Harbour Logistics v Customs Oracle

Ratio

Where an agent that provides paid information identifies the legal basis on which a stated result depends, and the counterparty already had its own procedure requiring it to satisfy the condition for that result but omitted to follow it, the counterparty has not proved that a flag from the information provider would have prevented the loss, and the claim fails for want of causation.

Circumstances, in general terms

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether an agent that provides paid tariff classification and identifies the trade agreement under which a preferential rate applies owes a duty to flag that the rate depends on origin qualification

The Court's decisions establish that an agent providing paid information marketed as authoritative owes a duty of reasonable care to flag material conditions on which a stated result depends, and that a generic disclaimer to verify limits but does not exclude that duty. The classification agent's answer identified the free trade agreement by name as the basis for the preferential rate. Where the answer identifies the legal basis for the result, the duty to flag a material condition is qualified by the counterparty's own knowledge of that condition, and the Court's decisions on the duty of an information provider are applied accordingly. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The freight agent argued that the high confidence score suggested the rate was unconditional. This failed because the confidence score reflects confidence in the classification, not in whether the goods qualify for preferential treatment, and the answer named the trade agreement. Answer: The classification agent owed a duty of reasonable care, but where it identified the trade agreement by name and the counterparty already had its own procedure requiring the condition, the duty was not breached by the omission of an express flag.

2. Whether the claimant proved that a flag from the classification agent would have prevented the loss

The Court's decisions hold that where the loss arises from the counterparty's own failure to satisfy documentary conditions and the counterparty does not prove that a flag would have prevented the loss, the claim fails for want of causation. The freight agent had its own compliance procedure requiring the origin certificate before claiming the preferential rate, and it skipped that step. It has not proved that a flag from the classification agent would have prompted action that its own procedure did not. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The freight agent argued it would have obtained the certificate if the condition had been flagged. This failed because the agent already had a procedure requiring the certificate and chose not to follow it, and did not explain why a flag would have made a difference. Answer: The freight agent has not proved that a flag from the classification agent would have prevented the loss.

3. Whether the claimant's own failure was the whole cause of the loss, precluding recovery

The Dealings Act provides that where the loss was caused by the claimant's failure to give what the dealing required, the order is reduced, and where the failure was the whole cause, no order is made. The freight agent's failure to obtain the origin certificate required by its own compliance procedure and by the trade agreement was the whole cause of the loss. The classification agent's answer was correct for goods that qualify as originating, and identified the trade agreement by name. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The freight agent argued that the classification agent's incomplete answer caused the loss. This failed because the answer was correct and identified the basis of the rate, and the loss arose from the freight agent's own failure to follow its own procedure. Answer: The claimant's own failure was the whole cause of the loss, and no order is made.

Authorities

Orders

Published in the form Judicature Act clause 2.9 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/2 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.