Carriage of goods meaning

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. A range of jurisdictional regimes dictates whether a court may hear a dispute. This Checklist reviews the anticipated impact of Brexit on how different courts apply those rules when determining the effect of a particular jurisdiction agreement (also referred to as a choice of court agreement) after exit day. The rules examined are: Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) Lugano Convention 2007 Brussels Convention Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements national laws It does not address Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I since, with the passage of time, it is unlikely to be relevant for determining jurisdiction. Nor does it cover specialist conventions dealing with jurisdiction, such as the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg rules). The Checklist assesses any change (if any) in the application of these rules as a consequence of Brexit, including the effect of the saving provisions...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Investment treaty arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Court of Appeal clarifies approach to conflicting dispute resolution clauses In Tyson v GIC Re, India [2026] EWCA Civ 40, the Court of Appeal set out how to read competing dispute resolution provisions. If inconsistent terms—such as rival arbitration and jurisdiction clauses—appear within a single document, it should be construed holistically, aiming to give effect to all clauses where possible. That principle has limited application where the inconsistencies arise across different documents and a hierarchy provision or ‘confusion clause’ is engaged. In those circumstances, as in this case, the hierarchy clause prevails. This notable judgment underscores the value of a clearly drafted, express hierarchy provision when conflicts occur. See News Analysis: Court of Appeal...

In this issue: Air emissions and climate change Energy efficiency and buildings Energy for environmental lawyers Environmental assessment Environmental disputes and proceedings Environmental enforcement and prosecutions Environmental information ESG and sustainability Hazardous substances and chemicals Marine Nature, biodiversity and habitat conservation Waste Waste producer responsibility regimes Water, flooding and drainage Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Useful information Air emissions and climate change Carbon Budget Plan judicial review succeeds (R (Friends of the Earth and others) v Secretary of State for Energy Security & Net Zero) This claim concerns the government’s obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA 2008). Central to it is the Secretary of State’s duty to formulate and lay before Parliament proposals and policies which, in his judgement, ‘will enable the carbon budgets’ to be met (CCA 2008, s 13(1)). The judicial review challenged the Carbon Budget Delivery...

Time bar and deck cargo under the Hague-Visby Rules (Batavia Eximp & Contracting v Pedregal Maritime) Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) PTE Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA (‘The Taikoo Brilliance’) [2025] EWHC 1878 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Claimants encountering a time bar under Article III,6 of the Hague-Visby Rules should recognise that issuing proceedings merely to secure assets will not halt time from running. To sidestep a time-bar defence, the claimant must initiate proceedings seeking a final determination of the dispute in the proper forum, whether that is arbitration or the court. The judgment reinforces the finality and certainty that the time bar is meant to achieve. The court also offered practical guidance on the statements that should appear on bills of lading when describing deck cargo, so that it comes within the exception to the definition of ‘Goods’ in Article I(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not maintained. For the 2020 iteration of the rule, refer to: Incoterms® 2020 Rules—CIP Carriage and insurance paid to. ICC materials are reproduced here with permission from ICC Publishing SA. These and other ICC publications are available from ICC Publishing SA, 33-43 avenue du Président Wilson, 75116 Paris, France and from ICC United Kingdom, 1st Floor, 1-3 Staple Inn London, WC1V 7QH, United Kingdom, and www.iccwbo.org. With effect from 1 January 2020, Incoterms® 2020 rules superseded the Incoterms® 2010 rules. For the CIP term in force from 1 January 2020, see Practice Note: Incoterms® 2020 Rules—CIP Carriage and insurance paid to. CIP (insert named place of destination) Incoterms® 2010 Guidance note This rule applies regardless of the transport mode chosen and may equally be adopted when multiple modes of transport are used. Under ‘Carriage and Insurance Paid to’, the seller hands the goods to the carrier, or another party designated by the seller, at a location agreed between them (where any...

This Practice Note outlines the purpose and functions of sea carriage documents in relation to the delivery of cargo, with particular attention to bills of lading and sea waybills. It explains that a bill of lading may be issued as a charterers’ bill or an owner’s bill, and that such documents operate both as evidence of the contract of carriage and as security for finance. Sea carriage documents A sea carriage document is produced to obtain release of goods, either at the port of discharge or at the nominated place of delivery, depending on the form issued by the carrier to the shipper. That document will be either: a bill of lading a sea waybill For more detail on bills of lading and sea waybills, see the Practice Note: Bills of lading and sea waybills. Bill of lading A bill of lading may be: bearer bill of lading: goods covered...

This Practice Note sets out the guidance for the CIP ‘Carriage and Insurance Paid to’ Incoterm under the Incoterms® 2020 rules, reproduced here with the permission of ICC Publishing SA. Incoterms® 2020 rules and other ICC publications are available from ICC Publishing SA, 33–43 avenue du Président Wilson, 75116 Paris, France, and from ICC United Kingdom, 1st Floor, 1–3 Staple Inn, London, WC1V 7QH, United Kingdom, as well as at www.iccwbo.org. The Incoterms® 2020 rules took effect on 1 January 2020, updating the framework to reflect market developments over the last decade. For the CIP Incoterm applicable up to that date, see Practice Note: Incoterms® 2010 Rules—CIP Carriage and Insurance Paid to [Archived]. CIP (insert named place of destination) Incoterms® 2020 Explanatory notes for users ‘Carriage and Insurance Paid to’ indicates that the seller delivers the goods—and transfers risk—to the buyer: by handing them to the carrier engaged by the seller or by procuring the goods to be so delivered...

Greener and More Efficient HGVs in Road and Multimodal Transport Agreements Under this Precedent, contracting carriers must deploy energy-efficient vehicles for all road carriage within a transport agreement, or, alternatively, stipulate that a set proportion of road journeys will be carried out using green heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). The sustainability provisions were developed by The Chancery Lane Project (TCLP) as ‘Greener and More Efficient HGVs in Road and Multimodal Transport Agreements’ and are linked to on TCLP’s website below. For comprehensive guidance on contracting for the use of energy-efficient HGVs, please consult the TCLP clause. TCLP is the codename for a focused, collaborative endeavour by lawyers across the globe to create new contracts and model laws aimed at tackling climate change. For further details, see: chancerylaneproject.org. Lexis+® is proud to support TCLP’s work...