Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
UNIFORM INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
The Kapitan Petko Voiveda
In closing his judgment1
Judge LJ stated, ‘‘by way of footnote’’, that notwithstanding that the Court of Appeal was considering an international Convention, he could see no advantage in commenting on decisions reached in different jurisdictions but that in any event he adopted Longmore LJ’s analysis of them.
If this statement is considered in abstracto
it might lead to the conclusion that decisions reached in foreign jurisdictions on the interpretation of an international Convention are of no importance for English courts. This, besides being in conflict with the authoritative opinions of other distinguished English judges, probably was not the intention of Judge LJ. What most likely he meant was that, in the particular case of the applicability of the doctrine of deviation in respect of carriage of goods on deck, the conclusion that such doctrine should not apply could be reached without the need of an analysis of foreign judgments.
But since Longmore LJ had made reference, albeit in a very general manner, to the fact that in Holland, France and Italy courts had decided that the carrier can rely on the Art IV, r 2.5 limit in deck cargo cases, it might be worthwhile to revisit the question of the relevance of the jurisprudence in all states parties of an international Convention for the purpose of a uniform interpretation of its provisions.
The author of this note may have a preconceived opinion in this respect, since he has tried in recent years to collect and publish in his journal Il Diritto Marittimo
in the English
1. Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd
v. Klipriver Shipping Ltd (The Kapitan Petko Voiveda)
[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, at [44].
LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY
154