Ambrose J:

This was an action for damages in respect of the loss of eight cases containing watches, which were delivered to Air France on 7 September 1962 by Sacom Pour Le Commerce D'Outre-Mer of Switzerland for carriage by air from Basle- Mulhouse to Singapore. The air waybill, which was the air consignment note, provided that the goods were to be carried by Air France from Basle-Mulhouse to Bangkok and by Japan Air Lines from Bangkok to Singapore.

The following facts were agreed between the parties at the trial. The gross weight of the goods was 80.5 kilograms. The value of the watches was $53,142.97. The defendants, Thai Airways International Ltd carried the watches from Bangkok to Singapore. The watches were stolen while in the defendants' possession at the Singapore Airport. The second plaintiffs were the consignee. The first plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the watches from the Swiss consignors. Either the second or the first plaintiffs were entitled to delivery. The defendants did not deliver the goods to either of them.

It was further agreed between the parties at the trial that the carriage was an international carriage within the meaning of the convention relating to International Carriage by Air which was signed in Warsaw on 12 October 1929; that the carriage was to be performed by successive carriers; and that the position of the parties was to be determined by the terms of the original Warsaw Convention without regard to the amendments contained in the Protocol adopted by the international conference held at The Hague in 1955.

It was not disputed that the defendants were not parties to the contract of carriage set out in the air consignment note. But it was submitted by Counsel for the plaintiffs that, because the defendants accepted the goods in question, they were subjected by art 30(1) of the Warsaw Convention to the rules set out in the convention, and were to be deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of carriage insofar as the contract dealt with that part of the carriage which was performed under their supervision. Art. 30(1) says:-

In the case of carriage to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the definition set out in the third paragraph of art 1, each carrier who accepts passengers, luggage or goods is subjected to the rules set out in this convention, and is deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of carriage insofar as the contract deals with that part of the carriage which is performed under his supervision.

It should be stated here that it was not disputed that the carriage in question fell within the definition set out in art 1(3). This provision reads:

A carriage to be performed by several successive air carriers is deemed, for the purpose of this convention, to be one undivided carriage, if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation,

Counsel for the defendants submitted that the words 'named in the air consignment note' should be read into art 30(1) immediately after the words 'various successive carriers'. The reason for this submission was that art 30(1) provides that each carrier who accepts passengers, luggage or goods is deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of carriage insofar as the contract deals with that part of the carriage which is performed under his supervision. I am unable to accept the submission. It has to be borne in mind that art 8 of the Warsaw Convention only requires the name and address of the first carrier to be stated in the air waybill; and that apparently the names and addresses of the subsequent carriers by whom the carriage is to be performed and to whom art 30 would apply do not have to be stated in it. I am, therefore, unable to accept Counsel's further contention that, as the defendants were not mentioned in the air waybill, art 30 could not be invoked against them.

It was also submitted by Counsel for the plaintiffs that under art 30(3) the c