---
title: "The Taikoo Brilliance: Do Proceedings Commenced for Security Purposes Stop the Clock under the Hague-Visby Rules?"
description: "Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA (The Taikoo Brilliance) [2025] EWHC 1878 (Comm), 22 July 2025\nA recent Court of Appeal decision has provided clarity on two questions that often arise in cargo disputes:"
image: https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/hubfs/Cargo.png
---
[Skip to main content](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blog/the-taikoo-brilliance-do-proceedings-commenced-for-security-purposes-stop-the-clock-under-the-hague-visby-rules#main-content)
[ -1.png?width=300&height=54&name=Cargo%20Law%20PNG%20(1)-1.png)](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk)
- Show submenu for Services Services
- [Cargo Claims](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/cargo-claims)
- [Bills of Lading](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/bills-and-lading)
- [Charterparties](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/charterparties)
- [Marine Insurance](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/marine-insurance)
- [Trade and Commodities](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/trade-and-commodities)
- Show submenu for About Us About Us
- [About Cargo Law](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/about-us)
- [Charity Donations](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blue-marine-foundation)
- [News](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blog)
Open main navigation
Close main navigation
- Show submenu for Services Services
- Services
- [Cargo Claims](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/cargo-claims)
- [Bills of Lading](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/bills-and-lading)
- [Charterparties](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/charterparties)
- [Marine Insurance](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/marine-insurance)
- [Trade and Commodities](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/services/trade-and-commodities)
- Show submenu for About Us About Us
- About Us
- [About Cargo Law](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/about-us)
- [Charity Donations](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blue-marine-foundation)
- [News](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blog)
- [Contact Us](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/contact-us)
[Contact Us](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/contact-us)
# The Taikoo Brilliance: Do Proceedings Commenced for Security Purposes Stop the Clock under the Hague-Visby Rules?
by [Dominque Brunwin](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blog/author/dominque-brunwin)
Oct 5, 2026, 11:54:37 AM
Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA (The Taikoo Brilliance) \[2025\] EWHC 1878 (Comm), 22 July 2025
A recent Court of Appeal decision has provided clarity on two questions that often arise in cargo disputes:
1\. What steps a bill of lading holder must take to stop the one-year time bar under the Hague-Visby Rules from running; and
What should be expressly stated in the description on the bill of lading for cargo to fall within the Article I(c) exception for deck cargo and thus be outside the scope of the Rules?
This judgment reinforces the approach the English Courts to what amounts to a “suit” in carriage of goods by sea, while adopting a rational view of what a bill of lading must say to exclude deck-cargo from the Rules.
## Background
The dispute concerned four bills of lading issued by Pedregal Maritime SA (“the Owners”), to Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd (“the Cargo Interests”), in respect of a cargo of 36,934 JAS CBM of New Zealand pine logs shipped from New Zealand to Kandla, India. Two of the four bills contained a significant proportion of the cargo and were carried on deck.
On the Vessel’s arrival at Kandla in September 2019, the cargo was discharged to third parties without the original bills, against a letter of indemnity, provided by the Charterers. The Cargo Interests alleged mis-delivery. The bills contained a London arbitration clause, but rather than commencing Arbitration, the Cargo Interests instead issued a writ in the Singapore High Court in August 2020, arresting the Owners’ sister Vessel, the NAVIOS KOYO, as security for their claim. The sister ship was released later that month once security was provided. The Owners applied to “stay” the Singapore proceedings in favour of Arbitration. Substantive Arbitration was not in fact commenced until December 2020, more than a year after the cargo had been delivered.
The Arbitral Tribunal found, in an Award dated 16 February 2023, that the claim relating to under-deck cargo was time-barred, because the Singapore arrest proceedings did not amount to “suit” for the purposes of Article III, rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules. The claim relating to the on-deck cargo, however, was found not to be time-barred, because that cargo fell outside the Rules entirely under the Article I(c) deck-cargo exclusion. Both the Owners and the Cargo Interests appealed to the High Court on points of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
## The Court’s Findings
### Issue 1: Does an action for security amount to “suit” within article iii, rule 6?
Article III, Rule 6 discharges the Carrier from all liability unless a “suit” is brought within one year of delivery, or the date delivery should have occurred. The Cargo Interests argued that their Singapore arrest proceedings, commenced within the year, were enough to stop the clock, even though those proceedings were only commenced for the purposes security and were never pursued to a decision on the merits of liability.
Robin Knowles J disagreed and dismissed the Holders’ appeal on this point. He held that “suit” requires proceedings capable of determining liability on the merits, not merely proceedings seeking to preserve a future claim. Proceedings that would, if pursued, breach an agreed Arbitration Clause cannot qualify, and protective measures such as a vessel arrest are not a substitute for commencing on the substantive claim itself. The Judge’s approach echoed the purposive reasoning the Supreme Court had adopted the previous year in FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) \[2024\] UKSC 38 where the one-year bar was described as existing to let carriers close their books and achieve commercial finality within a defined period. On that reasoning, allowing a security-only action to stop time running indefinitely, with no other applicable limitation period under English law, would undermine the very finality the Rules are designed to protect. The under-deck cargo claim therefore remained time-barred.
### Issue 2: What must a bill of lading state for cargo to be validly carried “on deck” pursuant to article i(c)?
Article I(c) excludes deck cargo from the definition of “goods”, and therefore from the protection and time bar of the Rules. The Owners argued that this required precise, parcel-by-parcel identification of the individual items carried on deck, and that because the bills here recorded only aggregate piece counts, the on-deck exclusion could not apply. On the Owners’ case, that would have brought the entire cargo, including the logs carried on deck, back within the Rules and within the one-year bar.
The Court rejected that narrow reading and dismissed the Owners’ appeal, upholding the arbitrator’s finding that a statement such as “22,994 pieces carried on deck” was sufficient in the circumstances of this case. The Judge preferred a logical, commercial approach to Article I(c), being that the degree of detail required will vary with the nature of the cargo and the circumstances of the shipment, rather than demanding a fixed standard of parcel-level identification in every case. As the bills identified the total quantity, commodity and number of pieces on deck, and were issued to a single holder who could assess the risk, this was held to be enough. The on-deck cargo accordingly remained outside the Rules, and the claim relating to it was not caught by the one-year time bar limitation.
## Significance
The Taikoo Brilliance is a useful reminder that a “suit” brought for protective measures, such as a Vessel arrest, will not by itself preserve a cargo claim under the Hague-Visby Rules. Claimants who wish to keep a claim alive must commence substantive proceedings, whether in Court or Arbitration, within one year of delivery of the cargo in relation to a cargo claim, and cannot rely solely on security proceedings abroad to stop time, particularly where those proceedings would themselves breach an agreed Arbitration Clause.
At the same time, the decision confirms that carriers and shippers are not required to draft bills of lading with forensic precision to secure the benefit, or the burden, of the deck-cargo exclusion. A clear statement of quantity, commodity and the number of pieces carried on deck will generally suffice, particularly where the bill is held by a single party able to assess its own risk. Parties should nonetheless exercise caution where only part of the cargo is carried on deck and the cargo items vary significantly in value. The greater the disparity in value in disparity between individual items, the more likely the Court may expect the items carried on deck to be capable of being identified accurately and with precision.
## Comments
[.png?width=445&height=80&name=Untitled%20design%20(23).png)](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk)
Cargo Law is a trading name of Excello Law Limited. Excello Law is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA 652733).
©2026 Cargo Law, All rights reserved.
---
**C[omplaints](https://excellolaw.co.uk/complaints/)** [Privacy Policy](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/privacy) [Cookie Policy](https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/cookie-policy)
[**Website by Mobas**](https://www.mobas.com/)
-
```json
{
"@context" : "https://schema.org",
"@type" : "BlogPosting",
"author" : {
"@type" : "Person",
"name" : "Dominque Brunwin",
"url" : "https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blog/author/dominque-brunwin"
},
"dateModified" : "2026-10-05T15:55:00.921Z",
"datePublished" : "2026-10-05T15:54:37.000Z",
"headline" : "The Taikoo Brilliance: Do Proceedings Commenced for Security Purposes Stop the Clock under the Hague-Visby Rules?",
"image" : [ "https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/hubfs/Cargo.png" ],
"mainEntityOfPage" : {
"@id" : "https://www.cargolaw.co.uk/blog/the-taikoo-brilliance-do-proceedings-commenced-for-security-purposes-stop-the-clock-under-the-hague-visby-rules",
"@type" : "WebPage"
},
"publisher" : {
"@type" : "Organization",
"logo" : {
"@type" : "ImageObject"
}
}
}
```