Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1909

Goods. Section 3 defines goods as including every description of wares, merchandise and things, but expressly excludes live animals. This means that the Act's protections and prohibitions do not apply to the carriage of livestock or other live animals. The definition is broad for all inanimate cargo.

Bill of lading. The Act uses the term "bill of lading or document" throughout but does not define it. Given the 1909 date, the term would encompass traditional paper bills of lading but may arguably extend to any document serving as a receipt for goods and evidence of the contract of carriage. The Act does not mention electronic documents. However, section 5 applies to "any bill of lading or document" containing prohibited clauses, and section 6 penalises any person who inserts or makes, signs or executes "any bill of lading or document" containing such clauses. The absence of a definition leaves room for interpretation, but the context suggests a document of title or receipt used in the sea‑carriage of goods.

Seaworthiness. Section 7(1) implies a warranty that the ship shall be, at the beginning of the voyage, seaworthy in all respects and properly manned, equipped and supplied. This is an absolute warranty, not merely an obligation to exercise due diligence. The Act does not define seaworthiness further, but the concept is well known at common law. Section 5(b) also refers to obligations of the owner or charterer to "exercise due diligence, and to properly man, equip, and supply the ship, to make and keep the ship seaworthy, and to make and keep the ship's hold, 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." Those obligations cannot be lessened, weakened or avoided by any clause in the bill of lading. The warranty in section 7(1) and the prohibition in section 5(b) together impose a high standard on the carrier.

Harmful or improper condition. Section 5(a) prohibits clauses that relieve from liability for loss or damage arising from "the harmful or improper condition of the ship's hold, or any other part of the ship in which goods are carried". This is broader than unseaworthiness: it covers conditions that may not render the ship unseaworthy overall but are harmful or improper for the particular cargo.

Negligence, fault or failure. Section 5(a) also covers "negligence, fault, or failure in the proper loading, stowage, custody, care, or delivery of goods". This is a comprehensive list of the carrier's operational duties. Any clause that attempts to exempt the carrier from these fundamental responsibilities is void.

Excepted perils. Section 7(2) lists nine categories of loss or damage for which the carrier is not responsible if the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. These include faults or errors in navigation, perils of the sea, acts of God, inherent defect of goods, insufficiency of package, seizure under legal process, acts of the shipper, and saving or attempting to save life or property at sea. The implied clause operates unless the contrary intention appears in the bill of lading. This means parties can displace the implied exceptions by an express provision, but cannot displace the warranty in section 7(1).

Voyage. The term "voyage" is not defined, but section 7(1) and (2) refer to "the beginning of the voyage". Given section 4(1) limits the Act to carriage from one WA place to another, the voyage in question is the sea voyage between those ports.

Owner, charterer, master, agent. These terms are used throughout the Act. They are not defined, but their ordinary maritime law meanings apply. Section 5 addresses clauses that relieve these persons (or the ship itself) from liability. Section 6 imposes criminal liability on any of these persons who insert or execute a prohibited clause. An agent who signs a bill of lading on behalf of the shipowner may be personally liable under section 6 even if the principal directed the clause.

The Act directly affects any person or entity involved in the sea carriage of goods wholly within Western Australia. This includes shipowners, charterers, masters and agents of ships that carry goods on intra‑state coastal voyages. A shipowner operating a vessel between, say, Fremantle and Geraldton, Broome and Derby, or Albany and Esperance falls within the scope of section 4(1) if the goods are loaded at a WA port and destined for another WA port. Charterers who take a vessel for a voyage or time charter on an intra‑WA route must ensure that any bill of lading they issue or authorise complies with the Act. Masters who sign bills of lading and agents who make or execute them are also affected; section 6 exposes them to criminal penalty if they handle a document containing a prohibited clause.

Shippers and consignees of goods carried on intra‑WA waters are the primary beneficiaries of the Act. They receive the protection of the section 5 prohibition against exemption clauses that would otherwise shift the risk of the carrier's negligence or unseaworthiness onto them. They also enjoy the implied warranty of seaworthiness in section 7(1). However, they may be affected by the implied exceptions in section 7(2) if the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; in that case, the carrier is not liable for the listed perils. Shippers are also bound by the definition of goods in section 3: those shipping live animals are outside the Act entirely, and the implied terms and prohibitions do not apply.

Insurers of cargo and hulls are indirectly affected. The Act's prohibition on clauses that relieve the carrier from liability for negligence and unseaworthiness means that cargo insurers cannot be subrogated to a claim against a carrier if the bill of lading would otherwise have excluded that liability; the clause is void, so the carrier remains liable. Hull insurers may face higher claims exposure because the carrier's right to rely on excepted perils under section 7(2) is conditional on the ship being seaworthy. The absolute warranty of seaworthiness (section 7(1)) means that any breach of that warranty opens the carrier to liability even if the loss would otherwise fall within an excepted peril.

Legal practitioners and compliance professionals advising on maritime matters within Western Australia must understand the Act's application. It is a rare state‑level sea‑carriage statute that coexists with Commonwealth legislation applying to interstate and overseas trade. Anyone drafting or reviewing bills of lading for intra‑WA voyages must ensure that no clause falls foul of section 5. The low monetary penalty ($200) does not diminish the fact that a conviction is criminal, and the clause itself is illegal, null and void under section 5.

The Act does not affect carriers operating on interstate or overseas routes. Section 4(1) confines its operation to carriage "from any place in Western Australia to some other place in Western Australia". This limitation means that a voyage from Fremantle to Melbourne is not governed by the Act, nor is a voyage from Fremantle to Singapore. However, hybrid situations could arise: if a single bill of lading covers carriage partly intra‑state and partly interstate, careful analysis is required to determine whether the Act applies to the intra‑state leg.

The Act imposes a set of non‑delegable duties on the carrier (owner, charterer, master and agent) and grants corresponding rights to the shipper and consignee. The most prominent duty is that the carrier must not include in any bill of lading (or similar document) a clause that purports to relieve itself from liability for loss or damage arising from the harmful or improper condition of the ship's hold or any cargo space (section 5(a)). The carrier also cannot insert a clause that relieves itself from liability for negligence, fault or failure in the proper loading, stowage, custody, care or delivery of goods (section 5(a)). These obligations are absolute: any clause that attempts to do so is illegal, null and void.

Section 5(b) imposes a further duty on the owner or charterer to exercise due diligence to properly man, equip and supply the ship, to make and keep the ship seaworthy, and to make and keep the hold, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other cargo spaces fit and safe for reception, carriage and preservation of goods. No clause in the bill of lading may lessen, weaken or avoid these obligations. This means the carrier cannot contract out of the duty to exercise due diligence, even if the ship is not at the beginning of a voyage.

Section 5(c) protects the obligations of the master, officers, agents and servants to carefully handle and stow goods and to care for, preserve and properly deliver them. Again, no clause may lessen, weaken or avoid those duties.

In addition to these prohibitions, section 7(1) implies into every bill of lading a warranty that the ship shall be, at the beginning of the voyage, seaworthy in all respects and properly manned, equipped and supplied. This warranty is not qualified by any "due diligence" standard; it is an absolute guarantee. If the ship is not seaworthy at the start of the voyage, the carrier is in breach regardless of fault. There is no provision allowing the parties to exclude this warranty; it is implied in every bill of lading without any contrary intention exception.

The carrier has a right under section 7(2) to rely on a set of excepted perils, but only if the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. The implied clause (unless contrary intention appears) provides that the carrier is not responsible for loss or damage resulting from faults or errors in navigation, perils of the sea, acts of God, the King's enemies, inherent defect of goods, insufficiency of package, seizure under legal process, acts of the shipper, or saving or attempting to save life or property at sea (including deviation for that purpose). This right is conditional: if the ship is unseaworthy, the exceptions do not apply. The carrier also has the right to exclude the implied clause by showing a contrary intention in the bill of lading (section 7(2) "unless the contrary intention appears"). That means the carrier and shipper can agree that the exceptions will not apply, but they cannot contract out of the warranty under section 7(1) or the prohibitions under section 5.

The shipper and consignee have the right to enforce the warranty of seaworthiness and to challenge any clause that violates section 5. If a bill of lading contains a prohibited clause, the clause is void and of no effect; the shipper can ignore it and claim damages for loss or damage caused by the carrier's negligence or unseaworthiness. The shipper also has the right to have the goods properly loaded, stowed, cared for and delivered, and cannot be required to accept a bill that lessens those duties.

Section 6 creates a criminal offence that targets any owner, charterer, master or agent of a ship who inserts any clause declared illegal by section 5 into a bill of lading or document, or who makes, signs or executes any bill of lading or document containing such a clause. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $200, imposed on summary conviction. This is a modest sum by modern standards, reflecting the 1909 original penalty (likely pounds) later converted to dollars by the Decimal Currency Act 1965. The key points are: the provision is criminal, not merely civil; a conviction results in a criminal record; and the offence is committed at the moment of insertion or execution, regardless of whether loss actually occurs.

The Act does not create a private right of action for breach of section 5 or section 7. However, the practical effect of section 5 declaring certain clauses illegal, null and void and of no effect is that those clauses are unenforceable. If a carrier seeks to rely on such a clause to deny liability, the shipper or consignee can plead the Act and have the clause struck out. The common law action for breach of contract or negligence remains available, and the implied warranty under section 7(1) can be enforced as a contractual term. The criminal penalty is separate and can be pursued by the relevant authorities (presumably the Police or a maritime regulator) upon summary complaint.

The penalty attaches only to the act of inserting, making, signing or executing the prohibited clause. It does not penalise the act of breaching the warranty of seaworthiness or the duty of care. Those breaches sound in damages in a civil suit. However, the existence of a criminal penalty underscores the seriousness with which the legislature viewed attempts to contract out of carrier liability. The penalty is low, but the stigma of a criminal conviction and the invalidity of the clause provide a deterrent.

Enforcement is likely rare given the Act's antiquity and limited application. The only amendment to section 6 was the conversion from pounds to dollars; no other enforcement mechanisms or penalties have been added. There is no provision for compounding, no power to detain ships, and no administrative penalty scheme. The Act relies on traditional summary prosecution before a magistrate. A person convicted under section 6 is liable only to a fine, not imprisonment. No other remedies (such as injunctions or forfeiture) are provided.

The Act does not specify who may lay a complaint. Likely any person could initiate a private prosecution, but in practice a government agency such as the Western Australian Police or the Department of Transport would be the prosecutor. The maximum court fine for a summary offence today is much higher than $200 under other legislation, so the actual penalty may be seen as very low by modern standards. Nonetheless, the clause itself is void regardless of any prosecution, so the civil remedy is the more significant enforcement tool.

The Act operates within a broader legal framework covering maritime carriage. Its most important interaction is with the common law of contract and tort. Before the Act, parties were generally free to contract on any terms, including clauses that exempted the carrier from liability for negligence or unseaworthiness. Section 5 overrides that freedom for intra‑WA bills of lading. The doctrine of freedom of contract is abrogated to the extent that any clause falling within the categories listed in section 5 is illegal and void. The Act therefore represents a statutory interference with common law principles.

The implied warranty of seaworthiness in section 7(1) also displaces the common law implied warranty, which was not absolute but subject to the carrier's duty to exercise due diligence. At common law, the carrier could exclude the implied warranty by express agreement. Section 7(1) makes the warranty non‑excludable and absolute. The common law exception of "latent defects" may still be relevant, but the Act does not reference it, so the carrier is strictly liable for unseaworthiness at the beginning of the voyage regardless of how the defect arose.

Section 7(2) provides a list of excepted perils that mirrors many common law exceptions, but with a significant twist: the exceptions apply only if the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. The common law often permitted the carrier to rely on perils of the sea even if the ship was unseaworthy, unless the unseaworthiness caused the loss. Section 7(2) makes the availability of the exceptions conditional on seaworthiness. The carrier who fails to satisfy the absolute warranty cannot rely on any of the listed perils.

As a state law, the Act interacts with Commonwealth legislation. The Commonwealth Sea‑Carriage of Goods Act 1924 (Cth) (based on the Hague Rules) applies to bills of lading covering carriage from an Australian port to a port outside Australia, and to certain interstate carriage by sea. The Commonwealth Act does not apply to carriage wholly within a state because of constitutional limitations. The WA Act fills that gap for intra‑WA carriage. Neither Act mentions the other. Where both could potentially apply (e.g., a bill of lading covering a voyage from Fremantle to Broome with a transshipment through a port in another state?), careful analysis of section 4(1) of the WA Act and the Commonwealth Act's application provisions is needed. The WA Act explicitly limits itself to carriage between two WA places, so it does not purport to apply to interstate or overseas carriage.

The Act does not interact with international conventions such as the Hague-Visby Rules or the Rotterdam Rules because they are not incorporated into WA law. The Act predates all of them. If Western Australia were to adopt a new marine carriage regime, the Act would likely be repealed or amended. As of the last reprint (2015), it remains in force.

The Act also interacts with the Western Australian Marine Insurance Act 1909 (if applicable). An insurer may seek to rely on a breach of the warranty of seaworthiness to deny cover, but the insured may argue that the warranty in section 7(1) is a legislative term that cannot be avoided by the insured's own conduct. That interaction is not addressed in the source and would depend on the wording of the insurance policy and the Marine Insurance Act.

The Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1909 was originally enacted as Act No. 26 of 1909 (9 Edw. VII No. 22) and received assent on 29 October 1909. It commenced on 1 January 1910 (section 2). The Act has undergone only one substantive amendment. The Decimal Currency Act 1965 (No. 113 of 1965) amended section 6 to convert the penalty from the original amount in pounds (which was not specified in the source but appears as "not exceeding $200" after amendment) to dollars. The Decimal Currency Act received assent on 21 December 1965; section 8(1) of that Act made the amendment, and the amendment commenced on 14 February 1966 (the date on which decimal currency was introduced, but sections 4-9 of the Decimal Currency Act commenced on that date, while the rest of that Act commenced on 21 December 1965). The amendment did not change the substantive prohibition or the implied terms.

The compilation history shows that a reprint of the Act was published as at 2 August 2002, and a second reprint as at 5 June 2015. These reprints incorporate the 1965 amendment only. No other amendments have been made to sections 1-7. The Act therefore remains substantially as drafted in 1909, a rare example of an early Australian sea‑carriage statute that has survived largely unchanged for over a century.

The defined terms note that the list of terms defined and the provisions where they are defined is not part of the law. The only defined term is "goods" in section 3. The Act does not contain a definition section for other terms like "bill of lading", "voyage", "ship", or "seaworthy". Those terms would be interpreted by the courts using their ordinary meaning.

The compilation table and notes provided with the Act do not reference any reported judicial decisions interpreting or applying the Act. The Act's extreme age and limited territorial scope (intra‑WA only) suggest that litigation under it has been rare. The small number of intra‑WA coastal shipping operations since Federation means there have been few opportunities for disputes to reach court. The maximum penalty of $200 suggests that even if prosecutions were brought, they would be minor and unlikely to generate reported decisions. Civil cases involving the implied warranty of seaworthiness or void clauses under section 5 may have been settled or heard in lower courts without publication. No High Court of Australia or Supreme Court of Western Australia decision directly on this Act is referenced in the source material. The Act does not cite any prior cases in its text, nor does the compilation table list any.

Given the Act's similarity to the Commonwealth Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1904 (Cth) (which was later replaced by the 1924 Act), some principles from cases under the Commonwealth Act may inform interpretation of the WA Act. However, the WA Act differs in key respects, particularly the absolute warranty of seaworthiness in section 7(1). The absence of litigation history may indicate that the Act has been effective either because it is rarely invoked or because parties comply with its terms. Alternatively, it may mean that the Act is overlooked by the legal profession. The user seeking a deep dive should be aware that no binding case law on the Act is available from the source.

Several aspects of the Act can trip up the unwary practitioner or carrier. The first and most important is territorial scope. Section 4(1) limits the Act to ships carrying goods "from any place in Western Australia to some other place in Western Australia". If a bill of lading covers a voyage that begins in WA but ends in another state or country, the Act does not apply. However, if a bill covers multiple legs, one intra-WA and one interstate, the Act may apply only to the intra-WA leg. A carrier who assumes the Act applies to all their operations may inadvertently rely on a prohibited clause in a bill for an interstate voyage, which would be valid under the Act but possibly invalid under Commonwealth law. Conversely, a carrier who ignores the Act for an intra-WA voyage and inserts a broad exemption clause may face criminal liability and have the clause struck out.

The second trap is that the prohibition in section 5 applies to "any bill of lading or document". The term "document" is not defined. It could include a sea waybill, a ship's delivery order, or even an electronic record. The Act predates electronic commerce, but a modern court might interpret "document" broadly to include electronic equivalents. Any document that serves as a receipt for goods and contains terms of carriage may be caught. Carriers who use electronic bills of lading should not assume the Act does not apply to them.

Third, the section 7(1) warranty is absolute: "the ship shall be, at the beginning of the voyage, seaworthy in all respects and properly manned, equipped, and supplied." There is no qualification such as "before and at the beginning of the voyage" as in the Hague Rules, and no "due diligence" defence. A carrier cannot excuse a failure to make the ship seaworthy by showing they exercised due diligence. This is a strict liability warranty. Even if the defect was latent and could not be discovered by reasonable inspection, the carrier is in breach. Carriers should ensure their vessels are thoroughly surveyed before each intra-WA voyage.

Fourth, the implied exceptions in section 7(2) apply only "unless the contrary intention appears". If the bill of lading contains a clause that is inconsistent with any of the listed exceptions, the implied clause is displaced. For example, if the bill expressly makes the carrier liable for errors in navigation, the implied exception for navigation errors does not apply. Carriers who want the benefit of the implied exceptions must ensure that the bill does not contain any contrary intention. Simply relying on the Act to imply the exceptions is risky if the bill includes a "responsibility clause" that purports to make the carrier liable for all loss. Better practice is to include an express clause mirroring section 7(2) to avoid the contrary intention argument.

Fifth, the definition of "goods" in section 3 excludes live animals. The Act does not apply at all to the carriage of livestock. Carriers of live animals within WA are free to include clauses that would violate section 5, and there is no implied warranty of seaworthiness under section 7(1) for such cargo. However, the common law implied warranty may still apply, and other consumer protection laws might restrict unfair contract terms. This exemption is a major gap that carriers of livestock should note.

Sixth, the penalty under section 6 applies to any owner, charterer, master or agent who "makes, signs, or executes any bill of lading or document containing any clause, covenant, or agreement declared by this Act to be illegal." An agent who merely signs a bill prepared by someone else can be personally liable. A stevedore or freight forwarder acting as agent for the carrier should not sign a bill that contains a prohibited clause. The same applies to a master who signs on behalf of the shipowner. Ignorance of the Act is no defence; the offence is one of strict liability on its face.

Seventh, the Act does not provide a limitation period for prosecution or civil claims. General statutes of limitation apply. For criminal prosecution, the time limit for summary offences in WA (usually 12 months from the date of the offence) would apply. For civil claims based on the implied warranty or negligence, the limitation period under the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) would apply. The Act does not create its own time bar, unlike some maritime conventions.

Eighth, the Act does not apply to contracts of carriage that are not evidenced by a bill of lading or document. If goods are carried on a verbal agreement or a simple receipt that is not a bill of lading, section 5 and section 7 do not apply. Carriers might attempt to circumvent the Act by not issuing a bill of lading. However, section 5 uses "any bill of lading or document", and a document that is not a bill of lading but contains terms of carriage may still be caught if it is a "document". A simple non-negotiable consignment note may not be a "document" within the meaning, but that is uncertain.

Ninth, the exception for contracts entered into before 1 September 1909 and bills made before 31 March 1910 (section 4(2)) is obviously obsolete now but could theoretically remain relevant for very long charter parties. Practitioners should note that any bill of lading issued under a charter party that predates 1910 is exempt, but such cases are virtually extinct.

Tenth, the Act uses the expression "King's enemies" (section 7(2)(c)). This phrase refers to enemies of the Crown. In modern times, it would include enemies of the Commonwealth of Australia. The term "seizure of the goods under legal process" (section 7(2)(f)) means arrest or attachment by court order. The exoneration for "saving or attempting to save life or property at sea" (sections 7(2)(h) and (i)) also covers deviation for that purpose, which is broader than the common law.

Compliance with the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1909 requires a systematic approach to drafting and reviewing bills of lading and other documents used for intra-WA coastal voyages. The first step is to confirm that the intended carriage falls within section 4(1): goods carried by ship from a place in Western Australia to another place in Western Australia. If the voyage has any interstate or overseas leg, the Act may not apply, but careful analysis is needed if the bill of lading covers a single contract of carriage that extends beyond WA. For purely intra-WA carriage, the Act applies to every bill of lading or document issued.

Second, the bill of lading must not contain any clause that would fall within the prohibitions of section 5. This means carefully reviewing each term. Any clause that purports to relieve the carrier from liability for loss or damage arising from the harmful or improper condition of the ship's hold or any cargo space, or from negligence, fault or failure in loading, stowage, custody, care or delivery, must be removed. Likewise, any clause that lessens the owner's or charterer's obligations to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy, properly man, equip and supply it, and to make cargo spaces fit and safe, must be excluded. Third, no clause may lessen the obligations of the master, officers, agents or servants to carefully handle, stow, care for, preserve and deliver goods.

Standard industry forms (such as the Congenbill or Conlinebill) often contain exception clauses that may violate section 5 if used for intra-WA carriage. For example, a "negligence clause" that exempts the carrier from liability for negligence in navigation or management would be illegal under section 5(a) because it relates to failure in proper care or delivery. A "seaworthiness" clause that attempts to exclude the implied warranty is void. Therefore, carriers using standard forms must modify them for intra-WA voyages. A bespoke clause could be drafted stating: "Notwithstanding any other provision in this bill of lading, the carrier's liability is subject to and limited by the Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1909 (WA). Nothing in this bill shall operate to relieve the carrier from liability for loss or damage to goods arising from the harmful or improper condition of the ship's hold, negligence in loading, stowage, custody, care or delivery, or to lessen the obligations to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and fit for cargo, or to lessen the obligations of the carrier's employees to carefully handle and stow goods." That clause acknowledges the Act and cannot be used to circumvent it.

Fourth, the carrier must ensure that the ship is seaworthy at the beginning of every intra-WA voyage. Section 7(1) implies an absolute warranty of seaworthiness. This is not a due diligence obligation; the carrier is strictly liable if the ship is unseaworthy at the time of sailing. Therefore, the carrier should implement a robust pre-voyage inspection regime for hull, machinery, refrigeration, ventilation, hatch covers and all cargo spaces. Documentation of inspections is essential to prove seaworthiness if a dispute arises. The warranty applies regardless of the cause of unseaworthiness, including latent defects. Carriers should consider marine insurance to cover the risk of unseaworthiness claims.

Fifth, the carrier may wish to incorporate the exceptions in section 7(2) into the bill of lading. The Act implies a clause giving these exceptions unless the contrary intention appears. To avoid any argument that the bill contains a contrary intention, the carrier should include an express clause such as: "Where the ship is at the beginning of the voyage seaworthy in all respects and properly manned, equipped and supplied, the carrier shall not be responsible for loss or damage resulting from faults or errors in navigation, perils of the sea, acts of God, the Queen's enemies, inherent defect of goods, insufficiency of package, seizure under legal process, any act or omission of the shipper, or saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, including deviation for that purpose." This mirrors section 7(2) and puts the matter beyond doubt. If the carrier does not want these exceptions, the bill can expressly state that the carrier assumes liability for those perils, and the implied clause will not apply.

Sixth, the carrier should train all personnel who issue, sign or execute bills of lading that section 6 makes it a criminal offence to insert or sign a bill containing a prohibited clause. A master or agent who signs a bill under pressure from the owner should refuse if the bill contains a prohibited clause. The carrier should establish an internal approval process for every bill of lading used on intra-WA voyages. A legal compliance officer should review each form against section 5.

Seventh, the carrier must remember that "goods" excludes live animals. If the carrier transports livestock, the Act does not apply, but other laws may. The carrier can use common law exemption clauses, but should still comply with any applicable consumer protection laws such as the Australian Consumer Law, which may render unfair terms void.

Eighth, the carrier should keep records of all bills of lading issued for intra-WA voyages. If a shipper later disputes a clause, the carrier must be able to produce the bill and demonstrate that it does not contain any prohibited clauses. Compliance audits should be conducted periodically.

Finally, given the Act's age and the limited litigation history, carriers and their legal advisers should monitor any new developments. The Act has not been amended since the 1965 decimal conversion, but it remains in force. Repeal is possible if Western Australia enacts new marine legislation. As of the 2015 reprint, compliance with section 5 and section 7(1) is mandatory.