Effective 1/7/2026, the Direct Air Waybill (DAWB) framework has been amended by International Air Transport Association in accordance with IATA Cargo Agency Conference Resolutions. A DAWB refers to a shipment structure in which the original shipper (rather than the freight forwarder) is identified directly as the shipper on the Master Air Waybill (MAWB), while the freight forwarder acts on behalf of the original shipper to make the air shipment booking with the airline and the freight forwarder does not issue its House Air Waybill (HAWB). As a result of the IATA DAWB amendments, freight forwarders who tender shipments under DAWBs will be treated as shippers for the purposes of the shipper indemnities and obligations, regardless of the original shippers named as the shippers on the DAWBs. Any alternative arrangements need to be agreed individually on a case-by-case basis by the freight forwarders and the airlines. Freight forwarders will be treated as the shippers under all DAWBs unless the airlines agree otherwise.

In this issue, we would like to discuss an important English Court case authority establishing the principle that the Hague Visby Rules (“the Rules”) apply from the port of loading to the port of discharge, covering the transhipment port’s operations ashore. The judgment was issued by the Queen’s Bench Division of the Commercial Court in England on 27 October 1983. [1984] Vol. 1 Lloyd’s law reports 317

It is an important common law rule in relation to the carriage of goods by sea, air or road that a claim in respect of cargo cannot be asserted by way of deduction from a claim for freight charges. One authority is the Hong Kong High Court’s Decision dated 16 December 1998 between RAF Forwarding and JMT Company. (Actions no. 2446 and 5533 of 1998)

The new Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China has been effective from 1 May 2026, replacing the old Maritime Code (effective from 1 July 1993). In this issue, we are going to discuss the major changes in terms of the carriage of goods by sea from the perspective of the liability of the Non Vessel Owning/Operating Carrier (NVOC):

In the Shanghai Maritime Court’s Judgment dated 25 August 2005, the court explained how the PRC Maritime Code dealt with the liability of carriers for cargo loss and damage in warehouse fires. [(2005)沪海法商初字第249 号]

According to the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier shall be discharged of all liability in respect of the cargoes unless suit is brought within one year of their delivery or the date when they should have been delivered. The English High Court issued a Judgment on 22nd July 2025 explaining the meaning of “suit”. [2025 EWHC 1878 (Comm)]

The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision As To Costs on 5 December 2024 ordering a shipowner (which lost in an anti-suit injunction court case) to pay the winning party’s (a cargo owner) costs on an indemnity basis. HCCT 66/2024 [2024 HKCFI 3511]

What is the difference between a straight bill of lading and an order bill of lading? This can be illustrated in the Wuhan Maritime Court’s Judgment dated 17 September 2019 concerning a cargo misdelivery claim of US$89,838.