Commentary on the judgement delivered in the UK Court - Volcafe:

The legal burden of proof lies on the carrier that they took due care to protect the the goods from damage, including due care to protect the cargo from damage arising from inherent vice (under Art IV Rule 2(m) of Hague Rules) and also take careful note of the applicable industrial practices. There is no difference to the position in Singapore, where the approach is same and would generally be taken by the Singapore Courts as the relevant provisions in the Hague Rules and Hague-Visby Rules are materially the same and Art IV.1 of the Hague-Visby Rules applicable in Singapore specifically provides that “whenever loss or damage has resulted from unseaworthiness the burden of proving the exercise of due diligence shall be on the carrier or other person claiming exemption under this Article.”

However, where the shipper stuffs the containers, this may have the effect of both reducing the carrier’s liability and of taking this part of the carriage outside the Hague Rules.What this case does (of course) is to shift the burden of proof in respect of inherent vice under Hague Rules, so that it corresponds with the doctrine applying to (other forms of) bailment. 

The possibility of an inherent vice defence does not remove from the carrier the necessity to prove that the damage was not caused by its negligence. No doubt, a court will take into account the degree of knowledge and expertise which can reasonably be expected from a Master, although can be expected to be high. This now seems to be a fixed law, and something with which carriers will have to live with. #Livelaw.