[2025] EWHC 1706 (Comm)

While the evidence contained some uncertainties, e.g. with regard to the precise placement of the heat sensor, applying the usual civil standard of proof in my judgment the subjection of the asparagus to periods of high ambient temperature after it had been loaded at Lima, and during the descents to and periods on the ground at Quito and Miami when the cooling was turned off, would have increased it above the temperature at which it should have been kept in order to prevent deterioration.

As noted there remains the issue of the wrapping of the Cargo with malla raschel, which I will deal with below in the context of article 18(2) as mentioned above, but reject as being the cause of the damage.

I therefore conclude, subject to my detailed reasons on issue of the wrapping, that the conditions for the application of article 18(1) were met in that damage was sustained by the cargo of asparagus and the event (in fact multiple events, namely the manipulation of the refrigeration) which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air.

In that event, Wealmoor will succeed in its claim under article 18 unless one or more of the exceptions in article 18(2) applies and/or the mesh wrapping caused or contributed to the damage to the Cargo.