In a dispute concerning an air shipment, the air waybill \u2014 AWB, or LTA in French \u2014 is often one of the first documents to examine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It does not, however, prove everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 11 of the Montreal Convention<\/a> provides that the air waybill is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, the carrier\u2019s acceptance of the goods and the conditions of carriage stated in it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Statements concerning weight, dimensions, packaging and the number of packages carry the same evidential weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The rule is more restrictive for statements about the quantity, volume or condition of the goods: they are evidence against the carrier only where checked by the carrier in the consignor\u2019s presence and recorded as such, or where they concern the apparent condition of the goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An unqualified AWB does not therefore necessarily establish the internal condition of the goods when the carrier took charge of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The assessment should also consider the commercial invoice, packing list, handling instructions, handover records, photographs and correspondence at the time of the damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Convention also allows information about the carriage to be recorded by means other than a paper AWB<\/a>. Electronic shipment records may therefore also be decisive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where goods are damaged, this evidence should be considered alongside the steps and time limits discussed in our article on goods damaged during air carriage<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does the AWB actually establish the disputed fact, or must the evidence be found in the other shipment documents?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe AWB must be assessed alongside the other documents<\/h2>\n\n\n\n