China Airlines v Philips Hong Kong: Warsaw Convention & Liability for Lost Cargo
In China Airlines Ltd v Philips Hong Kong Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed the computation of liability limits under Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol, concerning international carriage by air. Philips Hong Kong Ltd shipped goods via China Airlines Ltd, with the goods packed into one pallet containing nine cartons. Upon arrival, some of the goods were missing. The court ruled that the limit of liability should be based on the weight of the entire package (the pallet), not the individual cartons within it, dismissing China Airlines' appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
China Airlines Ltd v Philips Hong Kong Ltd: Court of Appeal clarifies liability limits under the Warsaw Convention for lost cargo within a package.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China Airlines Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Lok Vi Ming, Ng Hwee Chong, Foong Chi Yuen Joanna |
| Philips Hong Kong Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Upheld | Won | Yap Yin Soon, Kok Tsung-Hao |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lok Vi Ming | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Ng Hwee Chong | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Foong Chi Yuen Joanna | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Yap Yin Soon | Allen & Gledhill |
| Kok Tsung-Hao | Allen & Gledhill |
4. Facts
- Philips Hong Kong Ltd shipped 1,000 cellular digital spark transceivers from Singapore to Hong Kong via China Airlines Ltd.
- The transceivers were packed in nine cartons, which were then packed as one single package or pallet.
- A single air waybill was issued, indicating '1' as the number of pieces and 154kg as the gross weight.
- Upon arrival in Hong Kong, four cartons containing 440 transceivers were missing.
- The total value of the missing transceivers was US$74,360.
- The dispute centered on whether the limit of liability should be computed based on the pallet or the individual cartons.
5. Formal Citations
- China Airlines Ltd v Philips Hong Kong Ltd, CA 600119/2001, [2002] SGCA 29
- China Airlines Ltd v Philips Hong Kong Ltd, , [2002] 1 SLR 57
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Limitation of Carrier's Liability
- Outcome: The court held that the limit of liability should be computed based on the entire package (pallet), not the sub-packages (cartons) within it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Computation of compensation
- Definition of 'package'
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Compensation
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Loss of Goods
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Aviation
- Logistics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The River Gurara | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 Lloyd`s Rep 225 | England and Wales | Cited to draw a parallel with the Hague Rules and Hague-Visby Rules regarding the definition of 'package' in the context of containerized cargo, but ultimately distinguished due to differences in the conventions. |
| The Kulmerland | Not Available | Yes | [1973] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 428 | United States | Cited in the context of the 'functional economics test' for determining what constitutes a package under the Hague Rules, but this test was not accepted in all jurisdictions. |
| Data Card Corp v Air Express International Corp | Not Available | Yes | [1983] 2 All ER 639 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the interpretation of Article 22 of the original Warsaw Convention, but distinguished because the air waybill referred to multiple packages. |
| Yusen Air & Sea Service (S) v Changi International Airport Services | Court of Appeal of Singapore | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a purposive interpretation should be given to Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention. |
| Singapore Airlines v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) | Not Available | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 241 | Singapore | Cited to reinforce the point that the Warsaw Convention seeks to protect the carrier by setting limits to its liability. |
| Standard Electrica SA v Hamburg Sudamerikanische Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft | US Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) | Yes | [1967] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 193 | United States | Cited as reflecting the US-European approach, where all relevant documents, including the bill of lading, regarded each pallet as a package. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol, art 22(2)(b) | International |
| Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol, art 11(2) | International |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Warsaw Convention
- Hague Protocol
- Air waybill
- Package
- Limitation of liability
- Consignor
- Carrier
- Pallet
- Transceivers
15.2 Keywords
- Warsaw Convention
- Hague Protocol
- Air cargo
- Liability limitation
- Package
- Air waybill
16. Subjects
- Carriage of Goods
- International Air Law
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Carriage of Goods by Air
- International Treaties and Conventions
- Air Law