The plaintiffs in this action claimed from the defendant damages for breach of contract or duty and/or for negligence in and about the carriage of three cases of pistons on board the defendant companys vessel Clytoneus.

Under a bill of lading dated the 18th August, 1965, there were shipped at Liverpool in apparent good order and condition on board the Clytoneus three cases of pistons for carriage to and delivery at Singapore.

The plaintiffs were at all material times the owners of the goods comprised in the three cases or the indorsees of the bill of lading to whom the property in the goods passed upon or by reason of the indorsement, alternatively, the plaintiffs presented the bill of lading at Singapore and took delivery thereunder.

On the 12th September, 1965, the vessel arrived at Singapore and the three cases of pistons were discharged into godowns 1 and 2 on the 13th and 14th September, 1965. The plaintiffs took delivery of the goods on the 17th September, 1965. On the morning of the 18th September, 1965 one of the cases was opened and it was found that the contents were wet and the pistons were rusted and pitted by, so it was alleged, coming into contact with salt water. The contents of the remaining two cases were not damaged in any way.

The plaintiffs alleged that it was the duty of the defendant or that the defendant by the bill of lading expressly or impliedly contracted to deliver the goods in the same good order and condition in which they were shipped. Further or alternatively it was the duty of the defendant or the defendant impliedly contracted to exercise reasonable care of the goods during the loading, carriage and discharge thereof. In breach of the said duty or contract the defendant, its servants or agents, failed to take reasonable care of the goods during the loading or carriage thereof by allowing the goods to come into contact with sea water.

The defendant denied that in breach of its duty or contract it delivered the goods damaged by sea water or that it was its duty or that it impliedly contracted to exercise reasonable care of the goods during the loading, carriage and discharge thereof. The defendant further denied that in breach of its duty or contract the defendant, its servants or agents, failed to take reasonable care of the goods during the loading or carriage thereof by allowing the goods to come into contact with sea water.

That there was damage to the goods was not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that they were shipped in apparent good order and condition. Not only does the bill of lading say so but Mr. Matthews on behalf of the defendant company admitted it. Furthermore Mr. Keenan a master mariner and surveyor stated that the case containing the pistons was generally dry stained externally and had been in contact with water. When he examined the case some 7 or 8 days after its discharge from the ship at Singapore he found the interal condition of the case very wet to touch -- this condition he said certainly was not recent and that it was possible it could have been present for some three weeks prior to his examination when it would have been very much wetter then than when he carried out his inspection.

Mr. Matthews said that if this case had shown any signs of staining prior to shipment the stevedores at Birkenhead would have noticed it as to his personal knowledge they were experienced men.

It seems to me that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from this evidence is that the goods were damaged after shipment and before discharge.

The plaintiffs case on these facts was that all they had to prove was that the goods were shipped in good order and condition and on discharge were found to be damaged and the burden of proof then shifted to the defendant to show that it was not responsible.

I consider that to be a correct statement of the law as it stands at present. See Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Ltd [1927] 2 KK 432 and A