Lecturer in International Trade Law

Director of Internationalisation

Assessorin, Doktor der Rechte (Dr Jur)
View my full research profile

Courses Taught

International Commercial Arbitration (LLM) (Course Organiser)

The Law of International Trade (LLM) (Course Organiser)

International Trade Law (Honours) (Course Organiser)

PhD Supervisees

Qingxiang Wu  'The analysis of establishing a comprehensive and uniform legal system regarding the enforcement of the arbitral awards in antitrust disputes.'

Books and Reports

Simone Lamont-Black, Paul Bugden, Goods in Transit, (Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

Simone Lamont-Black, Paul Bugden, Goods in Transit, (Sweet & Maxwell, 2010)
Abstract: Covers in a systematic and comprehensive fashion the common law relevant to carriers and freight intermediaries along with the various convention carriage regimes with particular emphasis on the multimodal and agency aspects of transactions.

Simone Lamont-Black, Understanding International Trade Law, (LawMatters Publishing, 2006)
Abstract: This introductory textbook examines the concepts of the law relating to international sale of goods which, pursuant to the sale contract, are transported by sea, land and/or air. It focuses on sea transportation, explaining the relevant international trade terms and typical payment methods, essential issues of relevant carriage contracts and cargo insurance and related international private law aspects.

Simone Lamont-Black, as formerly Simone Schnitzer, Die schadensrechtliche Ersatzfähigkeit außergerichtlicher Rechtsverfolgungsschritte, (Deutscher Anwalt Verlag, 2000)
Abstract: Die Dissertation untersucht die Ersatzfähigkeit der einzelnen Schadensposten eines Geschädigten unter dem Blickwinkel des Verkehrsunfalls. Die Arbeit zeigt auf, dass sowohl im System der Schadensregulierungsposten als auch im Gesamtzusammenhang der Schadensrechtsprechung, die Mühewaltung des Geschädigten als Arbeitseinsatz - entgegen der ständigen Rechtsprechung - im Wege des materiell-rechtlichen Schadensersatzanspruches zu entschädigen ist.

Articles

Simone Lamont-Black, 'The concept of the successive CMR carrier on trial ', (2017), European Journal of Commercial Contract Law, Vol 9
Abstract: The regime for successive carriers in the CMR has attracted attention over the years with recent decision by the UK and Dutch Supreme Courts both courts reached opposing views as to the criteria for a transport being performed by successive carriers. In basic terms where several carriers carry under the same contract they are each liable for the performance of the whole carriage and might be directly exposed to claims by cargo interests and are subject to a special recourse mechanism between carriers with special rules of jurisdiction and additional times frames for limitation purposes. The topic’s importance may be due to the manner in which road haulage business is conducted with its ever increasing chain of sub-contracts in the performance of the goods’ carriage, particularly when seen in conjunction with the consequences of the strict rules on time bars or jurisdiction under the CMR in general. Is this system, as it applies now, still appropriate or outdated? Has it been eroded or broadened beyond recognition by case-law? The paper’s originality lies in the detailed examination of the successive carrier concept, showcasing the mischief created by its diverse interpretation of in different jurisdictions and the resulting scope for abuse. A stance is taken, advocating a narrow interpretation in the absence of amendment of the CMR allowing for the abolition of the concept. Action in this regard is necessary and significant to redress the balance, which currently is inappropriately weighted to the detriment of the performing carrier.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'The UK Supreme Court on jurisdiction over successive CMR carriers and European Union Rules ', (2017), Uniform Law Review, Vol (2017) 21, pp 487-509
Abstract: In the recent case of British American Tobacco Switzerland SA and others v Exel Europe Ltd and others the English courts had to decide on the application and interpretation of the jurisdiction rules of the CMR on successive carriers, as well as reassess the interaction between the jurisdictional rules of international transport conventions and EU law. The CMR question was whether successive carriers could be joined to the action against the primary carrier by virtue of the defendant’s primary carrier’s domicile within the jurisdiction even though the successive carriers themselves had no connection to England. Alternatively the questions was whether a jurisdiction agreement between the cargo claimant and the primary carriers could be extended to the successive carriers, or further whether the primary carrier’s place of business could constitute the branch or agency through which the successive carriers contracts were made. The final submission of the claimants suggested that the jurisdictional rules of the CMR had to be supplemented by those of the Brussels I Regulation in order to allow for suit of all defendants at the domicile of one of them, here the primary carrier within the English jurisdiction. The judge at first instance rejected these bases of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal however agreed, whereas the Supreme Court declined jurisdiction on all grounds and reinstating the Order of the judge at first instance. The reasoning in these decisions is of interest both in the context of the CMR and as well in respect of the interaction of jurisdictional rules between the CMR and the Brussels I /Brussels I bis Regulation, which also draws on the case-law of the CJEU.With respect to the latter, the Court of Justice of the European Union has handed down several preliminary rulings relating to transport law and the interaction of carriage conventions with the Brussels I Jurisdiction Regime. While the general rule is clear, that the Brussels I Jurisdiction Regime is to step back to allow application of the specialised rules of specialised conventions, the exact application of this principle has been fraught with difficulty and so far was explored by the CJEU in The Tatry , TNT Express Nederland BV v AXA Versicherung AG, Nipponkoa Insurance v Inter-Zuid Transport and Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v “Kintra” UAB. In BAT v Exel, the UK Supreme Court added its view on the matter. After discussing the UK Supreme Court’s decision in BAT v Exel in light of the relevant CJEU case-law, this paper further investigates the question of interaction of the jurisdiction regimes of specialised transport conventions and Brussels I. It concludes that the import of Brussels I rules should be limited to a “second or negative stage” review only, without interfering with “direct, positive” allocation of jurisdiction by specialised conventions.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Klagehäufung und internationale Zuständigkeit im Falle aufeinanderfolgender Frachtführer - the British way in BAT v Exel ', (2016), Transportrecht, Vol 39, pp 333-340
Abstract: Die Englischen englischen Gerichte hatten sich mit der Frage des CMR Forumshopping zu befassen. Es ging darum, ob und auf welcher Grundlage aufeinanderfolgende CMR Straßenfrachtführer gegebenenfalls gleichzeitig von Ladeinteressenten in ein und demselben Verfahren verklagt werden konnten. Konnte das vom Ladungskläger erwünschte Ergebnis erreicht werden, neben dem Hauptfrachtführer auch aufeinanderfolgende Straßenfrachtführer am Wohnsitz des Ersteren zu erfassen, selbst wenn sonst kein Bezug zu diesem Land bestand? Konnten die Zuständigkeitsregeln von Artikeln 31.1 und 39.2 CMR diesbezüglich erweitert ausgelegt werden, mit oder auch ohne Zuhilfenahme der EUGVVOEuGVVO ? Die Entscheidung des Englischen englischen Court of Appeal von Oktober 2013 hatte dies bejaht. Das Verfahren wurde aber bis vor den Supreme Court des Vereinigten Königreiches gebracht, der die Berufungsentscheidung aufhob und im Ergebnis dem erstinstanzlichen Gericht zustimmte, das dies verneint hatte. Das Verfahren warf interessante Fragen zu den Zuständigkeitsnormen der CMR und auch zum Verhältnis zwischen CMR und EUGVVOEuGVVO auf.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Caldwell v EasyJet Airline Co Ltd - case comment ', (2016), Scots Law Times, pp 37-42
Abstract: Discussion of Scottish case on passenger rights and their enforcement against airline where separate but connecting flights had been purchased and flights were missed due to long delays at baggage drop and security.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Recourse Claims between Carriers – another obstacle to intermodality? ', (2016), Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol (2015) 21, pp 473-492
Abstract: The applicable legal regime for recourse and contribution claims between carriers is far from straightforward. It entails a mix of contract terms, domestic law and mandatory carriage convention provisions, accordingly resulting in a complex mixture of provisions and, in particular, of limitation rules. An example of their interaction is given by the English Court of Appeal in South West SHA v Bay Island Voyages where the court had to decide on limitation of a contribution claim for an incident falling under the Athens Convention for the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. The case illustrates the critical interaction between convention rules and domestic law, which may differ in each case, depending on the applicable convention regime. The result is a complicated web of provisions and hierarchies offering a multitude of pitfalls for freight forwarders and carriers alike. This effect is showcased more broadly under English law where the domestic contribution act and the convention regimes as implemented into UK law provide for an uneasy relationship.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Third party rights and transport documents under the DCFR – potential for an appropriate and effective EU unification and an improvement for the UK? ', (2015), Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol 21, pp 280-299
Abstract: In English law has seen many inroads into the principle of privity of contract. In carriage of goods instruments developed separately and were left mostly untouched by the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Scottish Law Commission discussion paper on Third Party Rights in Contract on the modernisation of the principle of jus quaesitum tertio, also suggests to keep carriage of goods apart from general reform, while drawing on both on the English 1999 Act and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). This article explores whether shipping law indeed needs to be treated differently and how apt the DCFR principles are.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'The Impact of the DCFR on Third Party Rights under Shipping Documents: A UK Perspective on the Potential for Harmonisation', (2015), European Journal of Commercial Contract Law, Vol 7, pp 21-31

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Uniform interpretation of EU jurisdiction rules in jeopardy? Interaction of specialised conventions with the Brussels I Regime and the mutation of TNT v AXA ', (2014), JFT, Tidskrift utgiven av Juridiska Föreningen i Finland, pp 442 - 458
Abstract: In the recent case of BAT v Exel the English courts had to reassess the interaction between international transport conventions and EU law in deciding on their jurisdiction. The question was whether and how the jurisdictional rules of the road carriage convention, the CMR, could be supplemented by those of the Brussels I Regulation. The importation of the EU jurisdictional rules, it was argued by the claimant, was the consequence of the European Court of Justice’s ruling in TNT v AXA. This reasoning highlights the dangerous lacuna left by the ruling, potentially leading to many different mutations of TNT in the Member States. An introduction of uncertainty as to which courts have international jurisdiction is however unlikely to have been the aim of the Court of Justice of the European Union and should be avoided by using the tools available. The article argues that the lack of guidance by the European Court, which the English Court of Appeal decision in BAT v Exel exemplifies, has since been somewhat alleviated by the Court’s ruling in Nipponkoa v Inter-Zuid and by the Recast Regulation. Member States courts are urged to submit preliminary rulings should they intend to supplement or override a specialised convention’s jurisdictional rules, to enable the development of an EU-wide uniform approach, rather than that of a multitude of versions in the Member States.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Transferee Liability under the Rotterdam Rules: A Dance between Flexibility and Foreseeability', (2013), Il Diritto Marittimo, Vol 2, pp 333-75

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Article 58 of the Rotterdam Rules: A Dance between Flexibility and Foreseeability', (2013), Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol 19, pp 387-418
Abstract: Transferee liability is regulated in chapter 11 of the Rotterdam Rules. Chapter 11 as a whole sets out the principle that the holder of a negotiable transport document or a negotiable electronic transport record obtains rights and liabilities under the contract of carriage. While transfer of rights seems to be less controversial, when and how can and should liabilities be transferred? This paper focuses on imposition of liability on the holder of the negotiable transport document/electronic record and how the requirements of chapter 11, Article 58 of the Rotterdam Rules may be understood and interpreted. It is argued that the Rules where possible should be interpreted autonomously, taking into account the international nature of this instrument and without drawing narrow inferences from prior national law concepts. The article looks at the clarifications achieved by the Rotterdam Rules as well as at the elements which still need further interpretation. It is argued that national courts ought to take the opportunity to reassess any value judgments and criteria developed under national law before imposing such understanding on the Rotterdam concepts, in order to remain true to the spirit of Rules. In this process the opposing interests of the parties need to be balanced taking account of the need for flexibility on one hand, but also for foreseeability and reasonableness on the other. The article attempts to highlight some of the considerations that may be of particular relevance in this interpretation, with the aim of enhancing uniformity in this area.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Article 58 of the Rotterdam Rules: A dance between flexibility and forseeability?', (2013), MarIus, pp 333-94
Abstract: Transferee liability is regulated in chapter 11 of the Rotterdam Rules. Chapter 11 as a whole sets out the principle that the holder of a negotiable transport document or a negotiable electronic transport record obtains rights and liabilities under the contract of carriage. While transfer of rights seems to be less controversial, when and how can and should liabilities be transferred? This paper focuses on imposition of liability on the holder of the negotiable transport document/electronic record and how the requirements of chapter 11, Article 58 of the Rotterdam Rules may be understood and interpreted. It is argued that the Rules where possible should be interpreted autonomously, taking into account the international nature of this instrument and without drawing narrow inferences from prior national law concepts. The article looks at the clarifications achieved by the Rotterdam Rules as well as at the elements which still need further interpretation. It is argued that national courts ought to take the opportunity to reassess any value judgments and criteria developed under national law before imposing such understanding on the Rotterdam concepts, in order to remain true to the spirit of Rules. In this process the opposing interests of the parties need to be balanced taking account of the need for flexibility on one hand, but also for foreseeability and reasonableness on the other. The article attempts to highlight some of the considerations that may be of particular relevance in this interpretation, with the aim of enhancing uniformity in this area.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Claiming Damages in Multimodal Transport: A Need for Harmonization', (2012), Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol 36, pp 707-24
Abstract: The law of carriage of goods has evolved historically and functionally through several separate systems, each for its own mode of transport. Since the development of multimodal transport and in particularly since the container boom, such separation and the resulting legal piece meal situation are no longer appropriate where goods are carried by a combination of modes. From a European perspective and drawing mostly on English case-law, this article highlights the complexities involved in a multimodal transaction and illustrates this through the example of making a claim, with the focus on procedural type steps of making a claim for damages, leaving the myriad of problems of liability and identity of the carrier aside. Whilst the Rotterdam Rules cover multimodal sea transport, they do not provide the straightforward solution necessary to simplify this landscape.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Transporting Goods in the EU: An Interplay of International, European and National Law', (2010), ERA-Forum, Vol 11, pp 93-110
Abstract: This article investigates the extent to which international transport conventions for the carriage of goods are reliant on European and national law. As will be seen, since the international convention must be recognised by the applicable law, which in turn is determined by the forum hearing the dispute, the question of whether a particular transport convention is to be applied depends on considerations beyond the mere scope of application of the convention. European and national law provide the legal background within which the convention rules apply and by which they are complemented.

Simone Lamont-Black, Emmanuel Guinchard, 'Environmental Law - the Black Sheep in Rome II's Drive for Legal Certainty: Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations in Context', (2009), Environmental Liability, Vol 11, pp 161-72
Abstract: Early in 2009, the Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations came into force in the European Community. As the very first European Regulation on choice of law, it finally enables environmental lawyers to refer to a single primary source throughout the EC when dealing with conflict of laws issues (that is, cases having a foreign element, such as those involving transboundary pollution), rather than asserting the law applicable according to the private international laws of numerous Member States. This article focuses on the rules relating to environmental damage and, in particular, on Article 7 which appears to be the ‘black sheep’ of Rome II. In contrast to Rome II as a whole, Article 7 has no real background in European tradition; it is expressly grounded in Community law, and, last but not least, it deliberately creates uncertainty. Despite its character as inverse mirror of the system of Rome II, Article 7 is a welcome solution in the interest of protection of the environment and it reinforces Community policies in the absence of further harmonisation in this field since, for the purpose of deterrence, the burden of uncertainty falls on the alleged polluter.

Chapters

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Recourse claims between carriers – another obstacle to intermodality? ' in Rhidian Thomas, Simone Lamont-Black (ed.) Current Issues in Freight Forwarding: Law and Logistics (Lawtext Publishing Ltd 2016)
Abstract: The applicable legal regime for recourse and contribution claims between carriers is far from straightforward. It entails a mix of contract terms, domestic law and mandatory carriage convention provisions, accordingly resulting in a complex mixture of provisions and, in particular, of limitation rules. An example of their interaction is given by the English Court of Appeal in South West SHA v Bay Island Voyages where the court had to decide on limitation of a contribution claim for an incident falling under the Athens Convention for the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. The case illustrates the critical interaction between convention rules and domestic law, which may differ in each case, depending on the applicable convention regime. The result is a complicated web of provisions and hierarchies offering a multitude of pitfalls for freight forwarders and carriers alike. This effect is showcased more broadly under English law where the domestic contribution act and the convention regimes as implemented in the different jurisdictions within the UK provide for an uneasy relationship. After detailed analysis of the current framework, which is argued to be inadequate, reform suggestions to implementing legislation of these international instruments are made, in order to limit the uncertainty created by their interaction with the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act, which purports to supersede any other rules providing for contribution.

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Could the DCFR Change Shipping Law? The Potential Impact of the DCFR on Third Party Rights under Shipping Documents - A UK Perspective' in Wouter Verheyen, Frank Smeele, Marian Hoeks (ed.) Common Core, PECL and DCFR (Intersentia 2015)

Simone Lamont-Black, 'Chapter 21 ‘Carriage of Goods by Land’; Chapter 22 'Maritime Law: Carriage by Sea with General Average and Salvage' and Chapter 23 'Carriage by Air' ' in Hector MacQueen, Lord Eassie (ed.) Gloag and Henderson (W Green 2012) 503-563
Abstract: Update of the relevant carriage chapter of Gloag & Henderson.