This was a claim against the defendant carrier in respect of 35 white bags of kaukau (sweet potato) allegedly damaged on the Niugini Coast while being carried from Lae to Port Moresby. The vessel arrived in Port Moresby on 21 March 2000, but did not discharge its cargo due to the Waterside Workers Union strike. The strike affected the Ports of Port Moresby, Lae, and Rabaul. The strike ended on 5 April 2000. By then, the kaukau was rotten. The defendant issued a letter on 11 April 2000 denying liability, as the cargo owners shipped their cargo in non-refrigerated containers. The cargo was perishable goods, and was shipped on their own risk. The cargo owners had also signed a 'Vegetable Indemnity Release' to that effect. The defendant also claims no liability for the vessel's delay due to weather, berth congestion, holidays, breakdown, and strike actions beyond its control. Alternatively, the defendant relies on the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act Cap 261, art 3.6. The complainant should have laid this claim within a year, but have waited for over a year, which makes the claim time-barred. In the same Act, art 4.2 also spell out the rights and immunities of the carrier and the ship. Under art 4.2, it is not responsible for loss or damages as a result of, among others, strike.

Held: Judgment for the defendant. Claim dismissed.

Complainant took possession of his 35 kaukau bags on 5 April 2000. On that date or soon after, he should have written to the defendant, pointing out the damaged kaukau and its condition. He waited until 19 August 2002, some two years and four months later, to file this complaint.

The law under the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act is quite clear. Where the complainant is put in a situation where he has suffered loss or damage to his cargo, he must notify the defendant at the time of removal or within three days of removal. If there is no such notice, the cargo is deemed to be delivered in good condition. But even if the defendant knew of the loss or damage and was negligent or refused to compensate, the complainant has one year to sue.

The complainant did not notify the defendant of the loss or damage of the kaukau at the time of removal or three days after the removal. Nor did the complainant lay a complaint within one year after delivery. The claim is time-barred.