Waisali Farm Produce Ltd (Waisali Farm), an exporter of dalo (taro), handed over a container of dalo to William & Goslings Ltd (W&G Ltd) for delivery in the USA to the consignee, Montalven Sale Inc. The correct temperature (8 deg Celcius) was not maintained during carriage, which resulted in the vegetables becoming unusable. Waisali Farm brought an action against W&G Ltd in contract and tort, claiming damages.

W&G Ltd applied to strike out Waisali Farm’s claim on the basis that W&G Ltd was the agent of Maersk Line (and not an agent of Waisali Farm), and this was disclosed to Waisali Farm in the waybill.  Further, once the carrier, Maersk Line, accepted liability and reached a settlement with the consignee, culminating in the signing of a wide release, Waisali Farm was estopped from pursuing a claim against W&G Ltd.

At first instance, the magistrate accepted W&G’s position, and struck out Waisali Farm’s claim. Waisali Farm appealed.

Held: Waisali Farm’s appeal would be dismissed.

The court found as a matter of fact that after the container was packed (and handed over to W&G Ltd), W&G Ltd provided Waisali Farm with a waybill which firstly, evidenced receipt and acceptance of the goods for shipment, and secondly, contained the terms of the contract between Waisali Farm, as shipper, and Maersk Line, as carrier.

The court also found that W&G Ltd was the agent of Maersk Line as carrier (not the agent of Waisali Farm), and this was disclosed to Waisali Farm at the time the contract of carriage was made (when the waybill was handed over). Following English law on agency, the court accepted that, where an agent making a contract discloses both the existence and the name of a principal on whose behalf the agent purports to make the contract, the agent is not, as a general rule, liable on the contract to the other contracting party, whether there was in fact authority to make the contract or not. The court thus held that as Waisali Farm, as shipper, was aware of the principal (Maersk Line) of the agent (W&G Ltd), Waisali Farm could not maintain its claim against W&G Ltd.     

Alternatively, the court also found that the Hague-Visby Rules applied to the carriage of the goods out of Fiji in this case (by s 2 of the Fiji Sea Carriage of Goods Act), and that art 3.1.c of the Hague-Visby Rules (and relevant factual findings) made clear that it was the carrier who was liable for the failure to maintain the required temperature. The court held that, taking into consideration the provisions of the Hague Visby Rules, the Fiji Sea Carriage of Goods Act and relevant case law, it was the buyer/consignee who was entitled to bring a claim against the carrier in this case, for damage caused by reason of the required temperature not being maintained during carriage. The inference being that suit should not have been brought by Waisali Farm against W&G Ltd.

In addition, as things turned out, the consignee, Montalven Sale Inc, brought a claim against the carrier, Maersk Line, in the USA. A settlement was reached, and the carrier paid the consignee USD 18,070.62, in exchange for a signed release. USD 11,267.89 of the settlement sum was on paid to Waisali Farm. 

The release which the consignee signed provided that it irrevocably and without qualification released Maersk Line and 'all of the aforementioned entities’ … agents, representatives … from any and all claims of whatever nature … arising out of or related to the shipment identified/described above'. It further provided that the 'Releaser warrants that he is entitled to enforce the aforesaid claim and warrants that all rights of the releaser are hereby intended to be and are subrogated to the Releasees'. The court accordingly held that Waisali was not entitled to maintain a claim in contract and/or tort for damages against W&G Ltd, as the latter was the agent of Maersk Line, and was released when the consignee released Maersk Line. Waisali Farm would be estopped from claiming damages from W&G Ltd for loss of the goods, as the dispute between the parties had been fully settled.

For all the above reasons, the appeal was dismissed.