In the recent case of The Alion (Tanga Pharmaceuticals Plastics Limited and others v Emirates Shipping Line FZE [2025] EWHC 368 (Comm)), the Commercial Court ruled against the carrier who sought to escape liability based on a contractual time bar provision which they claimed prevailed over Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules incorporated into the bills of lading.

The claimant, who had an interest in 548 containers shipped in 2021, claimed an indemnity for their liability for salvage costs after the vessel’s main engine failed during the voyage. The bills of lading contained a clause paramount incorporating the Hague Rules into the contract of carriage. The defendant, who was the carrier, argued that the claim was time-barred via an amended contractual provision requiring written notice within 20 days and suit to be brought and served within one year.

The claims were issued within the usual one-year Hague Rules period but not served for another year.

The Court found that the Hague Rules, which only require a claim form to be issued within one year, took precedence over the contractual provisions. Despite the parties agreeing that where the Hague Rules apply only as a matter of contract, the parties can modify them by agreement. However, the Court decided that clear words would be required to agree to a shorter time bar than that of Article III Rule 6, applying RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18.

The defendant sought to argue that service provision was not inconsistent with the Hague Rules as Article III Rule 6 does not prescribe any specific way of identifying when suit is brought and indeed in many jurisdictions suit is only considered to have been brought once service is achieved. The claimant pointed to the law and jurisdiction clause which provided for English law and jurisdiction. Under English law and procedures, suit is deemed brought when the claim form is issued. In addition, it was argued by the claimants that Article III Rule 8, as incorporated, stipulates that… “Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods …or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this convention, shall be null and void and of no effect.”

The Court found in favour of the claimant by also ruling that as the incorporation of the Hague Rules was not in its entirety, some Articles were deliberately omitted. This was not a mere ‘vanilla’ incorporating provision. For the amending clause to prevail the specific Articles relied upon by the defendant should have similarly been omitted. They were not. Moreover, if the claimants were to forgo the valuable rights afforded to them under Articles III Rule 6 and 8 this should have been made clear.

This is a useful case for members to take into consideration when considering additional wording in a charterparty and whether or not the wording is clear enough to prevail over, or contract out of, the Hague Rules as incorporated by the paramount clause.