An international food distributor and importer’s legal battle over 2,237 cases of frozen chicken feet has ended in defeat after the Supreme Court struck out its claim against a local shipping agent.
Worldwide Foods Limited had sued MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company Jamaica Limited, seeking damages exceeding J$9 million and US$33,000 after the frozen cargo was condemned as unfit for human consumption.
The company had also sued MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., the Swiss-based carrier that issued the bill of lading, and the Singapore-registered vessel M/V Crystal A 018A.
However, the claim against the vessel was discontinued in November 2025, while MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. was never served with the claim and was not before the court when judgment was delivered.
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company Jamaica Limited later applied to have the claim against it struck out, arguing that Worldwide Foods Limited had no contractual relationship with the local agent and that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the action.
In a judgment delivered last Friday, Justice Althea Jarrett struck out Worldwide Foods Limited’s claim against MSC Jamaica, ruling that the local company was acting only as an agent for the overseas carrier and was not a party to the contract governing the shipment.
The dispute stemmed from a shipment of 2,237 cases of frozen chicken feet transported aboard the M/V Crystal A 018A from Vancouver, Canada, to Kingston between July 29 and August 29, 2023.
After arriving in Jamaica, the cargo was condemned by health authorities after being declared unfit for human consumption.
Worldwide Foods Limited alleged that the defendants failed to ensure the refrigerated container was suitable for preserving the cargo. The company relied on a survey report from R.S. Gamble (1998) Limited, which found that the refrigeration unit had malfunctioned.
ARGUMENTS BY MSC
MSC Jamaica argued that it had no contractual relationship with Worldwide Foods and was merely the local agent for MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. The company maintained that the bill of lading created a contract only between Worldwide Foods and the overseas carrier.
MSC Jamaica also argued that Worldwide Foods failed to clear the cargo within the required 14-day period after receiving an arrival notice, contributing to the eventual condemnation of the goods in February 2024.
Attorney Amanda Montague, representing MSC Jamaica, argued that the Himalaya clause in the bill of lading protected the company from claims and that Clause 10.3 required disputes to be brought in the High Court of London under English law.
She also urged the court to strike out the claim, arguing that Worldwide Foods had no reasonable prospect of success.
In its defence, Worldwide Foods, through attorney Shanique Scott, argued that MSC Jamaica had a separate obligation to provide reefer plug-in services after discharge and was responsible for maintaining the refrigerated container while the goods awaited clearance.
Jarrett, however, rejected that argument, finding there was no evidence of a separate agreement between the parties.
“There is no indication in those pleadings, that reefer plug-in services were to be provided by the 3rd by way of a contract it had with the claimant. The claimant, therefore, cannot rely on this allegation,” she ruled.
The judge found that the bill of lading created a contractual relationship between Worldwide Foods and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., but not with MSC Jamaica.
“It is plain, that this bill of lading is evidence of a contract between the claimant and the second defendant,” Jarrett said.
She also found that the evidence suggested plug-in services after discharge were being provided by Kingston Wharves Limited, not MSC Jamaica.
“A reasonable inference to be drawn from this, is that these plug-in services were being provided by Kingston Wharves Limited,” she said.
Jarrett upheld the bill-of-lading provision protecting the carrier’s agents and concluded that Worldwide Foods’ claim against MSC Jamaica disclosed no reasonable grounds.
She ordered that the claim be struck out, with costs to be agreed or taxed.
Scott was instructed by McLeod Scott Law, while Montague was instructed by Myers, Fletcher and Gordon.