Application of The Hague Rules in Admiralty jurisdiction of Bangladesh and return of Plaint

Bangladesh’s maritime judicial system is based on the Admiralty Courts Act of 2000. It permits the High Court Division to consider a variety of admiralty claims. Thus, measures can be taken both in personam (against people or businesses) and in rem (against vessels). Section 3(2) of the Act states that claims can be filed for a number of reasons, such as crew compensation, collision damage, ownership disputes, and mortgage enforcement. The Admiralty Act of 2000 is especially significant because Bangladesh is committed to following the terms of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Other relevant statutes that affect admiralty law in Bangladesh include the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1925, the Bills of Lading Act 1856, Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance,1983 and the Marine Insurance Act of 1963. When combined, these laws provide a comprehensive legal framework for managing all aspects of maritime operations and resolving maritime conflicts. As a signatory to several international accords, Bangladesh incorporates international marine law into its own legal framework. These consist of the Hague Rules, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Collisions between Vessels (COLLREGs), and the International Convention on Salvage. Admiralty law in Bangladesh addresses cargo claims by its owners by defining the responsibilities of carriers and the rights of cargo owners. In the Admiralty Court, cargo owners can claim for fair compensation and damages for any losses or damages incurred during the shipping of their goods. However, the admiralty law of Bangladesh also permits certain ship owners to restrict their liabilities. This suggests that in the event of accidents or damages, certain ship-owners liability is restricted. Admiralty law in Bangladesh provides ship owner’s with predictability and financial stability while ensuring that victims bringing lawful maritime claim receive just recompense. However, it is incumbent upon a claimant to be diligent in pursuing their claim before the Admiralty Court and not delay their actions. Any action brought beyond the permissible period of time may be barred by limitation. On this point since Bangladesh has adopted the Hague Rules, by way of the Carriage of Goods by Seat Act, 1925, Article III of the Act, 1925 is to be followed with regards cargo claims proceedings. When a common carrier’s liability does not arise under the bill of lading but rather outside of it, the particular limitation specified in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 does not however apply instead Article 115 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act, 1918 applies. The case brief that follows will clarify this issue: Case Study: In a recent judgement from Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division (Admiralty Jurisdiction) In Admiralty Suit No 08 of 2016 -Sathi Fresh Limited Vs M.V. HANSA CENTURION, where the vessel owners were represented by Barrister & Advocate Mr. M. Saquibuzzaman (defendant no 2), the plaintiff, Sathi Fresh Limited, filed the suit against vessel M.V.HANSA CENTURION and others seeking compensation of USD 499,800 (equivalent to BDT 39,084,360) for alleged damage to cargo (apples) due to power failure and increased temperature inside the container during shipment. By entering appearance in the suit, Mr. M. Saquibuzzaman filed and moved an application seeking return of plaint of the plaintiff on the ground that under Article III Rule 6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925, which stipulated a one-year statute of limitations for bringing claims following delivery or the date, the goods should have been delivered, prohibited the suit from going any further before the Admiralty Court in present manner and form. Given that the cargo was released on September 16, 2014, the suit ought to have been submitted by September 15, 2015, which was not done so. Judgement: The Hon’ble Admiralty Judge granted the application and returned the plaint back to the plaintiff after taking into account the arguments made by both side. The plaintiff failed to submit the complaint within the allotted one-year limitation period despite being informed of the dates of the cargo’s discharge and auction, according to the High Court Division. The Court upheld the application of The Hague Rules and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 in its decision to issue the order returning the plaint, citing a number of subcontinental and English legal precedents and principles, such as the distinction between the rejection and return of plaints in admiralty suits and most importantly on the basis of the fact that the concerned Bill of Lading incorporated application of the Hague Rules. Although it has inherent challenges, Bangladesh’s admiralty law is a potent tool for resolving maritime disputes. Delays in case adjudication and congested court dockets may hinder the timely resolution of maritime disputes. One approach to solving this issue and enhancing the effectiveness of court proceedings is assigning specialized judges who are knowledgeable about admiralty law. Specialization in admiralty law requires a high level of legal expertise. Supporting the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, including as arbitration and mediation, can speed up the resolution of maritime conflicts, reduce the burden on the judicial system, and provide parties more flexibility in choosing the dispute resolution methods that suit them best. Bangladesh must confront the challenges it has as its marine industry develops and modernizes in order to preserve the effectiveness of admiralty law By doing this, Bangladesh can maintain its position as a significant player in the global marine industry and provide legal protection to individuals involved in its prosperous maritime operations. Admiralty law will remain an essential tool for Bangladesh to settle maritime disputes because of its adaptability and clear regulations and also because of the fact it borders an increasingly busy international maritime route.