Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402
Contract law – Sale of goods – Shipping contracts
Facts
The plaintiff delivered a fire tender which was sold by a contract of sale. As the tender was being lifted onto the ship, before it crossed the rail on the ship, it was dropped and subsequently damaged. As per the contract of sale between the parties, the possession of the property had not passed at this stage. A bill of lading had been drawn up but was not issued. The sellers sued the owners of the ship for the cost to repair the tender. The owners of the ship admitted liability but argued their liability would be limited by the Hague Rules, Article 4 (5).
Issue
The sellers of the tender claimed that as the goods had not crossed the rail of the ship, the incident had occurred off of the ship and therefore outside the scope of the Hague Rules. Further to this, because the bill of lading had not been conveyed, these terms had not been included in the contract between the parties. Lastly, the seller argued that even if the term had been included in the contract, they could not be applied in the agreement between the ship-owners and themselves.
Held
The court held that limited liability under the Hague Rules did extend to the loading of the cargo on to the ship. Moreover, it was found that the bill of lading was irrelevant and the contract could be regarded as the incomplete bill of lading on the basis that all three parties were deemed to have a benefit from the agreement. As a result of this finding, the plaintiffs could only recover £200 as per the Hague Rules which were considered to be included in the contract.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402. The case remains good law and is still cited in discussions of the Hague Rules and the incorporation of bill of lading terms into shipping contracts.
Readers should be aware of the broader legislative context. The Hague Rules were given effect in English law by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924, which was subsequently replaced by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 (incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules). The Hague-Visby Rules amended certain provisions, including the package limitation figure in Article IV Rule 5, which now differs from the £200 figure applicable under the original Hague Rules at the time of this case. The 1971 Act remains in force. The case’s core principles regarding the scope of the Hague Rules during loading operations and the incorporation of bill of lading terms into contracts where a bill has not yet been issued remain relevant and are not affected by these later statutory changes, though the specific monetary limitation would now fall to be calculated differently under the Hague-Visby Rules in modern cases.
