Security is not enough: Court of Appeal considers the Hague-Visby time bar and deck cargo

Pedregal Maritime SA v Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 1158

Does arresting a vessel and obtaining security within the Hague Visby one-year time limit amount to bringing “suit”? And where only part of a cargo is carried on deck, how precisely must that cargo be identified in the bill of lading?

The Court of Appeal addressed both questions in this case, handing down judgment on 4 September 2026.

The Court held that proceedings brought solely to obtain security did not amount to bringing “suit” for the purposes of Article III rule 6 of Hague Visby Rules. It also held that the bills of lading in this case did not sufficiently identify the cargo carried on deck to engage the Article I(c) exclusion of Hague Visby Rules.

The consequence was that the Hague-Visby Rules, including the one-year time bar, applied to the entirety of the Holders’ claim.

What happened?

Pedregal Maritime SA were the Owners and carriers of the vessel, Taikoo Brilliance. Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd (the “Holders”) held four bills of lading covering 36,934 JAS CBM of New Zealand Pine Logs, carried from New Zealand to Kandla, India. Two of the bills stated that part of the cargo was carried on deck. The vessel arrived at Kandla and discharge commenced on 16 September 2019. The bills were not available at Kandla and the cargo was discharged to one or more third parties without production of the bills, against a letter of indemnity provided by the vessel’s charterer. The Holders alleged that the Owners had misdelivered the cargo. The bills contained an arbitration clause.

On 18 August 2020, rather than commencing arbitration, the Holders issued a writ in the High Court of Singapore seeking the arrest of the Navios Koyo, a sister ship of the Taikoo Brilliance. The vessel was arrested on 18 September 2020. Security was provided and she was released on 25 September 2020. The Owners successfully obtained a stay of the Singapore proceedings in favour of arbitration. The Holders subsequently commenced arbitration on 22 or 24 December 2020 – more than one year after the delivery or alleged misdelivery.

That gave rise to the first key question.

1. Was the Singapore arrest a “suit” under Article III rule 6 of Hague Visby Rules?

Article III rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules provides for the carrier and ship to be discharged from liability unless “suit is brought” within one year of delivery or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

The Holders argued that the Singapore proceedings satisfied that requirement because they had been commenced within the one-year period.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument.

It held that “suit” in Article III rule 6 means proceedings brought to establish the carrier’s substantive liability. Proceedings brought solely to obtain security are not sufficient. Accordingly, the Singapore proceedings did not constitute “suit” for the purposes of Article III rule 6 of Hague Visby Rules and did not prevent the time bar from taking effect.

The Holders’ appeal on this issue was dismissed.

2. Was the deck cargo sufficiently identified?

The Owners’ appeal concerned Article I(c) of Hague Visby Rules.

Under Article I(c), deck cargo is excluded from the definition of “Goods” where the contract of carriage states that it is carried on deck and it is in fact so carried.

The two relevant bills identified the lot numbers shipped, the number of pieces and weight in each lot, and the total number of pieces and weight. They then stated that a specified number of pieces were carried on deck at the shipper’s risk. However, they did not identify which pieces from which lots were carried on deck.

That mattered because the timber pieces varied in weight and were therefore presumed to vary in value. It was not possible to ascertain the weight or value of the pieces carried on deck, either absolutely or relative to the cargo as a whole.

The Owners argued that the timber carried on deck were not excluded from the scope of the Hague Visby Rules, because the Article I(c) exclusion did not apply in this case. Court of Appeal agreed with the Owners and held that the bills did not sufficiently identify the deck cargo. Where part of a cargo consists of items of differing value, the statement in the bill of lading must specifically identify the cargo to be carried on deck – for example, by parcel or serial number.

As the bills of lading did not do so, the Article I(c) exclusion was not engaged. The entirety of the cargo therefore constituted “Goods” for the purposes of the Hague Visby Rules, with the result that the Article III rule 6 time bar applied to the entirety of the Holders’ claim – i.e. cargo carried on deck and under deck.

3. Key takeaways

Obtaining security does not, by itself, protect against the Hague Visby time bar:

• Where substantive proceedings are required in an agreed forum, such as arbitration, parties should ensure that those proceedings are commenced within the one-year period.

The identification of deck cargo matters:

• In order for the Article I(c) exclusion of the Hague Visby Rules to apply to deck cargo, especially where part of a cargo comprising items of differing value is carried on deck, stating only the number of pieces carried on deck is not sufficient. The relevant cargo must be specifically identified.

The judgment is a useful reminder that obtaining security and preserving the substantive claim are distinct matters – and that the wording used to identify deck cargo on the bill of lading can determine whether the Hague Visby regime, including its one-year time bar, applies.