The City of Athens

Is a clause in a bill of lading establishing a period for suit shorter that the one-year period in Art. III, r. 6 of the Hague Rules valid? Following several years of discussion and argument before the Commercial Courts of Malta on this point, the Court of Appeal (in its Superior Jurisdiction, with three judges) has in The City of Athens 1 decided in favour of its validity. The Court of Appeal held that Art. III, r. 8 of the Hague Rules does not prohibit variations of the Hague Rules insofar as time for actions is concerned. It therefore concluded that the principle of freedom of contract implies that the parties are free to establish a different, even shorter, time for suit. While many lawyers, especially those representing importers and their insurers, in this island heavily dependent on importation by sea, may not agree with this conclusion, this is an important judgment which is set to change the practice on the local scene. Lawyers should no longer rely on the traditionally assumed rule of the Commercial Code2 that maritime recovery actions are time barred after one year from arrival of the vessel3 or alternatively, where applicable, on the rule in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 19544 applying a one-year period calculated from the