TICC v. Cosco

Home ] Up ]

DMC/S&T/32/01
TICC Limited v. COSCO (UK) Ltd.

English Court of Appeal: Ward, Kay and Rix LJJ: 5 December 2001 
Christopher Smith instructed by James Chan & Co for Cosco UK
Samuel Jarman instructed by Sanders Witherspoon for TICC
BILLS OF LADING: CONSIGNEES: SHIPPING LINES: FREIGHT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN LINES’ UK AGENTS AND CONSIGNEES IN UK: FREIGHT COLLECT BsL: ASSURANCES FROM UK AGENTS: FREIGHT SURCHARGE ANNOUNCED BY CIRCULAR IN HONG KONG TO SHIPPERS: WHETHER INCORPORATED IN BsL: SHIPPERS NOT CONSIGNEES’ AGENTS: NOTICE NOT EFFECTIVE TO BIND CONSIGNEES
Case Note based on an Article in the December 2001 Edition of the ‘Bulletin’, published by the Marine and Insurance teams at the international firm of lawyers, DLA

Summary
In this case, a shipping line tried to recover from its UK customer certain freight surcharges, notice of which had been given by its Hong Kong office to ‘all shippers’. The notice had been received by the shippers under the relevant bills but not by the UK customer itself. Further, there was a course of dealing whereby the UK customer negotiated the freights (which were on a freight collect basis) directly with the Line’s UK agents, who had assured the customer that, if a surcharge were introduced, they would give the customer notice of it. This did not happen. The court found that the UK customer was not bound by the notice issued in Hong Kong. It had not received specific notice of the surcharge and the shippers (who had) were not its agents.

u u u u u

Facts 
The defendant, COSCO (UK) Limited, was UK agent for the carrier COSCO Container Lines. The claimant, TICC, was the English consignee of goods shipped on various COSCO vessels in September and October 1998 under bills of lading which named either Cycle Container Lines Limited or IFB International Freightbridge Limited as shippers. In every case TICC was named as consignee.

The bills of lading were marked "freight collect" and the practice was for COSCO (UK) to negotiate the applicable freight rates directly with (and in due course collect the freight from) TICC. The bills all stated that "the terms of the Carrier’s applicable Tariff and other requirements regarding charges are incorporated into this Bill of Lading..."

In the summer of 1998, as rates began to harden, the subject of a possible surcharge was discussed in a telephone conversation, during which the representative of COSCO (UK) told TICC that, at that date, the line was not charging a surcharge but, if one was introduced, COSCO (UK) would be told and would pass the information to TICC.

On 28 August 1998, COSCO Container Lines’ Hong Kong agent sent a fax addressed to "all customers" stating that their principal had decided to implement a peak season surcharge effective from 11 September. This was sent to Cycle and IFB, the freight forwarders, but they did not pass it on to TICC. COSCO (UK) said they were also not informed about it. The issue was whether the fax had been sufficient notice to inform TICC of the surcharge.

ê ê ê ê ê

The Arguments 
COSCO (UK) argued that the fax had effectively incorporated the surcharge into the shipping contract evidenced by the bills of lading and TICC, on becoming holder of those bills or the person to whom delivery was made, became liable under section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 to pay the surcharge as if it had been an original party to the contract. Alternatively, COSCO (UK) maintained that TICC was the true shipper and Cycle and IFB acted as its agents, so TICC was bound by their agents’ knowledge.

ê ê ê ê ê

The Judgment 
The judge and the Court of Appeal disagreed. Normally, a person who procures a shipment for the ultimate benefit of a consignee does not thereby contract with the carrier as agent for the consignee. A CIF seller is not an agent for his buyer in procuring the contract of carriage. There was also nothing to suggest Cycle and IFB had contracted only as agents and, in any event, TICC was named as consignee and not as shipper.

Since the surcharge was not an express part of the bill of lading, it could only be incorporated by notice. For this to happen, COSCO (UK) had to show that COSCO Container Lines had done what was reasonably necessary to bring the information to TICC’s attention.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal decided that the fax of 28 August failed this test. The evidence showed that all freight and other charges had been negotiated in England directly between TICC and COSCO (UK) and TICC had been reassured that COSCO (UK) would tell them if a surcharge was introduced. Against this course of dealing, a general notice sent by the line’s Hong Kong agent to its Hong Kong customers was not enough to give TICC notice of the surcharge. COSCO’s claim for the freight surcharges therefore failed.

ê

Comment 
The case illustrates the familiar principle that a contracting party who wishes to rely on certain terms must ensure that they are brought to the notice of the other party at the time the contract is made and that they are accepted, either expressly or by implication. The Court of Appeal appeared to accept in principle that the terms of the bills of lading allowed for variations in freight rates to be incorporated by notice but decided that in this case, TICC were not given sufficient (or, indeed, any) notice, particularly in the light of their previous course of dealings. The moral of the story is, in any situation where notice has to be given, don’t take any short cuts!

 u u u u

 

These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website.