The shipper’s container, which contained calcium hypochlorite, had been loaded on the carrier’s vessel, the MV Recife. During the voyage, the container exploded and resulted in a fire. The fire and explosion caused damage to the vessel and several other containers stowed nearby. The carrier brought an action against the shipper for the damage arising from the fire. In the first instance, the shipper alleged that the explosion was caused by the neighbouring cargo or the heat of the sun; the carrier claimed that the explosion and fire was caused by a contaminant or defect of the cargo. The first instance court held that, should the reason advanced by the shipper be rejected, the carrier’s argument must be accepted. Accordingly, the first instance judge held that the carrier had discharged the burden of proving that the fire was caused by the defective or contaminated state of the calcium hypochlorite or its improper stowage in the container. Furthermore, the first instance court held that, because of the defective or contaminated state of the calcium hypochlorite or its improper stowage, it could not be alleged that the master or carrier had consented to the shipment of calcium hypochlorite (see CMI537).

The shipper appealed.

Held: Appeal allowed.

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the contract of carriage evidenced by the bill of lading was governed by the Hague-Visby Rules. The material provision of the Rules which relates to the present case is art 4.6. The calcium hypochlorite in tablet form constituted 'goods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature' within the meaning of art 4.6 and the carrier had knowledge of the nature of the goods when the container was loaded aboard its ship. The nature and properties of calcium hypochlorite mean that it is capable of self-heating to the extent of causing explosion and fire.

After a close examination of the experts’ evidence from both parties, Scott JA held that the explosion and fire could not be caused solely by reason of a defective ingredient or contaminant or improper stowage and the respondent carrier had failed to prove this. Therefore, the respondent had failed to establish that the shipment of the goods was without the consent of ‘the carrier, master or agent’ within the meaning of art 4.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules.