Dear Editor,
I would like to refer to your articles in the two most recent issues of FTW, in particular the most recent whereby the insurance fraternity seeks to justify and condone Spoornet's effective UDI in relation to contractual terms and conditions of inland transport.
As you quite rightly pointed out in the first article, this matter has not been agreed or discussed in depth with any of the principal shipping lines who must represent a minimum of 50% of traffic carried and who are obliged to issue through bills of lading to the reef and other areas which have categoric limits of liability which are internationally accepted and insured through the respective protection and indemnity clubs.
How Spoornet can quite unilaterally seek to hide behind an independent insurance group who in turn seek to condone these actions is tantamount to ignoring every shipping operator serving this area.
The matter, as we understand it, is being dealt with by the legal advisers to ASL (Association of Shipping Lines), but in the interim it would be unacceptable to any carrier to find that the through bills of lading issued in good faith are in turn offering totally different cover once the cargoes are landed from the vessels and transported inland. Any arrangements that shippers wish to make are entirely between the cargo interests and the railways, or their own underwriters, but how both Spoornet and Price Forbes can glibly ignore the international shipping fraternity is totally incomprehensible and unprofessional.
Peter Nash, m.d. Ahrenkiel Liner Service, (HK).
