The plaintiff bought a second-hand Ford Transit van, a second-hand Ford Escort van, a Ford engine, and some other spare parts from Philip Mizzi, the manager of the Arandale Motor Co in Cheshire, England, for GBP 7,750. The plaintiff instructed the defendant to transport these vehicles and parts from England to Malta, and the defendant accepted this assignment. Despite the fact that the defendant informed the plaintiff on several occasions that they had arrived in Malta, in reality they never did. The defendant made an offer of compensation to the plaintiff, without prejudice, in the amount of GBP 3,712.79, based on the limitation of liability amount, but the plaintiff did not accept this offer.

The defendant contended that it had no legal relationship with the plaintiff, and that it never acted in its own name, but rather on behalf of and as a local agent of Atlantica SpA di Navigazione, an Italian company. Alternatively, the plaintiff's claim was prescribed by the one-year term of art 3.6 of the Hague Rules, appended as the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Ch 140 of the Laws of Malta).

Held: Judgment for the defendant.

Article 3.6 of the Hague Rules, appended as the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Ch 140 of the Laws of Malta) reads as follows:

In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

The goods should have arrived in Malta on 28 November 2003, and the case was presented by the plaintiff on 30 November 2004, two days after the end of the limitation period of a year.

It is a well-established principle in jurisprudence that the twelve-month term referred to in art 3.6 of the Schedule is a peremptory or expiration term. This term of one year established by law is intended to relieve the carrier or its agent of any risk of proceedings, and if the action by the third party is not carried out within the period of twelve months, the action cannot be brought.

The plaintiff filed the present case on 30 November 2004, ie two days after the expiry of the time limit. The plaintiff's claims are prescribed.

[For the unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal, see Sammut v Sullivan Maritime Ltd (CMI1892).]