Section III(6a) For the Regulations The Hague therefore qualifies the shortened statute of limitations and states that the "A claim for indemnification against a third party" The limitation period prescribed in the Forum's law will apply - and in our case, seven years (see Section 5(1) Law The Statute of Limitations). This Court noted the purpose of this section in the matter of Bellina:
"This section - which provides for an exception to the short limitation period of one year, set out in section III(6) - is intended to apply in situations where, in addition to the freight carrier with whom the consignee of the goods entered into the contract of carriage, there is a third party, such as a sub-carrier, who is liable to indemnify the cargo carrier for the compensation that the latter is required to pay to the consignor of the goods for his damages. In such a situation, the concern is that the consignee of the goods will file its claim against the carrier close to the end of the limitation year set out in section III6, so that the carrier will not have sufficient time to file its claim against the third party. Section III6A prevents the realization of this concern" (ibid., at p. 797 and the references therein; see also: Havkin, at p. 531; Tetley, at p. 1649).
- Thus, section III(6a) deals with an indemnity claim filed by the maritime carrier against a third party. As explained in case law and legal literature, regarding the nature of that third party, it is usually a person who also served as a maritime carrier of the same cargo, as a subcontractor of the main maritime carrier - by virtue of a separate bill of lading. As parties to the same "secondary" bill of lading, the claim of the main carrier against the sub-carrier applies to the shortened limitation period in section III(6). For this reason, the exception in section III(6a) is required to extend the limitation period - so that the main carrier can demand indemnification from the sub-carrier, who is a third party in respect of the "main" bill of lading, in circumstances in which it is claimed shortly before the end of the limitation period (Scrutton, at pp. 430-431; Real and Wester, at pp. 206-208).
In our case, this is not the case. As noted by the District Court, this is not an indemnity claim filed by the maritime carrier against a third party, as described above; except in a claim by a foreign party for the bill of lading, Gold Bond, against the sea carrier, and in these circumstances, the exception set out in section III(6a) of the Hague Regulations does not apply.
Conclusion: The application for leave to appeal is denied. Maersk will bear the expenses of the Gold Bond in the sum of ILS 10,000.
Rendered today, 7 Iyar 55th Judgment - General (05 May 2025).