When damage occurs, merely proving that the goods arrived damaged or short is not sufficient to obtain compensation automatically. It is necessary to determine who the liable carrier is, when the goods entered the carrier’s custody, when the damage or loss occurred, whether notice was given within the statutory period, and then which legal regime governs the contract of carriage.
In Egypt, the relationship may be governed by Maritime Trade Law No. 8 of 1990, or by the Hamburg Rules of 1978 where the conditions for application of the Convention to international carriage are satisfied. This distinction is important because certain rules—particularly those concerning notice, fire, and limits of liability—differ between the two regimes.
First: Who Is the Carrier Responsible for the Goods?
It is incorrect to assume that the maritime carrier must always be the shipowner. The carrier may be an owner, charterer, or shipping company that entered into the contract of carriage in its own name, and there may also be an actual carrier entrusted with performing all or part of the voyage.
Accordingly, any compensation claim should begin with an examination of the Bill of Lading and the contract of carriage to determine:
- The name of the carrier that entered into the contract of carriage.
- The capacity of the person who issued or signed the bill of lading.
- Whether an actual carrier exists.
- The port of loading and port of discharge.
- The law or convention governing the carriage.
A claim against the shipping agent or shipowner merely because its name appears in certain port procedures may therefore be directed against the wrong party if it is not the carrier or if there is no independent basis for its liability.
Second: When Does the Carrier’s Responsibility for the Goods Begin?
If the Egyptian Maritime Trade Law applies, Article 227 provides that the carrier is liable for loss of or damage to the goods where the damage occurs during the period between receipt of the goods at the port of loading and, at the port of discharge, delivery to the person entitled to receive them or their deposit in accordance with the legally prescribed rules.
The Hamburg Rules, by contrast, extend the carrier’s responsibility over the period during which the goods are in its charge at the port of loading, during the sea voyage, and at the port of discharge until delivery is completed in accordance with the Convention.
Accordingly, the mere arrival of the vessel at the port or discharge of the goods from the vessel does not necessarily mean that the carrier’s responsibility has ended. The decisive factor is legal and actual delivery under the regime governing the contract of carriage and the circumstances of each case.
Third: The Carrier’s Obligation to Deliver the Goods Complete and in Good Condition
The Court of Cassation has established that the maritime carrier’s obligation is to deliver the goods to the person entitled to receive them in the same quantity and condition in which they were received, and that its responsibility does not end merely upon the vessel’s arrival or completion of discharge where delivery has not occurred in the manner prescribed by law.
Accordingly, if the cargo interest proves that the carrier received a specified number of packages or a particular quantity and delivered less, or that the goods arrived in a condition different from their condition at shipment, the issue of the carrier’s liability arises, and the carrier must then rely on a legal ground that excludes or limits such liability.
Fourth: What Must the Cargo Interest Prove?
In practice, the claim file should be built on a coherent chain of evidence, the most important elements of which are:
- The existence of the contract of carriage and the claimant’s legal standing.
- The quantity, description, and condition of the goods when delivered to the carrier.
- The occurrence of shortage, loss, or damage.
- That the damage occurred while the goods were in the carrier’s custody.
- The actual value of the damage.
- Compliance with the time limits for notice, claims, and litigation.
The bill of lading, survey reports, discharge and delivery records, photographs, invoices, packing lists, and correspondence with the carrier and insurer are among the most important forms of evidence.
Fifth: Carrier Liability Under Egyptian Law
Under Article 229 of the Maritime Trade Law, the carrier may be relieved from liability for loss or damage if it proves that the damage resulted from a foreign cause beyond its control and beyond the control of its representative or employees.
Accordingly, liability is the general rule during the period in which the goods are in the carrier’s custody, and the burden falls on the carrier to establish the cause that legally excludes its liability.
Depending on the circumstances, such a foreign cause may consist of force majeure, an act of a third party, or fault of the cargo interest, provided that this cause was in fact responsible for the damage and that no fault of the carrier or its employees contributed to it.
Sixth: Carrier Liability Under the Hamburg Rules
Article 5 of the Hamburg Rules establishes the carrier’s liability for loss resulting from loss of or damage to the goods, as well as delay in delivery, where the occurrence causing the loss took place while the goods were in the carrier’s charge.
The carrier may avoid liability if it proves that it, its servants, and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the occurrence and its consequences.
Accordingly, the cargo interest is not ordinarily required from the outset to prove the precise technical manner in which the carrier was at fault. Rather, the occurrence of damage while the goods were in the carrier’s custody is the starting point, after which the carrier’s defenses and the grounds advanced to exclude liability are examined.
Seventh: What About Fire on Board the Vessel?
It should be noted that the Hamburg Rules establish a special rule for fire that differs from the general liability regime.
Where damage results from fire, the claimant bears the burden of proving that the fire arose from fault or negligence on the part of the carrier or one of its servants or agents, or that part of the damage resulted from their failure to take reasonable measures to extinguish the fire or avoid or mitigate its consequences.
Accordingly, not every fire incident should be treated under the same general presumption of liability without examining the special rule contained in the Convention.
Eighth: Inherent Vice and Defective Packing
Loss may result from the nature of the goods rather than from the carriage operation itself, such as natural deterioration of certain materials, spoilage caused by an inherent characteristic, or packaging by the shipper that is unsuitable for the nature of the voyage.
However, merely describing goods as “perishable” does not automatically exempt the carrier. The true technical cause of the damage and the extent of the carrier’s compliance with agreed storage and carriage conditions must be determined.
For example, if the goods require a specific temperature and the carrier undertook to maintain it but failed to do so, the carrier cannot rely solely on the perishable nature of the goods to avoid liability.
Ninth: Incorrect Information in the Bill of Lading
The Egyptian Maritime Trade Law contains a specific rule where the shipper intentionally states incorrect information in the bill of lading concerning the nature or value of the goods.
If the carrier proves the inaccuracy of such information and the statutory conditions are satisfied, this may affect its liability for loss of or damage to the goods.
The information relating to the goods in the bill of lading should therefore be accurate, particularly regarding their type, number of packages, weight, special or hazardous nature, and value if declared.
Tenth: Goods Carried on Deck
Egyptian law distinguishes between carriage below deck and carriage on deck.
If the bill of lading records that the goods are carried on deck and the carrier proves that the damage resulted from risks particular to that form of carriage, its liability may be excluded subject to the conditions of Article 231.
However, if there is an express agreement requiring carriage below deck and the carrier breaches it by placing the goods on deck, its position is fundamentally different, and under Egyptian law this may result in loss of its right to rely on liability limits where the conditions of Article 241 are satisfied.
The Hamburg Rules also regulate deck carriage and permit it in specified circumstances, such as agreement, trade custom, or legal requirement, with special provisions applying where an express agreement prohibiting deck carriage is breached.
Eleventh: Live Animals
Egyptian law and the Hamburg Rules establish a special regime for the carriage of live animals because of the risks inherent in their nature.
If the damage or death results from the natural risks specific to this type of carriage and the carrier complied with the shipper’s instructions, a presumption may arise in favor of the carrier.
However, this presumption does not protect the carrier where it is established that all or part of the damage resulted from fault on the part of the carrier, its servants, or agents under the applicable regime.
Twelfth: The Difference Between Apparent and Non-Apparent Damage
Determining whether damage is apparent or concealed is extremely important because it determines the applicable notice period.
The Court of Cassation confirmed in Appeal No. 18493 of Judicial Year 83 – session of 23 February 2021 – that the test for whether a defect is apparent is not subjective and does not vary according to the individual receiving the goods, but is assessed according to what a reasonably attentive and prudent person could discover through ordinary inspection.
Torn packaging, visible breakage, or a shortage that can be detected at delivery differs from an internal defect or chemical alteration that can only be discovered through inspection or use.
Thirteenth: Notice of Damage Under Egyptian Law
If the Egyptian Maritime Trade Law applies, Article 239 provides that:
- In the case of apparent loss or damage, the carrier must be notified in writing no later than the two working days following the day of delivery.
- If the loss or damage is not apparent, notice may be given within the fifteen days following delivery.
The notice must be in writing, and in practice it is preferable to use a method through which the date of sending and receipt can be proved.
Fourteenth: Notice Under the Hamburg Rules
The applicable periods differ slightly where the Hamburg Rules govern.
- For apparent loss or damage: written notice must be given no later than the working day following the day on which the goods were delivered.
- For non-apparent damage: notice must be given within fifteen consecutive days after the day of delivery.
- For a claim for compensation arising from delay: written notice must be given within sixty consecutive days after the day of delivery.
The Egyptian “two working days” period should therefore not be used in a case governed by the Hamburg Rules.
Fifteenth: What Happens If Notice Is Not Given Within the Prescribed Period?
This issue is frequently misunderstood.
Failure to give notice of loss or damage within the prescribed period does not, by itself, automatically extinguish the claim. Rather, a presumption arises in favor of the carrier that the goods were delivered in the condition stated in the transport document.
This presumption remains rebuttable.
In practice, however, the cargo interest’s position becomes more difficult because it must produce technical or documentary evidence showing that the damage had already occurred while the goods were in the carrier’s custody and not after delivery.
As for delay, the position is stricter: both Egyptian law and the Hamburg Rules link entitlement to compensation for delay to written notice being given within the prescribed sixty-day period.
Sixteenth: Joint Inspection May Dispense with Separate Notice
If the goods are jointly inspected at the time of delivery in the presence of the carrier or its representative and the person entitled to receive them, and the condition of the goods is recorded in the inspection report, no separate notice is required in respect of the damage established during that inspection under the applicable rules.
Joint inspection is therefore one of the strongest practical measures when a shipment arrives showing signs of damage or shortage.
The inspection report should preferably include:
- The number of packages received and damaged.
- The condition of the packaging and seals.
- The type of visible damage.
- The weight where necessary.
- Photographs.
- Any reservations made by the carrier’s representative.
Seventeenth: Expert or Surveyor Report
Cargo interests and insurers commonly engage a Surveyor or independent inspection office to determine the cause and extent of damage.
The survey report is a highly important element of evidence, but it does not replace the other documents and does not make the carrier automatically liable merely because it has been issued.
Whenever possible, the report should identify the condition of the goods, the nature and percentage of the damage, the probable cause, the extent to which the remaining goods can still be used or sold, and their Salvage Value.
Eighteenth: Compensation Is Based on Actual Damage, Not Automatically on the Full Value of the Goods
If the goods are only partially damaged, this does not mean that the owner is entitled to recover their full value.
The general principle is that compensation makes good the actual loss. Accordingly, the remaining value of the goods or the amount that can be obtained from their sale or reuse should be deducted where such value genuinely exists.
The Court of Cassation addressed this issue in Appeal No. 18493 of Judicial Year 83 and criticized an award of the full value of the shipment without examining what ultimately happened to the goods and whether they retained value that could still be utilized.
Nineteenth: Important Judicial Application – Appeal No. 18493 of Judicial Year 83
This judgment was issued on 23 February 2021 in a dispute concerning a shipment carried from the Port of Calcutta in India to the Port of Alexandria that was subject to delay and damage.
Among the most important principles that may be derived from it are:
- Application of the Hamburg Rules where the conditions governing their application to international carriage are satisfied.
- Exclusion of the provisions of the Egyptian Maritime Trade Law in matters regulated by the Convention where the Convention applies.
- Invalidity of a clause exempting the carrier from liability for delay where it conflicts with the Hamburg Rules.
- The need to examine the description and condition of the goods stated in the bill of lading.
- The need to verify the date of delivery and the date on which the carrier was notified of the damage.
- The requirement to examine the residual value of the goods when assessing compensation.
The judgment is important because it links the legal rule with the practical evidentiary elements in cargo damage claims.
Twentieth: Constructive Loss Where the Goods Do Not Arrive
Goods may fail to reach the person entitled to receive them without there being direct evidence that they sank or were destroyed.
The law addresses this situation so that the cargo interest does not remain indefinitely uncertain.
Under Article 228 of the Egyptian Maritime Trade Law, the goods are deemed lost if they are not delivered within the sixty days following expiry of the delivery period.
The Hamburg Rules likewise permit the person entitled to the goods to treat them as lost if they are not delivered within 60 consecutive days after expiry of the period prescribed for delivery under the Convention.
Once this period has elapsed, the cargo interest may base the claim on loss rather than mere delay.
Twenty-First: Limits of Compensation Under Egyptian Law
If the Egyptian Maritime Trade Law applies, Article 233 limits the carrier’s liability for loss or damage to:
- EGP 2,000 for each package or shipping unit; or
- EGP 6 for each kilogram of the gross weight of the goods lost or damaged;
whichever produces the higher amount.
This is merely a ceiling on liability. If the actual loss is lower, compensation is awarded only in the amount of the actual damage.
These statutory limits remain in force, as the amendment to the Maritime Trade Law by Law No. 3 of 2025 did not address the provisions governing the liability of carriers of goods.
Twenty-Second: Limits of Compensation Under the Hamburg Rules
If the Hamburg Rules apply, the liability limits for loss or damage are:
- 835 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for each package or shipping unit; or
- 2.5 SDR for each kilogram of the gross weight of the goods lost or damaged;
whichever is higher.
These limits should not be converted in contracts or articles into a fixed amount in Egyptian pounds because the value of Special Drawing Rights fluctuates and conversion is made in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Convention.
Twenty-Third: Containers and the Number of Packages
Where several packages are placed in a container, the manner in which they are described in the bill of lading may significantly alter the liability ceiling.
If, for example, the bill of lading states that the container contains 200 boxes, each box may be treated as a separate unit when calculating the limitation under the applicable legal rules.
If the number of packages inside the container is not stated in a manner that can legally be relied upon, the container may be treated as a single shipping unit.
The shipper should therefore review the section of the bill of lading stating the number of packages and units before sailing, not after damage occurs.
Twenty-Fourth: Declaration of the Value of the Goods
Under Article 234, the Egyptian Maritime Trade Law allows the shipper, before shipment, to provide a declaration concerning the nature and value of the goods and any special importance attached to their preservation, and to have that information inserted in the bill of lading.
Where these conditions are satisfied, the carrier may not rely against the shipper on the ordinary limits prescribed by Article 233, while retaining the right to prove that the declared value is inaccurate.
Under the Hamburg Rules, by contrast, the express provision permits the carrier and shipper to agree on higher limits of liability than those provided by the Convention.
Accordingly, it should not be assumed that merely stating the value of the goods unilaterally in any document automatically produces the same legal effect under every regime.
Twenty-Fifth: When Does the Carrier Lose the Right to Limit Liability?
The carrier cannot rely on the compensation ceiling in every case.
Under Article 241 of the Egyptian Maritime Trade Law, the carrier loses the right to limitation where it is established that the damage resulted from an act or omission by the carrier, its representative, or one of its employees:
- With intent to cause the damage; or
- Recklessly and with knowledge that damage could probably result.
This standard is stricter than mere fault or ordinary negligence.
It is not sufficient for the claimant simply to describe the conduct as “gross negligence.” The facts establishing intent or recklessness accompanied by knowledge of the probability of damage must be proved.
Twenty-Sixth: Is the Hamburg Rule Identical to Egyptian Article 241?
Not entirely.
Article 8 of the Hamburg Rules provides that the carrier loses the right to limit liability where the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier itself committed with intent to cause the damage or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.
Where proceedings are brought directly against a servant or agent of the carrier, that person loses the right to rely on the limits where the same conditions are satisfied in relation to that person’s conduct.
By contrast, the Egyptian legislature drafted Article 241 more broadly by expressly referring to the act of the carrier, its representative, or one of its employees.
This distinction may be decisive in cases where the cause of the damage is attributable to a member of the carrier’s crew or another person acting on its behalf.
Twenty-Seventh: Invalidity of Clauses Exempting the Carrier from Liability
The carrier cannot insert a clause in the bill of lading by which it avoids the mandatory liability regime.
Egyptian law invalidates an agreement made before the occurrence of damage where its purpose is to exempt the carrier from liability, reduce the statutory limits, or alter the burden of proof in its favor, subject to the exceptional cases specifically regulated by law.
Article 23 of the Hamburg Rules likewise invalidates any clause that directly or indirectly derogates from the rights and obligations established by the Convention.
Conversely, the parties may agree to increase the carrier’s liability or grant the cargo interest better protection than the statutory minimum.
Twenty-Eighth: Time Limit for Bringing a Compensation Claim
In addition to the short notice periods, attention must also be given to the period for bringing proceedings.
Egyptian law provides a two-year period for claims arising from contracts for the carriage of goods by sea, calculated in accordance with the specific provisions of the Law.
The Hamburg Rules likewise establish a two-year period for bringing judicial or arbitral proceedings.
However, the rules governing commencement, interruption, or extension of the period are not completely identical under the two regimes, and a party should therefore not merely send a commercial claim and assume that this preserves the right indefinitely.
Twenty-Ninth: What Should the Cargo Interest Do Immediately Upon Discovering Damage?
- Do not sign an unqualified receipt if the damage is apparent.
- Record the shortage or damage in the delivery document where possible.
- Request a joint inspection immediately.
- Photograph the goods, container, seals, and packaging before their condition is altered.
- Notify the carrier or its representative in writing without delay.
- Notify the insurer if the shipment is insured.
- Engage an independent surveyor in significant loss cases.
- Do not dispose of damaged goods before documenting their condition and determining their residual value.
- Retain the bill of lading, invoice, packing list, certificate of origin, and discharge and delivery records.
- Determine the applicable legal regime before calculating the amount of the claim.
Thirtieth: Key Precautions for the Maritime Carrier
- Inspect the apparent condition of the goods and packaging at receipt and enter proper reservations in the bill of lading where appropriate.
- Maintain clear records of loading, handling, discharge, and delivery operations.
- Document the causes of any delay or incident immediately upon occurrence.
- Observe agreed requirements for the preservation of special cargo, including temperature, ventilation, and humidity where applicable.
- Respond seriously to requests for inspection and do not obstruct documentation of the condition of the goods.
- Do not rely on general exemption clauses that are rendered invalid by law or convention.
- Maintain appropriate insurance coverage for carrier liability.
Conclusion
The success of a compensation claim for damage to or loss of goods during maritime transport does not depend on the occurrence of damage alone, but on proving when it occurred, in whose custody it occurred, the condition of the goods at shipment and delivery, and whether the applicable notice, inspection, and statutory time requirements were observed.
The Egyptian Maritime Trade Law must also not be confused with the Hamburg Rules. Each regime has its own rules concerning the period of responsibility, notice, defenses to liability, and limits of compensation. The Hamburg Rules apply to international carriage where their conditions of application are satisfied, excluding domestic law in matters regulated by the Convention.
For this reason, prompt action after discovering damage or shortage is essential to protecting the claim: early inspection, proper notice, complete documentation, and precise identification of the carrier and the applicable legal regime.
The Office of Dr. Mostafa El Rouby – Attorneys and Legal Consultants provides legal support in maritime transport disputes and claims involving loss of or damage to goods by reviewing bills of lading and survey documents and determining the basis of liability and applicable legal regime before commencing claims or litigation.