Philips Hong Kong v China Airlines: Warsaw Convention & Liability for Lost Cargo

In Philips Hong Kong Limited v China Airlines Limited, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the limitation of liability for lost cargo under the Warsaw Convention. Philips Hong Kong, the plaintiff, sued China Airlines, the defendant, for the loss of 440 transceivers during shipment from Singapore to Hong Kong. The key issue was whether the compensation should be calculated based on one package (the pallet) or nine packages (the cartons within the pallet). The court allowed the appeal, holding that the compensation should be based on the weight of the entire package as stated in the air waybill.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding carrier's liability under Warsaw Convention for lost cargo. Court held compensation limited to weight of package, not lost contents.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Philips Hong Kong LimitedAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal AllowedWonYap Yin Soon
China Airlines LimitedRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal LostLostRobert Wee

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yap Yin SoonAllen & Gledhill
Robert WeeHo & Wee

4. Facts

  1. Philips Singapore shipped 1,000 transceivers to Philips Hong Kong via China Airlines.
  2. The air waybill stated '1' package with a gross weight of 154 kilograms.
  3. The consignor's invoice indicated '1 pallet'.
  4. Upon arrival in Hong Kong, the pallet was damaged, and 440 transceivers were missing.
  5. The missing transceivers had a total value of US$74,360.
  6. The defendant argued compensation should be based on 4 packages weighing 60 kilograms.
  7. The plaintiff argued compensation should be based on 1 package weighing 154 kilograms.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Philips Hong Kong Limited v China Airlines Limited, M C Suit 21209/1999, RAS 600008/2001, [2001] SGHC 363

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lawsuit filed
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Limitation of Liability
    • Outcome: The court held that the compensation should be based on the weight of the entire package as stated in the air waybill, not the weight of the lost contents.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of 'package' under Warsaw Convention
      • Calculation of compensation for partial loss of cargo
  2. Interpretation of Warsaw Convention
    • Outcome: The court interpreted Article 22(2) to mean that sub-article (a) sets the monetary limit by weight for both total and partial loss, while sub-article (b) sets out the basis on which the monetary limit is computed for partial loss.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of Article 22(2)(a)
      • Application of Article 22(2)(b)
  3. Evidentiary Weight of Air Waybill
    • Outcome: The court acknowledged that the weight on an air waybill can be rebutted with proper evidence, but in this case, the defendant was bound by the number of packages stated in the waybill.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Rebuttal of prima facie evidence
      • Admissibility of packaging details

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Aviation Litigation

11. Industries

  • Aviation
  • Logistics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The "River Gurara"N/AYes[1998] 1 Ll LR 225N/ACited for its comprehensive review of issues related to the Hague Rules in connection with carriage by sea, relevant to interpreting 'package' under the Warsaw Convention.
Yusen Air & Sea Service (S) Pte Ltd v. Changi International Airport Services Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 4 SLR 135SingaporeCited for the principle that the weight stated on an air waybill can be rebutted with proper evidence.
Bland v British Airways BoardN/AYes[1981] 1 Ll LR 289N/ACited for its discussion on the application of Article 22(2)(a) and (b) of the Warsaw Convention regarding liability for lost baggage.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Carriage by Air Act (Cap 32A)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Warsaw Convention
  • Air Waybill
  • Limitation of Liability
  • Package
  • Consignment
  • Transceivers
  • Pallet
  • Cargo
  • Carrier
  • Consignor
  • Consignee

15.2 Keywords

  • Warsaw Convention
  • China Airlines
  • Philips Hong Kong
  • Air Waybill
  • Liability
  • Cargo
  • Singapore
  • High Court

16. Subjects

  • Aviation
  • Shipping
  • International Trade
  • Transportation Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Aviation Law
  • Contract Law
  • International Law
  • Transportation Law