A Critique on the Time Bar to Bring Lawsuit against the Forwarder in the Iranian Legal System from the Perspective of International Legal Documents

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor of Law, Shahid Beheshti University

10.52547/jlr.2022.228508.2295

Abstract

Today, freight forwarding plays a key role in the development and stability of international transport of goods and freight forwarders are no longer just agents of cargo owners to manage transport operations, but rather provide a wide range of services to customers, including transportation of goods, as a combined transport operator. In Iran, the Supreme Council for Transport Coordination approved a bylaw entitled "Establishment and Operation of International Transport Companies" in 2017, in which paragraph 3 of Article 21 sets 90 days as a time bar for filing a lawsuit against a forwarder. Determination of such a short period for filing a lawsuit shall not only encounter cargo owners with serious difficulties in claiming damages in the event of loss of or damage to the goods but also raises serious questions that is such a rule in line with the rules accepted in international legal documents, including FIATA Model Rules for Freight Forwarding Services? is Supreme Council for Transport Coordination legally allowed to impose such a time bar? Is this rule valid despite Article 393 of the Commercial Code? Examination of various international legal documents governing freight forwarding activity indicates the existence of 9 months for filing a lawsuit against the freight forwarder. Also, imposing a time bar requires the involvement of the Parliament, and the Supreme Council for Transport Coordination is not competent to take such an action. Finally, the provision of paragraph 3 of article 21 of the bylaw conflicts with the provision stated in article 393 of the Commercial Code.
Today, freight forwarding plays a key role in the development and stability of international transport of goods and freight forwarders are no longer just agents of cargo owners to manage transport operations, but rather provide a wide range of services to customers, including transportation of goods, as a combined transport operator. In Iran, the Supreme Council for Transport Coordination approved a bylaw entitled "Establishment and Operation of International Transport Companies" in 2017, in which paragraph 3 of Article 21 sets 90 days as a time bar for filing a lawsuit against a forwarder. Determination of such a short period for filing a lawsuit shall not only encounter cargo owners with serious difficulties in claiming damages in the event of loss of or damage to the goods but also raises serious questions that is such a rule in line with the rules accepted in international legal documents, including FIATA Model Rules for Freight Forwarding Services? is Supreme Council for Transport Coordination legally allowed to impose such a time bar? Is this rule valid despite Article 393 of the Commercial Code? Examination of various international legal documents governing freight forwarding activity indicates the existence of 9 months for filing a lawsuit against the freight forwarder. Also, imposing a time bar requires the involvement of the Parliament, and the Supreme Council for Transport Coordination is not competent to take such an action. Finally, the provision of paragraph 3 of article 21 of the bylaw conflicts with the provision stated in article 393 of the Commercial Code.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  • Besong Christine, “Towards a Modern Role for Liability in Multimodal Transport Law”, A Thesis Submitted for Doctor of Philosophy, University of London, 2007.
  • Bokareva Olena, Uniformity of Transport Law through International Regimes, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2019.
  • Cheng Chia-Jui, Clive M. Schmitthoff's Select Essays on International Trade Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988.
  • Derkach Ella and Sergii Pavliuk, "International Law on the Multimodal Carriage of the Goods: Recent Trends and Perspectives", International Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2017, pp. 269-285.
  • Driscoll William J., “The Convention on International Multimodal Transport: A Status Report”, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 9, No. 4, July 1978, pp. 441-460.
  • Fitzgerald Gerald F., “Proposed Convention on the International Combined Transport of Goods: Implications for International Civil Aviation”, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 1973, pp. 165-192.
  • Giles O. C., “Combined Transport: Further Modification”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 443-444.
  • Giles O. C., “Combined Transport”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1975), pp. 379-392
  • Glass David A., Freight Forwarding and Multimodal Transport Contracts, 2nd edition, Routledge Publication, 2012.
  • Hoeks Marian, Multimodal Transport Law: The Law Applicable to the Multimodal Contract for the Carriage of Goods, Kluwer Law International, 2010.
  • Leung William, “The Dual Role of the Freight Forwarder: Vastfame Camera Ltd v Birkart Globistics Ltd, 2005 High Court of Hong Kong 117, Stone J, 5 October 2005; 2005 AMC 2864 (High Court of Hong Kong, 2005)”, Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2007, pp. 97-109.
  • Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 1974, pp. 29-38.
  • Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 1976, pp. 148-156.
  • Mankabady Samir, “The Multimodal Transport of Goods Convention: A Challenge to Unimodal Transport Conventions”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1983, pp. 120-140.
  • Massey Eugene. A., “Prospects for a New Intermodal Regime: A Critical Look at the TCM”, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1972, pp. 725-758.
  • Moore J. C., “The Tokyo Convention on Combined Transport (Tokyo Rules)”, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1969, pp. 85-91.
  • Neame Craig, Ocean Logistics, in George Eddings et. al. (eds.), Shipping Law Review, 7th edition, Law Business Research Ltd., 2020, pp. 43-44.
  • Ramberg Jan, “Unification of the Law of International Freight Forwarding”, Uniform Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1998, pp. 5–13.
  • Report of the Fourth Session of the Joint IMCO/ECE Meeting to study the draft Convention on the Combined Transport Contract (TCM Convention), London, November 15–19, 1971 (CTC IV/18 Rev. 1, TRANS/374, January 24, 1972); ICAO Doc. 9007 LC/166 9/6/72 Summary of the Work of the Legal Committee during its 19th Session (Montreal, May 22 —June 2, 1972).
  • Resolution No. E/RES/1734(LIV) (Recommendations of the United Nations/IMCO Conference on International Container Traffic), adopted by the Economic and Social Council during its 54th session, 8-10 January and 17 April-18 May 1973.
  • Tetley William, Marine Cargo Claims, 4th, Thomson (Carswell) Publications, 2008.
  • The Report of International Maritime Committee (CMI), Documentation, 1969, III.
  • The Report of International Maritime Committee (CMI), Documentation, 1970, II.

 

اسناد بین المللی

  • BIFA (British International Freight Association) Standard Trading Conditions.
  • CMI Draft Convention on Combined Transport (the ‘Tokyo Rules’ of 1969).
  • Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods (1980).
  • Draft Convention on Contract of Agency for Forwarding Agents relating to International Carriage of Goods”.
  • FIATA Combined Transport Bill of Lading 1971
  • FIATA Model Rules for Freight Forwarding Services of 1996.
  • FIATA Model Rules for Freight Forwarding Services”.
  • French Civil Code.
  • ICC Uniform Rules for a Combined Transport Document (ICC Publication No. 273 -November 1973).
  • ICC Uniform Rules for a Combined Transport Document of 1975 (ICC Publication No 298).UN
  • Standard Conditions Governing FIATA Multimodal Bill of Lading (1992)”.
  • TCM Draft Convention on the International Combined Transport of Goods’ 1971
  • UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents, 1992 (“The UNCTAD/ICC Rules”).
  • Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977.
  • UNIDROIT and CMI combined draft of 1970 (‘Tokyo–Rome Rules’ also known as the ‘Rome Draft’)

 

پرونده ها

  • Granville Oil & Chemicals v Davis Turner [2003] EWCA Civ 570, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 356.

 

 

 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 August 2022
  • Revise Date: 27 January 2024
  • Accept Date: 11 December 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics