Maritime law lawyer Paris

Because the essentials are decided within a few days. The consignee must send written reservations to the carrier or its representative at the port of discharge no later than delivery; otherwise the goods are presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have been received as described in the bill of lading (Article R. 5422-24). For non-apparent damage, notification can still be sent within three days after delivery, public holidays excluded.

The action itself must be brought within one year (Article L. 5422-18), a period that runs from the day the goods are handed over or tendered to the consignee, or from the day they should have been in the event of total loss (Article R. 5422-26). Mere talks with the carrier are not enough to preserve it: what is needed is an extension agreement concluded after the loss, to be formalised in writing to keep proof of it, or a ground for interrupting or suspending the limitation period, such as acknowledgement of the right by the debtor (Article 2240 of the French Civil Code) or a court claim (Article 2241).

The firm checks the reservations, arranges an joint survey, identifies the debtor and quantifies the claim while the time limits remain open. It also examines the back of the transport document, which often states the chosen law and the designated court.

The Court of Cassation defines delivery by a physical fact: "Delivery, which ends performance of the contract of carriage, means the physical operation by which the carrier hands the goods over to the person entitled, who is able to take possession of them and check their condition" (Cass. com., 24 May 2023, No. 21-15.151) (our translation). The test is therefore the concrete ability of the person entitled to take possession of the goods and check their condition.

In that case, the container had been handed over to a port body holding a monopoly. The Court holds that, unless otherwise agreed, "the mere handing over of the goods by the sea carrier to a port undertaking holding a monopoly on cargo handling does not, in itself, amount to delivery" (same judgment) (our translation). The parties had, however, agreed by a clause of the bill of lading that delivery would take place on opening of the container; that opening, carried out in the carrier's presence, had revealed 23 pallets missing out of 44, and the Court approves the lower courts for holding that the carrier remained presumed liable for the shortfall.

The delivery date governs both the time for reservations and the start of the one-year limitation period (Article R. 5422-26). The firm reconstructs it from arrival notices, terminal documents, seal numbers and the reports drawn up on opening.

Yes, if it establishes a loss arising from the carriage. The Court of Cassation holds that the particulars in the bill of lading are not intended to restrict party status to the persons they name, so that "the contractual action may be open to the consignee who claims to have suffered loss as a result of the carriage" (Cass. com., 14 December 2022, No. 20-17.768) (our translation).

That consignee is bound by the document only as regards the conditions of the carriage itself. The same decision draws a consequence for jurisdiction: "Acceptance of this jurisdiction clause cannot be inferred from the existence of a usage in international transport, nor from the previous commercial relations between the parties alone" (same judgment) (our translation). In that case, the clause designating a court in Seoul, printed in very small characters on the back, had been held illegible, and the jurisdiction of the French courts was not called into question.

The judgment was nevertheless quashed on other points, notably to the detriment of the cargo insurer. Under former Article 1250 of the French Civil Code, the Court recalls that "the conventional subrogation of the insurer in the rights of the insured results from the express will of the latter, expressed at the same time as or before the payment received from the insurer" (same judgment) (our translation), and criticises the judges for not having checked that concurrence. The firm therefore also checks the date of the receipt against the payment.

Not always. For a sea waybill, a non-negotiable document, the Court of Cassation held, on the basis of Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, that the clause agreed between carrier and shipper has effect against the third-party holder only if the latter succeeded to the rights and obligations of the shipper under the applicable national law; failing that, its consent must be verified.

It above all specified that "the actual consignee of the goods or its agent, who does not appear in any capacity on a sea waybill, cannot be regarded as a third-party holder of that document" (Cass. com., 20 October 2021, No. 20-14.275) (our translation). The clause that referred the dispute to the High Court in London therefore could not be enforced against the insurer subrogated to the rights of that consignee's agent, and the judgment that had declared the Le Havre commercial court lacking jurisdiction was quashed.

For a bill of lading, the rule is similar: the clause is enforceable against the consignee only if it specifically accepted it, or if the jurisdiction it establishes is imposed by virtue of a treaty or EU law (Cass. com., 14 December 2022, No. 20-17.768). The firm examines the nature of the document issued, the position and legibility of the clause and the capacity of the person bringing the claim, before choosing the court in which to bring the case.

The sea carrier benefits from a limitation set by Article 4(5) of the 1924 Brussels Convention, to which the Transport Code refers (Article L. 5422-13). In its version as amended by the 1968 and 1979 protocols, the convention applies the higher of two amounts: 666.67 units of account per package or unit, or 2 units of account per kilogram of gross weight, the higher limit being applicable (Cass. com., 24 May 2023, No. 21-19.835).

The count of packages depends on the bill of lading. Where it lists packages grouped on a pallet or in a container, each counts. The Court of Cassation thus quashed a judgment that had counted eleven packages, where "the bill of lading stated the loading of 387 cases grouped into 10 pallets, so that the limitation of liability had to be calculated on that basis" (Cass. com., 24 May 2023, No. 21-19.835) (our translation).

In another case, concerning containers of sweetcorn stuffed loose and governed by the convention in its original version, the Court dismissed the appeal of the cargo insurers, noting that "It is in the exercise of its sovereign power to assess the particulars in the bill of lading that the court of appeal held that the parties to the contract of carriage had, in this case, designated the container as the freight unit" (Cass. com., 21 May 2025, No. 24-11.519) (our translation). The container was then the unit used for the cap, a result unfavourable to the persons entitled to the cargo. The wording of the bill of lading should therefore be prepared at the outset, with the packing list.

Two routes exist. The first is contractual: the shipper declares the nature and value of the goods; once entered in the bill of lading and accepted by the carrier, that declaration removes the limitation and is binding on the carrier, unless proved otherwise (Article L. 5422-14). The parties may also agree on a sum higher than the cap (Article L. 5422-13).

The second turns on fault: the carrier loses the limitation if it is proved that the damage resulted from its personal act or omission, committed with intent to cause it, or recklessly and with knowledge that it would probably result (Article L. 5422-14). The proof concerns the conduct of the carrier itself, and it is demanding.

There remains the letter of indemnity, by which the shipper promises to indemnify the carrier who issues a bill of lading without reservations: it is void as against third parties, and if the deliberately omitted reservation concerned a defect that the carrier knew or ought to have known about, the carrier can no longer rely on the limitation (Article L. 5422-5). The firm examines these mechanisms before loading where the value of the cargo justifies it.

The freight forwarder organises and has the transport carried out in its own name, by the means of its choice, on behalf of its client (Article L. 1411-1). It is liable for damage and loss, unless otherwise stipulated or in cases of force majeure (Article L. 132-5 of the French Commercial Code), and for the acts of the intermediate forwarder to whom it sends the goods (Article L. 132-6).

That liability has its limits. For industrial equipment shipped by sea and then damaged during the final road leg, the Court of Cassation approved the judges for holding that "the freight forwarder incurs liability for its own act only where that act is the origin of the damage or loss to the goods" (Cass. com., 29 March 2023, No. 21-10.017) (our translation). Held liable as guarantor of its substitutes, the forwarder was so held only within the limits of the standard contract, a result unfavourable to the principals.

The capacity of freight forwarder must still be established for the shipment in question. In a case concerning a parcel shipment, outside maritime transport, the Court quashed a judgment based on grounds "drawn from general documents, unsuited to establish the conclusion" (Cass. com., 30 April 2025, No. 23-23.458) of a forwarding contract for the goods in dispute (our translation). The firm therefore identifies, document by document, who contracted with whom.

The stevedore carries out loading and discharge, including the operations under shed or on the quay that precede or follow them (Article L. 5422-19). It operates on behalf of the party that engaged it, which alone can bring an action against it (Article L. 5422-20), and it is liable for the damage attributable to it (Article L. 5422-21).

The Court of Cassation recalled this in 2026: "the stevedore who carries out the operations of loading and discharging goods is liable for the damage attributable to it" (Cass. com., 14 January 2026, No. 24-13.726) (our translation). It quashed the judgment that had rejected the carrier's claim to be indemnified by the stevedore for the survey costs charged to it after a loss occurring during handling, and sent the case back to the court of appeal.

Its liability is capped like that of the carrier, unless a declaration of value has been notified to it (Article L. 5422-23), and that cap covers more than the goods: the Court approves the judges for stating that "the limitation of liability of the port handling company applies not only to damage caused to the goods, but also to damage consequent on or ancillary to that principal loss" (Cass. com., 22 November 2023, No. 22-17.843) (our translation). Any clause that would exempt it or lower that cap is void as against the shipper and the consignee (Article L. 5422-24).

The master may, with court authorisation, have part of the goods sold to pay the freight, unless the consignee prefers to provide a guarantee, and may have the surplus deposited (Article R. 5422-20). The route is tightly regulated and goes through the judge.

A shipowner who holds a right of retention under a charterparty cannot assert it against every cargo owner. The Court of Cassation holds that "the contractual right of retention that the shipowner derives from the charterparty may be exercised only over the property of its contracting party" (Cass. com., 14 June 2023, No. 20-19.948) (our translation), without prejudice to a retention based on a physical or legal connection between the claim and a third party's goods. It quashed the judgment that had allowed retention of bauxite belonging to a third party without finding that connection.

For the owner of the goods, the question is therefore the link between the debt relied on and its cargo. The firm examines the chartering chain (Article L. 5423-1) and the transport documents, and can then seek release through the courts.

The Transport Code allows a creditor whose claim appears well founded in principle to ask the judge for authorisation of a protective attachment of the ship (Article L. 5114-22). Where the Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952 applies, the holder of a maritime claim may arrest the ship to which it relates or, subject to the conditions and reservations of its Article 3, another ship.

Arrest soon reaches its limit where the debtor is not the owner. For a claim against a charterer, the Court of Cassation now holds that "such an arrest is not possible where, at the date of the application, the ship has been redelivered, unless the maritime claim is accompanied by a privilege conferring a right to follow the ship" (Cass. com., 19 November 2025, No. 24-11.520) (our translation). The judgment that had upheld the arrest was quashed, a result unfavourable to the arresting creditor.

Certain claims are privileged over the ship, the freight and their accessories (Article L. 5114-8). Before any application, the firm checks the real debtor, the nature of the claim, the date of any redelivery and the existence of a privilege carrying a right to follow the ship.

Yes. In marine insurance, the insurer that has paid the indemnity acquires, up to the amount of its payment, all the rights of the insured arising from the damage covered (Article L. 172-29 of the French Insurance Code). It then exercises those rights with their limits, including the compensation cap and the one-year period (Article L. 5422-18).

Actions arising from the insurance contract itself, between the insured and its insurer, are subject to a two-year limitation period (Article L. 172-31); this regime covers the contract insuring the risks of carriage of goods by sea (Article L. 171-1).

Where the insurer relies on a conventional subrogation, chronology matters: the Court of Cassation quashed a judgment that had not checked that payment was made at the same time as the subrogation, or after it (Cass. com., 14 December 2022, No. 20-17.768). For subrogations governed by current law, Article 1346-1 of the French Civil Code requires an express subrogation, granted at the same time as payment, unless an earlier instrument provided for it, concurrence being provable by any means. The firm therefore cross-checks the receipt, the deed of subrogation and the proof of payment before bringing the action.

In principle, yes. The 1924 Brussels Convention treats any similar document forming title to the carriage of goods by sea as equivalent to a bill of lading. For a lorry damaged during a crossing between Spain and the United Kingdom, the parties had drawn up only a booking document; the Court of Cassation approved the judges for stating that "the absence of a bill of lading may be made up for by any similar document" (Cass. com., 6 January 2021, No. 18-15.228) (our translation), and the shipper's claim, time-barred after one year, was dismissed. A result unfavourable to that shipper.

Against the carrier, the period runs from the day the goods are handed over or tendered to the consignee or, in the event of total loss, from the day they should have been delivered (Article R. 5422-26). Actions brought against the shipper or the consignee run from the day set for delivery (Article R. 5422-22).

Claims for indemnity have an additional period of three months, which starts from the day the indemnified party is itself sued or the day it settled the claim amicably (Article L. 5422-18). The firm draws up a calendar of these time limits as soon as the file is opened.