CRB ~ Road Haulage Claims
We handle a large volume of claims in relation to domestic UK haulage and storage falling under RHA Conditions of Carriage, RHA Conditions of Storage, IRHA, BIFA, UKWA, BAR and a variety of other terms including company's using their own individual conditions. Although the majority of the Road haulage claims we are instructed on concern movements which fall under the CMR Convention, either by contract or by convention.
Transport of Goods by Road Law
In
May 1956 a Convention was signed in Geneva to bring uniformity to the
question of liabilities incurred by road hauliers for loss and damage
to goods during international transit. The Convention entitled the
“Convention relative au contrat de transport international de
merchandises par route” has become more commonly known by the
abbreviation CMR.
It applies when the place of taking over the goods and the place designated for delivery are situated in two different countries (at least one of which is a “contracting country”) and specified vehicles are used for the carriage namely motor vehicles, articulated vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers. Transport of containers is covered by the convention is such vehicles are used for the physical movement.
While the original intention of the Convention was to provide uniformity it can be said that there are differences in interpretation and it is therefore very important for us to understand the attitude with respect to wilful misconduct of say the Dutch Courts as opposed to that in Germany or England. Article 31.1 of the English Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 which brought the Convention into effect in the UK provides that the plaintiff may bring an action in any court or tribunal of a contracting country designated by agreement between the parties or the courts where the defendant is ordinarily resident or has his principal place of business or the branch or agency through which the contract was made or the place where the goods were taken over by the carrier or the place designated for delivery. Thus there are at least two jurisdictions to consider and three on occasion.
Further complications arise where the prime carrier sub-contracts the movement to one or more sub-contractors. They may or may not be deemed successive carriers under CMR. We also deal with difficulties caused by hauliers ceasing to trade and having no insurance and also a prevalent problem of Goods in Transit insurers declining to indemnify hauliers due to their breach of policy conditions.
The principal issues which arise in negotiation are still the haulier’s ability to defend claims by reference to Article 17.2 and 17.4 in comparison to the requirements on uplifting the load as set down in Article 8 and during transit as defined in Article 17.1. Despite the clarity of Articles 23, 25 and 27 quantum is still argued over but perhaps the most prevailing question is the enforcement of Article 29.1 largely due to the recent legal decisions in Holland and Germany.
It applies when the place of taking over the goods and the place designated for delivery are situated in two different countries (at least one of which is a “contracting country”) and specified vehicles are used for the carriage namely motor vehicles, articulated vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers. Transport of containers is covered by the convention is such vehicles are used for the physical movement.
While the original intention of the Convention was to provide uniformity it can be said that there are differences in interpretation and it is therefore very important for us to understand the attitude with respect to wilful misconduct of say the Dutch Courts as opposed to that in Germany or England. Article 31.1 of the English Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 which brought the Convention into effect in the UK provides that the plaintiff may bring an action in any court or tribunal of a contracting country designated by agreement between the parties or the courts where the defendant is ordinarily resident or has his principal place of business or the branch or agency through which the contract was made or the place where the goods were taken over by the carrier or the place designated for delivery. Thus there are at least two jurisdictions to consider and three on occasion.
Further complications arise where the prime carrier sub-contracts the movement to one or more sub-contractors. They may or may not be deemed successive carriers under CMR. We also deal with difficulties caused by hauliers ceasing to trade and having no insurance and also a prevalent problem of Goods in Transit insurers declining to indemnify hauliers due to their breach of policy conditions.
The principal issues which arise in negotiation are still the haulier’s ability to defend claims by reference to Article 17.2 and 17.4 in comparison to the requirements on uplifting the load as set down in Article 8 and during transit as defined in Article 17.1. Despite the clarity of Articles 23, 25 and 27 quantum is still argued over but perhaps the most prevailing question is the enforcement of Article 29.1 largely due to the recent legal decisions in Holland and Germany.