You may sit tight on your Bill of Lading

Extract

The international transportation trade ought to know of the recent unique judgment of the Supreme Court of Japan rendered, on the problem of exclusive jurisdiction, upon a claim arising from a shipment covered by a Bill of Lading (B/L) issued by a Dutch shipowner, Koninklijke Java-China Paketvaart Lijnen, N.V. (hereafter referred to as Royal Interocean). Nanyo Bussan, Inc. a Japanese import corporation, bought 21,478 bags of raw sugar from a Brazilian exporter who shipped the sugar on the motor vessel “Tjisadane” owned by Royal Interocean from Santos, Brazil to Osaka, Japan. On arrival of the “Tjisadane” at Osaka, it was found that 814 bags of raw sugar were sea-damaged. So the Tokyo Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer, paid Nanyo Bussan the amount of ¥ 1,376,180 insured under the marine insurance policy. Thereafter, on 28 February 1959 the Insurance Company filed a suit against Royal interocean with the Kobe District Court where the latter's branch office is situated claiming for recovery of the insured amount by legal subrogation to the importer Nanyo Bussan to whom it had been paid. Now, there is a clause on the reverse side of the Bill of Lading that reads: “All actions under this contract of carriage shall be brought before the Court at Amsterdam, and no other court shall have jurisdiction with regard to any other action unless the carrier appeals to another jurisdiction or voluntarily submits himself thereto.” Royal Interocean invoked the application of this jurisdiction clause and pleaded that the Amsterdam Court was solely competent to try the case to the exclusion of the Kobe District Court. The Kobe District Court, after several years of deliberation, rendered judgment on 18 July 1963 in favour of Royal Interocean and dismissed the action of the Insurance Company on the sole ground that it had no jurisdiction over the case and that the Amsterdam Court was competent. The Insurance Company then appealed to the Osaka High Court, which likewise took several years of deliberation and, finally, on 15 December 1969 rendered judgment in favour of Royal Interocean dismissing the appeal on the sole ground of lack of competence in the case. The Insurance Company then re-appealed to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the Osaka High Court.