The Antares 1 is the first case in which the courts have had to consider the effect of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, s. 1(2), which provides that for the purposes of English domestic law the Hague-Visby Rules “shall have the force of law” on s. 27 of the Arbitration Act 1950. It will be recalled that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924, which deals with the Hague Rules, does not so provide. Section 1 of the 1924 Act states:

A large item of electrical equipment was loaded at Antwerp bound for Mombasa under a liner service where the liner operator was the time charterer. The consignees were Kenya Railways. The machinery was shipped on deck but the bill of lading did not record that fact. It was extensively damaged and a claim was made against the liner operator by Kenya Railways and, later, by their solicitors, the damage being in the region of £750,000. For various reasons, the claims were directed only to the liner operator and not to the owners. The cargo was discharged at Mombasa on 17 February 1984 and it was from that date that the one-year time bar ran for the purposes of the Hague-Visby Rules. The claimants did not discover the identity of the owners until after the time bar had passed. After a further delay, proceedings were instituted seeking a declaration under the Arbitration Act 1950, s. 27 that the time for the appointment of the arbitrator be extended. There was also an application, by separate summons, for a declaration that the 12-month time limit did not, in any event, apply. In November 1985, the plaintiffs’ application was heard.

The plaintiffs relied heavily on Nea Agrex S.A. v. Baltic Shipping Co.2, in which the Court of Appeal held that, in a case where the Hague Rules were rendered applicable by contract, the court was not deprived of its power under s. 27 to extend time. That case effectively overruled The Angeliki 3, in which Kerr, J. (as he then was) held that the court had no discretion under s. 27 to extend time when the Hague Rules had been incorporated into the charter. The learned judge also commented that, even if the court did enjoy discretion, it ought not to be exercised where so to do would be to override the effect of rules intended to have international effect. The Angeliki was disapproved in Nea Agrex, the deciding factor being that, in the opinion of the court, the Rules were incorporated as a matter of contract.