THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES IN HIMALAYA CLAUSE PARTICULARLY ON INTERNATIONAL MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT CONTRACTS CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

KEE€ENTfr RE.&N PEN*XBSKAN SAN KEBUS.&YAAN
UH$/ERSEYAS EJBAYANA.

PR.OGRA*? S?{IDI SIAGTS"ER (S2} TLivE{' H{IK{JM
Jl. P.B.

ludirman Denpasar 80232 BALI

Telp. (0361) 246354,246333 Fax. (0351) 2463s4

SUR.A" TUGAS
NO. 303/LtN .1 4.4MW20 1 s
Yang bertanda tangan dibawah

ini

:

: Dr. Putu Tuni Cakabawa Landra, SH.M.,Hum.

Nama


:

NIP

:

Jabatan

l}engan ini menugaskan

19580321 198602 I 001
Sekretaris Program Studi Magister (S2) ilrnu F{ukum
Frogram Pascasarjana Universitas Udayana
;

Dr. Ni Ketut Supasti Dharmawan, SH.,M.Hum.,LLM

1961


Dr. tr Nyoman Suvatna, SH.,MH

t959A9X 198501

Dr. Made Gde Subha Karma Resen, SH.,M.Kn

198j}72s 20080i r 00?

tu{ade Suksma Frijandhini Devi Salain,

19820403 2*0501 2 002

tu{ade

SII.,MH..LLM

Budi Arsika.SH,Li.M

i101 198601 2 001


i

001

198106i0200s01 r 003

Sebagai Pembicara Pada Kegiatan Workshop "Cn Legal Research
Antl International puhlicatiorz Jaintljt
arganized by Master Program in Laty, tldayana A-niversi4; postgr.aduate pragt.gtr
and lf*ast';.icht
{fisriltrte for Transnotional Legal Research (METR}) a,{aLtstricht
univer.siry*" yung CiOunai oleh

da*a

Dipa BLU Prcgram Studi &{agister {S2) llmu Hukum Tahun Z*15, yang
eilselengarakan Fad*
tanggal 3* september 2015 berempat di Ruang Aula, Gedung pascasarjana
Universitas
Udayana,


Jalan PE Sudirman Dennasar.

Demikian surat tugas ini

dipergunakan sebagaimana mestinya.

I

Terrii:a:sa:: :

95803

.*,?ti;,tf Utiut$

.l3u*.*

1. Dekan Fakultas Hukum UtrtUO
Z- D*ffiktur PFs UNUI
3- Arsip


98682 t COl

KilME

TTER.X.&N PANBEEEKAN

&AN KEBU*AV,&A1q
{TNEIrERS ET.&S US.EYANA

PROGSAABg S?SJEE &gAGgSs&EA
TS2} Xr.,W{{J F{{JKqJR€
Sudirman Denpasar 80232

]l:P.B.

BALI

Telp. (0361) 246354,246333 Fax. (0361) 246354


SURAE T'UGAg
NO. 303/LIN. i 4.4lliK/20 r s
Yang bertanda tangan dibawah

ini

:

: Dr. Futu Tuni Cakabawa Landra, SH.M.,F{um.

Nama

:

NIP

:

Jabalan


19580321 198602 1 CI01
Sekretaris Program Studi Magister
{S2) IImu Hukunl
Program Pascasarjana Universitas Udayana

Deng*n iai meaugaskan :

Dr. Ni Ketut Supasti Dharmawan. SH.,M.Hum..LLM

1961 I 101

Dr- I Nyoman Suyatna, SH.,MH

19590923 t98601 1 001

Dr. Made Gde Subha Karma Resen, SH.,M.Kn

i983il725 20080i I 007

fulade Suksma Prijandhini Devi Salain, SH.,MH.,LLM


i9820403 20050t 2 a07

Made Budi Arsika,SH,LLM

1981061S200501

i98601 2 001

]

003

Sebagai Pembicara Pada Kegiatan Worksho? "On Legal
Reseat'ch And Internatianal publiccttiorz ,lointh;
organized by Master Prograrn in Lav,, tldayall{t *niversity
Postgr"aclteate frogr.o*"r;i ;;;;;;;.:;;'i,
trllstitt'$e.for Transnstional Legal Resesrch (METR7) iutaastitcht

u-iitersiry-" yu*g Ci*unai cleh Cana

Dipa ELU Program Studi Magister iS2) ilmu Flukum Tahun 2015, yang
eilselengarakar: Fada
tanggal 30 September 2015 berempat di Ruang Aul4 Cedung Pascasarjana
Universitas Uclayana"
Jalan FB Sudimran Denpasar.

Demikian surat fugas ini

I ercXl:sal1

:

1. Dekar Fakultas i-iukum UilUD
Z. Direktur PPs UhIUD
3. ,4nip

dipergunakan sebagaimana mestinya.

f9
=z

.

.

r
h

=-I

.

4FH
o
E

F
EI

E


N

O

u
+'-{
\

oD

tr
.d

(E
+, o
E,r n
r

;e=
D --E

E s;

g
E)

o
(L

o

O
E=
=sE
de

=

.E

=
(!
=t
E')

o
o

=^

=BE
H
=9
E ?E
2 E=
-

o-

e

E

rr

B

a6

==

o

tr
(E
(E

E
f

o

. dF

EffE
5=E
n.=

ErE

teE

=:
E?

=
a
Ij
lrl

*r
r=

a
lrl

rl
a

tr

fr$E
rr -1

E
5eE;

A
o

'6
o

f

i'EEH=HEEg.
E E E O * 5: L
E
fiEEE
lrl

fl)

E

1EE

FEEg+=fE

g F
u i
E
E{.'

tE=
(,
Ep

L

o
att

(E

=

F
L

KEMENTERIANPENDIDIKANDANKEBUDAYAAN
LTNIVERSTTAS

UDAYANA

PROGRAMSTUDIMAGISTER(S2)ILMUHUKUM
Jl. P.B. Sudirman Denpasar 80232

Telp. (0361) 246354,Fax. (0361) 246354.
Emaii: magisterhukumunud@yahoo'co'id

BALI

Web : http ://larv,PPs.unud. ac.i d

Lampiran Surat No : 411/UN'14'4/HK/2015

JADWAL ACARA (SCHEDULE)*
TNT N RNATI O NA L PU B L I CAT I O N
WO RKSH O P O N L E GAL RE S EA:, RC H,qiO
university Postgraduate Program
Jointly organized by Master Program in Lawo udayana
Legal Research (METRO)
and Maastricht Institute for Transnational
Maastricht UniversitY
Bali,30 SePtember 2015

Registration

09.10-10.10

Program in Law' UdaYana
Supasti Dharmawan
Universitv Postgraduate Program by Dr' Ni Ketut
Presertati"n on "Legal Research"
Maastricht Journal of European
By Thomas ni..r.y".le*".rtir. Editor of the
and Comparative Law

10.10-10.20
10.20-11.20
1

1.20-12.00

onal Law Reviews"
Perience in
and comparative Law."
managing the Maastrictt l-ournat of European

12.00- 13.00

13.00-15.00
1s.00-15.30

End of the Program

Coffee break is

*Tentatif

Tembusan:

I
2

Direktur PPs UNUD
ArsiP

THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES IN HIMALAYA CLAUSE PARTICULARLY ON
INTERNATIONAL MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
CONTRACTS CARRIAGE OF GOODS
By
Made Suksma Prijandhini Devi Salain

I. INTRODUCTION
The increasing contract sales of goods are affects the development of contract carriage of
goods. It is not only use one mode of transportation but it evolves use various modes of
transportation, by sea, road, rail or air. The usage of various modes of transport is called
multimodal transport. In International multimodal transport usually prefer to deal with
one person only, called the Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO) rather than a series of
carriers operating under separate contracts for each stage of a single transport.
Multimodal transport is considered as the most efficient way in carriage of goods.1 The
Seller or Buyer in contract sale of goods are like to choose Multimodal transport because
is a “door-to-door” service. It means the MTO will take care of goods from origin to
destination without interruption. The goods are delivered more secure because use a
container. The MTO assumes the liability of carriers under the multimodal transport
contracts even though if it does not actually carry the goods itself. The MTO could make
contract with other carriers for various parts of the multimodal transport.
The process carriage of goods in multimodal transport must be involves third parties,
such carriers, servants, agents, any other person or any independent contractor who act to
performs the contract. In fact, a lot of delay, loss or damage of goods was caused by the
third parties. The claimant or the consignor are usually try to bring suits against the third
parties but they could extends limitation of liability on Himalaya Clause. Himalaya
clause gives a beneficiary to the third parties to get protection in the contractor’s
conditions.2 The existence of Himalaya clause is vague and still debatable. It has
relationship whether the intermediaries act as an agent from the cargo owner or not. In
addition, there is no an international convention of multimodal transport contract that
already entry into force. Therefore, the interpretation of Himalaya clause is case by case,
it depends on the law of court they brought the suits (lex fori).

1

http://www.gfptt.org/entities/TopicProfile.aspx?tid=d7f36aOa-a4cg-48fg-9767-b67fd6ad4768
Glass, David A., Freight Forwarding and Multimodal Transport Contracts, LLP, London Singapore, 2004,
p. 137
2

1

This study will focus on whether the third parties could rely on Himalaya clause and how
about right of third parties related to Himalaya Clause in existing international
multimodal transport regime. Those legal questions will analyze with qualitative
approach, through a primary and secondary legal sources.3 This study conducted through
library research and electronic data based.

II. GENERAL OVERVIEW
TRANSPORT CONTRACT

OF

INTERNATIONAL

MULTIMODAL

1. What is the multimodal transport?
Pursuant to Article 1.1 United Convention on International Multimodal Transport of
Goods 1980,4 “International Multimodal Transport means the carriage of goods by at
least two different modes of transport on the basis of multimodal transport contract from
a place in one country at which the goods are taken in charge by the multimodal transport
operator to a place designated for delivery situated in a different country. The operations
of pick-up and delivery of goods carried out in the performance of a unimodal transport
contract, as defined in such contract, shall not be considered as international multimodal
transport”.
2. Multimodal Transport Contract
According to Article 1.3 UN Convention 1980, “Multimodal Transport Contract means a
contract whereby a multimodal transport operator undertakes, against payment of freight,
to perform or to procure the performance of international multimodal transport”. The
differences multimodal transport contract with other transport contract, the MTO act as a
principal not as agent with the shipper.5 In several cases law, they called multimodal
transport contract with “door-to-door”, “end-to-end” or “roll-on-roll-off”. For the last
terminology, it governs by unimodal Convention on the Contract for the International
Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) 1956.
3. Containerization
The development of multimodal transport was begun with revolution of containerization.
The usage of containerization was started in 1920s, the Germany trader used a small
boxes to carriage the goods by rail.6 The advantages of using container in multimodal
transport are improving cargo capacity to carry a lot of goods, helping the carrier to
handling the goods, it is not need a lot of space in a warehouse and declining damaged of
3

As a primary legal sources are the UN Conventions 1980, Unimodal Conventions, FIATA FBL, the Draft
Instrument on Carriage of Goods [wholly or partly] [by sea] and cases law. The secondary legal sources are
textbooks and journals related to the multimodal transport. In legal research, statutes, conventions, treaties,
constitutions, administrative regulations and cases law are the primary sources, and law opinion as
secondary sources. See Shapo, Helen S., Walter, Marilyn R., Fajans, Elizabeth, Writing and Analysis in the
Law, Revised Fourth Edition, New York Foundation Press, 2003, p.4
4
For hence will be called UN Convention 1980
5
Schommer, Tim, International Multimodal Transport Some thoughts with regard to the “Scope of
application”, “Liability of carrier” and “Other conventions” in the UNICITRAL Draft Instrument on the
Carriage of Goods [wholly or partly] [by sea], p. 14
6
Ibid. p. 9

2

goods.7 They usually use the Series 1 type of freight container8. In Roll-On-Roll-Off,
the containers are loaded onto trailer and the trailer loaded onto the ships.
Containerization is just a technically and economically concept in multimodal transport.
4. Parties Involved in Multimodal Transport
There are a lot of parties involved in multimodal transport because this carriage of goods
end-to-end services and particularly using more than one mode of transport.
 Seller and Buyer, who did the contract sale of goods
 Shipper or Sender; It could be the Seller or Buyer, the person who enters into the
contract with the carrier
 Consignee, a person entitled to delivery of the goods
 Consignor, a person sending a shipment
 Carrier, the person who enters a contract carriage with shipper to carry the goods
 Multimodal Transport Operator; Pursuant to Article 1.2 UN Conventions 1980,
“means any person who on his own behalf or through another person acting on his
behalf concludes a multimodal transport contract and who acts as a principal, not
as an agent or on behalf of the consignor or of the carriers participating in the
multimodal transport operations, and who assumes responsibility for the
performance of the contract”.
 Freight Forwarder or Intermediary, which is act as an agent when he made link
between the cargo owner and customer and act as a principal when he will
perform the contract with employing sub-contractors.9
 Third Parties, the persons who may have a right to claim protection in a contract,
even though he has not been an originally party in that contract. It could be the
stevedores, a person who do a loading and discharging goods; terminal operator;
warehouse man or a crew member.

III. HIMALAYA CLAUSE AND THIRD PARTIES
1. History of Himalaya Clause
Himalaya is a name of the highest and the youngest mountain in the world. It located
passes through five nations, India, Bhutan, China, Pakistan and Nepal.10 This name is

7

Ibid.,p.10
which is “8 feet x 8 feet 6 inch end section and generally 20 or 40 feet long” , see UNCTAD Bulletin, No.
14, May-June 1992 and that is “a 20-foot long container is referred to as a TEU, 20-foot equivalent unit and
is used as a general indicator e.g. of capacity of ships” See De Wit, The Global container population is
currently approaching some 16 million TEU (Cargo System Website), para. 1.9 in Glass, David A., op.cit.,
p. 5
9
The Maheno (1977), 1 Lloyds Rep. 1 at 81 in Downie, Darcy Beamer, Freight Forwarders Liability during
International Multimodal Transportation, Thesis, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University,
Montreal, December, 1999, p. 15
10
http://www.himalaya2000.com/himalayan-facts/himalayan-facts.html

8

3

used by a ship, S.S. Himalaya and there was an event occurred in that ship, which is
being a history of usage Himalaya Clause, it called case of Adler v. Dickson11.
2. Definition of Himalaya Clause
Himalaya clause is a clause that usually used in contract carriage of goods through
multimodal or sea, which is issued a clean Bill of Lading. The clause is defined to extend
limitation liability of the agents to the third parties, who are involved to perform the
obligations in the contract, even though he is not an originally party in the contract.12 A
typically of Himalaya Clause in a clean Bill of Lading as follows:
“No servant or agent or independent contractor from time to time employed by the carrier
shall be liable to the owner of the goods for any loss, damage or delay resulting from any
act or negligence on his part while acting in the course of his employment”.13
In fact, a lot of Bill of lading containing the Himalaya Clause but it is not clear enough,
who the persons can rely on that clause. It caused the broad interpretation of Himalaya
Clause and depends on the national legal systems. The third party could rely on Himalaya
Clause in one case of law but in other cases they could not.
3. Rights of Third Parties
As usual, if the parties agreed to conclude a contract of sale, they bound to the contract
itself. It is a general principle in the law of contract, “pacta sunt servanda”. The
conditions are different, when the third parties not in direct involved in the original
contract. He has the right not only to receive obligations but to get a protection from the
promisor.14 There are two elements that affect the existence contract to give benefit for
the third parties, such as assignment15 and relationships. The relationships mean whether
the promisor acts as an agent or principal.16
Almost of the European continent jurisdiction refer to that interpretation but not in
English Law. English law in strictly use the doctrine in common law contract for
benefiting the third parties, there must be a privity rights and considerations.17 Privity
11

It was an event when a gangway fell in the S.S. Himalaya and threw a passenger (the Claimant) onto
quayside below. The claimant claim against the master of the ship and the boatswain and they want to rely
on carrier exemption liability in the passenger tickets. The decision of English Court held that the Claimant
can not rely on the passenger tickets because there was not a privity contract between the carrier and the
master of ship and the boatswain. This decision is used by the Common Law Countries, see
http://www.businesspme.com/UK/artcles/law/70/Himalaya-Clause.html
12
Wilson, John F, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Fourth Edition, Longman Pearson Education Limited,
England, 2001, p. 160
13
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Himalaya Clause.aspx
14
Beale, Hugh; Tallon, Dennis; Bernardeau, Ludovic & Williams, Robert, Contract Law, Hart Publishing,
p. 879-880
15
Example, there is a landowner under a contract through the contractor’s bank promised to pay the
building contractor’s. If there is an assignment, the contractors could get payment from the Bank, in other
sides, the Banks obtain the payment directly from the contract was made by landowner and the contractors
if the contract beneficiary of third parties is used. It shows a matter legal construction, See Beale, Hugh,
etc., ibid., p. 880
16
Beale, Hug, etc., ibid.
17
Ibid., p. 881

4

rights, when there is a dispute arises from the contract, it only can against the parties
involved in originally contract. Considerations are like an offer and acceptance, why I
should do something if I do not get anything. The Lord Reid in Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland
Silicones Ltd. was used that doctrine in his judgment.18 On the other cases, New Zealand
Shipping Co Ltd. v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd. give rights to the third parties to rely on
Himalaya clause because there was commercial relations between the consignee, the
carrier and stevedore. It shows that the Himalaya Clause not always success.
There are rights of third parties in Article 6:110 Principles of European Contract Law19
and Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in United Kingdom. The Principles of
European Contract Law recognize the right of third parties to extend the limitation
liability of the promisor unless the third party canceling the rights or by notice from the
promisor or promisee. The Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, “which came into
effect on 11 May 2000”20 was made to reform the doctrine in common law “privity
contract”.21 As a general the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 consists of ten
sections.22

18

When the Scruttons as a stevedore could not rely on the extend limitation liability of carrier even though
there is Himalaya clause in the Bill of Lading. It caused there was not clearly considerations, which is
stated that scruttons is involved in originally contract.
19
Article 6:110 : Stipulation in Favour of a Third Party
1) a third party may require performance of a contractual obligation when it is right to do so has been
expressly agreed upon between the promisor and the promise, or when such agreement is to be
inferred from the purpose of the contract or the circumstances of the case. The third party need not
be identified at the time the agreement is concluded
2) if the third party renounces the right to performance the right is treated as never accrued to it
3) the promisee may be notice to the promisor deprive the third party of the right unless:
a) the third party has received notice from the promise that the right has been made irrevocable,
or
b) the promisor or the promise has received notice from the third party that the latter accepts the
right
20
Wilson, John F, op.cit., p. 159
21
http://www.brunswickis.co.uk/DataStore/The%20Contracts%20(Rights%20of%20Third%20Parties)%20
Act%201999.pdf
22
“The Act sets out the circumstances in which a third party is to have a right to enforce a term of the
contract (section 1), the situations in which such term may be varied or rescinded (section 2) and the
defences available to the promisor when the third party seeks to enforce the term (section 3). It makes it
clear that section 1 does not affect the promisee’s rights, or any rights that the third party may have which
are independent of the Act (sections 4 and 7(1)). The Act does not apply to certain contracts (whether
wholly or partially) (section 6)” See http://www.alway-associates.co.uk/legal-update/article.asp?id=18

5

IV. EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES IN INTERNATIONAL
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT CONTRACTS CARRIAGE OF GOODS
1. Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., dba Kirby
Engineering, and Allianz Australia Insurance Limited23
The goods were damaged in railroad stages because the train derailed. Kirby and Allianz
asked responsibility from Norfolk, “the District Court granted Norfolk partial summary
judgment, limiting Norfolk’s liability to $500 per container, and certified the decision for
interlocutory review”.24 There was the Eleventh Circuit, who reversed the case with two
legal issues, first, Norfolk could not rely on the ICC Bill of Lading and second, Kirby
was not bound to Hamburg Sud Bill of Lading because the ICC was not act as a Kirby’s
agent. In contrast, the Supreme Court of United States was held that Norfolk could rely
on both Bills of Lading.
The first reason, Norfolk could obtain protection from the ICC Bill of lading. The ICC
Bill of Lading contained route Australia, Savannah and Hunstville. Huntsville is 366
miles inland from Savannah. It certainly involved all of modes of transport and carrier
including Norfolk. The second is related with issue, whether the intermediaries act as a
principal or an agent. Some scholars are using terminology intermediaries and others
with freight forwarders.
In Common Law related to agency law, a person who has authority to another, called a
Principal and a person who act on his behalf and other parties agreed, called an agent. It
enables the principal to make a contract with the third parties according to the agent’s
influence.25 While in civil law, the principal will bind to the third parties, when the agent
acted on behalf of the principal made a contract with the third parties. The third parties
will know for who he will act and under what circumstances.26
Professor Schmitthoff in Kirby Case explains about agency law refer to English law 27, it
shows when the intermediaries or freight forwarders act as a principal, the contracts will
not binding the customer’s to the others. The Court has authority to interpret the vague
clause in Himalaya Clause against the parties who are relies on it. The third parties would

The Kirby case was “end-to-end” transport used two modes of transport, by sea and inland (rail). It
involved a lot of parties, Kirby as a cargo owner (machinery), ICC as a intermediary or freight forwarder,
Hamburg Sud as a sub-contractor of ICC and Norfolk as a railroad carrier The ICC and Hamburg Sud
issued a Bill of Lading, which is contained same route, Himalaya Clause but different in limitation liability
Himalaya Clause in the ICC Bill of Lading, which extends liability limitations to downstream parties,
including here, any servant, agent or other person (including any independent contractor)” and the
Hamburg Sud Bill of Lading, “all agents......(including inland) carriers....and all independent contractors” ,
See Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1028, Argued October 6, 2004 and Decided November,9,
2004 Westlaw International Journals, 543 U.S. 14, 125 S.Ct.385
24
Kirby Case, ibid.
25
Beale, Hugh, etc., op.cit., p. 913
26
Ibid.
27
when the forwarder acts as an agent for the customer’s he obliged to ensure other parties perform the
carriage of goods in good manner and it caused the customer directly bind with others in contractual
relations
23

6

not get benefits from the vague clause. It means, Himalaya Clause must clearly express
intentions of the party who made.28
According to the Kirby Case, the US Supreme Court used the Common Carriage
Doctrine and Great Northern Case, when the intermediary contracted the carriers, a cargo
owner is limited to ask recovery of damaged goods on the limitation liability based on
intermediaries and carriers agreed. Therefore, in this case the ICC acts as a Kirby’s agent
for the special purpose to limit liability with the downstream carriers.
2. The UN Convention 1980
The UN Convention 1980 using “the modified uniform liability system”,29 it is a
combination between the network liability system and uniform liability system. The
network liability of MTO in localized damage, it will determine by unimodal
conventions.30 If the damage could not be localized, the liability of MTO is the uniform
liability system under Article 16.1 the UN Convention 1980.31 Article 15 UN
Convention 198032 governs about the basis liability of MTO for his servants, agents and
other persons who act to perform the contract. The article shows that third pasties have
rights to rely on extend limitation liability of MTO. Therefore the UN Convention 1980
recognizes the rights of third parties, but unfortunately the conventions did not come into
force until now.
The convention did not come into force because, first, in Article 38 33 contain a broad
interpretation about the settlement of disputes arise from the damage, delay or loss of
goods. It will be difficult to determine whether the UN Convention 1980 or Unimodal
Conventions or national would apply.34 Another reason is the Hamburg Rules did not
come into force. The UN Convention 1980 is use the same liability system with the
28

Downie, Darcy Beamer, op.cit., p.55-56, See Chitty of Contract, 25th ed., Butterworths, London 1999
and Hollier v Ramble Motors (A.M.C) Ltd [1972], 2 QB. 71
29
Schommer, Tim, op.cit., p.27
30
Ibid. See Article 19 the UN Convention 1980
31
Article 16.1 the UN Convention 1980:
“The multimodal transport operator shall be liable for loss resulting from loss of or damage to the goods,
as well as from delay in delivery, if the occurrence which caused the loss, damage or delay in delivery
took place while the goods were in his charge as defined in article 14, unless the multimodal transport
operator proves that he, his servants or agents or any other person referred to in article 15 took all
measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the occurrence and its consequences”
32
“Subject to Article 21, the multimodal transport operator shall be liable for the acts and omissions of his
servants and agents, when any such servant or agent is acting within the scope of his employment, or
of any other person of whose services he makes use for the performance of the multimodal transport
contract, when such person is acting in the performance of the contract, as if such acts and omissions
were his own”
33
Article 38 the UN Convention 1980 ;Rights and Obligations Under Existing Conventions:
“If, according to articles 26 or 27, judicial or arbitral proceedings are brought in a Contracting State in a
case relating to international multimodal transport subject to this Convention which take place between
two States of which only one is a Contracting State, and if both these States are at the time of eentry
into force of this Convention equally bound by another international convention, the court or arbitral
tribunal may, in accordance with the obligations under such convention, give effect to the provisions
thereof”
34
Schommer, Tim, op.cit., p. 39

7

Hamburg Rules to govern relationship between the MTO and Cargo Owner, the MTO
and the sub-contractor. The prevailing of both conventions will be make predictability
but it could not to realize.35
3. UNCTAD/ICC Rules
The UNCTAD/ICC Rules was made by the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development incorporated with the International Chamber of Commerce in 1991
according to multimodal transport document. This Rules is not Convention thus called a
soft law instrument. It not binds the parties to use this Rules, they could rely on it if they
are incorporating the Rules to their multimodal contract of carriage. Once the parties use
the Rules, they could not to derogate the substance of the Rules.
In general, the Rules are recognizing the rights of the third parties under Himalaya Clause
as long as they are acting within the scope of the Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO)
employment or the acts and omissions are his own.36 It means the third parties could
extend their liability to the carrier liability/the MTO. However, the MTO is not
responsible for the delay of the goods unless there is a consensus about the time delivery
between the Consignor and the MTO.37
The weaknesses of this Rules is not mandatory because it is just a soft law. It is depended
on the parties of multimodal transport contract whether they would like to use it or not.
Thus, the Rules are not binding to the parties involved in the multimodal transport
contract of carriage.

4. FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading and Unimodal Coventions
Clause 2, paragraph 2.2 FIATA governs the rights of parties same as like the Article 15
UN Convention 1980. The validity of FIATA in international multimodal transport
contracts are depends on the party involved, whether they will use it or not.
In this study, I limited the unimodal conventions only on the Convention on the Contract
for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) and the Hague Visby Rules
(HVR). The rights of third parties in CMR is depend on the contract itself, whether a
single contract with successive carriers under Articles 34 and 3538 or a sub-contracts

35

Ibid., p. 40
The MTO shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of his servants or agents, when any such servant
is acting within the scope of his employment, or of any other person of whose service he makes use for the
performance of the contract, as if such acts and omissions were his own, See Article 4.2 of the
UNCTAD/ICC Rules
37
See Article 5.1 of the UNCTAD/ICC Rules
38
Article 34 CMR : “If carriage governed by a single contract is performed by successive 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 contrat of carriage, under the terms of the consignment note, by
reason of his acceptance of the goods and the consignment note” and Article 35: “A carrier accepting the
goods from a previous carrier shal give the latter a dated and signed receipt. He shall enter his name and
address on the second copy of the consignment note.......”

36

8

under Article 3.39 The distinctive between those articles are whether there is a
reservation of consignment note. If the carriage of goods by road made in sub-contracts,
the third parties could rely on the carrier liability.
In HVR the liability of carrier fall under two articles, those are article III and IV. Refer to
Maxine Footwear40, if the carrier already did the overriding obligations under Article III41
then he will get right of immunities under Article IV. Article IV is govern the loss, delay
or damage of goods by unseaworthiness, like fire, perils, negligence of management of
ship, act of God and act of war. Under Article IV, carrier shall be relieved from liability if
the damage or loss is not caused by him self but still he has to prove it.
In addition, the claimant can claim against the carriers and third parties based on tort
under Article IV bis paragraph 1 HVR. Article IV bis paragraph 2 stated that third parties
(a servants or agents) could extends limitation liability to the carrier if they are dependent
contractor of the carrier. This article shows that HVR recognize the rights of third parties.

5. ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport
In a regional scope, ASEAN have a framework agreement on multimodal transport which
is signed on 17 November 2005 in Laos, Vientiane. This Agreement only applies
between the parties from ASEAN countries. The same as other Rules before, the
Agreement is recognizing the rights of the third parties under Himalaya Clause. However,
there are some conditions that the third party shall be fulfilled in order to extend their
liability to the carrier or the MTO, such as:42
- If the third parties are not involved in carriage by sea or inland waterways;
- If damage, loss or delay to the goods are not neglect of the agent;
- If the damage, loss or delay to the goods are not caused by the nautical fault of the
master, mariner, pilot or the carrier servants;
- If damage, loss or delay are not caused by fire or an actual fault;

“For the purposes of this Covention the carrier shall be responsible for the acts of omissions of his agents
and servants and of any other persons of whose services he makes use for the performance of the carriage,
when such agents, servants or other persons are acting within the scope of their employment, as if such acts
or omissions were his own”
40
Maxine Footwear Company, Ltd., and Morin v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Ltd., [1959] 2
Llyod’s Rep. 105
41
Article III.1 HVR: “ Carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due
diligence to : make the ship seaworthy, properly man, equip and supply the ship, make the holds,
refrigerating and cool chambers.....” and Article III.2 HVR : “........the carrier shall properly and carefully
load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried”
42
See Article 12 of the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport
39

9

6. United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Carriage of Goods
[wholly or partly] [by sea] or Rotterdam Rules
This draft was issued by United Nation Commissions on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL) in 2002 and it continuously change until the last draft43 which adopted by
the United Nations on 11 December 2008 in Rotterdam.44 There are 25 (twenty five)
States signed the Rotterdam Rules, Togo, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, the United
States, Greece, Switzerland, Spain and Congo. Unfortunatelly, only 3 (three) States,
Togo, Spain and Congo are ratified the Rotterdam Rules. That is the reason why the
Rotterdam Rules never come into force.
The Rotterdam Rules is the “maritime plus” convention which governs carriage by sea
and other transports in according to the sea carriage.45 This draft distinguishes definition
of performing party and maritime performing party. It caused by differences of obligation
and liability between them. There are some criteria that the maritime performing party
could be relied on the carrier liability under the Rotterdam Rules.46 The Article 447 (four)
and 19 (nineteen) of the Rotterdam Rules are the Himalaya Clause for the carrier and the
maritime performing party. It means that the Rotterdam Rules give protection to the
rights of the third parties which are involved in the multimodal transport contract.
The significant alteration for the liability of the carriers, it is not just loss, delay or
damage but “breaches of its obligations” under this Rules. It means the Claimant can
claim against the carrier based on tort. However, this Rules still lack of substance for the
liability of carrier and third party when the damage of goods occurred in unknown
place.48 The most problematic is the Rotterdam Rules never come into force because it
has never been ratified by 20 (twenty) countries. Thus, the multimodal transport contracts
of carriage do not have an international instrument in hard law.

43

United Nation Commissions on International Trade Law Working Group III (Transport Law), twenty
first sessions, Vienna 14-25 January 2008
44
It causing the Convention called the Rotterdam Rules
45
Article I.1 of the Rotterdam Rules
46
(a) The Maritime performing party received the goods for carriage in a Contracting State, or delivered
them in a Contracting State, or performed its activities with respect to the goods in a port in a Contracting
States; and (b) The occurrence that caused the loss, damage or delay took place: (i) during the period
between the arrival of the goods at the port of loading of the ship and their departure from the port of
discharge from the ship; (ii) while the maritime performing party had custody of the goods; or (iii) at any
other time to the extent that it was participating in the performance of any of the activities contemplated by
the contract of carriage, See Article 19 of the Rotterdam Rules
47
(1) Any provision of this Convention that may provide a defence for, or limit the liability of, the carrier
applies in any judicial or arbitral proceeding whether founded in contract, in tort, or otherwise, that is
instituted in respect of loss of, by a contract of carriage or for the breach of any other obligation under this
Convention against: (a) The carrier or a maritime performing party; (b) The Master, crew or any other
person that performs services on board the ship; or (c) Employees of the carrier or a maritime performing
party
48
Australian Comments on the UNCITRAL Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage
of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, HEINONLINE, Citation: 22 Austl. & N.Z. Mar.L.J. 2008, p. 129

10

V. CONCLUSION
There is possibility for the third parties to rely on Himalaya Clause within the
international multimodal transport contract carriage of goods. It is depended on the
applicable law of the contract or case by case. There are some rules (UNCTAD/ICC
Rules and FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading) that regulates about the rights of
the third party but they are just a soft law. It is not mandatory to the parties which are
involved in multimodal transport contract. The Rules will apply if they are agreed to
incorporate them into their contract. There are also international conventions according to
multimodal transport contract but they never come into force.
Based on those conditions, the multimodal transport contract is often use a unimodal
convention in each stage. For example, they could be use the CMR for the land
transportation or the HVR for the sea transportation. This method is causing difficulty for
the parties. They have to use different legal instruments in their contract which have
different basis and limit of carrier liability especially when the MTO hire the third party
to perform the multimodal transport contract. It is going to be a problem when the
damage, delay or loss to the goods caused by the third party. Could the third parties rely
on Himalaya Clause? Whether the third parties could rely on Himalaya Clause based on
the relationships of the carriers or intermediaries or freight forwarders or the MTO to
their cargo owner. If the carriers or the MTO act as an agent of the cargo owner then the
third parties could rely on Himalaya Clause.
Besides that, there are some solutions in order to give legal certainty of the rights of the
third parties under Himalaya Clause, such as:
1. Based on the multimodal transport contract itself.
The parties are free to determine substance of the multimodal transport contract as
long as it is based on consensus. It is not conflict with the law and public order.
The multimodal contract parties could make the limitation of the carrier/the MTO
and the third parties liability (when the carrier/the MTO shall be liable for the act
of the third parties or not; when the third parties could extend their liability to the
carrier/the MTO under Himalaya Clause). Their consensus about the rights of the
third parties under Himalaya Clause is binding. It is related with pacta sunt
servanda as the general principle of contract law.
2. International instrument in hard law
The multimodal contract parties is need a hard law to regulate their contract in
order to attain justice, expedience, legal certainty and predictability for all parties
which involved in international multimodal contract carriage of goods. The
United Nations as an institution that made the Rotterdam Rules should urge the
States to ratify the Rotterdam Rules as soon as possible remembering the
increasing of international multimodal transport contract carriage of goods. The
alternative is reviewing the Rotterdam Rules, which one of the article is not
clearly enough or adding some articles to ensure the rights of the third parties
under Himalaya Clause and constructing the new international multimodal
transport convention.

11

LITERATURE

I. BOOKS
Glass, David A., Freight Forwarding and Multimodal Transport Contracts, LLP, London
Singapore, 2004
Beale, Hugh; Tallon, Dennis; Bernardeau, Ludovic & Williams, Robert, Contract Law,
Hart Publishing
Wilson, John F, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Fourth Edition, Longman Pearson Education
Limited, England, 2001
Shapo, Helen S., Walter, Marilyn R., Fajans, Elizabeth, Writing and Analysis in the Law,
Revised Fourth Edition, New York Foundation Press, 2003
Downie, Darcy Beamer, Freight Forwarders Liability during International Multimodal
Transportation, Thesis, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Montreal,
December, 1999
II. JOURNAL
Westlaw International Journals, 543 U.S. 14, 125 S.Ct.385
III. INTERNET ARTICLES
http://www.gfptt.org/entities/TopicProfile.aspx?tid=d7f36aOa-a4cg-48fg-9767b67fd6ad4768
http://www.businesspme.com/UK/artcles/law/70/Himalaya-Clause.html
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Himalaya Clause.aspx
http://www.brunswickis.co.uk/DataStore/The%20Contracts%20(Rights%20of%20Third
%20Parties)%20Act%201999.pdf
http://www.alway-associates.co.uk/legal-update/article.asp?id=18
http://www.himalaya2000.com/himalayan-facts/himalayan-facts.html
IV. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT
The UN Convention 1980
The UNCTAD/ICC Rules on Multimodal Transport Document
12

FIATA Bill of Lading
The International Carriage of Goods by Road
The Hague Visby Rules
ASEAN Framework Agreement on Multimodal Transport
United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Carriage of Goods [wholly
or partly] [by sea]

13