[Case brief]

In December 2015, the seller, KEPPEL, entrusted SARJAK to transport a set of waste incineration equipment from GDYNIA Port in Poland to Tianjin Xingang. On December 22, VGL SP. Z O.O. issued a bill of lading as the agent of the carrier SARJAK, and the bill of lading stated that the carrier ship was the ship WES AMELIE, the shipper was KEPPEL, and the consignee was “To Order”, the goods were a set of garbage incineration equipment loaded in eight containers, and the carrier’s responsibility interval is CY/CY.

SARJAK did not actually transport the goods, but entrusted the defendant Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. to transport the goods. The defendant Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. issued a sea waybill, which stated that the shipper was VGL SP. Z O.O., the carrier ship was the ship WES AMELIE, the port of departure was GDYNIA port, the port of destination was Tianjin Xingang, and the responsibility interval was CY/CY. The goods were first transported by the ship WES AMELIE to Rotterdam Port in the Netherlands, and then loaded onto the ship COSCO HARMONY, which transported the goods to Tianjin Xingang. The registered owner of the ship COSCO HARMONY was SEAPAN CORPORATION. COSCO CONTAINER LINES COMPANY LIMITED had signed master agreements on ship sharing and space allocation with the defendant in this case and another two shipping companies. The goods were found damaged at the consignee’s factory in Beijing. The plaintiff Navigator Insurance Company obtained the right of subrogation after compensating the insured’s losses.

[Judicial decision]

Tianjin Maritime Court made the judgment that the claims of the plaintiff Navigator Insurance Company were rejected.

[Significance]

This case is a dispute about subrogation in maritime cargo transport insurance due to interchange of shipping spaces in the sea route along the “Belt and Road”. Since the Maritime Law does not clearly stipulate the rights and obligations of the parties under shipping space interchange, in maritime judicial practice, disputes arising from the legal status of the space providers and users are frequently seen. In the opinion of the Court, Article 42 of the Maritime Law does not clearly define the “actual carrier” as a person “actually” engaged in cargo transport. The “actual carrier” should not be simply and mechanically interpreted as a person who uses its own or leased ships for transportation, but should also include the actual organizers and participants of maritime cargo transport. In the event of shipping space interchange, the space user is the party that issues the transport documents and organizes the transport, and the space provider is the party engaged in the actual transport of the goods. The space user should be identified as the actual carrier, and should bear the liability of actual carrier when the claimant claims against the actual carrier for the loss, damage or delayed delivery of the goods. This case has a reference significance for accurately identifying the actual carrier and allocating liabilities under shipping space interchange.