Authored by Jakop Mphofu and Paul Cartwright.
In July 2025 the English high court found that an airline's routine decision to switch off cargo hold refrigeration during descent and at intermediate stops was enough to establish liability under article 18 of the Montreal Convention 1999. The decision examines in detail what constitutes an "event" under article 18, as distinct from an "accident" under article 17, and it sets a marker that carriers of perishable goods cannot afford to overlook.
What happened
A consignment of 500 boxes of fresh asparagus was booked from Lima, Peru to London Heathrow on the airline's "Fresh 2" temperature-controlled service, promising carriage at between +2°C and +8°C. The asparagus was in good condition when it entered the airline's control at Lima airport. The flight was rerouted via Quito and Miami. At each stop, refrigeration was switched off during descent and while on the ground, exposing the cargo to ambient temperatures above 10°C for more than seven hours in total. Asparagus deteriorates rapidly above 9 to 10°C. By the time the cargo arrived, the damage was irreversible.
The cold chain as a legal obligation
The airline argued there was no material "event" during carriage and that the exposure to ambient temperatures was unavoidable and fell within the scope of its service terms. The court disagreed.
The court held that an "event" under article 18(1) is something that causes damage during carriage by air and is additional, and external to, that damage. It is wider in meaning than "accident" in article 17, which is intended to be more restrictive of liability. The two terms should not be equated, since the language is deliberately different and cargo liability under article 18 is intended to be strict.
Critically for carriers, an event need not be fortuitous, unusual, or unexpected. It may include deliberate operational decisions, such as switching off refrigeration during descent.
The court departed from Winchester Fruit [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 265, which had equated "occurrence" in article 18(1) with "accident" in article 17. That approach was found to be inconsistent with the House of Lords' analysis in Deep Vein Thrombosis and the distinction between passenger and cargo liability. Drawing on Singapore Airlines Cargo v Principle International [2017] NSWCA 216, the court confirmed that the inquiry under article 18(1) is whether an event caused damage during carriage, not whether something unusual occurred.
The airline's reading of the "ramp handling" exception in its service terms was also rejected. The court held that "ramp handling" means only the physical handling of cargo for loading, not the period of time that the cargo sits in the hold on the ground or at intermediate stops. The airline's own witness accepted its service terms may need to be reviewed to clarify this, but that had not been done.
The airline's article 18(2) (inherent vice and defective packing) defences also failed. The cargo was in good condition on delivery to the airline and the mesh wrapping, used for pest control in compliance with US quarantine requirements, was found to be common industry practice, not the cause of the damage.
The bigger picture for perishable cargo
This judgment should prompt carriers to rethink how they manage, and how they describe, the cold chain for perishable goods.
Routine operational decisions, such as switching off refrigeration during descent, are now clearly capable of founding liability. If a carrier markets a service as "temperature controlled", a court will hold it to that description. Vague exclusions will be construed narrowly. Carriers should review their service terms to ensure they accurately reflect what happens to cargo at each stage of transit.
The article 18(2) defences offer limited protection where the cargo is sound on receipt and the packaging follows industry practice. The burden of proving those defences rests on the carrier.
For carriers of perishable goods, this judgment is a reminder that the cold chain is not merely an operational preference. It is a legal obligation, and the courts will enforce it.
Wealmoor Limited v K.L.M CIA Real Holandesa De Aviacion & Anor [2025] EWHC 1706 (Comm)