Stef Transport Rennes & Anor v D & M Fraser (a firm)

This is a claim for compensation arising from a contract for the carriage of cheese from France to the United Kingdom. The claimants say that they have suffered loss because the defendant, which had contracted with them to carry the consignment of cheese, allowed the temperature at which the cheese was being carried to rise too high, with the result that the cheese was damaged and was rejected by the customer that had consigned it. The defendant says that any damage to the cheese (none being admitted) was due to inherent vice or to the manner in which the load was stowed, neither of which was its responsibility.

The claim is a modest one; the compensation sought is only €69,287.31. However, it presents both factual and legal problems and was argued with vigour and thoroughness in a trial that lasted three days. I am grateful to Mr Bird and Mr Davidson, counsel for the claimants and the defendant respectively, for their helpful written and oral submissions and for the manner in which they conducted the trial.

The consignment of cheese was to be carried from the premises of la société LAÏTA (“LAÏTA”) in Ancenis, France, to the premises of a related UK company, Eurilait Limited (“Eurilait”), in Evercreech, Somerset. It comprised approximately 11,140 kg, most of which was mould-ripened soft cheese (Camembert and Brie). Some of the cheese had been manufactured at LAÏTA’s premises at Ancenis, but most of it had been delivered to the premises either from LAÏTA’s other production sites or from other suppliers. The cheese manufactured by LAÏTA at Ancenis was stored in its cheese store, identified as Depot 442. The cheese from other sites was stored in a warehouse, identified as Depot 441. For convenience, I shall refer to the cheese that had been stored in these two places and subsequently formed part of the consignment to Eurilait as “the Depot 442 Cheese” and “the Depot 441 Cheese” respectively.

The Depot 442 Cheese was Brie that was manufactured on dates ranging from 22 April to 30 April 2015 and had Best Before dates ranging from 16 June to 24 June 2015. LAÏTA’s records show that the temperature inside Depot 442 was measured at maxima of 3°C on 1 May, 4°C on 2 May, 5°C on 3 May and 5.4°C on 4 May 2015. The lowest recorded temperature during that period was 0.9°C. Records have not been produced for the period 22 April to 30 April 2015. LAÏTA’s operating procedures required that each morning the temperature of six pallets of cheese in Depot 442, selected at random, be checked. It does not appear that any of the Depot 442 Cheese was subject to checking.

The Depot 441 Cheese arrived at LAÏTA’s premises by means of 23 separate deliveries from eight sites of production. LAÏTA’s operating procedures required that from each delivery two pallets would be selected at random and the temperature of their contents would be checked with a temperature probe. The temperature was deemed acceptable if it were within the temperature range mentioned on the product packaging. All deliveries were also subject to visual inspection by the warehouse staff. If the goods

Production details are available for about two-thirds of the Depot 441 Cheese, showing that it was manufactured on dates ranging from 16 April to 30 April 2015 and had Best Before dates ranging from 5 June to 27 July 2015. For the remaining one-third of the Depot 441 Cheese, which came not from LAÏTA’s other manufacturing sites but from different suppliers, there is no record of the date of production. The Best Before dates range from 19 June to 21 August 2015; in the absence of any further information, this tends to suggest that the cheese was not produced at any earlier date than 16 April, though that same absence of further information precludes any confident inference. However, I accept evidence given at trial to the effect that LAÏTA only ever agreed to buy young cheese from its suppliers. The deliveries containing the Depot 441 Cheese would have been subject to the reception process described above. LAÏTA’s records show that only one pack in the Depot 441 Cheese—a pack of Brie Meaux from another supplier—had been selected for random checking. The sample that was checked had a temperature of 4.2°C, which fell within the acceptable range. Temperature records for Depot 441 show that the temperature was maintained between 3°C and 6.4°C during the period 27 April to 4 May 2015; the general high point did not exceed 6°C, though there was a single spike at 6.4°C. No records were produced for the period before 27 April 2015. The evidence does not establish whether any of the Depot 441 Cheese was received into Depot 441 before 27 April 2015.

LAÏTA engaged the claimants, French companies within the STEF Group, to carry the cheese to Eurilait’s premises in Evercreech. (The distinction between the first claimant and the second claimant and the precise contractual arrangements between them are not important for the purposes of this case and I shall ignore them.) The terms of the contract between LAÏTA and the claimants are not in evidence, though on the basis of oral evidence given by Elisa Guillerm, LAÏTA’s Quality Export Manager, I accept that they included a requirement that the cheese be transported at a temperature within a specified range, probably 0°C to 4°C. The claimants in turn engaged the defendant to carry the cheese. The defendant is a firm based in Scotland and, like the claimants, is engaged in the business of international carriage of goods by road. The evidence shows that the defendant had been carrying cheese for the claimants from LAÏTA’s premises for a number of years on a weekly basis.

The claimants’ instruction to the defendant, which the defendant accepted, was in the form of a transport confirmation (the “Transport Confirmation”) that the defendant received on 1 May 2015. The Transport Confirmation included the following provisions:

“front compartment Temperature: +2/+4°C …”

“Temperature: The carrier take in charge controlled temperatures goods and commit to maintain them in the temperatures required and indicated during all the duration of the services. The vehicle must be pre-cooled and be at the appropriate temperature when loading commences. The temperature should be checked at loading and maintained throughout the transport. Periodic recording of the temperature during the loading and the transport is essential regardless of the distance (fresh, quick-frozen and frozen processed products, pharmaceutical products). The continuous settings of

refrigeration unit is mandatory for all fresh product transports.”

“General conditions: allowing the vehicle to be loaded implies full and formal acceptance of the above conditions.”

To perform the delivery, the defendant used a lorry with refrigerated trailer, which it had bought second-hand some time previously and which it had used many times to carry dairy goods from LAÏTA’s premises to the UK. For that purpose the trailer was required to have a valid ATP Certificate, showing compliance with the Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs. However, the ATP Certificate for the defendant’s trailer, which had been issued in February 2006, had expired in February 2012, more than three years before the events giving rise to this claim. It is not suggested that the absence of a valid ATP Certificate is either of causal relevance or itself indicative of malfunction of the refrigerated trailer, but it does constitute a failure to comply with legal requirements and it also means that there had been no recent inspection for the purposes of ATP compliance.

The trailer was 13.6m long and insulated with polyurethane foam. The refrigeration unit in the trailer was a Carrier Vector 1800 unit, of a kind conventional for road trailers. Cooling air was supplied to the top of the cargo space and returned to the refrigeration unit via ducts in the forward wall of the trailer. The unit had two relevant operational modes, namely the “Continuous” mode and the “Start/Stop” mode, either of which could be selected by the driver. In the Continuous mode, the refrigeration unit and aircirculation fans run continuously. In the Start/Stop mode, by contrast, they run for a specified Minimum Run Time—in this case, probably the manufacturer’s default period of four minutes—and thereafter until the supply air temperature cools to the set point temperature; they then remain off until the temperature rises to a particular level, in the case of perishable goods usually 2°C above the set point temperature. The purpose of the Minimum Run Time, as stated by the manufacturer, is to ensure that the air inside the trailer has fully circulated and that the product temperature has reached the set point. The purpose of using the Start/Stop mode is to reduce fuel consumption. The integral data logger in the refrigeration unit shows that successive starts of the unit during the journey from Ancenis to Evercreech took place approximately every 17 minutes.

On 4 May the defendant’s vehicle arrived at LAÏTA’s premises during the late morning. The defendant’s driver probably did not know the detailed terms of the instructions received from the claimants, but he did know the required temperature range for the trailer, and at about 1 p.m. local time (GMT + 1) he set the refrigeration unit to the Continuous mode and a set point temperature of 2°C. (The control parameter for the set point temperature was the supply air temperature rather than, as was the default setting, the return air temperature. It has not been suggested that there was anything inappropriate about this.) Loading of the trailer took place shortly after 3 p.m. local time and was carried out by LAÏTA’s personnel. The contemporaneous documentation indicates that, immediately before loading the cheese, LAÏTA found the temperature of the trailer to be 5.2°C. Although that temperature exceeded the temperature range stipulated by LAÏTA for carriage, it loaded the cheese onto and stowed it in the trailer.

The defendant’s driver signed a CMR International Consignment Note (the “CMR Consignment Note”), which acknowledged receipt of 38 pallets of various cheeses with a gross weight of 11,139 kg. The CMR Consignment Note recorded, “Fridge Temperature set at +2 Degrees centigrade in accordance with Shipper’s Instructions”. Under the heading “Special agreements” was the following text, which had been pretyped and was standard on the defendant’s CMR Consignment Notes:

“Loading & Stowage – Full responsibility of Shipper.

The Driver not having opportunity to check and control the actual loading of the trailer.”

The driver also signed two other consignment notes, one in respect of 10 pallets and the other in respect of 28 pallets. Both of these consignment notes were typewritten in French. Each of them recorded the vehicle temperature as being 5.2°C and contained text that means, in English, “The goods are shipped in good apparent condition and at a temperature which accords with regulations.”

After loading had been completed, the driver changed the setting of the refrigeration unit from Continuous mode to Start/Stop mode; he left the temperature set point unchanged at 2°C. Then he left LAÏTA’s premises and proceeded to Caen, where he boarded a ferry for Portsmouth. The ferry arrived in Portsmouth at about 6 or 6.30 a.m. (the records are not easy to reconcile) on 5 May and arrived at Eurilait’s premises at about 11 a.m.

With one brief interruption, the refrigeration unit remained on Start/Stop mode, with a set point of 2°C, at all stages of the journey from LAÏTA’s premises to Eurilait’s premises. That interruption was for a period of about forty minutes immediately before the vehicle came off the ferry at Portsmouth: while on the ferry the refrigeration unit, which normally was powered by the lorry’s diesel engine, ran by way of a connection to the ferry’s power supply, but that supply was disconnected by the ferry crew in readiness for disembarkation. There is a complete set of the data recorded by the refrigeration unit of the so-called Supply Air Temperature, which is the measurement taken by a sensor near to the inlet duct that supplied the cool air. These show that from the time the vehicle left Ancenis until the unit was shut down as the ferry approached Portsmouth, the recorded temperatures ranged from 0.7°C to 5.4°C and were usually in the range 2°C to 5°C. During the period of the shutdown the temperature rose as high as 10.6°C, but within a few minutes after re-start it had reduced to 2.9°C. It then remained almost entirely within the range 2°C to 5°C until arrival at Eurilait’s premises.

When the defendant’s vehicle arrived at Eurilait’s premises, Eurilait rejected the cheese.

As soon as Eurilait rejected the cheese, the defendant’s driver made a telephone call to Ross Fraser, the defendant’s transport planner. Mr Fraser was alarmed at the rejection of the cheese and, in the hope that Eurilait could be persuaded to reverse its decision if the temperature of the cheese were reduced, instructed the driver to set the refrigeration unit to the Continuous mode at a set point of 0°C. The driver did so at about 11.37 a.m. At 4.25 p.m. that day the driver changed the set point temperature to 2°C; however, the unit remained in the Continuous mode.

Arrangements were made for an inspection of the cheese on the following day, 6 May, at the premises of Fowler Welch in Portsmouth. The cheese was taken there in the defendant’s vehicle. CL Surveys attended the inspection on the instructions of the claimants’ insurer. The defendant was invited to instruct someone to attend on its behalf but did not do so. CL Surveys inspected the cheese at 12.30 p.m. on 6 May. The following temperatures were recorded for the heart of the cheeses stowed at various positions in the trailer:

On the strength of the findings on the inspection and the reduction in the recorded temperatures, the claimants decided to seek to persuade LAÏTA and Eurilait that the cheese should be accepted. They therefore instructed the defendant to transport the goods to the premises of Peter Green Chilled, which are adjacent to the premises of Eurilait in Evercreech, for storage overnight. The claimants also sent an email to LAÏTA. It explained the printout of data from the refrigeration unit, showing the supply air temperature (SAT) and refrigeration unit temperature (DTT1), and concluded (in English translation): “We can see in this instance that the SAT and DTT1 are fine. So everything is normal. I hope that this information satisfies your requirements.” Ms Guillerm replied as follows (again, in English translation; I have also corrected the dates and times on the refrigeration unit data, which are agreed to be wrongly set):

“We thank you for this information and inform you that we have on our side found two anomalies:

-

from 6:10 to 6:50 on 5 May 2015: temperatures above +4°C, and

-

from 11:40 on 5 May 2015: negative temperatures.”

In addition, the note upon receipt by Eurilait of the nonconformity of the temperatures within the goods delivered confirms the problems encountered.

As the goods have experienced a rise in temperature, then negative temperatures, we cannot take the risk of accepting them: the risk of a quality issue is too high.

As such, the rise in humidity for soft cheese within its packaging caused by such variations in temperature will cause major presentation defects.

The maturing of our products will also be impacted and our product will not satisfy the expectations and demands of our customers.

The negative temperatures will also have given rise to a syneresis especially in our ‘Fromages à Tartiner’, its texture is affected when temperatures fall below 0°C.

We will under no circumstances agree to the commercialisation of the products in question.”

The first anomaly mentioned by Ms Guillerm concerns the period when the refrigeration unit was turned off shortly before disembarkation from the ferry. Ms Guillerm said in cross-examination that she thought the extent and duration of the increase in temperature was sufficient to affect the cheese adversely and justify rejection of the cheese, though her opinion in that regard does not seem to me to be supported by the weight of the evidence, and I accept Mr Wilkie’s opinion that the period in question would not have been causative of damage. As for the second anomaly, it became apparent in cross-examination that Ms Guillerm had been considering the readings from the probe in the refrigeration unit itself (DTT1); she said that she considered these to be relevant, but as they do not relate to the temperatures in the trailer I am satisfied that she is mistaken in that regard.

That same afternoon, Eurilait’s Supply Chain Manager sent an email to LAÏTA:

“To reiterate[:] the state of the trailer was on arrival 11C. When opening the trailer the trailer was very smelly suggesting no temperature control for some time. The core temperature of some cheeses sampled was 17C. the driver was unable to provide any temperature control documentation or where the temperature is recorded.

We will not accept this vehicle load again under any circumstances. We have received a phone call requesting to book this in again now the temperature is ok[;] however due to the previously mentioned issue we will not accept the stock.”

If the information in this email is correct, the reference to 10-11°C in the manuscript endorsement on the CMR Consignment Note is not to the temperature of the cheese (which had been generally assumed; cf. para 8.7 of the first report of Richard Lawton, below) but to the temperature of the trailer, and that endorsement makes no reference to the fact that a pulp temperature of up to 17°C had been measured. The state of the evidence regarding these matters is unsatisfactory.

On the morning of 8 or, possibly, 7 May, acting (as I think probable) on the claimants’ instructions, Peter Green Chilled re-delivered the cheese to Eurilait for acceptance. A report from CL Surveys records what happened:

“At time of arrival of the means of transport on the Company EURILAIT premises, at the opening of the doors, the EURILAIT Company noted that a strong smell was released from the goods and that the temperature taken at the heart of some products was +17°C.”

Accordingly, Eurilait maintained its rejection of the cheese on the ground that it had been presented above the stipulated temperature.

LAÏTA refused to take the cheese back or to allow it to be sold commercially. Its position was set out in an email sent on 11 May 2015:

“As noted above, these products cannot be sold as is by our subsidiary. We consider that this claim is at your charge. We suggest you head these products to a company which can undertake melting.”

A further inspection of the cheese took place on 13 May at the premises of Peter Green Chilled, where it had been held in a cold store at 2°C. This time representatives of all interested parties were present; these included a surveyor instructed on behalf of the defendant. The report produced later by CL Surveys contained the following relevant text concerning this inspection:

“During our intervention on the 13/05/2015, the goods were a similar state in the previous survey dated on the 06/05/2015. The goods gave off a smell of the same intensity that smell on the first survey, in relation to the nature of the goods.

We noted the following temperatures on the surface of the products: +5.0°C / +6.8°C / +8.4°C / +7.0°C / +5.9°C / +6.6°C / +8.3°C / +7.9°C. Synthetically, the temperatures ranged from 5.0°C to +8.4°C.

Temperature remained high despite storage conditions. It reflected an evolution of cheese, ripening is an exothermic process …

We noted the presence of condensation on external packaging of some cheeses, showing the influence of thermal variations. It was more developed than in the first survey inspection.”

On 20 May, the defendant’s surveyors, CWH & Co, sent an email to Eurilait:

“Whilst there did not appear to be a vast amount of damage and deterioration suffered by the cheese at the time of our inspection, I do accept your reservation particularly regarding those cheeses made with raw milk and the fear of e coli, listeria and other nasty problems.

It is understood that you are making further enquiries with your Parent company Laita as to the best course of action to adopt to mitigate the loss and in this respect I should be grateful to receive your confirmation in writing as to whether this would simply be restricted to the cheeses made with raw milk, Brie de Meaux etc, or whether it would be involving the consignment as a whole.”

CL Surveys asked CWH & Co for direct confirmation that they had no objection to the proposal that, in line with LAÏTA’s suggestion, the cheese be reprocessed and sold for salvage. CWH & Co replied:

“As was agreed with your surveyor at time of survey we had no objection for the product to be reprocessed albeit that agreement at that time was on an entirely without prejudice basis and without any admission of liability.

It is for the goods owners to mitigate their loss and to take all actions they feel necessary to achieve that goal.

I trust therefore you will be guided accordingly and I will continue to complete my investigations into the cause of the loss/damage.”

In due course, accordingly, the cheese was sold for €5,570. The claimants paid €73,618.53 to LAÏTA in respect of compensation for the damage to the cheese. It incurred additional transportation and storage costs of €1,239.60. Against this total outlay of €74,858.13 it gives credit for the proceeds of the sale of the cheese. It claims the balance of €69,288.13 from the defendant.

It is common ground that there was a contract between the claimants and the defendant and that it was governed by and incorporated the terms of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (the “CMR Convention”), which is set out in the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965.

Section 1 of the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965 provides:

“Subject to the following provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (in this Act referred to as ‘the Convention’), as set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom so far as they relate to the rights and liabilities of persons concerned in the carriage of goods by road under a contract to which the Convention applies.”

Section 14(2) provides, so far as relevant for present purposes:

“The persons who, for the purposes of this Act, are persons concerned in the carriage of goods by road under a contract to which the Convention applies are—

(a)

the sender,

(b)

the consignee,

(c)

any carrier who, in accordance with article 34 in the Schedule to this Act or otherwise, is a party to the contract of carriage,”

It is common ground that, in the circumstances of this case, LAÏTA was the “sender”, Eurilait was the “consignee” and the claimants and the defendant were “carriers” for the purpose of section 14(2) and “successive road carriers” for the purpose of article 34 (below).

The following provisions of the CMR Convention are relevant to this case.

“Article 8

1.

On taking over the goods, the carrier shall check:

…

(b)

the apparent condition of the goods and their packaging.” “Article 9

1.

The consignment note shall be prima facie evidence of the making of the contract of carriage, the conditions of the contract and the receipt of the goods by the carrier.

2.

If the consignment note contains no specific reservations by the carrier, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the goods and their packaging appeared to be in good condition when the carrier took them over and that the number of packages, their marks and numbers corresponded with the statements in the consignment note.”

“Article 17

1.

The carrier shall be liable for the total or partial loss of the goods and for damage thereto occurring between the time when he takes over the goods and the time of delivery, as well as for any delay in delivery.

2.

The carrier shall however be relieved of liability if the loss, damage or delay was caused by the wrongful act or neglect of the claimant, by the instructions of the claimant given otherwise than as the result of a wrongful act or neglect on the part of the carrier, by inherent vice of the goods or through circumstances which the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent.

…

4.

Subject to article 18, paragraphs 2 to 5, the carrier shall be relieved of liability when the loss or damage arises from the special risks inherent in one or more of the following circumstances:

…

(c)

handling, loading, stowage or unloading of the goods by the sender, the consignee or persons acting on behalf of the sender or the consignee;

(d)

the nature of certain kinds of goods which particularly exposes them to total or partial loss or to damage, especially through breakage, rust, decay, desiccation, leakage, normal wastage, or the action of moth or vermin; …

5.

Where under this article the carrier is not under any liability in respect of some of the factors causing the loss, damage or delay, he shall only be liable to the extent that those factors for which he is liable under this article have contributed to the loss, damage or delay.”

“Article 18

1.

The burden of proving that loss, damage or delay was due to one of the causes specified in article 17, paragraph 2, shall rest upon the carrier.

2.

When the carrier establishes that in the circumstances of the case, the loss or damage could be attributed to one or more of the special risks referred to in article 17, paragraph 4, it shall be presumed that it was so caused. The claimant shall however be entitled to prove that the loss or damage was not, in fact, attributable either wholly or partly to one of these risks.

…

4.

If the carriage is performed in vehicles specially equipped to protect the goods from the effects of heat, cold, variations in temperature or the humidity of the air, the carrier shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of article 17, paragraph 4(d), unless he proves that all steps incumbent upon him in the circumstances with respect to the choice, maintenance and use of such equipment were taken and that he complied with any special instructions issued to him.”

“Article 25

1.

In case of damage, the carrier shall be liable for the amount by which the goods have diminished in value, calculated by reference to the value of the goods fixed in accordance with article 23, paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.

2.

The compensation may not, however, exceed:

(a)

if the whole consignment has been damaged the amount payable in the case of total loss;

(b)

if part only of the consignment has been damaged, the amount payable in the case of loss of the part affected.”

“Article 34

If carriage governed by a single contract is performed by successive road carriers, each of them shall be responsible for the performance of the whole operation, the second carrier and each succeeding carrier becoming a party to the contract of carriage, under the terms of the consignment note, by reason of his acceptance of the goods and the consignment note.”

“Article 35

…

2.

The provisions of article 9 shall apply to the relations between successive carriers.”

“Article 37

A carrier who has paid compensation in compliance with the provisions of this Convention, shall be entitled to recover such compensation, together with interest thereon and all costs and expenses incurred by reason of the claim, from the other carriers who have taken part in the carriage, subject to the following provisions:

(a)

the carrier responsible for the loss or damage shall be solely liable for the compensation whether paid by himself or by another carrier;

(b)

when the loss or damage has been caused by the action of two or more carriers, each of them shall pay an amount proportionate to his share of liability; should it be impossible to apportion the liability, each carrier shall be liable in proportion to the share of the payment for the carriage which is due to him;

(c)

if it cannot be ascertained to which carriers liability is attributable for the loss or damage, the amount of the compensation shall be apportioned between all the carriers as laid down in (b) above.”

“Article 40

Carriers shall be free to agree among themselves on provisions other than those laid down in articles 37 and 38.”

For the purposes of Articles 8 and 9, the apparent condition of goods “refers to what is discernible externally on a reasonable examination, ‘so far as meets the eye’”: Clarke, International Carriage of Goods by Road: CMR (6^th edition, 2014), at section 25a. The text in that section continues:

“The carrier is not obliged to test the strength of ropes or packaging used by the sender, still less to assess the quality of the goods as such. In particular, the carrier is not required to check that goods have been consigned at an appropriate (core) temperature. However, apparent condition extends not only to goods but also to their packaging and external temperature.”

There was some debate at trial as to the correctness of the final reference to external temperature and as to the degree of support provided by the reference given in the footnote to the text. However, if the basic meaning of apparent condition, as mentioned above, is borne in mind, I do not think that there is any great difficulty in the present case. The defendant’s driver was not required to test the pulp temperature of the cheese. It is implausible to suppose that reasonable examination required him to touch the different packs of cheese. If he saw anything untoward on the pallets—it is not suggested that there was anything untoward to see—, he should record it on the consignment note. If, which is unlikely and is not a realistic possibility on the evidence, he sensed unusual heat being given off by the load, he should note that. Of greater relevance to the present case, apparent condition would concern what met the nose just as much as the eye; if the driver was aware of an abnormal smell from the load, he should record that.

“In Article 17.1 of the CMR, damage means any change in the physical state of the goods which reduces their value”: Clarke, op. cit., at section 57. Professor Clarke cites OLG Celle 13.1.75 as authority for the proposition that, for the purposes of the CMR, “damage is characterised by external or internal physical deterioration, which results in diminution of value”. He continues: “Diminution of the value of goods without physical deterioration, however, is not damage; were it otherwise it would be too difficult to distinguish damage from loss of market, for which the carrier is not liable under the CMR.”

The distinction between loss caused by “inherent vice of the goods” (Article 17, paragraph 2) and loss arising from the special risks inherent in “the nature of certain kinds of goods etc” (Article 17, paragraph 4(d)) is not entirely clear. Both can encompass damage from overheating of the goods: for inherent vice, see Ulster-Swift Ltd v Taunton Meat Haulage Ltd [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 502, affirmed at [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 346; for risks inherent in the nature of the goods, see Article 18, paragraph 4. That there is a distinction between the two causes of loss is evident from the different incidences of the burden of proof. Although the cases do not speak with one voice on the point, in my judgment the distinction is that risk inherent in the nature of goods concerns a quality existing in all goods of the same nature, whereas inherent vice is some inherent defect in the goods, but not inherent in their nature and not normally found in goods of the same kind, which renders them unfit to withstand the ordinary incidents of carriage: see Messent and Glass, “CMR: Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods by Road” (4^th edition, 2017), at paragraphs 6.25 to 6.27. Thus, there is a risk inherent in the natures of cheese and meat that they will deteriorate when warm, but this is not an inherent vice; but if particular cheese or meat is peculiarly susceptible to damage on account of overheating, because it is inherently rotten or because it was inappropriately warm when loaded into the refrigerated unit, it has an inherent vice.

Finally, in Article 17, paragraph 2, the expression “could be attributed to” probably “connotes something less than a balance of probabilities [but] something more than a remote possibility”: Ulster-Swift Ltd and another v Taunton Meat Haulage Ltd [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 346, at 354.

The claimants’ case in summary is as follows. They have paid compensation and incurred costs by reason of damage to the condition of the cheese. The defendant is the carrier responsible for that damage under article 17, paragraph 1, because it occurred between the time when the defendant took over the goods and the time of delivery to Eurilait. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the claimants the amount of compensation and other expenses they have paid: article 37(a). (The claim is also put in contract, independently of the CMR Convention, though I do not think it necessary to consider that distinct way of putting the claim or even the extent to which a claim could lie outside the terms of the CMR Convention.) Factually, the claimants’ case is that the damage to the cheese occurred because the defendant failed to maintain its temperature within acceptable levels, and that that failure resulted from two causes, namely the running of the refrigeration unit in the Start/Stop rather than the Continuous mode and an incorrect configuration of the trailer.

In response to this claim, the defendant contends, first, that there is insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the cheese was damaged during carriage. If, however, such damage is found to be proved, the defendant contends, second, that the claim fails because the claimants are unable to prove—the burden, it is said, being on them—that the damage was not due to either incorrect stowage or the perishable nature of the cargo. The availability of contractual or common-law rights of action outside the Convention is disputed. If any liability is found to exist, issue is taken with the quantum of the compensation payable by the defendant.

Accordingly, although the necessary analysis has a number of refinements, the central questions that fall to be answered are the following: (1) Did the goods suffer damage while in carriage from Ancenis to Evercreech? (2) If so, was the cause of the damage

The factual evidence available to assist in answering these questions was mainly in the form of documentation, including a report written by CL Surveys in September 2015. I have summarised above what seem to me to be the most important matters established by the documents. No evidence was given by any witness who saw the cheese. Evidence of fact was given at trial for the claimants by Ms Guillerm, who is not based at Ancenis and whose evidence was for the most part based on the documents she was able to produce. The defendant’s driver, Douglas Kirk, did not give evidence; it appears that he is too unwell to do so, and it was agreed that I should disregard a statement made in his name. The defendant’s witness of fact was Ross Fraser, whose direct involvement in the matters giving rise to this claim was limited.

I received evidence from two expert witnesses: for the claimants, Richard Lawton, Technical Director of Cambridge Refrigeration Technology; for the defendant, Kevin Wilkie, a director of Endeavour Marine & Technical Ltd t/a Reefer Consult. Their evidence was principally directed to what I have identified as the second question (causation of damage). I have to say that I did not find the evidence of either expert to be especially compelling. Mr Lawton has considerable experience in carriage of goods by road and, in that context, of refrigeration, but he did not always demonstrate persuasive grounds for his opinions; to a degree, he was also hampered by the limited factual information available. Mr Wilkie, by contrast, has little experience in carriage of goods by road; his expertise principally concerns carriage at sea. This did not inhibit him from a large measure of dogmatism, coupled with a robustly dismissive attitude towards opinions differing from his own and an unwarranted tendency to attribute, sometimes by implication and sometimes expressly, bad motives to the claimants and those assisting them (see, for example, the unjustified statement in paragraph 11.7 of his first report that certain references made by the claimants to temperature readings were “deliberately misleading”). Nevertheless, Mr Wilkie’s opinions have to be assessed on their merits, and certain parts of his reasoning seemed to me to have considerable force. It is convenient to summarise the main points in the expert evidence before turning to the specific issues in the case.

Mr Lawton identified two causes for the high temperatures recorded on delivery to Eurilait. The primary cause was that the refrigeration unit had been turned to Start/Stop mode instead of Continuous mode. This meant that the cooling air was flowing for only about 55% of the duration of the carriage, with the result that the cheese not only would not be cooled for substantial amounts of time but would heat up by reason of its own metabolic processes. “Running in Continuous mode would have significantly slowed the natural increase of temperature of the cheese due to the exothermic ripening process, as there would always be airflow.” The consequence was that the temperature of the cheese would have been on average higher throughout the period of carriage than if Continuous mode had been used. One objection to this theory is that the manufacturer’s handbook for the refrigeration unit contains a section on recommended transport temperatures, which includes for Dairy Products a set-point range of 2°C to 6°C and, as regards the operating mode, states: “Auto-Start/Stop or continuous”. Mr Lawton

The second reason given by Mr Lawton for the high temperatures was that the internal configuration of the trailer was inappropriate, in that it was not such as to ensure that the cooling air introduced by the refrigeration unit circulated throughout the trailer compartment. His specific complaint concerned the false bulkhead at the front of the trailer. The experts agreed that the primary purpose of the false bulkhead was to prevent the cargo from pressing against the forward bulkhead and thereby blocking the air return to the evaporator. However, Mr Lawton was of the view that the interlocking plates or baffles of which this particular false bulkhead was comprised ought to have extended from a position just below the supply air duct near the top of the trailer down to a position just above the floor. Such a configuration would have meant that the return air vents, a little below the supply air duct, would be behind the baffles instead of (as was the case) above them. The effect of the return air vents being above instead of behind the baffles was, said Mr Lawton, that some of the cool air would have shortcircuited between the supply and return air ducts at the front of the trailer, and the amount of cool air that reached the rear of the trailer would thereby be reduced. If the baffles were not to be placed in front of the return air vents, an alternative method of ensuring that the cool air reached the rear of the compartment was by the use of one or more “air socks”, running along the ceiling of the trailer from the supply air duct to the rear of the trailer. No such air sock was fitted. As I have noted, Mr Lawton was clear that the absence of an air sock was not itself a point of criticism; rather, he criticised the missing baffles and said that, if the baffles were not to be replaced, an air sock would have compensated. His evidence on this point was, as it seems to me, weakened by the fact that he was unable to point to any support in the documentation or literature for the supposed importance of positioning baffles in front of the return air vents to prevent short-circuiting of the flow of cool air. Further, in cross-examination Mr Lawton said that, although in his opinion the absence of the baffles was a contributory factor to the high temperatures, he had not carried out any tests with a view to ascertaining the extent of the effect it would have had, and he did not know how much it would have affected air-flow.

By way of support for his conclusions, Mr Lawton pointed to two matters in connection with the temperatures recorded at the premises of Fowler Welch on 6 May. First, the temperature of the cheese at the door end was then no higher than 8.9°C, whereas it had been 11°C on arrival at Eurilait; this indicated that the Continuous mode was effective in reducing air temperature. Second, the temperatures recorded at different parts of the trailer showed that the cheese was progressively cooler towards the cooling machinery at the front of the trailer; this was consistent with ineffective maintenance of temperature caused by inadequate air-flow. Mr Lawton was unable to explain how the two things identified by him as relevant causes, namely incorrect operating mode and incorrect configuration of the trailer, could account for a recorded pulp temperature as high as 17°C, in the light of the readings from the data logger, though as he pointed out there is very little information as to how or where that reading was taken. More importantly, Mr Lawton’s first point overlooks the fact that the refrigeration unit was programmed to a set point of 0°C for nearly five hours after its departure from Evercreech on 5 May.

Mr Lawton considered and dismissed two alternative explanations advanced by the defendant. First, he rejected the suggestion that the method of stowage of the cheese caused or contributed to damage: he considered the stowage, as it appeared from photographic evidence, to be normal and acceptable. Second, he rejected the suggestion that the damage to the goods was inevitable because of the temperature at which they had been loaded or because of some inherent vice: the loading temperature was within range and the temperature upon delivery was significantly outside the range, which it would not have been if the cheese had been stored at a proper temperature during carriage.

In Mr Wilkie’s first report, paragraph 7.7 shows not only where his opinion differs from that of Mr Lawton but also where they agree on the potential significance of the temperatures recorded at different parts of the trailer by CL Surveys on 6 May 2015:

“This [i.e. the record of the temperatures] is quite strong evidence to show that the high pulp temperatures nearest the doors are more a product of poor air circulation due [to] short circuiting in this area, and/or cargo in this area was loaded in warm / incorrectly pre-cooled condition, and/or the cargo in this area had already started to decay and was self-warming, rather than as a result of any lack of cooling arising from the use of the

‘Start/Stop’ control mode for at least part of the journey.”

As for the operating mode of the refrigeration unit, Mr Wilkie noted the terms of the guidance in the manufacturer’s handbook (see paragraph 40 above), which he thought should be taken at face value. He found no support for the contention that cheese was especially vulnerable to fluctuations of temperature, provided it were kept within proper limits. The information from the data logger showed that the refrigeration unit was operating correctly; it would therefore have maintained the temperature within the trailer within the proper range. Mr Wilkie said that the data logger would have recorded not only the temperature of the supply air but also that of the return air; this potentially useful piece of information had not been downloaded and was not available in evidence. He considered that the temperature of the air around the pallets would not have risen significantly above 4C°. He pointed out that a carrier can control the temperature of the air around the load but not the pulp temperature of the goods, albeit that the former will have an effect on the latter.

As for the internal configuration of the trailer, Mr Wilkie robustly rejected any explanation in terms of missing baffle plates: “Such an unfounded and unsupported allegation is fundamentally flawed, is lacking in simple logic and defies basic common sense.” He disagreed strongly with the suggestion that the false bulkhead ought to have been higher and that a main purpose of having it was to prevent short-circuiting of the air. In this respect, he pointed to the fact that the false bulkhead consisted of a complex of interlocking plates; if the purpose were as suggested by Mr Lawton, he said, it would make more sense to have either a single removable bulkhead or to fit a fixed baffle between the supply and return ducts. I do not find this objection very persuasive: the advantage of a single removal bulkhead could apply equally if the sole purpose of the bulkhead were to prevent the cargo from pressing against the forward bulkhead; further, the trailer and the refrigeration unit were manufactured by different manufacturers, and it is not clearly established on the evidence that different refrigeration units, perhaps of different configurations, could not be fitted in the trailer.

Mr Wilkie, accordingly, posited alternative causes of the high temperatures: either the cheese that was stowed at the back of the trailer was in a poor condition when loaded, whether because of poor storage before it was loaded or for some other reason; or the air circulation in the trailer was impeded by the manner in which the goods were stowed by LAÏTA’s personnel. For the former explanation—stated by Mr Wilkie to be “the most probable cause of the alleged high pulp temperatures”—there was (as it seems to me) no evidence other than the fact of the deterioration of the cheese and the lack of a plausible alternative explanation. Mr Wilkie accepted in cross-examination that there was no positive evidence in the documentation or elsewhere that indicated that any of the cheese had been incorrectly stored or that it was in any way defective. However, he pointed to the gaps in the records as showing that reliance could not be placed on the available documentation as establishing that the cheese was in good condition when loaded. As for the suggestion that the high temperatures were due to the manner of stowage, Mr Wilkie’s reasoning was set out in paragraphs 7.4 and 11.14 of his first report (and substantially repeated in his oral evidence):

“The CL Report at Page 15 includes photographs of when the trailer doors were opened. It is important to note that immediately adjacent to the doors there is one (low) pallet on the left hand side of the trailer. The floor space on the right hand side in this area is open with no pallet being stowed. This open space will lead to short circuiting of the cooling air which is of course supplied to the top of the container. Cooling air in that area near the door will tend to by-pass the pallet on the LHS and indeed the pallets immediately forward of that. This will result in a lack of cooling of cargo in this area and hence will result in relatively higher temperatures.”

“Photographs taken during the joint survey on 6^th May show a large open floor space nearest the trailer doors. This would have resulted in short circuiting of the cooling air and poor cooling of the cargo in that area, which was apparent when comparing the pulp temperatures taken of the cargo in this area when compared to the cargo further inside the container.”

The central issues are identified in paragraph 37 above. It is helpful to distinguish the first issue clearly from the second issue, not only for the sake of clarity but because it is important to be clear at all stages of the analysis where the burden of proof lies. Similarly, the second issue ramifies in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 and 18.

Was there damage to the goods in transit?

The first question is whether damage occurred to the goods between the time when the defendant took them over (that is, when they were loaded into the trailer at Ancenis) and the time of delivery (that is, when the goods arrived at Evercreech). This involves a comparison of the condition of the goods at those two times, though in principle one must, as Mr Davidson observed, have regard to all the evidence before reaching a conclusion on either part of the comparison; this includes the evidence relevant primarily to the causation issue, though for convenience of exposition that evidence is for the most part discussed separately in this judgment. The claimants’ case, in a nutshell, is that the cheese was clearly in a damaged condition when it reached Evercreech and that all of the evidence suggests that it was not in a damaged condition when it was loaded at Ancenis; therefore, the goods were damaged at the time mentioned in Article 17, paragraph 1, and, subject only to possible relief from liability by reason of other provisions of Article 17 and Article 18, the defendant is liable for the damage in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 1.

In my judgment, there was damage to the goods. (I consider later the question of the extent of the damage.)

It is convenient to begin with the condition of the goods on arrival at Evercreech. I find that the goods were in a substandard condition at that time; the matters indicating this, established on a balance of probabilities on the evidence, have been set out above and may be summarised shortly:

For the defendant, Mr Davidson submitted that the evidence of the condition of the goods on delivery was “flimsy” and did not suffice to discharge the burden of proof on the claimants to show that the cheese was in a substandard condition. It is true that it is possible to imagine more rigorous evidence of condition upon delivery than was adduced at trial. Nevertheless, the evidence that was adduced satisfies me on the balance of probabilities that the cheese was substandard when it arrived at Evercreech. It may be noted, further, that, even though Mr Fraser and the driver were clearly concerned by Eurilait’s rejection of the cheese—Mr Fraser seems to me to have been positively alarmed—, they did not seek to challenge the reason given for the rejection, namely the high temperature of the cheese, but rather took immediate steps to try to remedy it. They also appear to have decided not to instruct a surveyor to inspect the cheese on the following day, despite being given opportunity to do so. Mr Davidson pointed to the facts, first, that the claimants sought to persuade LAÏTA to accept the cheese, thereby (it is said) acknowledging that the cheese was in acceptable condition, and, second, that the reasons given by Ms Guillerm for refusing to do so were inadequate. The former point does have some force; however, it is perhaps not surprising that the claimants attempted to avoid a position in which the goods were rejected, and it is notable that the matters they relied on concerned not the condition of the cheese but the readings from the data logger on the defendant’s trailer. The latter point is not, in my view, of any real significance: Ms Guillerm was, of course, representing the sender, LAÏTA, not the consignee; and, although the balance of the expert evidence indicates that the 40-minute period of high temperatures on the ferry would not in itself cause damage to the cheese and that there were no negative temperatures during transit, she was responding to the claimants’ observations concerning the data logger readings rather than dealing with the condition of the cheese.

As for the condition of the cheese upon loading in Ancenis, Mr Davidson observed that the evidence on this matter was again limited: there are only partial records of the production dates; there are no records of delivery dates for cheese produced off site; there are temperature readings for the two storerooms for only part of the period during which cheese might have been stored there; there are no records of the precise positions within those storerooms of the cheese that comprised the consignment; only a single

Despite these points, in my judgment the evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the condition of the cheese upon delivery had deteriorated from what it was upon loading and that it had thereby suffered damage. (The question whether it had some inherent vice is a different question, properly kept distinct and addressed in connection with the second issue.) I refer in particular to the following points that have been mentioned above.

Accordingly, it is probable and I find that during the period between the loading of the cheese onto the defendant’s vehicle and its delivery at Evercreech the cheese underwent damage, in the sense of physical deterioration that resulted in diminution of value.

Up to this point, however, I have referred loosely to damage to “the cheese”. It is necessary, however, to be more precise as to how much cheese was damaged, for two reasons: first, Article 25, paragraph 2(b), limits compensation where only part of the load has been damaged; second, the extent of damage is potentially relevant to identifying the cause of the damage. It is here that the limited nature of the evidence is especially problematic. The only temperatures taken in the UK were those at Eurilait’s premises (which are recorded very briefly and without adequate explanations and are not supported by witness evidence at trial) and those taken on 6 May and 13 May and set out in the CL Survey report. The latter readings came after the storage conditions had altered and after lesser or greater lapses of time since delivery at Evercreech. There is little evidence to inform a conclusion as to the impact that either of these factors would have had on the temperature of the cheese. Further, there is an element of circularity in the problem, because depending on the cause of the high temperatures recorded at Evercreech the changed storage conditions may have had different effects on the temperatures of the cheeses at various points in the trailer.

That being the state of the evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the pallet nearest the trailer doors was damaged and that the pallets on the left side of the row immediately in front of that pallet were also damaged. Mr Davidson suggests that this amounts to five pallets in total; that seems to be right, though there is no detailed survey of the stowage.

Later in this judgment, I shall say something more about the position of the five pallets I have identified as being damaged. I shall also comment on the cause of any damage to the remaining 33 pallets, if (contrary to my finding) they were indeed damaged.

Is the defendant liable for the damage?

I have set out the relevant parts of the CMR Convention in paragraph 30 above. The logic of the (somewhat convoluted) provisions is, on the facts of this case, as follows:

The defendant cannot rely directly on Article 17, paragraph 4(d). It has not proved that it took all steps incumbent on it with respect to the maintenance of the trailer: the fact that the trailer did not have a valid ATP Certificate tends, indeed, to show to the contrary that the defendant did not take all steps incumbent on it in that regard. Further, as the defendant concedes that it did not run the refrigeration unit in continuous mode in accordance with the instructions in the Transport Confirmation, it cannot show that it complied with special instructions issued to it. Although the point strictly arises later in the analysis, I say now that I reject the ingenious suggestion that the defendant can rely indirectly on Article 17, paragraph 4(d) because the claimants could have relied on that provision to defeat a claim by LAÏTA for compensation. Whatever other objections may exist to defeat that suggestion, it seems to me that the claimants would have failed to prove the matters required by Article 18, paragraph 4: in particular, they could not have proved that they had taken all steps incumbent on them in the circumstances with respect to the maintenance of the trailer or indeed, on their own case, the use of it.

Therefore, in respect of this second question, I am concerned only with relief from liability on the ground of inherent vice (Article 17, paragraph 2) or on the ground of a special risk inherent in the stowage of the goods (Article 17, paragraph 4(c)). It is therefore convenient to turn to the factual question: why did the cheese overheat?

In broad terms, on the facts of this case there are two kinds of possible cause: first, there was something wrong with the cheese when it was loaded; second, something went amiss with the cooling of the cheese in the trailer. As to the second kind of possible cause, the problem could be of two kinds: incorrect use of the “Start/Stop” mode; and poor circulation of cold air within the trailer. And poor circulation of cold air could the result of either or both of two matters: incorrect configuration of the trailer; and inappropriate stowage of the load.

As regards the cheese, there is no direct evidence either that the cheese was in an advanced state of maturity or that it was too warm when it was loaded. The evidence relating to the cheese and its storage tends to indicate, to the contrary, that it was young cheese, received (in the case of the Depot 441 Cheese) and stored at appropriate temperatures. A finding that, nevertheless, the damage was caused by the condition of the cheese on loading would be an inference from a number of matters: Mr Fraser’s evidence was that this trailer had carried cheese from Ancenis to Evercreech on numerous previous occasions, always operating the refrigeration unit in the Start/Stop mode, always without damage to the cheese; the data logger shows that the Start/Stop mode operated correctly and that the refrigeration unit maintained appropriate temperatures; if poor circulation of cold air is not a credible explanation for the temperature of the cheese when it reached Evercreech, the explanation must lie in the condition of the cheese on loading.

For reasons set out below, I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to have recourse to any explanation that involves the condition of the cheese on loading.

As regards the operation of the refrigeration unit, Mr Lawton’s primary argument concerned the use of the Start/Stop mode instead of the Continuous mode. For the reasons set out below, I am not persuaded that the use of that operating mode is a sufficient or the primary explanation for the damage to the cheese, though I consider that it was a contributory factor.

All of the other explanations in terms of inadequate cooling posit that the cool air introduced by the unit into the trailer did not circulate sufficiently to cool the load properly. Three particular matters might support some such explanation: first, the fact that poor air circulation is a recognised cause of inadequate cooling of loads; second, the fact that there is a no direct evidence either that there was anything wrong with the cheese or (as I think) that there was anything wrong with the operation of the refrigeration unit; third, the evidence of the temperatures of the cheese. It is probable that the high temperature recorded upon delivery at Evercreech was taken at the rear of the trailer, near the doors. The readings taken by CL Surveys on the following day (paragraph 18 above) indicate that the higher temperatures were towards the rear of the trailer, and that the cheese near the forward bulkhead was cooler. The pattern suggests, though it does not conclusively demonstrate, that the temperatures were determined by the position of the various pallets within the trailer.

Mr Lawton pointed to the lack of baffle plates over the return air vents as a cause of circulation bypass or “short-circuiting” of the airflow, which could have been but was not mitigated by the installation of an air sock. He did not, however, suggest that this was the principal cause of the damage; that, he thought, was the inappropriate use of the Start/Stop mode. Rather, it was a contributory factor, and he was unable to give an opinion as to the extent of the contribution. In my judgment, it is improbable that any contribution made by these matters was significant.

I turn to consider stowage and Article 17, paragraph 4(c). This was an alternative argument raised by Mr Wilkie in his first report, though not mentioned in his supplementary report, and it was defended by him in cross-examination. I have set out the reasoning as it appears in paragraphs 7.4 and 11.14 of the first report in paragraph 47 above. Mr Lawton disagreed with Mr Wilkie. He opined that the space towards the trailer doors would have aided airflow, not hindered it: I refer to sections 9.1 to 9.3 of his first report. Neither expert did much more than assert his opinion; no literature was referred to on this issue.

In these circumstances, and subject to the further remarks concerning the Start/Stop operating mode set out below, it would suffice to say that the defendant had established that the damage could be attributed to stowage, that the claimants had not proved that it was not in fact attributable to the stowage, and that therefore and by reason of Article 17, paragraph 4(c), and Article 18, paragraph 2, the defendant is relieved from liability. However, I would go further and find that a substantial cause of the damage was the manner of the stowage of the cheese by the sender, LAÏTA. My reasons are as follows:

Nevertheless, I do not regard the stowage as the sole explanation of the damage to the cheese. For reasons I have indicated, I am satisfied that in conditions of adequate air circulation the Start/Stop mode would have been adequate for the storage of the cheese in the trailer. But it does not at all follow that it would be adequate in conditions of interrupted air flow. The intended effect of the Start/Stop mode is to ensure that, when the temperature in the trailer rises to the upper end of the permissible range, heat is removed by cool air until the temperature returns to the lower end of the range; thus there is oscillation but within acceptable parameters. However, if the air is not circulating properly, the efficacy of this control will be compromised. It is true that use of the Continuous mode does nothing to improve air circulation. However, it will tend to arrest the increases of temperature and thereby to mitigate, though it could not eliminate, the adverse effects of poor circulation.

In the present case, the temperature readings from the inlet probe show that the refrigeration unit itself was working properly. However, there were no readings from the load itself. The probe at the outlet duct would have given an indication of the adequacy of the air flow, because the temperature of the return air should be higher by reason of the ambient and cargo-generated heat it had removed; but the measurements from this probe are not available. Other evidence shows that insufficient heat was being removed from the rear of the trailer; this is indicative of air flow. However, the evidence from the CL Survey report shows that it was possible to remove more heat from the load at the rear, which indicates that although air flow was compromised it was still capable of cooling the load. Therefore the choice of operating mode cannot be dismissed as irrelevant on account of poor air flow. The actual reductions in temperature achieved in the period 5 – 6 May will doubtless have owed something to the initial period of running at 0°C. But, as explained above, it is reasonable to suppose that they also owed something to the use of the Continuous mode. No doubt that is why the defendant adopted it and maintained it after the set point had been returned to 2°C.

Accordingly, I find that the damage was caused by two factors: the manner of stowage, and the mode of operation of the refrigeration unit. Doing the best I can on the basis of

Finally, I should say something further about the greater part of the goods, which I have found were not damaged. If, contrary to that finding, the remainder of the goods was damaged, I consider that the damage was caused by a risk inherent in the stowage of the goods (and a fortiori that the claimants have not proved that it is not attributable to such a risk). This conclusion does not reflect any express opinion of the experts or submission of counsel, but it seems to me to follow from the evidence and submissions and I shall explain it briefly.

When discussing the merits of air socks, the experts disagreed as to the relevance of the height of the load. Mr Lawton said that an air sock was suitable with a low load, whereas a high load acted as its own directional tunnel to take air to the rear of the trailer. Mr Wilkie said, to the contrary, that a low load had the same effect as an air sock and that one would only use an air sock with a high load. I accept Mr Lawton’s opinion on that point, because it seems to me to be clear that the air will be more channelled to the rear of the trailer if it passes through a small space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer. However, Mr Lawton’s own argument about air circulation would, in this light, tend to point to stowage as the problem, rather than anything for which the defendant was liable. Mr Lawton did not opine or prove that the defendant ought to have used an air sock; he said that it would have improved air circulation, particularly in the context of the incorrect configuration of the false bulkhead. (I have dealt with these matters.) In fact, this trailer (like many others, as Ms Hui’s thesis made clear) was not fitted with an air sock. The photographs in the CL Survey report show that the load was nevertheless stowed to no more than half of the permissible height. In those circumstances, any damage resulting from poor circulation of the cooling air, other than in respect of the arrangement of pallets at the rear of the trailer, would properly be considered as the result of the stowage, which ex hypothesi compromised the flow of air to the rear of the trailer. Accordingly, the defendant would be relieved from liability under Article 17, paragraph 4(c).

In the light of my findings, the defendant is liable to the extent of one half of the modest amount of damage that I have found proved but is not liable for the other half.

This judgment is being handed down at a hearing in the absence of the parties. As they have been unable as yet to agree what are the appropriate terms of order, I shall adjourn the hearing part-heard to a later date so that counsel may be heard.