ICMA XV

Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years David Martin-Clark*
The fact that there have been three reported decisions in the last four years, two of which have reached the Court of Appeal, is an indication that the issues surrounding the incorporation of charterparty clauses into bills of lading are not yet fully resolved, even ninety years after the defining decision in the case of Thomas v. Portsea in 1912. This article sets out to explore the ways in which the law on this topic has developed in the last hundred years and to reach some conclusions on how the law now stands. As a matter of administration, full references to the cases quoted are contained in the attached schedule. Thomas v. Potsea To begin with Thomas v. Portsea, a decision of the House of Lords reported in Appeal Cases for 1912. The case arose out of a claim by Portsea Steamship Company, owners of the ship Portsmouth, for discharging port demurrage incurred at Swansea, in respect of parcels of timber loaded in Parrsboro Roads, Nova Scotia. The claim was made under the bill of lading, which had been endorsed to T.W. Thomas, timber merchants in Swansea. Thomas applied for the proceedings to be stayed under s.4 of the 1889 Arbitration Act, on the grounds that the bill of lading incorporated the arbitration clause in the charterparty. This provided that Any dispute or claim arising out of any of the conditions of this charterparty shall be adjusted at the port where it occurs, and same shall be settled by arbitration. The incorporating words in the bill of lading occurred in two places; in the body of the bill appeared the words he or they paying freight for the said goods, with other conditions as per charter party, whilst in the margin there was a clause reading Deck load at shippers risk, and all other terms and conditions and exceptions of charter to be as per charter party, including negligence clause. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, in a brief judgment, held that neither clause was sufficiently specific to import the charterparty arbitration clause into the bill of lading and approved the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Hamilton & Co. v. Mackie & Sons, decided in 1889. In this he was supported by Lord Atkinson who felt it a sound rule of construction to adopt that when it is sought to introduce into a document like a bill of lading a negotiable instrument a clause such as this arbitration clause, not germane to the receipt, carriage, or delivery of the cargo or the payment of freight the proper subject-matters with which the bill of lading is conversant this should be done by distinct and specific words and not by such general words as those written in the margin of the bill of lading in this case. Lord Gorell, in agreeing with the other Law Lords, was influenced by the fact that, if the charterparty arbitration clause were read into the bill of lading, it would at once be seen that it is not a clause which in its terms is consistent with the bill of lading it is consistent with disputes arising under a charter party. Lord Robson agreed that the
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 1

ICMA XV

charterparty terms when incorporated into the bill of lading should not be insensible or inapplicable to the document in which they had been inserted. In this case the charterparty arbitration clause, in referring to disputes arising out of the conditions of this charter party was to say the least, embarrassing and ambiguous when it comes to be written into the bill of lading. It would require some modification to make it read intelligibly in its new context and he found it difficult to hold that words which require modification to read as part of a bill of lading and then purport to deal only with disputes arising under a document made between different persons were sufficiently explicit to meet Thomas purpose. Thus, with admirable brevity, the House of Lords laid down the principles to be applied in cases of this nature, and the themes of germaneness, consistency, insensibleness, inapplicability and modification reverberate through the ensuing jurisprudence. For the next fifty years or so, the Courts were not much disturbed by incorporation issues, save for The Njegos in 1935, which confirmed that, as a general rule, clauses from a charterparty incorporated into a bill of lading are incorporated together with the governing law of the charterparty. In that case, even though the incorporating words (all terms, conditions and exceptions of [the charterparty] including the negligence clause) were not wide enough to incorporate the charterpartys English arbitration clause, the bill of lading was nevertheless to be construed in accordance with English law, rather than the law of the flag of the ship - Yugoslavia in this case. The Merak It was the case of The Merak in 1964, that brought the issue back on the courts agenda. The context was, as in Thomas v. Portsea, the carriage of timber, but this time from Finland to Newport in Wales. In reply to an action against them by cargo interests in respect of damage that occurred during the voyage, the shipowners applied for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration under the 1950 Arbitration Act. The bill of lading contained the clause All the terms, conditions, clauses and exceptions including Clause 30 contained in the said charterparty apply to this bill of lading and are deemed to be incorporated herein. The reference to cl.30 was a mistake. It was intended as a reference to the charterparty arbitration clause, but that was in fact cl.32. The charterparty arbitration clause was in wide terms: Any dispute arising out of this Charter or any Bill of Lading issued hereunder shall be referred to arbitration. The charterparty also contained a clause (cl.10) providing for the bills of lading to be in a prescribed form, including all terms, conditions, clauses (including cl.32) and exceptions as per this Charter. Both at first instance, Scarman J., and on appeal, the court held that the incorporating words were wide enough to bring in the c/p arbitration clause. Mr. Justice Scarman held that the charterparty arbitration clause would make sense in the bill of lading context and that the words of
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 2

ICMA XV

incorporation in the bill of lading were sufficiently wide to incorporate it. His views were upheld on appeal. All three Lords Justice believed that even without reliance on the bungled attempt to incorporate the arbitration clause by number, the words of incorporation were wide enough to bring the arbitration clause into the bill and so distinguish the case from Thomas v. Portsea. Lord Justice Sellers, however, went further. He held that the bill of lading could be interpreted by reference to the charterparty that it incorporated. The argument went as follows: anyone reading the charterparty, as the bill of lading holder would have to do, would know that the arbitration clause was intended [by the reference to cl.30] and I cannot see why the court should shut its eyes to the obvious on some technical ground of construction. In order to discover what the terms of a bill of lading are, that is to construe or interpret it, the holder has to refer to the charterparty and select therefrom the clauses which apply. He cannot do this without reading it. He then quoted from the judgment of Lord Esher MR in the Hamilton v. Mackie case; conditions of a charterparty must be read verbatim into the bill of lading as if they were printed in extenso.. Then if it was found that any of the conditions of the charterparty on being so read were inconsistent with the bill of lading they were insensible, and must be disregarded. Even if a narrower view were taken, namely that only the relevant (germane) clauses enter the bill of lading, the others, he said, have to be read before they can be rejected, and I do not see how cl.10 can fail to convey to any holder of the bill of lading, with a copy of the charterparty, which it is necessary for him to peruse, that cl.32 was intended where cl.30 was inserted Lord Justice Davies and Lord Justice Russell distinguished Thomas v. Portsea on the grounds that, the arbitration clause there on its face, applied only to disputes between parties to the charter party, whereas, in The Merak, the charterparty arbitration clause made specific reference also to disputes arising under bills of lading. Neither believed that Thomas v. Portsea ruled out the possibility of the parties, by using wide enough words of incorporation as they had done in this case - incorporating such a clause into a bill of lading. Lord Justice Russell, contrary to Lord Justice Sellers, did not believe that the ambiguity regarding the incorporation of cl.30 of the charterparty could be resolved by the incorporation of cl.10 into the bill. The agreement between the charterer and shipowner that bills issued under the charter ought to take a particular form cannot be regarded as incorporated in the bill; as a contractual term, it is irrelevant to the contract constituted by the bill itself. He then summarized his understanding of Thomas v. Portsea in the following way: a true view of that case is that it shows that clauses which are directly germane to shipment, carriage and delivery may be incorporated by general words of incorporation though the fact that they are found in a charter-party may involve a degree of verbal manipulation to fit exactly a bill of lading; but that where there is a clause whose subject-matter is not thus directly germane, such as an arbitration
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 3

ICMA XV

clause, it is not permissible to construe general words of incorporation as extending to a clause which does not in terms relate to a bill of lading. So stood the law in 1964. The liberalization by The Merak of the traditional stance represented by Thomas v. Portsea, took time to work through the judicial system. The Annefield In 1970 came the decision in The Annefield. The case concerned claims for damage to a cargo of maize from the Argentine, delivered at Marseilles and Genoa in the summer of 1963. The cargo had been carried pursuant to a Centrocon form of charterparty, incorporating an arbitration clause providing that All disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall. be referred to arbitration. The bills of lading, also on the Centrocon form, incorporated all the terms, conditions and exceptions of the charterparty. After considering the authorities, Mr. Justice Brandon, as he then was, formulated the following four propositions: 1. in order to decide whether a clause under a bill of lading incorporates an arbitration clause in a charterparty, it is necessary to look at both the precise words in the bill of lading alleged to do the incorporating, and also the precise terms of the arbitration clause in the charterparty alleged to be incorporated; 2. it is not necessary, in order to effect incorporation, that the incorporating clause shall refer expressly to the arbitration clause. General words may suffice, depending on the terms of the latter clause; 3. when the arbitration clause is, by its terms, applicable only to disputes under the charterparty, general words will not incorporate it into the bill of lading 4. where the arbitration clause by its terms applies both to disputes under the charterparty and to disputes under the bills of lading, general words of incorporation will bring the clause into the bill of lading so as to make it applicable to disputes under that document.. The problem in The Annefield was that the words in the charterparty arbitration clause were ambiguous, in that they referred to disputes arising out of this contract, a phrase that, read in the context of the charterparty, would refer to disputes under the charterparty but which, if transcribed into the bill of lading, would mean disputes under the bill of lading. Faced with this dilemma, Mr. Justice Brandon decided to follow the decision in The Njegos thirty years earlier which concerned identical wordings under the Centrocon form of charterparty and bills of lading - to the effect that the bills of lading did not incorporate the charterparty arbitration clause.

22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years

Page 4

ICMA XV

Mr. Justice Brandons judgment was upheld on appeal, Lord Denning MR saying that he entirely agreed with that judgment. He adopted, with slight amendment, the reasoning of Lord Justice Russell in The Merak to the effect that: a clause which is directly germane to the subject matter of the bill of lading (that is, to the shipment, carriage and delivery of the goods) can and should be incorporated into the bill of lading contract, even though it may involve a degree of manipulation of the words in order to fit exactly the bill of lading. But if the clause is one which is not directly germane, it should not be incorporated into the bill of lading contract unless it is done explicitly in clear words either in the bill of lading or in the charterparty. In the instant case, he held that the words any disputes under this contract in the charterparty arbitration clause meant under this charterparty contract and were not sufficiently explicit to bring in disputes under the bill of lading. The Rena K It was not until 1978 that the issues were again confronted, once again by Mr. Justice Brandon, as he then was, in the case of The Rena K, involving the carriage of sugar from Mauritius to Liverpool. In response to an action brought against them by the cargo interests for seawater damage to the cargo, the shipowners applied for a stay pending arbitration under the 1975 Arbitration Act. Their case was based on the bills of lading incorporating All terms, conditions and exceptions, including the Arbitration Clauseof the Charter-Party dated London 13 April 1977. The arbitration clause in the charterparty read: Any disputes which may arise under this charter to be settled by arbitration in London. On these facts, Mr. Justice Brandon held that the addition of the words including the Arbitration clause in the bills of lading meant that the parties to the bills intended the provisions of the arbitration clause in the charterparty to apply to disputes arising under the bills of lading. Accordingly, he was prepared to give effect to that intention, even though some manipulation of the wording of the charterparty arbitration clause would be required to give effect to that intention. The Varenna In 1983, in the case of Skips A/S Nordheim and Others v. Syrian Petroleum Co. Ltd. and Petrofina S.A. The Varenna the Court of Appeal had another opportunity to address the issue raised in The Merak, namely, the extent to which one can refer to the terms of the charterparty in construing the bill of lading incorporation clause. In this case, the charterparty provided by clause 44, that all bills of lading issued under it should contain all terms and conditions of this charter, including the terms of the Arbitration Clause. The arbitration clause of the charterparty provided simply that any dispute arising under this charter shall be settled in London arbitration. The bills

22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years

Page 5

ICMA XV

were in fact issued on a different form, which incorporated all conditions and exceptions of the relevant charterparty. Giving the leading judgment, Sir John Donaldson, MR held firstly, that the word conditions was determined by authority to refer only to conditions properly so-called to be performed by the consignee on the arrival of the vessel. On no view is an arbitration clause such a condition. He then rejected the argument that it was possible to amend the inappropriate words of the arbitration clause (the mention of disputes arising under this charter) by reference to cl.44 of the charterparty, which required all bills of lading issued under it to include the Arbitration Clause. He summarized his views as follows: Such an incorporation cannot be achieved by agreement between the owners and the charterers. It can only be achieved by the agreement of the parties to the bill of lading contract and thus the operative words of incorporation must be found in the bill of lading itself. Operative words of incorporation may be precise or general, narrow or wide. Where they are general, and in particular where they are general and wide, they may have the effect of incorporating more than can make any sense in the context of an agreement governing the rights and liabilities of the shipowner and of the bill of lading holder. In such circumstances, what one might describe as surplus insensible or inconsistent provisions fall to be disincorporated, rejected or ignored as surplusage. But the starting point must always be the provisions of the bill of lading contract producing the initial incorporation. And what must be sought is incorporation, not notice of the existence of the terms of another contract which is not incorporated. The Miramar In 1984, the case of Miramar Maritime Corp. v. Holborn Oil Trading Ltd The Miramar presented the House of Lords with an opportunity for which they had clearly been waiting, to address the issue of manipulation referred to by Lord Denning in The Annefield and again by Brandon J. in The Rena K. The Miramar concerned a claim by the shipowners that bill of lading holders should have a personal responsibility for the payment of the substantial demurrage that had been incurred on discharge, by virtue of a clause in the bills that all terms whatsoever of the [governing] charterparty apply to and govern the rights of the parties concerned in this shipment. The charterparty made clear, in its cl.8, that demurrage was to be paid by the Charterer, but the shipowners argued that, upon its incorporation into the bill of lading, the word Charterer should be manipulated to read consignee. This argument was emphatically rejected. Lord Devlin, delivering the judgment of the House, said that, in addition to the reasons for rejection adduced at first instance and on appeal, he regarded it as more important that this House should take this opportunity of stating unequivocally that, where in a bill of lading there is included a clause which purports to incorporate the terms of a specified charterparty, there is not any rule of construction that clauses in the charterparty which are directly germane to the shipment, carriage or
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 6

ICMA XV

delivery of goods and impose obligations upon the charterer under that designation, are presumed to be incorporated in the bill of lading with the substitution of (where there is a cesser clause) or inclusion in (where there in no cesser clause), the designation charterer, the designation consignee of the cargo or bill of lading holder. The Nai Matteini These strictures were evidently still reverberating in the mind of Mr. Justice Gatehouse, when in 1987, he gave judgment in the case of Navigazione Alta Italia Spa v. Svenska Petroleum AB The Nai Matteini. He held that a clause in the bill of lading incorporating all terms, conditions and exceptions (including but not limited to. Arbitration clauses) contained in which charterparty was not sufficient to include in the bill of lading the charterparty arbitration clause. This latter clause provided that any and all differences and disputes of whatsoever nature arising out of this Charter shall be put to arbitration in the City of London. Despite the express reference to the arbitration clause in the bill of lading, the arbitration clause would have required manipulation to make it read intelligibly in the context of the bill and this, in the view of Mr. Justice Gatehouse, was no longer permissible in the light of The Miramar decision. He therefore refused to follow the decision of Mr. Justice Brandon in The Rena K, believing that, after the Miramar decision, it was no longer good law. He distinguished The Rena K on the grounds also that, in The Nei Matteini, the bill of lading had failed to identify the relevant charterparty, there being two voyage charterparties relating to the shipment in that case. The Federal Bulker A year later, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to review the state of the law on incorporation in its judgment in the case of Federal Bulk Carriers Inc. v. C. Itoh & Co Ltd and Others The Federal Bulker. The incorporation clause in the bill of lading referred to all terms, conditions and exceptions of the relevant charterparty, as if fully written therein whilst the arbitration clause in the charterparty read All disputesarising out of this contract shallbe referred to the final arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying on business in London. The court held that, following Thomas v Portsea and The Varenna, the bill of lading clause, being expressed only in general terms, was not effective to incorporate the charterparty arbitration clause. The court went on to hold that, if it were wrong on this first point, the charterparty arbitration clause itself was not apt for incorporation into the bill of lading. In so doing, the court relied on the decision in The Annefield, where similar wording was considered. The Oinoussin Pride June of 1990 saw a bold move by Mr. Justice Webster in the case of Pride Shipping Corp. v. Chung Hwa Pulp Corp The Oinoussin Pride, in which he preferred the decision in The Rena K to that of the later decision in The Nai Matteini. In the case in point, bills of lading had been issued
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 7

ICMA XV

incorporating All terms, conditions, provisions and exceptions including the Arbitration Clause of the relevant charterparty dated May 11 1988.. The arbitration clause in the charterparty provided that should any dispute arise between owners and charterers, the matter in dispute shall be referred to three persons in London. Mr. Justice Webster held that . if practical, effect should be given to the expressed intention of the parties to the bills, namely, to incorporate the arbitration clause in them, and that it is not only practical but necessary to do so by adding [the words or shippers or receivers] after the words between owners and charterers] to [the charterparty arbitration clause] to give effect to that expressed intention. He then quoted with approval from the judgment of Mr. Justice Brandon in The Rena K, that passage in which the latter said that, if it was necessary in order to give effect to the expressed intention of the parties to apply the provisions of the charterparty arbitration clause to disputes arising under the bills of lading, he would be prepared to manipulate or adapt the wording of the clause appropriately. The Nerano Five years later, the approach of Mr. Justice Webster was vindicated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Daval Aciers dUsinor et de Sacilor v. Armare S.R.L The Nerano. The charterparty in this case provided that should any dispute arise between the Owners and Charterers the matter in dispute shall be determined in London, England according to the Arbitration Acts, 1975-1979. The bill of lading provided that All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions and arbitration clause of the charterparty, dated as overleaf are herewith incorporated. The court held that by identifying and specifying the charterparty arbitration clause, it was clear that the parties to the bill of lading contract did intend and agree to arbitration so that, to give force to that intention and agreement, the words in the clause had to be read and construed as applying to those parties. The court applied the decision in The Rena K and did not follow either The Miramar or The Nai Matteini. The Delos The new Millennium saw an early return to the incorporation topic, in the decision of Mr. Justice Langley in January 2001, in the case of The Delos which, in a way, was a classic of its kind. In the context of a voyage from Brazil to various ports in India, two sets of bills of lading had been issued. The first set, called the Congen bills, expressly provided All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the charterparty, dated as overleaf, including the Law and Arbitration clause, are herewith incorporated. The second set, called the Ocean bills, incorporated a clause reading all the terms whatsoever of the said charter. apply to and govern the rights of the parties concerned in this shipment. The arbitration clause in the charterparty read, Any dispute arising during the execution of this charterparty shall be settled in London, Owners and Charterers each appointing an Arbitrator Cargo interests commenced judicial proceedings against the owners for an alleged shortage of cottonseed oil carried. The owners applied for a stay, pending a reference to arbitration.
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 8

ICMA XV

The question at issue was whether or not the bills of lading effectively incorporated the arbitration clause of the charterparty. The judge held that the Gencon bills did but that the Ocean bills did not. The Congen bills contained specific words incorporating the arbitration clause and the terms of the clause were therefore to be appropriately manipulated. The Ocean bills contained only general words and general words, as the cases over the past hundred years had established, did not suffice. The Epsilon Rosa The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Welex AG v. Rosa Maritime Ltd The Epsilon Rosa raised similar issues in a different context. Here again, bills of lading were issued on the Congen 1994 form, incorporating by specific reference, the charterparty arbitration clause, but the date of the relevant charterparty was not inserted, as it should have been, on the face of the bill. At the date the bill of lading was signed, no formal charterparty had been signed, although the judge at first instance, Mr. Justice David Steel, found that a formal charterparty had been issued later. Both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal it was held that, at the time the bill of lading was issued, the re-cap telex constituted the charterparty, the terms of which the bills of lading incorporated. The Siboti case The last case in the series is a decision of Mr. Justice Gross in the case of Siboti K/S v. BP France S.A. This concerned the incorporation not of an arbitration clause, but of a jurisdiction clause. This case was a consequence of the collapse of Enron, the head charterers, which had failed to pay owners the freight and loading port demurrage to which they were entitled. The owners accordingly commenced proceedings against the receivers, BP France, under the bill of lading, claiming from them the amounts outstanding from Enron. BP challenged the jurisdiction of the court, saying that it could be sued only in France, its domicile. The issue was whether the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in the charterparty had been effectively incorporated into the bill of lading. The bill of lading provided that all the terms whatsoever of the said charterparty apply to and govern the rights of the parties concerned in this shipment. In concluding that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the charterparty was not included in the bill of lading, Mr. Justice Gross embarked on an instructive summary of the present state of English law on the subject of incorporation of charterparty clauses into bills of lading. He formulated the following propositions: 1 The starting point is the contract contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading; it is that contract which the court must construe see The Federal Bulker 2 Does the enquiry end with the bill of lading contract? There is Court of Appeal authority for the proposition that unless the wording in the bill of lading is of a sufficient width so as prima facie to incorporate the provision of the charterparty
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 9

ICMA XV

under consideration, it is irrelevant and unnecessary to construe the charterparty. That stage is never reached; the enquiry begins and ends with the bill of lading The Varenna, The Federal Bulker. 3 It appears to follow that, where general wording of incorporation in the bill of lading is insufficient to incorporate an ancillary clause in the charterparty, such as an arbitration clause, then the wording of the charterparty clause in question and whether or not it contains an explicit reference to the bill of lading, are irrelevant. 4 It may be that the authorities do not all speak with one voice. Observations of all three members of the Court of Appeal in The Merak appear to suggest that the charterparty arbitration clause was incorporated in the bill of lading on the basis, inter alia, that the arbitration clause itself contained an explicit reference to the bill of lading. 5 By contrast, in The Federal Bulker, Bingham LJ (as he then was) explained and distinguished The Merak on the basis of the incorporation wording in the bills of lading. The word clauses included in The Merak bill of lading wording was sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause, whereas the word terms found in The Federal Bulker bill of lading was insufficient to do so, in the light of the authority in Thomas v. Portsea. 6 When can the provisions of the charterparty be taken into account? Charterparty clauses ancillary or collateral to the subject-matter of the bill of lading will only be incorporated into the bill of lading by explicit reference, either in the bill or in the charterparty see The Annefield and The Federal Bulker. Whether there is, in any particular case, such an explicit reference, must be a matter of construction of the contract in question. 7 What is the relevance to the bill of lading contract of charterparty clauses as to the intended form and content of bills of lading to be issued thereunder? Such clauses are irrelevant to the contract constituted by the bills of lading themselves see The Merak, The Varenna and The Federal Bulker. Such clauses have certainly not been treated as furnishing the explicit reference, as discussed in The Annefield, to the ancillary clause which it is sought to incorporate into the bill of lading. In short, a charterparty clause dealing with the intended form or content of bills of lading to be issued thereunder either (a) added nothing to the argument for incorporation, because the wording in the bill of lading followed the wording of the clause, or (b) told against the argument for incorporation, because the difference

22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years

Page 10

ICMA XV

between the wordings disclosed an intention by the parties to the bill of lading contract not to give effect to the intention of the parties to the charterparty. 8 The incorporation of terms is to be distinguished from mere notice of terms; the fact that the holder of a bill of lading has notice of terms in a charterparty does not mean that those terms are incorporated in the bill of lading The Varenna. Further, it is terms, not intentions that are incorporated The Varenna per Oliver LJ. 9 General words of incorporation will incorporate into the bill of lading only those provisions of the charterparty which are directly germane to the shipment, carriage and delivery of the goods. Provisions of the charterparty which are ancillary - rather than directly germane - to the subject matter of the bill of lading, will not be incorporated by general words of incorporation in the bill of lading. a. General words of incorporation are to be distinguished from wording making a specific reference to a particular charterparty provision (for example, a charterparty arbitration clause). Accordingly, even comparatively wide wording, such as all terms, conditions and exceptions as per charterparty constitute general words of incorporation for these purposes b. Arbitration clauses are ancillary in this sense. c. Jurisdiction clauses, like arbitration clauses, are ancillary to the subject matter of a bill of lading. There is no good reason for distinguishing between arbitration and jurisdiction clauses in this regard. 10 Even when the wording of a bill of lading is prima facie of sufficient width to incorporate the charterparty clause in question, such incorporation may be defeated if undue manipulation is required. That said, the intention of the parties is paramount. Accordingly, while the purported incorporation of certain charterparty clauses may prove ineffective on the ground of linguistic inapplicability alone ( for example, charterparty arbitration clause wordings such as any disputes arising out of the conditions of this charter as in Thomas v. Portsea,) where the intention to incorporate a particular charterparty clause is clear, difficulties of manipulation may be overcome (as in The Nerano) where the wording of incorporation made explicit reference to an otherwise inapplicable charterparty arbitration clause). It remains to be seen whether these principles will provide the shipping industry and its legal advisers with sufficient precision to enable them to settle differences that arise in future without the need to trouble the courts further on this topic.
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 11

ICMA XV

*David Martin-Clark is a Shipping & Insurance Consultant, Maritime Arbitrator and Commercial Disputes Mediator, based in London. He is also Editor of the Legal Case Notes website, DMCs CaseNotes, @www.onlinedmc.co.uk. He comes from a mutual insurance background, having spent his professional career with Thomas Miller, engaged principally in the management of the UK PandI Club, the UK Defence Club and the TT Club.

Schedule of Cases References

T. W. Thomas & Co. Ltd v. Portsea Steamship Company, Limited House of Lords [1912] AC 1 The Njegos [1935] Vol.53 Ll.L.Rep. 286 The Merak Court of Appeal [1964] 2 Ll.Rep. 527 The Annefield Admiralty Court [1970] 2 Ll.Rep. 252 The Annefield Court of Appeal [1971] 1 Ll.Rep. 1 The Rena K [1978] 1 Ll.Rep. 545 Skips A/S Nordheim & Others v. Syrian Petroleum Co. Ltd. and Petrofina S.A Court of Appeal [1983] 2 Ll.Rep. 592 The Miramar House of Lords [1984] 2 Ll.Rep. 129 The Nai Matteini [1988] 1 Ll.Rep.452 Federal Bulk Carriers Inc. v. C.Itoh & Co. Ltd. and Others - The Federal Bulker Court of Appeal [1989] 1 Ll.Rep. 103 Pride Shipping Corporatio v. Chung Hwa Pulp Corporation & Another - The Oinoussin Pride [1991] 1 Ll.Rep. 126 Daval Aciers dUsinor et de Sacilor & Others v. Armare SRL - The Nerano (Court of Appeal) [1996] 1 Ll.Rep. 1 The Delos [2001] 1 Ll.Rep. 703 Welex AG v. Rosa Maritime Ltd The Epsilon Rosa Court of Appeal [2003] 2 Ll.Rep. 509 Siboti K/S v. BP France SA [2003] 2 Ll.Rep. 364
22 March 2004 Incorporation of Charterparty Clauses into Bills of Lading The Ebb and Flow in English Law over the last 100 years Page 12