Recovering storage charges across borders is a recurring problem for warehouses, terminals and logistics providers whose customer sits in another country. The debt is simple in principle – a service was rendered and not paid – but recovery depends on where the debtor holds assets and what the storage contract says about jurisdiction. We assess the file first and say plainly when the balance will not cover the cost of pursuing it abroad.
Storage charges accumulate quietly. A shipment sits in a bonded warehouse or on a container yard, the customer stops answering invoices, and the fee grows month by month against goods that may themselves lose value. By the time the creditor calls a lawyer, the outstanding sum often exceeds the value of the stored cargo, which changes the calculation entirely.
The counterparty is usually a trading company, a freight forwarder acting for an undisclosed principal, or a buyer who abandoned the goods once the market price fell. Each profile points to a different recovery route. A trading company with a bank account in a reachable jurisdiction is worth pursuing through cross-border debt recovery. A forwarder acting for a principal who has disappeared usually is not.
Three documents carry the file: the storage or warehousing agreement, the invoice trail showing the charge accrued month by month, and the correspondence confirming the goods were held and the customer was notified. Without the agreement, a court has no basis to test the rate charged or the right to retain the goods. Without dated notices, a debtor can argue the charge was never properly communicated.
A file missing the underlying agreement is weaker than a file with three years of unanswered invoices and no contract, because a court will ask what rate was agreed before it enforces payment of it.
Three defences recur. First, that the rate charged was never agreed, particularly where storage began informally after a shipment stalled. Second, that the goods were damaged, misdescribed or released without authority, which converts a clean payment claim into a dispute about the storage provider's own conduct. Third, that the claim is time-barred, raised regardless of whether it holds, because it forces the creditor to prove the accrual dates.
The rate defence is defeated by the invoice trail matched against the contract or the published tariff referenced in the booking. The condition defence is defeated by inspection records taken at intake and, ideally, at release. The limitation defence is defeated only by dated documents showing exactly when each charge accrued – a reason the invoice trail matters more on these claims than on almost any other debt type.
The route starts with an assessment of the debtor's location, apparent solvency and the strength of the paper trail, produced through the recovery assessment report. Where the assessment supports action, a formal demand goes to the debtor, referencing the contract and the accrual dates rather than a round figure. If the demand is ignored, the file passes to admitted lawyers in the jurisdiction concerned, who advise whether a payment order, an ordinary claim or, where the goods are still held, a lien-enforcement route is the faster path.
Storage claims often sit alongside other unpaid logistics charges on the same shipment, and the assessment covers recovering freight and demurrage charges where both arise from the same customer relationship. Running them together avoids two separate proceedings against the same debtor for the same underlying transport chain.
A limitation period applies to storage claims in most jurisdictions, and for commercial charges it is often shorter than the general period for civil debts. We confirm the applicable period, and the relevant rules covered under limitation periods for commercial claims, against the local statute before advising on timing, rather than assuming a period that may not apply to this claim type.
Only where the contract or local law grants a lien and sets out how it may be exercised. Selling goods without following that procedure exposes the storage provider to a counterclaim, which is why the lien clause is checked before any sale is proposed.
The claim then depends on whether any assets remain, or whether a director or parent company can be held liable under the contract. Where neither applies, pursuing the claim rarely produces a recoverable outcome, and we say so at the assessment stage.
Not for the assessment. Local admitted lawyers become necessary once a formal demand is ignored and a court filing or lien-enforcement step is the next move, and their involvement is confirmed before the file moves to that stage.
Every month a shipment sits unpaid in storage, the charge grows against goods that are losing resale value, and another creditor may already be moving to seize what is left. Waiting to see whether the customer reappears tends to leave the storage provider last in a queue that has already formed. The assessment below sets out whether this file still has a recoverable path before that queue closes.