This case involved an alleged short shipment of crude degummed soybean oil imported to Bangladesh from Argentina in 1999. The plaintiff cargo owner brought an admiralty action against the vessel carrying the oil, the MT Sceptre. The vessel left Chittagong Port but returned in 2001. The plaintiff obtained an order of arrest. The vessel was subsequently released upon furnishing a bank guarantee.

The defendants entered an appearance and contested all the material allegations in the plaintiff's claim, arguing that there was no shortage in delivery, or if there was, it was within a standard 1% tolerance and was due to the inherent nature of the cargo. In the alternative, they pleaded that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.

Held: Judgment for the defendants.

Article 3.6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 (which gives domestic effect to the Hague Rules in Bangladesh) provides that '[i]n any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered'. The plaintiff filed the suit on 13 May 2001 and delivery of the cargo had taken place on 22 June 1999.

Plaintiff's counsel argued that as the settlement negotiations between the parties were still ongoing, the limitation period should commence from the date of the failure of the negotiation talks and as the defendants only refused to settle the matter in April 2001, the plaintiff had filed its suit well within the limitation period. Plaintiff's counsel also referred to cargo claim cases where arts 30 and 31 of the Limitation Act 1908 were held to be applicable, but these all involved domestic carriage of goods by sea, rather than international carriage of goods by sea. The plaintiff's arguments were therefore dismissed.

The rule in art 3.6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 is very clear in this respect as it also defines what the point of delivery is, referring to 'the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage'. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation.