1 In the English court decision of Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S the court clarified the scope of carrier obligations under the Hague Rules, the role of Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data, and the risks of container fraud. The judgment provides practical guidance for both consignees and carriers in navigating the complexities of international container shipping.

2 Background

2.1 The claimant, Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE (SSM), purchased three consignments of copper scrap. These were shipped in 22 containers from Jebel Ali (UAE) to Piraeus (Greece) in November 2019.

2.2 Maersk, as the contractual carrier, issued bills of lading that were “clean” and “straight,”. This meant that they did not contain any clauses indicating any cargo defects or discrepancies and named SSM as the consignee.

2.3 Upon arrival at Pireaus, the containers were opened. Instead of copper scrap they all contained concrete blocks. As the Dubai-based seller disappeared, SSM was unable to recover its losses against them. They looked to Maersk as the carrier under the bills of lading. Maersk incurred costs in disposing of the material and counterclaimed.

2.4 A key issue in the case was the VGM certificates issued by the terminal operator (DP World). These certificates showed that the actual container weights were only 30–40% of the weights declared by the shipper to Maersk. At the time, Maersk’s operational systems treated shipper declared weights (used for completing the bills of lading) and VGM data (used for stowage and safety) as separate data streams. There was no process in place to validate or compare the two. It was only in 2020, following the events in question, that Maersk implemented a “variance check” protocol to address this gap.

3 Issues Before the court

3.1 The court dismissed SSM’s claims and upheld Maersk’s counterclaim.

3.2 The court considered three main issues:

(1) Did Maersk breach article III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules by issuing clean bills of lading without noting the significant discrepancies in container weights?

(2) Did Maersk make a negligent misstatement or owe a duty of care to detect or prevent fraud by comparing shipper declared weights against the VGM data?

(3) Was Maersk entitled to rely on its bill of lading terms to avoid liability for losses and charges resulting from inaccurate shipper supplied particulars?

3.3 Findings of the court

(1) The traditional interpretation of “apparent good order and condition” under the Hague Rules was confirmed. This phrase refers to the external, visually ascertainable state of the cargo at the time of shipment, as could be reasonably inspected by the carrier.

(2) In the context of sealed containers, the actual weight and contents are not externally visible or verifiable by the carrier. The carrier is reliant upon the information provided by the shipper of the cargo.

(3) Maersk was entitled to rely on the shipper’s declarations when issuing bills of lading and could rely on clause 14.2 of the bills of lading “No representation is made by the Carrier as to the weight, contents, measure, quantity, quality, description, condition, marks, numbers or value of the Goods and the Carrier shall be under no responsibility whatsoever in respect of such description or particulars”.

(4) In the absence of any reason to suspect fraud or inaccuracy carriers may refuse to load containers where they reasonably suspect the particulars provided to be inaccurate. Carriers need only conduct investigative checks where there are clear red flags.

(5) The negligent misstatement claim was dismissed. The bills of lading explicitly stated that the particulars were declared by the shipper and that the carrier did not assume responsibility for their accuracy.

(6) Within this contractual framework, there was no implied representation by Maersk regarding the accuracy of the declared weights nor any assurance that the weights had been checked against VGM data.

(7) The absence of a cross-checking protocol in 2019 was not considered negligent, as the industry had not yet recognised VGM discrepancies as a potential indicator of fraud.

(8) In principle, a carrier who is aware or ought to be aware of a substantial discrepancy indicating fraud or possible fraud may have a duty not to issue an unqualified clean bill of lading. This could involve clausing the bill or refusing to issue it altogether. However, on the facts of this case, the duty did not arise.

(9) In 2019, Maersk had no reason to suspect that the shipper’s declarations were fraudulent. The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)/VGM regime was designed for safety and stowage planning, not for fraud detection, and there was no industry-wide appreciation at the time that discrepancies between VGM and declared weights could signal fraud against consignees.

(10) The VGM regime, implemented under the SOLAS Convention, places the responsibility on the shipper to verify the gross mass of containers for safety and stowage purposes. The VGM’s primary function is to ensure safe loading and transport, not to serve as a “fraud screening” mechanism for carriers. The court declined to expand the carrier’s obligations to include fraud detection based on VGM data.

(11) Maersk’s counterclaim for indemnity succeeded. In terms of clause 15.2 of the bills of lading (merchant indemnity) and the shipper’s warranty under clause 14.3 regarding the accuracy of bill of lading particulars, SSM, classified as the “Merchant” under the bill of lading, was found to have warranted the accuracy of the information in the bill of lading and therefore liable for Maersk’s invoices, cargo destruction costs, and container demurrage.

4 Summary

4.1 A clean bill of lading does not guarantee the actual weight or contents of sealed containers. The “apparent condition” referenced in bills of lading is limited to what can be externally observed, and most bills include language such as “weight unknown”.

4.2 Buyers should obtain timely access to carrier portals and review VGM data before releasing payment to sellers. Where possible, payment triggers should be tied to confirmation that VGM aligns with declared weights or to independent survey/inspection at the time of container stuffing.

4.3 Carriers should maintain and apply variance checks between VGM and declared weights, as Maersk did from 2020 onwards. Where substantial discrepancies are known, carriers should consider clausing the bill, requiring clarification, or refusing to load the container.

5 Comment

5.1 The judgment preserves the traditional boundaries of a carrier’s obligations under article III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules for containerised cargo. It resists imposing a general fraud detection duty based on VGM data.

5.2 However, the court noted that carriers who are put on notice of substantial discrepancies may face a duty not to issue unqualified clean bills. With the introduction of variance controls and increased industry awareness post 2020, courts may be more likely to find that carriers “knew or ought to have known” of discrepancies on the facts.

5.3 The concept of “apparent good order and condition” does not extend to container weight, and in 2019, Maersk had no duty to compare shipper declared weights with VGM for fraud detection. Going forward, it is essential for both consignees and carriers to adopt practical controls. Buyers must verify data before payment, and carriers should operate variance checks and clause or refuse bills where substantial discrepancies are evident.

5.4 The case serves as a clear warning for all parties in the container shipping industry, highlighting the importance of vigilance, strong contractual protections, and the need to keep pace with evolving industry standards and best practices.