The Civil Court, First Hall, recently delivered a significant judgment (20 May 2025, Elmo Insurance Ltd v Jet Freight Ltd & Clayton Abela Logistics Ltd, Rikors Ġuramentat 1147/2021) addressing liability for the loss of cargo during international road transport under the CMR Convention.
Background to the Case
In November 2020, Top Choice, a Maltese retailer, ordered 475 domestic appliances from Romania, valued at €25,382.40. The goods were packed into six pallets and entrusted to Jet Freight Ltd for carriage to Malta. Jet Freight subcontracted the transport through a series of international carriers, with the goods travelling by road to Bologna, Italy, before being shipped to Malta and finally delivered to Top Choice’s warehouse by Clayton Abela Logistics Ltd.
When the pallets were unpacked upon delivery in Malta, it was immediately apparent that something was amiss. Beneath the black shrink-wrap packaging, the pallets contained only a handful of appliances placed on top of stacked empty pallets. In total, 422 appliances were missing, amounting to a loss of €21,276.30.
Elmo Insurance, which had insured Top Choice under a marine cargo policy, indemnified the insured for the loss and subsequently initiated proceedings against Jet Freight and Clayton Abela Logistics, claiming reimbursement of the indemnity and survey costs.
The Arguments
Elmo Insurance argued that Jet Freight, as the contractual carrier, was liable under the CMR Convention and Maltese law for the loss, regardless of whether subcontractors had actually committed the theft.
Jet Freight, on the other hand, denied responsibility, contending that the goods may have been stolen while in the hands of other subcontractors – notably during the road leg from Romania to Bologna, when the cargo changed trucks and lost its original seal. Jet Freight further argued that it should be exonerated under Article 17 CMR, which relieves a carrier of liability in cases of unavoidable circumstances, or at the very least that its liability should be limited under Article 23 CMR.
Clayton Abela Logistics, the local distributor who carried the goods from Jet Freight’s warehouse in Malta to Top Choice, did not file a defence and was held in default.
The Court’s Findings
The Court carefully considered extensive evidence, including joint survey reports and testimony from multiple parties. It was established that the goods had left Romania intact and sealed, but arrived in Bologna in a different truck without a seal, strongly suggesting that the theft had occurred during this stage of the transport.
Although Jet Freight had subcontracted various carriers, the Court emphasised that under Article 3 of the CMR Convention, a contractual carrier is responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents and subcontractors “as if such acts or omissions were its own.”
Furthermore, Article 17 CMR places liability squarely on the carrier for any loss of goods occurring between the time of taking over and delivery, unless it can prove that the loss was due to circumstances it could not avoid and the consequences of which it could not prevent. Jet Freight had not demonstrated any such exceptional circumstances, nor evidence of extraordinary diligence to safeguard the goods.
Judgement
The Court concluded that the theft occurred during the international road leg between Romania and Bologna, while the goods were under the responsibility of Jet Freight and its subcontractors. As the contractual carrier, Jet Freight remained fully liable for the loss, irrespective of the subcontracting chain.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Jet Freight to reimburse Elmo Insurance a total of €21,771.30 (comprising the €21,276.30 value of the missing goods and €495.60 in survey costs), together with interest and legal costs. Clayton Abela Logistics, although in default, was not held liable since the loss had occurred before its involvement.
Significance of the Ruling
This judgment reaffirms the protective purpose of the CMR Convention: to ensure that the cargo owner (or its insurer) does not face the impossible task of identifying which subcontractor in a complex logistics chain was at fault. Instead, responsibility rests with the contractual carrier, who may then pursue recourse against its subcontractors.
For freight forwarders and carriers, the ruling underscores the importance of robust subcontracting arrangements and vigilance in the handling of goods. For cargo owners and insurers, it provides reassurance that contractual carriers will be held accountable for losses, even when theft or tampering occurs deep within the subcontracting chain.
Vassallo Associates’ maritime law team is well-positioned to provide strategic legal support. Contact us today to discuss your requirements.