In a case filed in the Business and Property Courts of the High Court of England and Wales on 8 September, Tokyo, Japan-based seafood company Kyokuyo and its insurer, Sompo Japan Insurance Inc., are suing Copenhagen, Denmark-based container shipping company Maersk A/S for failing to maintain a refrigerated container of bluefin tuna at a temperature of negative 60 degrees Celsius.
The tuna, intended for sashimi, was shipped from Malta to Japan in November of last year. While the reefer container was set to maintain a temperature of negative 60 degrees Celsius, Maersk told the importer during the trip that the refrigeration units were not functioning properly. The container had no power on two occasions during the trip, and the temperature in the container rose to negative 2.5 degrees Celsius after being restarted the second time.
The plaintiffs claim that this affected the quality of the fish, which was disposed of at a loss almost JPY 57.9 million (USD 520,000, EUR 440,000). They accuse Maersk of failing to take "reasonable care" of the cargo, on the assumption that the company failed to confirm that the container was in good condition prior to sailing.
This is not the first time that the seafood importer has gone to court against Maersk. A 2017 case, which also concerned spoiled bluefin tuna – this time shipped from Cartagena, Spain, to Japan – set two important legal precedents.
Maersk claimed in that case that the Hague-Visby Rules, which updated the earlier Hague Rules (a set of international rules for the international carriage of goods by sea), did not apply in the case because they are only for items shipped under a bill of lading. To save time, Kokuyo had asked for a seaway bill rather than a bill of lading. The company also made the argument that the tuna shipped was a single “item” shipped in bulk, because the tuna loins and parts being shipped were individually bagged but not otherwise packaged.
This would have been significant under the older Hague rules, as under the package limitation provision of those rules, shipping company liability is capped per “package.” The shipping company claimed that the relevant “package” was therefore the container.
Both claims by Maersk ultimately failed, with the court ruling on the first claim that the standard rules of carriage entitled Kyokuyo to a bill of lading, and it didn’t matter whether one was actually issued. On the second claim, the number of individual tuna loins was listed in the item description on the seaway bill, the court found that this would have been the relevant number of packages under the Hague Rules.
In the end, negating the claims was a moot point – the court ruled that the newer Hague-Visby Rules applied.
Both rulings will likely factor into the latest case related to spoiled tuna brought against the shipping company.
Photo courtesy of makesushi1/Shutterstock
