Interpreting the Intentions of Contracting Parties: Tritton Resources Pty Ltd v Ever Rock Navigation S.A. [2019] FCA 276

Sophie Priebbenow


There were five core issues in contention in Tritton Resources Pty Ltd v Ever Rock Navigation S.A. Of these, the issue that the Court considered in the greatest depth was whether, on an objective reading of the evidence and the conduct of the parties, extensions of the limitation period under Article 3(6) of the Amended Hague-Visby Rules (the Rules) applied to all plaintiffs. The Rules are set out in Schedule 1A of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth). The answer to this question connected with the inquiry as to which parties, if all were within time, still retained title to sue. The grounds on which the various plaintiffs could or could not claim turned on other considerations, focusing especially on the rights of successive holders of bills of lading and the impact of transferring a bill of lading (BOL) on the original holder’s right to sue for loss and damage to cargo.


salvage; general average; pure economic loss; grounding; subrogation; marine insurance; carriage of goods; time bar; successive holders of bills of lading; limitation of actions

Full Text: