William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd v Foy and Gibson Pty Ltd [1945] HCA 40

622 HIGH COURT [1945.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

WILLIAM HOLYMAN & SONS PROPRIE- A TARY LIMITED : & : . Be oe PPELLANT ;

DEFENDANT, AND

FOY & GIBSON PROPRIETARY LIMITED . RESPONDENT. PLaIntIFr,

ONT ARE

L FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H. C. or A, Shipping—Sea-carriage of goods—Bill of lading—Limitation of liability to fized sum

1945. —" Agreed that the value of each package . . . does not exceed" £5 unless WwW value declared—Agreement inconsistent with statute—Sea-Carriage of Goods Act Mertnourye, 1924 (No, 22 of 1924), s. 4, Schedule Art. IIL., r. 8*, Art. IV., r. 5*.

t. 25, 26. ry is Otis 25, 29 A package of goods of the value of £57 was shipped at Melbourne for delivery

Sypney, at Hobart under a bill of lading which contained clauses to the effect that

Dec. 13. "Tt is mutually agreed that the value of each package or parcel receipted einen Gla, for . . . does not exceed the sum of £5 (unless otherwise stated herein) Rich, Starke, on which basis the rate of freight is adjusted." The carrier " is not accountable MoTiernan'and «+ beyond such mutually agreed value for any parcel or package

Willi JS. 5 a ere unless the same shall have been booked with a declaration of the true character

and value thereof and the bill of lading signed in accordance therewith and extra freight paid prior to receipt thereof for shipment and then not beyond such declared value." 'There was no declaration of the value of the package in the bill of lading.

Held that the clause was inconsistent with article IV., rule 5, in the schedule to the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924, and, by s. 4 of the Act, was therefore yoid; accordingly (subject to the limitation as to amount provided by rule 5) the shipper was not barred from claiming as damages for the non-delivery of

the package shipped the actual value of the package.