Iran Insurance Joint-stock Co claimed that the decisions of Chambers 13 and 18 of the Supreme Court were different from, and incoherent with, the decision of Chamber 17 on the same subject, and requested the issue to be raised in the General Board of the Supreme Court under the Unity of Procedure Act 1949. The relevant cases were as follows:

1. Chamber 18

Iran Insurance Joint-stock Co brought a subrogated action against Sherkat Tazamoni-e Doraghi, claiming IRR 1,548,156 for short delivery. It invoked art 41 of the By-Law of the Customs Affairs Act and art 54.6 of the Maritime Code [based on art 3.6 of the Hague Rules].

The first instance Court held that according to the bill of lading and the evidence, the defendant was not the carrier, but rather was in charge of the carrier's agency. In its submission, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant was an agent. Under the provisions of the Commercial Code, the carrier has the direct liability to compensate the cargo owner, and referring to an agent that has not concluded a contract with the cargo owner is legally baseless.

Article 41 of the By-Law of the Customs Affairs Act sets out the responsibilities of the owner or captain of a ship in terms of submission of declaration and manifest and delivery of cargo, and the like. It is possible that the shipping agency performs these responsibilities, in which case its responsibilities would be restricted to those of the owner or captain of the ship. As the owner or captain of a ship does not have a liability for short delivery, an agent a fortiori does not have a liability to the cargo owner. Article 54.6 of the Maritime Code [based on art 3.6 of the Hague Rules] relates to the time of removal of the cargo and delivery to its owner, and does not entail liability on the part of the agent to pay damages.

By a decision dated 11 January 1984, Chamber 18 of the Supreme Court of Iran affirmed the judgment of the first instance Court.

2. Chamber 13

Iran Insurance Joint-stock Co brought a subrogated action against See Man Pak LLC, claiming IRR 389,609.60 for cargo damage. The defendant owned the vessel Pishtaz, which carried the cargo from Houston, USA, to Khorramshahr, Iran.

The first instance Court held that the bill of lading indicated that Iran Express Shipping Lines, based in Houston, was the carrier. The defendant was merely the carrier's agent in Iran and was not liable for the damage sustained by the insured or the insurer. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

By a decision dated 10 January 1984, Chamber 13 of the Supreme Court of Iran affirmed the judgment of the first instance Court.

3. Chamber 17

Iran Insurance Joint-stock Co brought a subrogated action against Spanship SA, claiming IRR 370,143 for short delivery. The cargo was carried by the vessel Malayokorj, from Kuwait to Bandar Abbas, Iran, under a bill of lading. The defendant was the agent of the owner of this vessel in Iran.

The defendant, relying on the provisions of the By-Law of the Customs Affairs Act, especially arts 36-40, argued that it was an agent and had no liability with respect to cargo that was not delivered to it. The plaintiff should claim damages from the carrier who received the cargo. Furthermore, matters that were the responsibilities of the port administrations or the shipping agent on behalf of the carrier, including dispatching talliers and signing the short delivery report, were not performed correctly.

The first instance Court held that considering arts 28 and 41 of the By-Law of the Customs Affairs Act, the defendant was liable to compensate the damage incurred.

By a decision dated 30 January 1984, Chamber 17 of the Supreme Court of Iran affirmed the judgment of the first instance Court.

Held: The decisions of Chambers 13 and 18 are approved.

According to arts 386 and 387 of the Commercial Code, the carrier is liable for any loss or damage to the cargo or resulting from a delay in delivery, except in certain excluded cases. Therefore, hearing a claim for damages paid to the cargo owner, in subrogation of its insured, against a commercial agent is not authorised unless it is proved that the commercial agent had authorities and obligations making it liable. The decisions of Chambers 13 and 18 comply with the relevant laws and regulations.

Under the Unity of Procedure Act 1949, this Unity of Procedure Judgment issued by the General Board of the Supreme Court is binding on all chambers of the Supreme Court.