all four claims are barred under s 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 [which gives effect to art 7 of the Collision Convention 1910 in Bangladesh].

[For the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court (Appellate Division) see Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corp v Seres Shipping Inc (CMI843).]