{"id":"C2004A04235","name":"Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991","slug":"carriage-of-goods-by-sea-act-1991","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"160 of 1991","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":7494,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004A04235-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-03-30","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Part 1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Preliminary","content":"## Part 1—Preliminary","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"#### 1 Short title\n\n  This Act may be cited as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"#### 2 Commencement\n\n  (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.\n  (2) Subject to subsection (3), Part 3 and Schedule 2 commence as provided in section 2A.\n  (3) If, within 10 years of the commencement of this section, the Minister has not tabled a statement in accordance with subsection 2A(4) setting out a decision that the amended Hague Rules should be replaced by the Hamburg Rules, Part 3 and Schedule 2, and section 2A, are repealed on the first day after the end of that 10 years.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Object of Act","content":"#### 3 Object of Act\n\n  (1) The object of this Act is to introduce a regime of marine cargo liability that:\n    (a) is up‑to‑date, equitable and efficient; and\n    (b) is compatible with arrangements existing in countries that are major trading partners of Australia; and\n    (c) takes into account developments within the United Nations in relation to marine cargo liability arrangements.\n  (2) The object of the Act is to be achieved by:\n    (a) as a first step—replacing the Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924 with provisions that give effect to the Brussels Convention as amended by the Visby Protocol and the SDR Protocol, and as modified in accordance with regulations under section 7; and\n    (b) as a second step—replacing those provisions with provisions that give effect to the Hamburg Convention, if the Minister decides, after conducting a review, that those provisions should be so replaced.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Interpretation","content":"#### 4 Interpretation\n\n  (1) In this Act:\n\n> amended Hague Rules has the meaning given in section 7.\n\n> Australia, when used in a geographical sense, includes the external Territories.\n\n> Brussels Convention means the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, done at Brussels on 25 August 1924.\n\n> Hamburg Convention means the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, being Annex I of the Final Act of the United Nations Conference on the Carriage of Goods by Sea done at Hamburg on 31 March 1978.\n\n> Hamburg Rules has the meaning given in section 12.\n\n> marine insurers means insurers who provide marine insurance, whether or not they also provide other kinds of insurance, and includes Australian representatives of member Associations of the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Associations.\n\n> maritime law associations means law associations with an interest in maritime law, whether or not they are also interested in other areas of law.\n\n> SDR Protocol means the Protocol amending the Brussels Convention, as amended by the Visby Protocol, done at Brussels on 21 December 1979.\n\n> Visby Protocol means the Protocol amending the Brussels Convention, done at Brussels on 23 February 1968.\n\n  (2) A reference in this Act to a non‑negotiable document includes a reference to a sea waybill.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Act to bind Crown","content":"#### 5 Act to bind Crown\n\n  This Act binds the Crown in each of its capacities.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Extension to external Territories","content":"#### 6 Extension to external Territories\n\n  This Act extends to all the external Territories.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"Part 2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Application of the amended Hague Rules etc.","content":"## Part 2—Application of the amended Hague Rules etc.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"section","heading":"The amended Hague Rules","content":"#### 7 The amended Hague Rules\n\n  (1) The amended Hague Rules consists of the text set out in Schedule 1, as modified in accordance with the Schedule of modifications referred to in subsection (2). The text set out in Schedule 1 (in its unmodified form) is the English translation of Articles 1 to 10 of the Brussels Convention, as amended by Articles 1 to 5 of the Visby Protocol and Article II of the SDR Protocol.\n  (2) The regulations may amend this Act to add a Schedule (the Schedule of modifications) that modifies the text set out in Schedule 1 for the following purposes:\n    (a) to provide for the coverage of a wider range of sea carriage documents (including documents in electronic form);\n    (b) to provide for the coverage of contracts for the carriage of goods by sea from places in countries outside Australia to places in Australia in situations where the contracts do not incorporate, or do not otherwise have effect subject to, a relevant international convention (see subsection (6));\n    (c) to provide for increased coverage of deck cargo;\n    (d) to extend the period during which carriers may incur liability;\n    (e) to provide for carriers to be liable for loss due to delay in circumstances identified as being inexcusable.\n  The modifications do not actually amend the text set out in Schedule 1, however the text has effect for the purposes of this Act as if it were modified in accordance with the Schedule of modifications.\n  (3) The regulations may:\n    (a) amend the Schedule of modifications, but only in connection with the purposes set out in subsection (2); and\n    (b) amend the provisions of this Part to the extent necessary or appropriate, having regard to the modifications set out in the Schedule of modifications as in force from time to time.\n\n> Note: For example, regulations extending the range of sea carriage documents to be covered by the text in Schedule 1 may create a need for associated amendments of sections 10 and 11.\n\n  (4) Before regulations are made for the purposes of this section, the Minister must consult with representatives of shippers, ship owners, carriers, cargo owners, marine insurers and maritime law associations about the regulations that are proposed to be made.\n  (6) In this section:\n\n> relevant international convention means:\n\n    (a) the Brussels Convention; or\n    (b) the Brussels Convention as amended by either or both of the Visby Protocol and the SDR Protocol; or\n    (c) the Hamburg Convention.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"8","sectionType":"section","heading":"The amended Hague Rules to have the force of law","content":"#### 8 The amended Hague Rules to have the force of law\n\n  Subject to section 10, the amended Hague Rules have the force of law in Australia.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"9","sectionType":"section","heading":"Interpretation","content":"#### 9 Interpretation\n\n  In this Part and the amended Hague Rules, unless the contrary intention appears, a word or expression has the same meaning as it has in the Brussels Convention as amended by the Visby Protocol and the SDR Protocol.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"9A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Determination of limits of a port or wharf","content":"#### 9A Determination of limits of a port or wharf\n\n  A determination by the Minister, for paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the amended Hague Rules, of the limits of a port or wharf in Australia is a legislative instrument.\n\n> Note 1: The amended Hague Rules are set out in Schedule 1A—see ss 4(1) and 7(1).\n\n> Note 2: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the determination: see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"10","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application of the amended Hague Rules","content":"#### 10 Application of the amended Hague Rules\n\n  (1) The amended Hague Rules only apply to a contract of carriage of goods by sea that:\n    (a) is made on or after the commencement of Schedule 1A and before the commencement of Part 3; and\n    (b) is a contract:\n    (i) to which, under Article 10 of the amended Hague Rules, those Rules apply; or\n    (ii) subject to subsections (1A) and (2)—for the carriage of goods by sea from a port in Australia to another port in Australia; or\n    (iii) contained in or evidenced by a non‑negotiable document (other than a bill of lading or similar document of title), being a contract that contains express provision to the effect that the amended Hague Rules are to govern the contract as if the document were a bill of lading.\n\n> Note: The amended Hague Rules are set out in Schedule 1A—see ss 4(1) and 7(1).\n\n  (1A) If a contract for the carriage of goods by sea referred to in subparagraph 10(1)(b)(ii) is contained only in, or evidenced only by, a consignment note, the amended Hague Rules apply to the contract only if paragraph 5 of Article 10 of those Rules so requires.\n  (2) The amended Hague Rules do not apply in relation to the carriage of goods by sea from a port in any State or Territory in Australia to any other port in that State or Territory.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"11","sectionType":"section","heading":"Construction and jurisdiction","content":"#### 11 Construction and jurisdiction\n\n  (1) All parties to:\n    (a) a sea carriage document relating to the carriage of goods from any place in Australia to any place outside Australia; or\n    (b) a non‑negotiable document of a kind mentioned in subparagraph 10(1)(b)(iii), relating to such a carriage of goods;\n  are taken to have intended to contract according to the laws in force at the place of shipment.\n  (2) An agreement (whether made in Australia or elsewhere) has no effect so far as it purports to:\n    (a) preclude or limit the effect of subsection (1) in respect of a bill of lading or a document mentioned in that subsection; or\n    (b) preclude or limit the jurisdiction of a court of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory in respect of a bill of lading or a document mentioned in subsection (1); or\n    (c) preclude or limit the jurisdiction of a court of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory in respect of:\n    (i) a sea carriage document relating to the carriage of goods from any place outside Australia to any place in Australia; or\n    (ii) a non‑negotiable document of a kind mentioned in subparagraph 10(1)(b)(iii) relating to such a carriage of goods.\n  (3) An agreement, or a provision of an agreement, that provides for the resolution of a dispute by arbitration is not made ineffective by subsection (2) (despite the fact that it may preclude or limit the jurisdiction of a court) if, under the agreement or provision, the arbitration must be conducted in Australia.","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"Part 4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Miscellaneous","content":"## Part 4—Miscellaneous","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"17","sectionType":"section","heading":"Absolute undertaking to provide a seaworthy ship not implied","content":"#### 17 Absolute undertaking to provide a seaworthy ship not implied\n\n  There is not to be implied in any contract for the carriage of goods by sea to which Part 2 or 3 of this Act applies any absolute undertaking by the carrier of the goods to provide a seaworthy ship.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"18","sectionType":"section","heading":"Act prevails over certain provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010","content":"#### 18 Act prevails over certain provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010\n\n  The provisions of this Act prevail over the provisions of Division 1 of Part 3‑2 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as that Division applies as a law of the Commonwealth, to the extent of any inconsistency.","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"19","sectionType":"section","heading":"Act not to affect operation of certain provisions","content":"#### 19 Act not to affect operation of certain provisions\n\n  Nothing in this Act affects the operation of:\n    (a) Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Navigation Act 2012; or\n    (b) the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"20","sectionType":"section","heading":"Repeal of the Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924 etc.","content":"#### 20 Repeal of the Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924 etc.\n\n  (1) The Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924 is repealed.\n  (2) The Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924, as in force immediately before the commencement of this section, continues to apply to a contract of carriage of goods by sea after that commencement if:\n    (a) the contract was made before that commencement; and\n    (b) that Act would have applied but for the operation of subsection (1).","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"21","sectionType":"section","heading":"Repeal of section 2C of the International Arbitration Act 1974 and substitution of new section","content":"#### 21 Repeal of section 2C of the International Arbitration Act 1974 and substitution of new section\n\n  Section 2C of the International Arbitration Act 1974 is repealed and the following section is substituted:\n\n“2C Carriage of goods by sea\n\n  Nothing in this Act affects:\n    (a) the continued operation of section 9 of the Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924 under subsection 20(2) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991; or\n    (b) the operation of section 11 or 16 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991.”","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"22","sectionType":"section","heading":"Regulations","content":"#### 22 Regulations\n\n  The Governor‑General may make regulations prescribing matters:\n    (a) required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed; or\n    (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"1. Modifications","sectionType":"section","heading":"1. Modifications","content":"#### 1. Modifications\n\n  1.1 The modifications of the text in Schedule 1 are:\n  (a) the omission from the text (reproduced below) of the portions shown there in light type‑face and struck through; and\n  (b) the insertion of the portions shown there in italic type.\n\nTHE AMENDED HAGUE RULES\n\nARTICLE 1\n\n  1. In this convention these Rules, the following words are employed, with the meanings set out below:—\n  (a) “Carrier” includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper.\n  (aa) “Consignment note” means a non‑negotiable document that:\n  (i) contains or evidences a contract of carriage by sea in connection with which no bill of lading or similar document of title has been issued; and\n  (ii) clearly states that no liability for any loss of, damage to or delay of the goods will be accepted by the carrier of the goods; and\n  (iii) is clearly marked as being non‑negotiable.\n  (b) “Contract of carriage” applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same.\n  (b) “Contract of carriage” means a contract of carriage covered by a sea carriage document (to the extent that the document relates to the carriage of goods by sea), and includes a negotiable sea carriage document issued under a charterparty from the moment at which that document regulates the relations between its holder and the carrier concerned.\n  (ba) “Data message” means information generated, stored or communicated by electronic, optical or analogous means (including electronic data interchange, electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy) even if the information is never reproduced in printed form.\n  (c) “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandise, and articles of every kind whatsoever except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried.\n  (d) “Ship” means any vessel used for the carriage of goods by sea.\n  (e) “Carriage of goods by sea” covers the period during which a carrier is in charge of the goods, according to paragraph 3 of this Article from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time they are discharged from the ship.\n  (f) “Negotiable sea carriage document” means:\n  (i) a bill of lading (other than a bill of lading that, by law, is not negotiable); or\n  (ii) a negotiable document of title that is similar to a negotiable bill of lading and that contains or evidences a contract of carriage of goods by sea.\n  (g) “Sea carriage document” means:\n  (i) a bill of lading; or\n  (ii) a negotiable document of title that is similar to a bill of lading and that contains or evidences a contract of carriage of goods by sea; or\n  (iii) a bill of lading that, by law, is not negotiable; or\n  (iv) a non‑negotiable document (including a consignment note and a document of the kind known as a sea waybill or the kind known as a ship’s delivery order) that either contains or evidences a contract of carriage of goods by sea.\n  \\[NOTE: These Rules do not apply to all sea carriage documents—see Article 10.\\]\n  (h) “Writing” includes electronic mail, electronic data interchange, facsimile transmission, and entry in a database maintained on a computer system.\n  2. For these Rules, goods are taken to be delivered to the consignee when they are delivered to, or placed at the disposal of:\n  (a) the consignee; or\n  (b) an authority to which the goods are required by law to be delivered; or\n  (c) a person authorised by the consignee to take delivery of the goods.\n  3. For these Rules:\n  (a) a carrier begins to be in charge of goods at the time the goods are delivered to the carrier (or an agent or servant of the carrier) within the limits of a port or wharf; and\n  (b) the carrier ceases to be in charge of the goods at the time the goods are delivered to, or placed at the disposal of, the consignee within the limits of the port or wharf that is the intended destination of the goods.\n  4. For these Rules, the limits of a port or wharf in Australia are the limits of:\n  (a) the area within the limits fixed for the port or wharf by the Comptroller‑General of Customs under paragraph 15 (1) (a) or (2) (a) of the Customs Act 1901; and\n  (b) any terminal area used for cargo handling that has a common boundary with the area within the limits mentioned in paragraph (a).\n  5. However, if the Minister is satisfied that, for a particular port or wharf, the limits worked out as set out in paragraph 4 of this Article may produce an anomalous result, the Minister may by instrument determine the limits of the port or wharf for these Rules.\n  6. For these Rules, the limits of a port or wharf outside Australia are the limits fixed by any local law (including any terminal area used for cargo handling that has a common boundary with the area within those limits).\n\nARTICLE 1A\n\n  1. These Rules apply, with any necessary changes, to a sea carriage document in the form of a data message in the same way as they apply to such a document in printed form.\n  2. Without limiting paragraph 1, for these Rules in their application to such sea carriage documents:\n  (a) a sea carriage document is issued when a data message is generated in a way that constitutes issue of such a document within the system being used by the parties to the relevant contract of carriage; and\n  (b) a sea carriage document is transferred when a data message is generated in a way that constitutes transfer of the sea carriage document within the system being used by the parties to the relevant contract of carriage.\n\nARTICLE 2\n\n  1. Subject to the provisions of this Article and Articles 6 and 6A, under every contract of carriage of goods by sea the carrier, in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care and discharge of such goods, shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities, and entitled to the rights and immunities, set out in these Rules.\n  2. For paragraph 1 of this Article, “goods” includes goods (except live animals) carried on or above deck.\n  3. However, if the shipper has specific stowage requirements for goods carried on or above deck, then, for paragraph 1 of this Article to apply, the shipper must tell the carrier in writing of those requirements at or before the time of booking the cargo.\n  4. Despite Article 4bis, if a carrier carries goods on or above deck contrary to an express agreement with the shipper of the goods made at or before the time of booking the cargo, then, for any loss or damage to the goods that results solely from the goods being carried on or above deck, the carrier is not entitled:\n  (a) to any exception or exemption under these Rules; or\n  (b) to any limit provided by these Rules to its liability for the loss or damage.\n  \\[NOTE: Article 6A allows a shipper and a carrier to agree that these Rules do not apply to certain kinds of cargo that must be carried on deck—see that Article.\\]\n\nARTICLE 3\n\n  1. The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to—\n  (a) Make the ship seaworthy.\n  (b) Properly man, equip and supply the ship.\n  (c) Make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation.\n  2. Subject to the provisions of Article 4, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried.\n  3. After receiving the goods into his charge the carrier or the master or agent of the carrier shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the shipper abill of lading sea carriage document showing among other things—\n  (a) The leading marks necessary for identification of the goods as the same are furnished in writing by the shipper before the loading of such goods starts, provided such marks are stamped or otherwise shown clearly upon the goods if uncovered, or on the cases or coverings in which such goods are contained, in such a manner as should ordinarily remain legible until the end of the voyage.\n  (b) Either the number of packages or pieces, or the quantity, or weight, as the case may be, as furnished in writing by the shipper.\n  (c) The apparent order and condition of the goods.\n  Provided that no carrier, master or agent of the carrier shall be bound to state or show in the bill of lading sea carriage document any marks, number, quantity, or weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting not accurately to represent the goods actually received, or which he has had no reasonable means of checking.\n  4. Such a bill of lading sea carriage document shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with paragraph 3 (a), (b) and (c). However, proof to the contrary shall not be admissible when the bill of lading in the case of a negotiable sea carriage document that has been transferred to a third party acting in good faith.\n  5. The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks, number, quantity and weight, as furnished by him, and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against all loss, damages and expenses arising or resulting from inaccuracies in such particulars. The right of the carrier to such indemnity shall in no way limit his responsibility and liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.\n  6. Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, or, if the loss or damage be not apparent, within three days, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of ladingsea carriage document.\n  The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has, at the time of their receipt, been the subject of joint survey or inspection.\n  Subject to paragraph 6bis the carrier and the ship shall in any event be discharged from all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods, unless suit is brought within one year of their delivery or of the date when they should have been delivered.\n  This period may, however, be extended if the parties so agree after the cause of action has arisen.\n  In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods.\n  6bis. An action for indemnity against a third person may be brought even after the expiration of the year provided for in the preceding paragraph if brought within the time allowed by the law of the court seized of the case. However, the time allowed shall be not less than three months, commencing from the day when the person bringing such action for indemnity has settled the claim or has been served with process in the action against himself.\n  7. After the goods are loaded the sea‑carriage document bill of lading to be issued by the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier, to the shipper shall, if the shipper so demands, be a “shipped” negotiable sea carriage documentbill of lading, provided that if the shipper shall have previously taken up any sea carriage document for document of title to such goods, he shall surrender the same as against the issue of the “shipped” negotiable sea carriage documentbill of lading, but at the option of the carrier a negotiable sea carriage document such document of title may be noted at the port of shipment by the carrier, master, or agent with the name or names of the ship or ships upon which the goods have been shipped and the date or dates of shipment, and when so noted, if it shows the particulars mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article 3, shall for the purpose of this article be deemed to constitute a “shipped” negotiable sea carriage documentbill of lading.\n  8. Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to, or in connexion with, goods arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this article or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in these Rulesthis convention, shall be null and void and of no effect. A benefit of insurance in favour of the carrier or similar clause shall be deemed to be a clause relieving the carrier from liability.\n\nARTICLE 4\n\n  1. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness unless caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier to make the ship seaworthy, and to secure that the ship is properly manned, equipped and supplied, and to make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 3. Whenever loss or damage has resulted from unseaworthiness the burden of proving the exercise of due diligence shall be on the carrier or other person claiming exemption under this article.\n  2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from—\n  (a) Act, neglect or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship.\n  (b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier.\n  (c) Perils, dangers and accidents of the sea or other navigable waters.\n  (d) Act of God.\n  (e) Act of war.\n  (f) Act of public enemies.\n  (g) Arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people, or seizure under legal process.\n  (h) Quarantine restrictions.\n  (i) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative.\n  (j) Strikes or lock‑outs or stoppage or restraint of labour from whatever cause, whether partial or general.\n  (k) Riots and civil commotions.\n  (l) Saving or attempting to save life or property at sea.\n  (m) Wastage in bulk or weight or any other loss or damage arising from inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods.\n  (n) Insufficiency of packing.\n  (o) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks.\n  (p) Latent defects not discoverable by due diligence.\n  (q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier, but the burden of proof shall be on the person claiming the benefit of this exception to show that neither the actual fault or privity of the carrier nor the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier contributed to the loss or damage.\n\n> Note: \\[NOTE: For the liability of a carrier for loss caused by delay, see Article 4A.\\]\n\n  3. The shipper shall not be responsible for loss or damage sustained by the carrier or the ship arising or resulting from any cause without the act, fault or neglect of the shipper, his agents or his servants.\n  4. Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea or any reasonable deviation shall not be deemed to be an infringement or breach ofthis convention these Rules or of the contract of carriage, and the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom.\n  5.\n  (a) Unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading, sea carriage document, neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the goods in an amount exceeding 666.67 units of account per package or unit or 2 units of account per kilogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is the higher.\n  (b) The total amount recoverable shall be calculated by reference to the value of such goods at the place and time at which the goods are discharged from the ship in accordance with the contract or should have been so discharged.\n  The value of the goods shall be fixed according to the commodity exchange price, or, if there be no such price, according to the current market price, or, if there be no commodity exchange price or current market price, by reference to the normal value of goods of the same kind and quality.\n  (c) Where a container, pallet or similar article of transport is used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units enumerated in the Bill of Lading sea carriage document as packed in such article of transport shall be deemed the number of packages or units for the purpose of this paragraph as far as these packages or units are concerned. Except as aforesaid such article of transport shall be considered the package or unit.\n  (d) The unit of account mentioned in this Article is the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary Fund. The amounts mentioned in sub‑paragraph (a) of this paragraph shall be converted into national currency on the basis of the value of that currency on a date to be determined by the law of the court seized of the case.\n  The value of the national currency, in terms of the Special Drawing Right, of a State which is a member of the International Monetary Fund, shall be calculated in accordance with the method of valuation applied by the International Monetary Fund in effect at the date in question for its operations and transactions. The value of the national currency, in terms of the Special Drawing Right, of a State which is not a member of the International Monetary Fund, shall be calculated in a manner determined by that State.\n  Nevertheless, a State which is not a member of the International Monetary Fund and whose law does not permit the application of the provisions of the preceding sentences may, at the time of ratification of the Protocol of 1979 or accession thereto or at any time thereafter, declare that the limits of liability provided for in this Convention these Rules to be applied in its territory shall be fixed as follows:\n  (i) in respect of the amount of 666.67 units of account mentioned in sub‑paragraph (a) of paragraph 5 of this Article, 10,000 monetary units;\n  (ii) in respect of the amount of 2 units of account mentioned in sub‑paragraph (a) of paragraph 5 of this Article, 30 monetary units.\n  The monetary unit referred to in the preceding sentence corresponds to 65.5 milligrammes of gold of millesimal fineness 900’. The conversion of the amounts specified in that sentence into the national currency shall be made according to the law of the State concerned.\n  The calculation and the conversion mentioned in the preceding sentences shall be made in such a manner as to express in the national currency of the State as far as possible the same real value for the amounts in sub‑paragraph (a) of paragraph 5 of this Article as is expressed there in units of account.\n  States shall communicate to the depositary the manner of calculation or the result of the conversion as the case may be, when depositing an instrument of ratification of the Protocol of 1979 or of accession thereto and whenever there is a change in either.\n  (e) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be entitled to the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for in this paragraph if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.\n  (f) The declaration mentioned in sub‑paragraph (a) of this paragraph, if embodied in the Bill of Lading, sea carriage document, shall be prima facie evidence, but shall not be binding or conclusive on the carrier.\n  (g) By agreement between the carrier, master or agent of the carrier and the shipper other maximum amounts than those mentioned in sub‑paragraph (a) of this paragraph may be fixed, provided that no maximum amount so fixed shall be less than the appropriate maximum mentioned in that sub‑paragraph.\n  (h) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible in any event for loss or damage to, or in connection with, goods if the nature or value thereof has been knowingly mis‑stated by the shipper in theBill of Lading sea carriage document .\n  6. Goods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof the carrier, master or agent of the carrier has not consented with knowledge of their nature and character, may at any time before discharge be landed at any place, or destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without compensation and the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment. If any such goods shipped with such knowledge and consent shall become a danger to the ship or cargo, they may in like manner be landed at any place, or destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without liability on the part of the carrier except to general average, if any.\n\nArticle 4A\n\n  1. Despite Article 4, a carrier is liable to a shipper for loss (including but not limited to, pure economic loss, loss of markets or deterioration) caused to the shipper by the shipper’s goods being delayed while the carrier is in charge of the goods unless the carrier establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that:\n  (a) the delay was excusable; and\n  (b) the carrier (or, if at the time of the delay, the goods were under the control of servants or agents of the carrier, those servants or agents) took all measures that were reasonably required to avoid the delay and its consequences.\n  \\[NOTE: For the meaning of “in charge of the goods”, see paragraph 2 of Article 1.\\]\n  2. For this Article, goods have been delayed if they are not delivered at the port of discharge specified in the relevant contract for carriage of goods:\n  (a) within the time allowed in the contract for that purpose; or\n  (b) if the contract does not specify a time for that purpose—within a reasonable time for delivery, at that port, of similar goods carried by a diligent carrier (having regard to any particular circumstances of the case and the intentions of the shipper and the carrier).\n  \\[NOTE: For the meaning of “delivered”, see paragraph 1A of Article 1.\\]\n  3. For paragraph 1 (a) of this Article, a delay is excusable only if:\n  (a) it is caused by a deviation authorised by the shipper, or by a term in the contract of carriage; or\n  (b) it is caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the carrier or its servants or agents; or\n  (c) it is reasonably necessary to comply with an express or implied warranty; or\n  (d) it is reasonably necessary for the safety of the ship or its cargo; or\n  (e) it is for the purposes of saving human life or aiding a ship in distress; or\n  (f) it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical aid for a person on board; or\n  (g) it is caused by barratrous conduct of the master or crew; or\n  (h) paragraph 4 of this Article applies.\n  4. For paragraph 1 (a) of this Article, a delay caused by industrial action is excusable if the industrial action was not substantially caused, or substantially contributed to, by unreasonable conduct of the carrier.\n  5. For paragraph 4, conduct of servants or agents of the carrier is not taken to be conduct of the carrier if the servants or agents engaged in the conduct without the carrier’s express or implied authority.\n  6. The quantum of the carrier’s liability for loss caused by the delay is limited to whichever is the lesser of:\n  (a) the actual amount of the loss; or\n  (b) two and a half times the sea freight payable for the goods delayed; or\n  (c) the total amount payable as sea freight for all of the goods shipped by the shipper concerned under the contract of carriage concerned.\n  7. To avoid doubt, nothing in Article 4 or this Article prevents a carrier being liable to a shipper under both Article 4 and this Article.\n\nARTICLE 4bis\n\n  1. The defences and limits of liability provided for in this Convention these Rules shall apply in any action against the carrier in respect of loss or damage to goods covered by a contract of carriage whether the action be founded in contract or in tort.\n  2. If such an action is brought against a servant or agent of the carrier (such servant or agent not being an independent contractor), such servant or agent shall be entitled to avail himself of the defences and limits of liability which the carrier is entitled to invoke under this Convention these Rules.\n  3. The aggregate of the amounts recoverable from the carrier, and such servants and agents, shall in no case exceed the limit provided for in this Convention these Rules.\n  4. Nevertheless, a servant or agent of the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Article, if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the servant or agent done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.\n\nARTICLE 5\n\n  A carrier shall be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities or to increase any of his responsibilities and obligations under this conventionthese Rules, provided such surrender or increase shall be embodied in the Bill of Lading sea carriage document issued to the shipper. The provisions of this convention these Rules shall not be applicable to charter parties, but if negotiable sea carriage documents bills of lading are issued in the case of a ship under a charter party they shall comply with the terms of this convention these Rules. Nothing in these rules shall be held to prevent the insertion in a Bill of Lading sea carriage document of any lawful provision regarding general average.\n\nARTICLE 6\n\n  Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding articles, a carrier, master or agent of the carrier and a shipper shall in regard to any particular goods be at liberty to enter into any agreement in any terms as to the responsibility and liability of the carrier for such goods, and as to the rights and immunities of the carrier in respect of such goods, or his obligation as to seaworthiness, so far as this stipulation is not contrary to public policy, or the care or diligence of his servants or agents in regard to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care and discharge of the goods carried by sea provided that in this case no bill of lading has been or shall be issued and that the terms agreed shall be embodied in a receipt which shall be a non‑negotiable document and shall be marked as such.\n  However:\n  (a) the terms so agreed must be set out in a receipt or consignment note; and\n  (b) the receipt or consignment note must be, and must be marked as being, non‑negotiable; and\n  (c) the receipt or note must state that no other sea carriage document has been, or will be, issued for the carriage.\n  Any agreement so entered into shall have full legal effect.\n  Provided that this article shall not apply to ordinary commercial shipments made in the ordinary course of trade, but only to other shipments where the character or condition of the property to be carried or the circumstances, terms and conditions under which the carriage is to be performed are such as reasonably to justify a special agreement.\n\nARTICLE 6A\n\n  1. A shipper of goods and the carrier of the goods may agree in writing, at or before the time the cargo is booked, that these Rules do not apply to the carriage of the goods if:\n  (a) the goods must be carried on deck; and\n  (b) the character or condition of the goods reasonably justifies a special agreement regarding the carriage of the goods on deck.\n  2. In paragraph 1, goods:\n  (a) does not include containerised goods (that is, goods that are carried in or on cellular equipment that is capable, after the goods are loaded into or onto it, of being carried in the standard cell guides of a cellular container ship, whether or not the equipment in or on which the goods are loaded is carried within such cell guides during its carriage by sea); and\n  (b) includes breakbulk cargo (including breakbulk cargo that is too large to fit into the standard cell guides of a cellular container ship even if cellular equipment of some kind is used to carry it).\n\n> Note: \\[NOTE: The standard cell guides of a cellular container ship are designed primarily to hold containers measuring either 20 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet 6 inches, or 40 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet 6 inches (although they may be able to accommodate other kinds of standard cellular equipment).\n\n  3. An agreement under this Article has effect only if the sea carriage document for the carriage of the goods bears a statement endorsed on its face that the shipper and the carrier have entered into it.\n  4. This Article applies to all shipments of goods referred to in paragraph 1, including ordinary commercial shipments made in the ordinary course of trade.\n\nARTICLE 7\n\n  Nothing herein contained shall prevent a carrier or a shipper from entering into any agreement, stipulation, condition, reservation or exemption as to the responsibility and liability of the carrier or the ship for the loss or damage to, or in connexion with, the custody and care and handling of goods prior to the loading on, and subsequent to the discharge from the ship on which the goods are carried by sea.\n\nARTICLE 8\n\n  The provisions of this convention These Rules shall not affect the rights and obligations of the carrier under any statute for the time being in force relating to the limitation of the liability of owners of sea‑going vessels.\n\nARTICLE 9\n\n  This ConventionThese Rules shall not affect the provisions of any international Convention or national law governing liability for nuclear damage.\n\nARTICLE 10\n\n  1. The provisions of this Convention shall Subject to paragraph 6, these Rules apply toevery sea carriage documents Bill of Lading relating to the carriage of goods from ports in Australia to ports outside Australia two different States, regardless of the form in which the sea carriage document is issued.if:\n  (a) the Bill of Lading is issued in a Contracting State, or\n  (b) the carriage is from a port in a Contracting State., or\n  (c) the contract contained in or evidenced by the Bill of Lading provides that the rules of this Convention or legislation of any State giving effect to them are to govern the contract;\n  whatever may be the nationality of the ship, the carrier, the shipper, the consignee, or any other interested person.\n\n> Note: \\[NOTE: For the meaning of “sea carriage document”, see paragraph 1 (g) of Article 1.\\]\n\n  2. Subject to paragraph 6, these Rules apply to the carriage of goods by sea from ports outside Australia to ports in Australia, unless one of the Conventions mentioned in paragraph 3 (or a modification of such a Convention by the law of a contracting State) applies, by agreement or by law, to the carriage, or otherwise has effect in relation to the carriage.\n  3. The Conventions are:\n  (a) the Brussels Convention;\n  (b) the Brussels Convention as amended by either the Visby Protocol or the SDR Protocol or both;\n  (c) the Hamburg Convention.\n  4. Subject to paragraphs 5 and 6, these Rules apply to a sea carriage document that contains or evidences a contract for the carriage of goods by sea from a port in a State or Territory in Australia to a port in another State or Territory in Australia.\n  5. If a contract for the carriage of goods by sea from a port in a State or Territory in Australia to a port in another State or Territory in Australia is contained only in or evidenced only by a consignment note, these Rules apply only if the goods:\n  (a) are to be carried onwards by sea to, or are being carried onwards by sea from, a port outside Australia; and\n  (b) have been declared to the carrier in writing to be international cargo.\n  6. These Rules do not apply to the carriage of goods by sea under a charterparty unless a sea carriage document is issued for the carriage.\n  7. These Rules apply to a sea carriage document issued under a charterparty only if the sea carriage document is a negotiable sea carriage document, and only while the document regulates the relationship between the holder of it and the carrier of the relevant goods.\n  Each Contracting State shall apply the provisions of this Convention to the Bills of Lading mentioned above.\n  This Article shall not prevent a Contracting State from applying the rules of this Convention to Bills of Lading not included in the preceding paragraphs.","sortOrder":21}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":8,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act's scope expanded significantly beyond its original intent. The original framework was designed primarily around traditional bills of lading for international trade. The modifications in the Schedule broadened coverage to include electronic documents, sea waybills, consignment notes, and a wider range of deck cargo. The addition of Article 4A (delay liability) introduced a category of carrier liability not present in the original Hague-Visby framework. Inbound carriage (from overseas to Australia) was brought within scope, whereas the Brussels Convention originally focused on outbound shipments from contracting states. The anti-suit provisions in section 11 protecting Australian court jurisdiction also represent a policy addition beyond the core international convention framework."},"complexity_factors":["Incorporation of multiple international conventions (Brussels Convention, Visby Protocol, SDR Protocol, Hamburg Convention) each with their own legal history and interpretive context","Layered modification structure — the Schedule of Modifications alters Schedule 1 text without actually amending it, requiring readers to mentally reconcile two overlapping texts","Conditional commencement provisions with a 10-year sunset clause creating temporal uncertainty about which parts of the Act are in force","Complex jurisdictional rules with multiple carve-outs (intra-state, charterparties, consignment notes, inbound vs outbound shipments)","Liability limits expressed in Special Drawing Rights (an IMF currency unit), requiring ongoing currency conversion calculations","Interaction with multiple other Acts (Competition and Consumer Act, Navigation Act, Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act, International Arbitration Act, Customs Act)","Deck cargo rules with separate treatment for containerised versus breakbulk goods, each with different liability consequences","Electronic document provisions grafted onto a primarily paper-based framework, requiring 'necessary changes' to be implied by the reader","Delay liability article (4A) with a multi-factor excusable delay test and a separate damages cap formula","The struck-through and italic modification format within the Schedule requires specialist reading skills to interpret the operative text"],"plain_english_summary":"## Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 — What It Does and Why It Matters\n\n### The Big Picture\nThis law sets the rules for who is **legally responsible** when goods are shipped by sea to or from Australia — and what happens when those goods are lost, damaged, or delayed. It replaced an older 1924 law and brought Australia in line with modern international shipping standards.\n\n### Who Does This Affect?\n- **Businesses importing or exporting goods** by sea (e.g., retailers, manufacturers, farmers)\n- **Shipping companies and carriers** (the people running the ships)\n- **Freight forwarders and logistics companies**\n- **Marine insurers** (companies that insure cargo)\n- **Lawyers and courts** handling shipping disputes\n\n### What Are the Key Rules?\n\n**1. The 'Amended Hague Rules' — The Core Framework**\nThe Act adopts a set of international rules (called the 'Amended Hague Rules') that establish:\n- A carrier's **duty to provide a seaworthy ship** and handle goods carefully\n- The carrier's **liability for loss or damage** — but with a cap (maximum payout) per package or per kilogram, whichever is higher (using a currency unit called 'Special Drawing Rights' set by the International Monetary Fund)\n- A **long list of excuses** a carrier can use to avoid liability (e.g., bad weather, acts of war, strikes, inherent defects in the goods)\n- A **one-year time limit** to sue the carrier after goods are delivered (or should have been delivered)\n\n**2. Liability for Delay**\nThe Act includes specific rules making carriers **liable for losses caused by unreasonable delays**, unless the delay was beyond their control or otherwise excusable. The payout for delay is capped at 2.5 times the sea freight charged for those goods.\n\n**3. What Documents Are Covered?**\nThe rules cover a wide range of shipping documents, not just traditional bills of lading (the main document proving ownership of shipped goods), including:\n- Electronic documents (emails, data messages)\n- Sea waybills (non-transferable shipping receipts)\n- Consignment notes\n\n**4. When Do the Rules Apply?**\n- Goods shipped **from Australia to overseas**: the rules always apply\n- Goods shipped **from overseas to Australia**: the rules apply unless another international convention already covers the shipment\n- Goods shipped **between Australian ports**: the rules apply, with some exceptions for purely intra-state (within one state) shipping\n- **Charter parties** (where the whole ship is hired): generally exempt, unless a separate bill of lading is issued\n\n**5. You Can't Contract Out**\nCarriers **cannot use fine print to strip away** these protections. Any clause in a shipping contract that tries to reduce the carrier's liability below what the law requires is **void** (legally meaningless).\n\n**6. Jurisdiction — Australian Courts Must Be Available**\nFor goods shipped to or from Australia, parties **cannot agree to take disputes entirely out of Australian courts**. Arbitration (private dispute resolution) is allowed, but only if conducted **in Australia**.\n\n**7. No Absolute Guarantee of a Seaworthy Ship**\nCarriers are only required to take **reasonable care** to make their ship seaworthy — not to guarantee it absolutely. This is a deliberate protection for shipping companies.\n\n**8. A Two-Step Reform Plan**\nThe Act was designed with a built-in upgrade path: if the government decided to adopt the 'Hamburg Convention' (a newer, more shipper-friendly international treaty), Part 3 of the Act would kick in to replace the Hague Rules. However, if no decision was made within 10 years, those provisions would be automatically repealed.\n\n### Practical Bottom Line\nIf your goods are damaged or lost during a sea voyage to or from Australia, this law determines **whether you can sue, how much you can recover, and in which country's courts**. Carriers have real protections and liability caps — so you may not recover the full value of your goods unless you have separate cargo insurance."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Compared with the prior Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924, this Act substitutes a new international text (the amended Hague Rules) as the default legal regime (s7, s8, s20). It expands the category of covered documents to include defined non‑negotiable documents and electronic sea carriage documents (Schedule Article 1, Article 1A), introduces an express statutory cause of action and caps for loss caused by delay (Schedule Article 4A), and provides a formal mechanism for a future replacement by the Hamburg Rules subject to ministerial review and decision (s2, s3). It also narrows some domestic application (excluding intra‑State carriage, s10(2)) while allowing regulations to alter coverage further (s7(2)). These are material scope changes from the 1924 Act as framed in the Act’s own object and provisions (s3, s7, s20)."},"complexity_factors":["Interaction with multiple international conventions (Brussels, Visby, SDR, potential Hamburg) and choice between them (s3, s7, Schedule Article 10).","Regulation‑driven modifications that can change substantive coverage (s7(2)–(3)) and the requirement for ministerial consultation (s7(4)).","Detailed and interlocking liability rules, exceptions and limits in the amended Hague text (Schedule Articles 3, 4, 4A, 4bis).","Mixed coverage of document types (negotiable bills of lading, non‑negotiable documents, consignment notes, sea waybills, electronic data messages) with different application rules (Schedule Article 1, Article 1A, s10).","Conditional domestic vs international application and carve‑outs for intra‑State carriage (s10; Schedule Article 10).","Administrative discretions and legislative instruments (Minister determinations of port limits s9A; regulations s22) introducing execution complexity.","Linked procedural requirements (notice periods, limitation periods, evidentiary presumptions) that create consequences for litigation and claims handling (Schedule Article 3(6), Article 3(6bis))."],"plain_english_summary":"# What this law does, who it affects, and how it works (plain English)\n\nThis Act replaces the old Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924 (s20) and establishes a modern legal framework for carriage of goods by sea in Australia by giving effect to an \"amended Hague Rules\" text (s7, Schedule 1) and by creating a mechanism for a later replacement with the UN Hamburg Rules if the Minister decides to do so after review (s3, s2). The Act applies the amended Hague Rules as law in Australia (s8) for specified contracts (s10) and includes detailed duties, defences, liability limits and procedures that determine who pays and when.\n\nKey mechanical changes and legal effects\n\n- Repeal and replacement: The 1924 Act is repealed (s20(1)) but continues to apply to contracts made before repeal (s20(2)).\n- Imported international text: The amended Hague Rules are given force in Australian law via Schedule 1 and the provisions in Part 2 (s7, s8). Those Rules are applied with particular Australian modifications set out in the Schedule of modifications (s7(1)–(3)).\n- Regulatory flexibility: The regulations may add or change a Schedule of modifications to broaden coverage (for example to electronic documents, consignment notes, or deck cargo) and to alter time or liability coverage (s7(2)–(3)). Before making those regulations the Minister must consult representatives of shippers, ship owners, carriers, cargo owners, marine insurers and maritime law associations (s7(4)).\n- Paper and electronic documents: The Act (as modified in Schedule 1) treats electronic sea carriage documents (data messages) as sea carriage documents and sets rules for when such a document is issued or transferred (Schedule, Article 1A). It also expands which non‑negotiable documents (including consignment notes and sea waybills) can be covered (Schedule, Article 1 definitions).\n- Scope of application: The amended Hague Rules apply primarily to international carriage and to certain domestic coastal carriage (s10, Schedule Article 10). There are carve‑outs: the Rules do not apply to purely intra‑State or intra‑Territory carriage (s10(2)), and the Rules apply to sea carriage under charterparties only when a sea carriage document is issued (Schedule, Article 10(6)–(7)).\n- Duties and defences: Carriers must exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and to properly handle cargo (Schedule, Article 3). The carrier has statutory exceptions for a long list of causes (Schedule, Article 4(2)), and those defences and limits apply whether the claim is in contract or tort (Schedule, Article 4bis(1)).\n- Liability limits and values: The Act applies standard monetary caps from the amended Hague Rules for loss per package or per kilogram (Schedule, Article 4(5)). A shipper can declare the nature and value of goods in the sea carriage document to alter liability (Schedule, Article 4(5)(a),(f),(g)). There is an exception to limits where loss is caused intentionally or recklessly by the carrier (Schedule, Article 4(5)(e)).\n- Liability for delay: The Schedule adds a specific cause of action for loss caused by delay while the carrier is in charge of the goods (Article 4A). The carrier can avoid liability only by establishing the delay was excusable and that the carrier took reasonable measures to avoid it (Schedule, Article 4A(1), (3)). Article 4A also caps delay liability (Article 4A(6)).\n- Contracting out in limited ways: Parties may make alternative agreements for particular shipments by using a non‑negotiable receipt/consignment note that meets statutory requirements (Schedule, Article 6). Parties may also agree in writing to exclude the Rules for cargo that must be carried on deck if the agreement is properly recorded on the sea carriage document (Schedule, Article 6A).\n- Jurisdiction and choice of law: For carriage from Australia to outside Australia, parties to sea carriage documents are taken to have intended the laws at the place of shipment to govern (s11(1)). Attempts to contractually limit Australian courts’ jurisdiction in specified situations are ineffective unless arbitration is required to occur in Australia (s11(2)–(3)).\n- Administrative features: The Minister can determine port limits for application of the Rules; that determination is a legislative instrument (s9A). The Governor‑General may make regulations needed to implement the Act (s22).\n- Other consequential provisions: The Act prevails over certain parts of the Competition and Consumer Act to the extent of inconsistency (s18), does not affect specified navigation or limitation statutes (s19), and modifies an International Arbitration Act provision to preserve certain continuations (s21).\n\nWho pays and who decides (mechanics, with citations)\n\n- Who pays: Carriers bear primary financial liability for loss, damage and delay while in charge of the goods, subject to statutory defences and monetary limits (Schedule, Articles 2, 3, 4, 4A). Shippers bear financial risk for inaccuracies in particulars they supply and can be required to indemnify the carrier for such inaccuracies (Schedule, Article 3(5)). A shipper may increase carrier exposure by declaring value in the sea carriage document (Schedule, Article 4(5)(a),(f),(g)).\n- Who decides: The Minister has the power to (a) trigger a later wholesale replacement with the Hamburg Rules after review (s3, s2), (b) propose and make regulations to modify the Schedule of modifications (s7(2)–(3)), and (c) determine port limits in Australia as a legislative instrument (s9A). Parties can make certain agreements that change their contractual allocation of risk, but those agreements must comply with the Act’s formal requirements (Schedule, Article 6, Article 6A).\n\nIncentives, compliance burden and discretion (mechanical effects to note)\n\n- Compliance burdens on carriers: carriers must exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and properly care for cargo (Schedule, Article 3); maintain accurate sea carriage documents and timely notice procedures (Schedule, Article 3(3)–(6)); and, under Article 4A, take measures to avoid delays and their consequences or risk liability for delay (Schedule, Article 4A).\n- Incentives created by limits and declarations: Liability caps limit carriers’ expected loss exposure (Schedule, Article 4(5)), but shippers can raise that exposure by declaring value in the sea carriage document; this creates an economic trade‑off between declared value (higher recovery) and freight/costs.\n- Administrative discretion and stakeholder influence: Regulations can materially broaden or narrow coverage (s7(2)–(3)); the Minister must consult certain stakeholder groups before making regulations (s7(4)), which concentrates formal consultation opportunities but leaves final regulatory decisions to the executive (s7). Ministerial power to replace the regime with the Hamburg Rules is triggered only after a review and statement (s2, s3), making future scope contingent on executive decisions.\n\nTrade‑offs, opportunity costs and implementation risks (mechanical description)\n\n- Trade‑offs: Extending coverage to electronic documents and non‑negotiable receipts reduces paper‑based frictions but requires systems and legal certainty about when a data message is “issued” or “transferred” (Schedule, Article 1A). Adding a specific statutory cause for delay (Article 4A) expands shippers’ potential remedies but also increases carriers’ exposure (though caps apply).\n- Opportunity costs and compliance resources: Carriers and their agents may need to invest in administrative systems (document handling, notice procedures, evidence collection) and, where declarations of value are used, in valuation and insurance practices.\n- Implementation risks: The Act relies on regulations and ministerial determinations to refine coverage (s7, s9A). That reliance creates execution risk because substantive aspects (e.g. electronic document coverage or extended liability periods) may be deferred to later instruments.\n\nWhat the Act claims as its purpose and how that maps to costs and incentives\n\n- Official purpose claim (s3): The Act says its object is to introduce a cargo liability regime that is up‑to‑date, equitable, efficient, compatible with major trading partners and responsive to UN developments (s3(1)). The Act implements that mechanically by (a) replacing the 1924 Act with the amended Hague Rules as a first step and (b) leaving open a second‑step replacement by the Hamburg Rules if the Minister decides after review (s3(2)).\n- Mapping to costs and incentives: The mechanism chosen (statutory adoption of the amended Hague Rules, regulation‑driven modifications, possible later shift to Hamburg Rules) gives carriers predictable default defences and liability caps (reducing carriers’ contingent liabilities) but imposes documentation, notice and due‑diligence duties that create ongoing compliance costs for carriers and shippers (Schedule Articles 3, 4, 4A). The power to alter scope by regulation concentrates decision authority in the executive branch while requiring stakeholder consultation (s7(2)–(4)), producing a procedural path for interest groups to influence detailed scope (consultation is required, final decisions remain with the executive).\n\nBottom line (mechanical):\n- The Act modernises Australia’s sea‑cargo liability law by replacing the 1924 Act with the amended Hague Rules, expands the category of covered documents (including electronic forms), creates a statutory right for shippers to recover for delay subject to caps, preserves options for parties to make narrow alternative arrangements in non‑negotiable receipts, and gives the Minister and regulators substantial discretion to refine coverage and to trigger a future shift to the Hamburg Rules (s7, Schedule Articles 1A, 4A; s2–s3; s20)."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The legislation was originally designed as a transitional measure to move from the 1924 Hague Rules to the 1978 Hamburg Rules (a more cargo-friendly regime). Section 3 explicitly states this two-step object. However, the 'second step' to Hamburg Rules was never taken - the 10-year sunset clause in section 2(3) effectively killed Part 3 and Schedule 2 without them ever commencing. Meanwhile, the 'first step' Hague Rules regime was significantly expanded beyond the original international convention through the modification framework in section 7, adding Australian-specific innovations like delay liability (Article 4A), electronic documents, and extended port-to-port coverage. The Act thus evolved from a temporary bridge to a permanent, uniquely Australian hybrid regime that borrows from Hague but adds Hamburg-like elements."},"complexity_factors":["Dual regime structure with staged implementation (Hague Rules now, Hamburg Rules possible later) creating conditional application logic","Extensive modification framework in section 7 allowing regulations to effectively rewrite Schedule 1 without actually amending the text","Multiple overlapping definitions: 9 defined terms in section 4, plus Article 1 of the amended Hague Rules contains 8 additional defined terms with nested definitions (e.g., 'sea carriage document' has 4 sub-types)","Complex application rules in section 10 with multiple exceptions: applies to some domestic voyages but not others, applies to non-negotiable documents only if expressly opted-in, special treatment for consignment notes","Jurisdiction provisions in section 11 with three separate anti-avoidance clauses plus an arbitration carve-out","Cross-references to three separate international conventions (Brussels 1924, Visby 1968, SDR 1979, Hamburg 1978) requiring knowledge of external treaty texts","Modified text format in Schedule 1 using strikethrough and italics to show changes against original convention text, making it difficult to read the operative provisions","Temporal complexity: different commencement triggers in section 2, 10-year sunset clause for Part 3 that was never activated, transitional provisions preserving old law for pre-commencement contracts","Interaction clauses with Competition and Consumer Act, Navigation Act, Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act, and International Arbitration Act"],"plain_english_summary":"This law sets the rules for who is responsible when goods are damaged, lost or delayed during sea transport to or from Australia. It replaces Australia's old 1924 shipping law with modern international standards.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Establishes liability rules**: Determines when shipping companies (carriers) must pay compensation for damaged, lost or delayed cargo, and when they're exempt (e.g., storms, war, acts of God).\n- **Covers different documents**: Applies to traditional bills of lading plus modern alternatives like sea waybills and electronic documents.\n- **Sets financial limits**: Caps how much carriers must pay (using Special Drawing Rights - an international currency unit) unless they acted recklessly or intentionally.\n- **Protects Australian jurisdiction**: Stops foreign shipping contracts from forcing all disputes into overseas courts or arbitration (unless the arbitration happens in Australia).\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **Exporters and importers**: Anyone shipping goods by sea to or from Australia.\n- **Shipping companies**: Carriers operating vessels on Australian trade routes.\n- **Cargo owners**: Businesses and individuals receiving goods by sea.\n- **Marine insurers**: Insurance companies covering these risks.\n\n**Key features:**\n- **Two-stage approach**: Initially implemented the \"amended Hague Rules\" (international standards from 1924/1968/1979), with a planned possible future switch to the \"Hamburg Rules\" (1978 UN convention) - though this second stage never actually happened.\n- **Delay liability**: Uniquely among Hague-based regimes, this Act makes carriers liable for losses caused by shipping delays (not just physical damage), unless the delay was excusable.\n- **Deck cargo**: Special rules for goods carried on ship decks rather than in holds.\n- **Electronic commerce**: Recognises electronic documents and data messages as valid shipping documents.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nAustralia is an island nation dependent on sea trade. This law balances protecting cargo owners against unfair contract terms while giving carriers predictable limits on their liability. It ensures Australian businesses operate under internationally compatible rules, reducing legal uncertainty in global trade."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"circular_definition","section":"s.2(3)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Section 2(3) provides that if the Minister has not tabled a statement within 10 years, Part 3, Schedule 2, AND section 2A are repealed. However, section 2A is the very mechanism by which Part 3 and Schedule 2 commence. If the 10-year deadline is not met, section 2A repeals itself along with the provisions it was meant to trigger. This is logically coherent in outcome but creates an odd self-consuming mechanism — the triggering provision destroys itself as part of its own failure condition.","confidence":0.75,"description":"Self-repealing provision that also repeals itself"},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"s.7(2) and Schedule 1A (Article 1(aa))","severity":"high","reasoning":"Article 1(aa) defines a 'consignment note' as a non-negotiable document that 'clearly states that no liability for any loss of, damage to or delay of the goods will be accepted by the carrier.' Yet Article 10, paragraphs 4 and 5, expressly applies the Rules — which impose substantial carrier liability — to contracts evidenced by consignment notes. The very document that by definition disclaims all liability is simultaneously subjected to a mandatory liability regime. A consignment note that states no liability will be accepted cannot logically also be a document to which liability-imposing Rules apply without internal contradiction.","confidence":0.9,"description":"Consignment note defined to disclaim all liability, yet Rules impose liability on carriers for consignment note contracts"},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"Schedule 1A, Article 4A(1) and Article 4A(3)(g)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Article 4A(1) holds carriers liable for delay unless the delay was 'excusable.' Article 4A(3)(g) makes delay caused by 'barratrous conduct of the master or crew' excusable. Barratry is, by legal definition, a fraudulent or criminal act wilfully committed by the master or crew against the interests of the shipowner/cargo owner. Treating intentional wrongdoing against cargo interests as an excuse for carrier liability to those same cargo interests is logically absurd — it allows a carrier to escape liability for delay caused by the deliberate criminal acts of its own operatives.","confidence":0.85,"description":"Barratry listed as an excusable delay, yet barratry is intentional wrongdoing by the master/crew"},{"type":"other","section":"Schedule 1A, Article 4(5)(d)","severity":"low","reasoning":"Article 4(5)(d) retains language about States not members of the IMF being able to declare gold-based monetary limits, including the gold millesimal fineness formula. Australia is an IMF member and this provision has no domestic operative effect. More significantly, the provision refers to 'ratification of the Protocol of 1979' — a treaty action — which is nonsensical when incorporated into domestic legislation that is not itself capable of being ratified by non-member States. The provision is stranded treaty text with no coherent domestic application.","confidence":0.8,"description":"Gold monetary unit alternative retained for a State that is 'not a member of the International Monetary Fund' — inapplicable to Australian domestic law"},{"type":"other","section":"Schedule 1A, Article 10(1)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The modified Article 10(1) applies the Rules to sea carriage documents for carriage from Australian ports to ports outside Australia, discarding the 'contracting State' basis entirely. However, Article 10(2) separately addresses inbound carriage (outside Australia to Australia) and preserves the Convention-based exception structure. This asymmetry means the Rules apply unconditionally to outbound Australian carriage regardless of what regime applies at the destination, but inbound carriage is subject to a complex Convention-displacement test. A shipper loading in Australia to a destination where, say, the Hamburg Rules apply by law, is simultaneously subject to two potentially inconsistent regimes depending on which end of the voyage is examined.","confidence":0.72,"description":"Article 10(1) applies Rules to carriage 'from ports in Australia to ports outside Australia' but original Hague-Visby text referred to 'two different States' — the substituted text removes the reciprocity concept inconsistently"},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"Schedule 1A, Article 3(7)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Article 3(7) requires that if a shipper has 'previously taken up any sea carriage document' for the goods, the shipper must surrender it before receiving a 'shipped' negotiable sea carriage document. If that prior document has already been negotiated to a third party (which is the commercial purpose of negotiable documents), the shipper is physically incapable of complying — the document is no longer in the shipper's possession. The provision creates an impossible compliance obligation in the very circumstances where negotiable documents are most commonly used.","confidence":0.78,"description":"Provision requires shipper to surrender existing sea carriage document before receiving a 'shipped' negotiable sea carriage document, but the document to be surrendered may itself be a negotiable sea carriage document already in the hands of a third party"},{"type":"other","section":"s.10(2) and Schedule 1A, Article 10(4)-(5)","severity":"low","reasoning":"Section 10(2) of the Act excludes from the Rules carriage 'from a port in any State or Territory in Australia to any other port in that State or Territory.' Article 10(4) of the Schedule applies the Rules to carriage between ports in different States or Territories. This is coherent on its face, but the interaction creates uncertainty for vessels making a voyage that originates and terminates in the same State but passes through open ocean touching an external Territory or another State's waters — the geographic distinction between 'from' and 'to' ports may not capture the full voyage.","confidence":0.55,"description":"Coastal (intra-Australian interstate) carriage subject to Rules under Article 10(4) but s.10(2) excludes intra-state carriage — creating a gap for coastal voyages crossing state boundaries via open sea"},{"type":"self_contradicting","section":"Schedule 1A, Article 6 and Article 6A","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Article 6 allows parties to contract out of the Rules for any goods (subject to no bill of lading being issued and conditions about non-negotiable receipts), while Article 6A specifically addresses deck cargo opt-outs requiring a written agreement, face endorsement on the sea carriage document, and satisfaction that the goods 'must be carried on deck.' The Article 6A Note at paragraph 4 states it 'applies to all shipments of goods referred to in paragraph 1, including ordinary commercial shipments' — directly contradicting Article 6's proviso that it 'shall not apply to ordinary commercial shipments.' The relationship between these two articles for deck cargo opt-outs is irreconcilable.","confidence":0.88,"description":"Article 6 and Article 6A both purport to allow contracting out for deck cargo, but with different and potentially incompatible conditions"}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"high","section_a":"Schedule 1A, Article 1(aa) (definition of 'consignment note' — states carrier accepts no liability)","section_b":"Schedule 1A, Article 10(4)-(5) and s.10(1A) (Rules apply to contracts evidenced by consignment notes)","confidence":0.92,"description":"A consignment note by definition disclaims all carrier liability, yet the Rules — which impose mandatory carrier liability — are expressly applied to contracts evidenced by consignment notes"},{"severity":"high","section_a":"Schedule 1A, Article 6 (contracting out 'shall not apply to ordinary commercial shipments')","section_b":"Schedule 1A, Article 6A(4) ('This Article applies to all shipments of goods referred to in paragraph 1, including ordinary commercial shipments made in the ordinary course of trade')","confidence":0.91,"description":"Article 6 expressly excludes ordinary commercial shipments from contracting-out for deck cargo, while Article 6A expressly includes ordinary commercial shipments in its contracting-out regime for the same category of deck cargo. Both articles operate in the same space (deck cargo opt-outs) with directly opposite rules about commercial shipments."},{"severity":"high","section_a":"Schedule 1A, Article 2(2) ('goods' includes goods carried on or above deck for purposes of carrier liability)","section_b":"Schedule 1A, Article 1(c) (original definition of 'goods' excludes 'cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried')","confidence":0.87,"description":"The modified Rules purport to retain the original Article 1(c) exclusion of on-deck cargo from the definition of 'goods' while Article 2(2) simultaneously expands the application of carrier responsibilities to include on-deck goods. The definitional exclusion in Article 1(c) and the operative inclusion in Article 2(2) are textually inconsistent and it is unclear which prevails."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"s.11(2)(b) (agreements cannot preclude or limit jurisdiction of Australian courts in respect of outbound bills of lading)","section_b":"s.11(3) (arbitration agreements are not made ineffective by s.11(2) if arbitration is conducted in Australia)","confidence":0.68,"description":"Section 11(2)(b) invalidates agreements limiting Australian court jurisdiction for outbound carriage. Section 11(3) carves out arbitration clauses requiring Australian-seated arbitration. However, s.11(3) refers only to arbitration 'conducted in Australia' without specifying that such arbitration must be to the exclusion of all other forums — meaning a clause requiring arbitration in Australia AND a foreign court could satisfy s.11(3) while arguably still precluding Australian court jurisdiction under s.11(2)(b)."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"Schedule 1A, Article 4(2)(a) (carrier not responsible for loss from act or neglect of master in navigation or management of ship)","section_b":"Schedule 1A, Article 4A(3)(g) and Article 4A(4)-(5) (delay caused by barratrous conduct of master/crew is excusable; but industrial action is only excusable if not caused by carrier's unreasonable conduct — with servants/agents acting without authority excluded from carrier's conduct)","confidence":0.73,"description":"Article 4(2)(a) exempts carriers from liability for navigational negligence by the master. Article 4A(3)(g) treats barratry (intentional wrongdoing by master/crew) as an excusable cause of delay, giving the carrier more protection for deliberate misconduct than negligent misconduct in the delay context. Meanwhile Article 4A(4)-(5) imposes nuanced attribution rules for industrial action. The hierarchy of excusability — intentional barratry fully excused, industrial action conditionally excused, negligent navigation separately governed — is internally inconsistent in its policy logic."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"s.3(2)(b) (object to replace provisions with Hamburg Convention provisions if Minister decides after review)","section_b":"s.2(3) (Part 3 and Schedule 2, and s.2A, repealed if Minister has not tabled statement within 10 years)","confidence":0.82,"description":"The Act's stated object includes transitioning to Hamburg Rules as a 'second step.' However, s.2(3) provides that if the Minister does not act within 10 years, the entire Hamburg Rules machinery (Part 3, Schedule 2, and s.2A) is repealed. The Act thus structurally undermines its own stated object by building in automatic repeal of the mechanism needed to achieve that object, without providing any replacement pathway."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"Schedule 1A, Article 3(4) (negotiable sea carriage document transferred to third party: proof to contrary not admissible to rebut prima facie evidence of receipt)","section_b":"Schedule 1A, Article 4(5)(h) (carrier not responsible if nature or value of goods knowingly misstated by shipper in sea carriage document)","confidence":0.76,"description":"Article 3(4) makes the sea carriage document conclusive evidence of receipt as against a third-party holder of a negotiable document — proof to the contrary is inadmissible. Article 4(5)(h) allows the carrier to escape liability if the shipper knowingly misstated the goods' nature or value. If the carrier cannot lead evidence to contradict the document (per Article 3(4)) but must prove a knowing misstatement (per Article 4(5)(h)) using that same documentary record, the carrier is trapped by evidentiary rules that prevent it from establishing its own defence."}]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/carriage-of-goods-by-sea-act-1991","history":"/api/acts/carriage-of-goods-by-sea-act-1991/history","analysis":"/api/acts/carriage-of-goods-by-sea-act-1991/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/carriage-of-goods-by-sea-act-1991/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/carriage-of-goods-by-sea-act-1991/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/carriage-of-goods-by-sea-act-1991/documents"}}