Limitation periods in transport law

In transport law, the limitation periods are short. With a few exceptions, a claim relating to a transport contract expires after one year. This short limitation period can be extended, interrupted or suspended. The consequences of letting a limitation period expire are disastrous. The creditor is then left empty-handed.

Extension

Extension of the limitation period is possible if this is agreed between the parties involved, namely the cargo interest holder and the carrier. It is important that this agreement between the contracting parties is properly recorded in writing.

Interruption

The Civil Code offers the possibility to interrupt a right of action, so that limitation is prevented. Interruption is a unilateral legal act. The cargo interest holder sends a letter of interruption to the carrier, in which he clearly states that he holds the carrier liable for the consequences of the damage in question. By initiating legal proceedings, the limitation period is of course also interrupted.

As soon as the interruption letter reaches the addressee, the limitation period ends and a new limitation period of one year begins. It is advisable to literally state in the letter that the limitation period is interrupted. The burden of proof that the letter has reached the addressee lies with the sender. It is advisable to also send the letter by e-mail with confirmation of receipt. In order to avoid all risks, the bailiff can issue an interruption writ.

Suspension

The CMR applies to international road transport. The CMR provides the possibility to suspend the limitation period of a claim. The limitation period of one year ends on the day on which the cargo interested party submits his claim in writing. The Rotterdam District Court ruled in 2008 that an email could also suffice”.

The suspension ends when the carrier rejects the claim in writing. From that moment on, the limitation period continues to run.

Practical example

A Dutch company that commissioned a Dutch carrier to transport 140,000 day-old chicks from Denmark to Russia, to which the CMR Convention applied, failed to recognise the difference between interruption and suspension. The consequences of this were far-reaching, not only for the chicks.

The party concerned suffered considerable damage because his chicks had not survived the journey due to a defective emergency generator in the carrier’s trailer. The notice of liability sent by the client suspended the limitation period. The carrier then rejected the claim for damages, after which the limitation period continued to run. In this case, there was a combination of interruption based on Dutch legislation and suspension based on the CMR Convention. The legal question was whether a once suspended limitation period (which continued to run after the claim was rejected) can subsequently be interrupted.

The Supreme Court ruled in the highest instance that the suspension provision in the CMR cannot be set aside by an appeal to interruption**. The claim had expired, since 362 had elapsed between the filing of the claim for damages and the period after the claim was rejected. The client / cargo interest holder drew the short straw.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize that short limitation periods apply in transport law, so that prompt action must be taken in filing a claim and initiating legal proceedings if an amicable settlement proves impossible.

For more information on the subject of this column, please contact Mr. Otto Lenselink via info@transportrechtadvocaat.nl.

June 2014

* Rotterdam District Court, 16 June 2008.
** Supreme Court 20 December 2013, Brinky Bouw en Ontwikkeling B.V./Hazeleger Transporten B.V.)

All blogs