The MAERSK SEOUL: A Reminder of the Risks Associated with Dangerous Goods Shipments

Maersk A/S v Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd (The MAERSK SEOUL) [2026] EWHC 2005 (Comm), 28 July 2026

A recent commercial Court decision serves as a significant reminder of the risks associated with the shipment of dangerous goods and the extensive liabilities that may arise where cargo is improperly packed and declared. The judgment reinforces the importance of compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and the English court’s willingness to enforce exclusive jurisdiction agreements through anti-suit injunctions.

Background

The dispute arose from the shipment of five containers of calcium hypochlorite by Indian chemical manufacturer Sree, under contracts of carriage incorporating the Safmarine Terms of Carriage. Calcium hypochlorite is a Class 5.1 dangerous good and a self- heating substance with a well-documented history of fires and explosions if improperly packed or stowed.

In July 2015, three of five containers were loaded aboard the feeder vessel Talassa and then transferred to the Maersk Seoul. During the transit towards the Strait of Hormuz, an explosion and fire occurred on board. Witnesses reported ‘dense white smoke’ and observed that one of the affected containers had blown open due to the force of the explosion. A substantial team of firefighters, followed by a salvage operation followed, involving the vessel’s crew and external assistance.

Following the incident on the Maersk Seoul, Maersk arranged for the two remaining containers on the Maersk Indus to be discharged at Jebel Ali, of which one contained calcium hypochlorite. Here, the containers were cross-stuffed into reefer containers, during which the calcium hypochlorite cargo underwent a violent decomposition reaction, causing a second fire which destroyed the contents and damaged nearby containers.

The Court's Findings

The Court accepted Maersk’s evidence that the contracts of carriage included Safmarine Terms, and that Sree had packed and stuffed the containers at its own premises. A central issue was the cause of the explosion and fire aboard the Maersk Seoul. Relying on expert evidence of Mr Mark Phillips, a mechanical engineer and fire/explosion specialist, the Court concluded that the calcium hypochlorite cargo underwent a runaway decomposition reaction, causing the explosion and subsequent fire. The Court also found that the cargo had been tightly packed in fibreboard cartons with insufficient ventilation, contrary to applicable IMDG Code requirements.

In reaching its decision, the Court held that Sree had breached its contractual obligations relating to the safe packing and shipment of dangerous cargo. It also found Sree liable in negligence for failing to take reasonable care to ensure that the cargo was safe for carriage by sea and would not cause damage to the vessel or other property.

Recovery of Losses

As a result of the incident, Maersk incurred substantial losses, including vessel damage, cargo claims, salvage payments, settlements with vessel interests, legal costs, general average expenses and other incident-related costs.

The court found that these losses were a foreseeable consequence of Sree’s breaches and that the contractual indemnities contained within the Safmarine Terms required Sree to reimburse Maersk for those losses. Maersk was therefore entitled to recover damages exceeding US$13 million.

Jurisdiction and Anti-Suit Relief

The case also involved a prolonged jurisdictional dispute. After the English proceedings were commenced, Sree initiated multiple court actions in India seeking to restrain or relocate the English litigation. Maersk contended that these proceedings were brought in breach of the parties’ agreement that disputes would be determined exclusively by the English High Court.

The Court agreed, finding that Sree’s Indian proceedings breached the exclusive jurisdiction clause. It awarded Maersk damages in respect of costs incurred resisting those proceedings and granted a final anti-suit injunction preventing Sree from pursuing further related litigation in India.

Conclusion

This judgment provides an important reminder that compliance with dangerous goods regulations extends beyond simply classifying cargo correctly. The court was found in favour of Maersk because Sree was liable for breaches of contract and held that Sree’s improper packing, loading and shipment of calcium hypochlorite caused the explosion and fire aboard the vessel. Shippers must ensure dangerous cargo is packed, prepared and transported in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and industry standards. The decision also demonstrates the English Court’s continuing willingness to enforce exclusive jurisdiction clauses and grant anti-suit relief where parties seek to pursue parallel proceedings in alternative forums. For carriers, cargo interests and dangerous shippers, the decision illustrates the critical importance of effective cargo preparation, regulatory compliance and careful contractual risk allocation.