Judgement of the Central Intellectual Property
and International Trade Court

The second defendant was not involved in any part of carriage of goods by sea. Actually the second defendant has objective of conducting its business in port management and was granted a permission from the Committee for the Maritime Promotion to engage that business subject to the provision of the Maritime Promotion Act B.E.2521 Section 25 and has registered for that business and got the permission form the Minister of Transport and Communication, moreover, the second defendant was not the one who issue to the shipper evidence of the contract of carriage of goods by sea. Therefore it can not be concluded that the second defendant is the carrier or the actual carrier subject to section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act B.E.2534 (1991).

The allegation of the plaint on which the claim was based demanded the second defendant to take its responsibility on its conduct of the carrier or the actual carrier. Though the plaintiff raised the issue of the second defendant’s negligence, it can be said that because the plaintiff intend to have the second defendant be liable for its loss . Nevertheless, subject to the provision of section 39 section 43 section 44 and section 45 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act B.E.2534 (1991), only the carrier and the actual carrier shall be liable for damages resulting from loss of or damage to the goods which have been handed over to them, when it was concluded that the second defendant was not the carrier or the actual carrier, the second defendant has no liability for the plaintiff.