Your are here: Home >> Decisions

Carriage of Goods by Road

LDS Haulage -v- Denholm International Freight

June 2003

The CMR, which relates to contracts for the international carriage of goods by road, contains a one year limitation period for the commencement of proceedings (unless the case concerns wilful misconduct by the carrier or his agents). However, Article 32.2 of the Convention provides:

"A written claim shall suspend the period of limitation until such date as the carrier rejects the claim by notification in writing and returns the documents attached thereto ..."

There has been considerable debate as to whether this provision requires the carrier to return copy documents which accompanied a written claim in order to terminate any suspension of the time limit. However, in this country at least, there was a lack of any judicial decision on the point since the judgment of Judge Kershaw in Microfine Minerals -v- Transferry Shipping in 1991. The judge then concluded that the Convention should be construed literally - and that the word 'documents' should not be confined to 'original documents'. In his view, the return of any documents that were sent with the claim was a very clear way of expressing rejection of the claim and of avoiding possible disputes about the meaning of the letter which purported to reject the claim.

However, the point fell to be re-considered by Judge Knight on the hearing of a preliminary issue in the Central London Mercantile Court in LDS Haulage -v- Denholm International Freight. The carrier, represented by Waltons & Morse, argued that insistence upon the approach of Judge Kershaw made no sense in the light of present realities and the facilities now available to commercial parties. It was suggested that there could be no possible purpose in requiring a carrier to return copy documents in circumstances where the claimant had retained the originals. (Such a requirement made even less sense, it was said, where the documents in question accompanied a written claim made by fax or e-mail.)

Judge Knight agreed. Supported by various decisions in many continental jurisdictions, he concluded that Article 32.2 of the CMR did not require that all documents accompanying the written claim be returned, whatever their character, in order to lift the suspension of the limitation period. He considered that, provided the letter of rejection was clear and brooked no argument, the return of copy documents served no useful purpose - since, if there was any ambiguity in the letter of rejection, it would not satisfy Article 32.2 regardless of whether the documents had been returned or not.

Having formed a very clear view on the purpose of the Article, the judge considered that cargo interests had no real prospect of success in any appeal (notwithstanding the different conclusion reached in the Microfine Minerals case) - and refused them permission to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.

Return to Decisions