A cargo of 31 packages of handloom cotton lungies was carried on board the Vishva Pratibha. The cargo was damaged whilst on board the ship and the cargo interests (the plaintiffs) sued the owner of the Vishva Pratibha (the defendant).

At the hearing, the defendant admitted liability for 16 packages of the cargo but claimed that it could rely on art 4.5 of the Hague Rules to limit its liability to GBP 100 per package. The plaintiffs maintained that art 9 of the Hague Rules referred to the 'gold value' of GBP 100. A further issue was raised as to whether the court could give judgment in a currency other than Singapore dollars. 

Held: Defendant's claim to limit its liability to GBP 100 per package allowed.

Article 4.5 of the Hague Rules limits liability to GBP 100 per package or 'the equivalent of that sum in other currency'. The court held that effect must be given to the natural and ordinary meaning of the word 'currency'. Currency means 'money in actual use in a country' and such an interpretation of art 4.5 would mean that GBP 100 did not mean GBP 100 gold value but GBP 100 in currency. Further, gold is not a currency hence it does not arise for consideration in the interpretation of art 4.5. 

The court was also of the view that the reference to gold in art 9 of the Hague Rules was not a practical provision because there was no reference in art 9 as to what a 'gold value' is. Under art 4.5 of the Hague Rules as scheduled to Singapore's Carriage of Goods By Sea Act, the limitation of liability is now fixed at 10,000 francs per package or unit or 30 francs per kilo of gross weight with a franc being defined as a unit consisting of 65.5 milligrammes of gold of millesimal fineness 900. 

As to the issue of whether a court could give judgment in a foreign currency, it was held that provided the proper law of the contract is Singapore law and the 'currency of the contract' is in a foreign currency, justice requires that judgment can be given in that foreign currency, otherwise one side or the other will suffer unfairly by reason of fluctuations in the exchange rates. Since the court could give judgment in foreign currency, there was also no further need to invoke art 9 of the Hague Rules to give effect to the meaning of GBP 100 under art 4.5.