In January 2002, the plaintiff bought drums of zoom and kerosene to be shipped to Ihu, Gulf Province. The plaintiff arranged with the defendant company to ship his goods. After Mobil delivered them to the wharf, the plaintiff paid for shipment to Ihu. A bill of lading was issued. Upon delivery at Ihu, one drum of zoom was not received and was recorded as lost. On his second trip to Port Moresby in May 2002, the plaintiff again bought zoom and kerosene. As usual he paid the freight and a bill of lading was issued for the goods. After shipment, three drums of zoom were not found and were recorded as lost.

The plaintiff requested replacement of the missing four drums of zoom by the defendant. The defendant refused but offered the plaintiff a credit of PGK 1,007.70 for future shipment of goods. The plaintiff refused the offer and commenced proceedings.

Held: Case dismissed.

The parties entered into a contract of carriage of goods which is contained in the standard bill of lading. The plaintiff was happy with the bill of lading and did not see anything wrong with it. The plaintiff agrees that the goods were not lost on the ship itself, but were lost before loading or after discharge from the ship. Clause 6 of the bill of lading expressly limits the liability of the defendant to losses incurred during the period of time the goods are on the ship itself.

The relevant law is the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1951. Schedule 1 of the Act defines the phrase 'carriage of goods' to cover the period of time when the goods are loaded to the time they are discharged from the ship. It also stipulates that a bill of lading is a contract of carriage. In Finch v Seafreight Pty Ltd [1976] PNGLR 440 (CMI1478), the Court held that the defendant failed to prove that the goods were lost before loading and after discharge, and because default judgement had been entered, the defendant could not seek to limit its liability by relying on an exclusion/exemption clause in the bill of lading.

In this case, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the loss of his goods occurred during the time they were loaded onto the ship to the time they were discharged at Ihu. In these circumstances, the defendant’s liability was excluded by cl 6 of the bill of lading.