Barbara Wilbrink
Updates
Litigation
Theft of luxury watches from storage raises questions over carrier liability
Netherlands | 19 January 2021An armed robbery at a warehouse provided the basis for an unfortunate – but legally interesting – recent case in the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The case raised the question of whether the carrier could be held liable for the loss of the goods and, if so, whether it could invoke the limitations of liability applicable to carriers. In this regard, the court also examined whether storage formed an independent part of the contract or whether it was absorbed into carriage.
Burden of proof remains with shipowner in proving terminal operator liability
Netherlands | 31 March 2020The loading and unloading of cargo from ships is a key element in the transport chain. However, ships are sometimes damaged during these operations. This raises the question of whether – and on what grounds – a terminal operator can be successfully held liable for such damage. A recent Rotterdam District Court decision upheld the standard of liability established in Dutch case law, confirming that the burden of proof lies with the shipowner when it comes to demonstrating terminal operator liability.
Dutch court rules that tank storage provider cannot invoke exoneration clause contained in VOTOB conditions
Netherlands | 15 May 2018The Rotterdam District Court recently ruled that a tank storage provider could not invoke the exoneration clause of the General Conditions for Tank Storage in the Netherlands (the VOTOB conditions), which are frequently used by Dutch tank terminals and storage companies. The decision is relevant, as it appears to contravene the rather strict approach adopted in Dutch case law in relation to successfully setting aside a VOTOB exoneration clause.
Shipping & Transport
Theft of luxury watches from storage raises questions over carrier liability
Netherlands | 13 January 2021An armed robbery at a warehouse provided the basis for an unfortunate – but legally interesting – recent case in the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. The case raised the question of whether the carrier could be held liable for the loss of the goods and, if so, whether it could invoke the limitations of liability applicable to carriers. In this regard, the court also examined whether storage formed an independent part of the contract or whether it was absorbed into carriage.
Burden of proof remains with shipowner in proving terminal operator liability
Netherlands | 25 March 2020The loading and unloading of cargo from ships is a key element in the transport chain. However, ships are sometimes damaged during these operations. This raises the question of whether – and on what grounds – a terminal operator can be successfully held liable for such damage. A recent Rotterdam District Court decision upheld the standard of liability established in Dutch case law, confirming that the burden of proof lies with the shipowner when it comes to demonstrating terminal operator liability.
Understanding legal position of digital logistics platforms
Netherlands | 22 May 2019Digital platforms which connect logistics service providers with their customers have become commonplace. A relevant question from a legal perspective is whether such a platform acts as a carrier or freight forwarder. The answer to this question will affect a platform's civil and public law exposure. As such, platforms should consider their legal position carefully.
Dutch court rules that tank storage provider cannot invoke exoneration clause contained in VOTOB conditions
Netherlands | 16 May 2018The Rotterdam District Court recently ruled that a tank storage provider could not invoke the exoneration clause of the General Conditions for Tank Storage in the Netherlands (the VOTOB conditions), which are frequently used by Dutch tank terminals and storage companies. The decision is relevant, as it appears to contravene the rather strict approach adopted in Dutch case law in relation to successfully setting aside a VOTOB exoneration clause.
