Refusing to continue the carriage, making unloading conditional on immediate additional payment, demanding settlement of amounts arising from previous transport orders and, in the most serious cases, concealing the vehicle’s current location—all these situations are commonly referred to in practice as a “lien over the goods”. From a legal perspective, however, they may differ significantly in both their legal basis and their consequences.

Freight forwarders are in a particularly difficult position. Even when they do not own the goods, they remain responsible to their clients for the proper organisation of transport. Moreover, where a freight forwarder has undertaken to perform the carriage in their own name, they may be liable to the client in the same way as a contractual carrier.

Time pressure is therefore a real concern. The detained cargo may be intended for further production, require temperature-controlled conditions, be subject to a warehouse booking or be tied to a delivery deadline, failure to meet which may trigger claims from the recipient. This is precisely why, in such disputes, it is not enough simply to insist that the carrier “has no right” to retain the goods. Action is required simultaneously on three fronts: legal, evidential and operational. Every hour of delay may reduce the number of available solutions.

What Does This Usually Look Like?

A phone call from the driver or a message from the carrier: “The goods will not be unloaded until you pay.” Sometimes the issue concerns waiting-time charges accrued over several hours, additional mileage or a lost subsequent freight assignment. In other cases, the carrier demands payment of invoices relating to previous transport operations that have no connection whatsoever with the cargo currently on the vehicle.

There are also considerably more serious situations in which the carrier drives away from the unloading location, stops answering calls or refuses to disclose the vehicle’s current location. In industry terminology, all these cases are often described as a “lien over the goods”, although legally, not every lien is unlawful, and not every instance of cargo retention constitutes the exercise of a right of lien.

For a freight forwarder, this is not a dispute that can simply be analysed over the next few days. The client, recipient, warehouse or production line is waiting, and every hour of delay may result in additional costs, a missed warehouse booking, operational downtime, damage to the goods or claims from business partners.

Two questions must therefore be addressed simultaneously: does the carrier have the right to refuse to release the consignment, and what should be done immediately to regain control of the situation and prevent further losses?

As lawyers at Trans Lawyers, a law firm specialising in legal advice for businesses in the transport, shipping and logistics (TSL) sector, we have advised clients in such situations for many years. We understand how crucial a rapid response and a clear, practical action plan prepared in advance can be.

Can a Carrier Legally Retain the Goods?

The answer is: in certain circumstances, yes.

For domestic carriage in Poland, Article 57 of the Polish Transport Law Act grants the carrier a right of lien over the consignment to secure claims arising from the contract of carriage. This right may be exercised for as long as the consignment remains in the carrier’s possession, in the possession of someone holding it on the carrier’s behalf, or at the carrier’s disposal under the relevant documents. Article 790 of the Polish Civil Code may also apply, covering, among other things, freight charges, storage charges, customs duties and other expenses associated with carriage.

This does not mean, however, that a vehicle carrying goods becomes a movable form of security for all outstanding settlements between the carrier and the freight forwarder.

It is always necessary to establish which contract gives rise to the claim, whether the claim actually exists, whether it is due and payable, and whether it is connected with the carriage of the particular consignment.

If a carrier retains goods belonging to the freight forwarder’s client solely to force payment of invoices for other transport services performed previously, merely invoking a “statutory lien” does not establish that the carrier’s conduct is lawful. The credit risk associated with doing business with a freight forwarder cannot automatically be transferred to the owner of an unrelated consignment.

International carriage presents an even more complex situation because the CMR Convention does not establish a single, universal right of lien that operates identically in every country.

Article 13(2) of the CMR Convention provides that a consignee requesting delivery of the goods must pay the charges shown in the consignment note. If the amount is disputed, the carrier must deliver the goods once appropriate security has been provided. It should be emphasised that this provision most commonly applies where freight charges are payable at the place of loading or unloading, a situation encountered in practice particularly in removals and relocation transport.

Articles 12–16 of the CMR Convention may also be relevant, as they govern the right to dispose of the goods and address obstacles to carriage and delivery, as well as reimbursement of expenses incurred in carrying out new instructions.

Particular attention should be paid to Article 16(1) of the CMR Convention, which expressly provides that the carrier is entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred in requesting or carrying out instructions, provided that those expenses were not caused by the carrier’s own fault.

A Genuine Lien or Simply Pressure on the Freight Forwarder?

The simplest test is to ask the carrier several specific questions:

• What exact amount is being claimed?
• What is the basis for the claim?
• When did the amount become due and payable?
• Which transport operation does the claim relate to?
• On what legal basis is the carrier retaining these particular goods?

If the answer amounts to little more than saying that the freight forwarder “has outstanding debts” or that the carrier “has lost its next load”, without providing supporting documents or calculations, this is difficult to regard as sufficient justification for refusing to unload the goods.

The situation is particularly questionable where the agreed payment deadline for the freight charges has not yet expired, but the carrier uses the fact that the goods remain on its vehicle to unilaterally change the agreed terms and demand immediate payment.

The same applies to arbitrary demands for additional waiting-time charges, extra mileage or compensation for lost freight where the amount is not provided for in the contract, has not been accepted by the freight forwarder and is unsupported by any calculation.

The position may be somewhat different where, after carriage has commenced, the sender or another authorised party changes the delivery location, appoints a different consignee or requests that the goods be returned to the place of loading. Such an instruction may generate additional, justified costs. Article 12(5)(a) of the CMR Convention links the exercise of the right to dispose of the goods with an obligation to reimburse the carrier for costs and losses resulting from the execution of the instruction.

Importantly, Article 16(1) of the CMR Convention grants the carrier a right to reimbursement of expenses incurred in requesting or carrying out instructions only if those expenses did not arise from the carrier’s own acts or omissions.

The carrier therefore cannot transfer the financial consequences of a situation it caused to the freight forwarder or another party entitled to dispose of the goods, and then rely on the need to carry out an additional instruction as justification for demanding payment or security.

For example, if a subcontractor arrives late for unloading, misses the booked delivery slot, sends the vehicle to the wrong address, fails to verify the information provided or otherwise contributes to the obstacle, resulting in unloading not being completed as planned and the vehicle having to wait longer, the subcontractor will generally not be entitled to recover the resulting costs from the freight forwarder. It is even less appropriate for the carrier to make further carriage or delivery conditional on payment of an amount arising from its own improper conduct.

When assessing whether costs resulted from the carrier’s acts or omissions, the professional nature of its business and the heightened standard of diligence expected of a professional operator must be taken into account.

It is therefore insufficient for the carrier merely to state that it incurred an expense or lost the opportunity to perform another transport operation. The carrier should demonstrate not only the amount and legitimacy of the claim, but also the connection between the costs and the instruction received, as well as the absence of any contribution on its part to the obstacle.

Only when these conditions are satisfied can the legitimacy of the carrier’s claim be properly considered. Even then, the existence of a claim for reimbursement does not automatically establish that the carrier is entitled to retain the goods as security for that claim.

In certain circumstances, a carrier may therefore legitimately request payment or appropriate security. However, the demand should reflect the actual costs of a specific change to the transport arrangements, rather than serve as an opportunity to renegotiate the entire freight charge under time pressure.

Indicators that the carrier may be exceeding the permissible limits include repeatedly changing the justification for its demand, refusing to provide a calculation, demanding payment for unrelated transport operations, withholding the vehicle’s location until a transfer is made, driving away from a location where unloading is ready to take place, moving the goods to an undisclosed warehouse or refusing to comply with a valid instruction despite reasonable security being offered.

Nevertheless, it is unwise to label such conduct as theft, misappropriation or blackmail from the outset. The legal classification depends on the full sequence of events, and emotionally charged language rarely helps resolve the situation or substitutes for evidence.

What Should You Do in the First Few Minutes?

The first objective should not be to prove to the carrier that it does not understand the law. It should be to establish where the goods are, what condition they are in and how much time remains to resolve the situation safely.

The freight forwarder should confirm the vehicle’s location, arrival time, the warehouse’s readiness to unload, the reason for the stoppage, the condition of the seal and cargo securing arrangements. For temperature-controlled goods, it is also necessary to verify that the refrigeration unit is operating and to obtain the current temperature record.

At the same time, all relevant evidence should be secured, including:

• The transport order, its general terms and conditions, and proof that they were delivered to the carrier.
• Confirmation that the transport order was accepted.
• The CMR consignment note.
• Vehicle and driver details.
• The carrier’s road carrier liability insurance policy (OCP).
• GPS records.
• Waiting-time records.
• All correspondence, rather than only selected screenshots supporting one party’s position.

If discussions take place by telephone, a short written summary should be sent immediately afterwards, recording what the carrier demanded, what instruction it received and the deadline by which it must confirm compliance.

The message to the carrier should be brief and unambiguous. It should specify exactly what the carrier must do, where and by when, request confirmation of the goods’ current location and condition, and clearly separate performance of the transport contract from any dispute over additional remuneration.

If the instruction changes the original transport arrangements, it should first be confirmed with the client. The freight forwarder must also ensure that the instruction comes from a person authorised to dispose of the goods, is feasible and does not violate safety requirements or drivers’ hours regulations.

It is also extremely important to appoint one person to manage all communication with the carrier. When several employees call, send messages and make different proposals simultaneously, there is a real risk of inadvertently acknowledging a claim or promising an additional payment that the carrier may subsequently treat as a binding contractual amendment.

Should You Sometimes Pay? The “What Are You Going to Do About It?” Dilemma

This question generates the most emotion, but in practice the answer cannot always be limited to: “We will not pay because there is no legal basis for the demand.”

If the vehicle is carrying high-value goods, food, pharmaceuticals or components required to keep production running, the damage caused by further delay may quickly exceed the amount demanded by the carrier several times over.

The freight forwarder has an obligation to mitigate losses, so an emergency payment followed by a claim for reimbursement may sometimes be the most rational solution.

However, this decision should not be made unilaterally by the employee managing the transport simply because the carrier has issued an ultimatum.

The amount demanded should be compared with the value of the cargo, the cost of further delay, the risk of damage, the possibility of missing a delivery slot or interrupting production, potential claims from the client and the realistic prospects of recovering the money.

The decision should be approved by a person authorised to incur financial obligations and, in higher-value cases, by a lawyer and, where circumstances warrant, the insurer.

If payment is made solely to recover the goods and prevent greater losses, the correspondence and bank transfer reference should expressly state that payment is being made under pressure, subject to reimbursement and without admission of the claim.

Such a statement is not a magic formula guaranteeing recovery of the funds, but it has significant evidential value because it demonstrates that the freight forwarder did not accept the validity of the demand or voluntarily agree to change the remuneration.

Once the goods have been safely released, it is worth assessing whether consent to the additional payment was given under the influence of an unlawful threat within the meaning of Article 87 of the Polish Civil Code.

If the relevant conditions are met, it may be possible to avoid the legal effects of the declaration of intent. However, Article 88 of the Polish Civil Code requires a written declaration to be submitted to the other party within one year of the moment when the state of fear ceased.

In a case involving detained cargo, that moment will most commonly be when the goods are safely released or unloaded, rather than the date on which the carrier first demanded payment.

When Should Negotiations End and the Matter Be Escalated?

If the carrier remains in contact, provides its location, safeguards the goods and confirms that it will complete the transport, while the parties disagree only over waiting-time charges or the cost of an additional instruction, it is usually worth separating delivery from the subsequent financial settlement and attempting to complete the transport without further escalation.

The response should be different where the carrier threatens to drive away, refuses to disclose its location, makes every action conditional on immediate payment or expressly states that the goods will not be released despite the absence of a clear legal basis.

Loss of contact with the driver, an unauthorised change of stopping location, transfer of the goods to an unknown warehouse, the risk of switching off the refrigeration unit, damage, abandonment or disposal of the cargo all justify the highest level of response.

Depending on the circumstances, the freight forwarder should contact the security department of the transport exchange, if the transport was arranged through one, the insurer, the property manager or security personnel. If the carrier’s conduct may indicate an intention to misappropriate entrusted property, law enforcement should also be contacted.

Not every unjustified retention of goods automatically satisfies the elements of the criminal offence under Article 284(2) of the Polish Criminal Code. Among other things, it is necessary to establish an intention to treat the property as one’s own, rather than merely a temporary refusal to release it.

A report of suspected criminal conduct should therefore be based on specific facts, such as concealing the storage location, moving the cargo contrary to instructions, cutting off communication or attempting to dispose of the goods, rather than solely on the existence of a dispute over payment.

Legal escalation does not, however, relieve the freight forwarder of the need to prepare an operational solution at the same time.

The possibility of transferring the cargo to another vehicle, appointing a replacement carrier, changing the warehouse or safely leaving the goods at their current location should be assessed. Any subsequent claim for damages will also be evaluated in light of the measures taken to mitigate the loss.

What Can the Carrier Be Liable For?

If the retention of goods or refusal to comply with a valid instruction lacks a legal basis, the carrier may be liable for the resulting losses. These may include additional storage, transloading and replacement transport costs, loss of or reduction in the value of the cargo, and justified claims brought by the client that are causally connected to the carrier’s conduct.

Simply issuing a debit note to the carrier will not be sufficient to recover the money successfully. Each item must be documented, its connection with the breach established, and the measures taken to prevent further losses demonstrated.

In international carriage, Article 29 of the CMR Convention may be particularly important. It removes the carrier’s ability to rely on the Convention’s limitations of liability where the damage results from wilful misconduct or such default as, under the law of the court or tribunal hearing the case, is considered equivalent to wilful misconduct.

Deliberately concealing cargo or knowingly increasing the risk of damage in order to force payment of an amount the carrier knows it is not entitled to may support the application of this provision. However, there is no automatic outcome: the carrier’s conduct, state of knowledge and the full sequence of events must be analysed.

Once the transport has been completed, it is therefore advisable to prepare a chronology of the incident, collect documents confirming the release of the goods, preserve all correspondence and payment records, calculate the losses, assess whether mutual claims can be set off and check the relevant complaint and limitation periods.

An emotional post on a transport exchange or social media can wait. It does not replace formal recovery proceedings and, if it contains allegations that cannot be proven, may simply trigger another dispute.

The Best Preparation Takes Place Before Transport Begins

The freight forwarder has the greatest influence over how such a crisis unfolds before loading takes place, when it can clearly define the rules governing waiting-time charges, additional costs, location updates, compliance with instructions and liability for unauthorised changes to the stopping location or unjustified refusal to release the goods.

These terms should be effectively agreed upon and delivered to the carrier before transport begins. Even the best-drafted terms and conditions will be of little use if the other party receives them only after the vehicle has been loaded.

Including a prohibition on retaining goods in the transport order does not, of course, eliminate a statutory right of lien where the carrier is genuinely entitled to exercise one under mandatory legal provisions.

Nevertheless, such a clause may help limit attempts to use the consignment as security for claims unrelated to the current transport and clearly establish the consequences of refusing to comply with a valid instruction.

An internal procedure is equally important. It should ensure that the freight forwarder knows which evidence to preserve, who may approve an additional payment, when the client and lawyer must be informed, and who is responsible for further communication.

In disputes involving detained goods, the party that prevails is rarely the one that uses the strongest language. It is more often the party that establishes the facts most quickly, secures the evidence and retains the ability to pursue several courses of action simultaneously.

A carrier is entitled to protect legitimate claims, but it cannot treat someone else’s cargo as a universal tool for forcing payment.

The freight forwarder, in turn, should remember that even when the law is on its side, its first priority is to regain control of the goods and mitigate the loss. Determining the carrier’s liability and settling the financial consequences comes next.

Conclusion

There is no single sentence or legal provision that will resolve every dispute involving the retention of goods. Effective action depends on combining the correct legal assessment with a rapid response and high-quality evidence.

A freight forwarder who can establish exactly what the carrier is demanding, which contract the claim arises from, whether the claim is due and payable, who is entitled to dispose of the consignment and what losses may result from further delay can approach negotiations on the basis of facts rather than time pressure alone.

This is why ongoing employee training and the advance preparation of appropriate procedures are so important. They enable freight forwarders to respond to such situations confidently, consistently and decisively.

Author: Ewa Sławińska-Ziaja
Legal Counsel at Trans Lawyers

www.translawyers.eu