Aviation Anthology Vol 1 2026 - Digital Version - Flipbook - Page 10
Wealmoor Ltd v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [2025] EWHC 1706
(Comm): redefining liability under the Montreal Convention
1999 and its impact on cargo carriers, handlers and their insurers
Overview
During the summer of 2025, the High Court delivered
a noteworthy judgment on cargo liability under the
Montreal Convention 1999 in the case of Wealmoor
Ltd v KLM CIA Real Holandesa De Aviacion & Anor[1],
clarifying for the first time in England and Wales what
qualifies as an “event” causing damage to cargo during
carriage by air under the Montreal Convention 1999. The
judgment also provided guidance on the “inherent vice”
and “defective packing” defences available to carriers
under the Montreal Convention.
Background
The dispute concerned a claim for damage to a
consignment of 500 boxes of fresh green asparagus
which were carried by KLM from Lima to London in
January 2021. The consignment was carried on behalf
of Wealmoor, the consignee and a major importer and
supplier of fresh produce to supermarkets and retailers
in the UK.
The shipment was booked to be carried under
the airline’s “temperature controlled” or “Fresh 2”
service under which perishable goods are stored and
transported within a temperature range of +2°C to +8°C.
The “Fresh 2” service was described on KLM’s website as
follows:
“Temperature Controlled
Specialized Fresh +2+8: for temperature sensitive
perishables, such as flowers, fresh fish, vegetables and
fruits.
During warehouse and ramp handling, shipments can be
exposed to ambient temperatures.
O Temperatures of between +2°C to +8°C
O Warehouse storage, road and air transportation at
temperatures between +2°C to +8°C”
10
DAC Beachcroft
The consignment was carried by aircraft between Lima
and Amsterdam, routed via Quito and Miami, and
thereafter carried by refrigerated truck from Amsterdam
to London. It was agreed between the parties that
the consignment had been delivered to KLM’s agents
in Lima in good condition and was delivered to
Wealmoor’s agents in London in bad condition, the issue
being what caused the damage, particularly as there
were eight other shipments of asparagus on the same
flight in respect of which no claims were made.
Wealmoor subsequently brought a claim against KLM
for the damaged asparagus under Article 18(1) of the
Montreal Convention 1999 (the “Convention”). A carrier
is liable for damage to cargo under Article 18(1) “upon
condition only that the event which caused the damage
so sustained took place during the carriage by air”. KLM
disputed liability on the basis that there was no “event”
during the carriage by air for the purposes of Article
18(1).
KLM also argued that, even if it were liable under Article
18(1), it should be excused from liability as, within the
meaning of Article 18(2), the damage was caused by:
O An inherent defect, quality or vice of the cargo, on
the basis the asparagus’ naturally high respiration
rate and exposure to temperatures within the
prescribed threshold caused the damage.
O The defective packing of the cargo performed by
a person other than KLM, its servants or agents, on
the basis that the “malla raschel” or mesh wrapping,
applied to the asparagus prior to acceptance of the
cargo by KLM’s ground handling agents, caused or
exacerbated the damage.
KLM argued in the alternative that the asparagus was
carried in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the “Fresh 2” service on the basis that the asparagus
was only exposed to ambient temperatures “during
warehouse and ramp handling”.
Aviation Anthology 2026 - Volume I
