A recent English case, SGS-Ates Componenti Elettronici S.p.A. v. Grappo Limited,1 raises a number of interesting questions relating to the definition and liabilities of a successive carrier under the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR). The interlocutory nature of the proceedings unfortunately meant, however, that it was unnecessary for the Judge, Robert Goff, J., to resolve many of those questions.

There were four parties (excluding the sender and the consignee) concerned in the carriage, but of those only two at any stage themselves physically carried the goods. A contract was formed between Grappo Limited, the first defendants, and the sender (on behalf of the consignee) for the carriage of a reactor and components by road from Heathrow Airport to Catania in Sicily. Grappo sub-contracted the entire carriage to the second defendants, British Road Services Limited (B.R.S.). B.R.S. themselves carried the goods from Heathrow to Rotterdam, but sub-contracted the carriage over the portion of the journey from Rotterdam to Catania to Furtrans B.V., the third defendants. The latter did not themselves carry the goods: they entered into a subcontract for that purpose with one Van der Vegt, a Dutch haulier, who in fact carried them. It does not appear from the judgment upon whose trailer the goods were at each stage carried, but it is unlikely that there was any transhipment. In any event, it was not disputed before the Judge that the carriage was subject to the provisions of CMR, and a CMR consignment note, which travelled with the goods, named B.R.S. as carrier and Furtrans as successive carrier.

The question which arose for decision was whether Furtrans could properly be sued in respect of the alleged damage to the goods in transit. The plaintiffs could only sue Furtrans if the latter were successive carriers within the meaning of art. 34 of the Convention and also constituted “the first carrier, the last carrier or the carrier who was performing that portion of the carriage during which the event causing the … damage … occurred” (art. 36). It was submitted by the plaintiffs that Furtrans were the last carrier, but Furtrans themselves contended that it was not open to the plaintiffs to proceed against them as Van der Vegt constituted the last carrier. Counsel for the plaintiffs informed the court that an action against Van der Vegt was time-barred by art. 32 of the Convention.

The Judge held2 that Van der Vegt was the last carrier, and that it was immaterial that his name and address had not been entered by him pursuant to art. 35(1) in the second copy of the consignment note. The wording of art. 35(1) is as follows:—

“A carrier accepting the goods from a previous carrier shall give the latter a dated and signed receipt. He shall enter his name and address on the second copy of the consignment note …”.