The plaintiff was the insurer of cargo loaded on board the defendant’s vessel, the MOL Comfort. ​The vessel sank in the Indian Ocean due to a fracture in the ship. The plaintiff insurer sued the defendant carrier for the cargo loss. Amongst other defences, the defendant claimed that, according to the choice of law clause on the reverse side of the bill of lading, the applicable law was Japanese law, which adopts the Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: The choice of law clause is null and void.

For a choice of law clause on the reverse side of the bill of lading to be valid, the said clause must be written or printed in a large size font. The format of the choice of law clause must be different from other standard terms. In addition, the choice of law clause must be highlighted to draw it to the other party’s attention.

In the absence of aforementioned formats the choice of law clause would be null and void. The case would be governed instead by Chinese law.