By: James Cooper and Marcus Lee

At a glance

• Since 1 July 2026, cargo agents and freight forwarders using Direct Air Waybills may effectively assume shipper-level indemnities and obligations unless otherwise agreed with the air carrier.
• The effect of the amendments should be considered against the applicable IATA framework (for example, Resolution 809zz in Australia).
• Cargo agents and freight forwarders should review their carrier and shipper contracts, insurance arrangements, and cargo-acceptance processes to appropriately manage any additional exposure.

Background

A Direct Air Waybill (DAWB) allows a cargo agent or freight forwarder (Intermediary) to tender cargo for carriage under the carrier’s air waybill without issuing a separate House Air Waybill to the shipper. On the face of the air waybill, an Intermediary would commonly name itself as the ‘Issuing Carrier’s Agent’, whilst identifying another entity as the ‘Shipper’.

Some contractual anomalies arise under the DAWB arrangement, namely, (i) the carrier may have no direct commercial relationship with the shipper; and (ii) the Intermediary acts as the shipper’s agent despite being named as the ‘Issuing Carrier’s Agent’.

These anomalies can create a disconnect between the contractual and commercial positions. The carrier assesses rates based on the Intermediary’s capacity and financial standing to meet the shipper’s indemnities and obligations, including those under the carrier’s conditions of carriage. More importantly, it may be unclear against whom the carrier can seek recourse when issues arise, such as in relation to dangerous goods.

The International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) recent amended Cargo Agency and Intermediary Agreements (Cargo Agreements) seek to rectify these anomalies. As of 1 July 2026, absent a bilateral agreement with the carrier, an Intermediary who tenders cargo under a DAWB for an underlying shipper will effectively be treated as the shipper for the purposes of the shipper’s indemnities and obligations.

Practical impacts

Prior to the amendments, some market-specific Cargo Agreements already distinguished different types of Intermediaries and the capacities in which they contract with the carrier.

For example, the Cargo Intermediary Agreement – Australia (or Resolution 809zz)¹ distinguishes between an ‘Agent’ and a ‘Forwarder or Airfreight Forwarder’ (Forwarder). Whereas an ‘Agent’ is an intermediary acting on behalf of a carrier (ie, in the traditional sense of the “Issuing Carrier’s Agent”), a Forwarder is an Intermediary who issues air waybills on a principal-to-principal basis, with its “IATA registered company name in both the Shipper and Agent boxes on the air waybill”.

For Australian Forwarders, therefore, the amendments arguably represent a less fundamental departure from the existing contractual framework. The pre-amended Resolution 809zz already contemplated Forwarders who contract with carriers as principals and the ensuing obligations.

Instead, the amendments address circumstances where an Intermediary tenders cargo on behalf of an underlying shipper, including:

• an Australian Forwarder tendering cargo on behalf of another entity appearing as the ‘Shipper’ on a DAWB; and
• an Australian Intermediary acting as an ‘Agent’, and Intermediaries in markets which fall outside the market-specific Cargo Agreements and are instead governed by IATA’s default Cargo Agency Agreement (II) (which governs the traditional Carrier/Agent relationship).

In those circumstances, the Intermediary will assume the same terms and conditions as when it ships in its own name, including the shipper’s obligations under the carrier’s conditions of carriage and applicable liability conventions.

What to do next?

In light of the amended Cargo Agreements, Intermediaries using DAWBs should:

Engage with carriers

An Intermediary can enter into a bilateral agreement with the carrier to modify the default position set out in these amendments. To that end, parties should consider the following elements:

• Clarify the Intermediary’s role: will it be acting as the agent of the shipper or carrier?
• If the Intermediary is acting as the shipper’s agent, what proof of authority is the Intermediary required to present to the carrier?
• What notice period will the carrier need to undertake the necessary due diligence on the shipper (for example, sanctions, export controls, insurance, financial standing, other counterparty risk, etc.)?
• Will commercial negotiations take place directly with the shipper or through the Intermediary?

Review contractual arrangements with shippers

Especially where an Intermediary’s commercial relationship with the carrier may not allow for the negotiation of a bilateral agreement, Intermediaries should consider whether existing contractual terms afford sufficiently robust protections, including appropriate warranties and indemnities, to allocate liabilities arising from matters within the underlying shipper’s knowledge or control.

Review insurance arrangements

Intermediaries should assess whether existing liability cover will respond to any additional exposure from assuming shipper-level indemnities and obligations.

Review cargo acceptance and due diligence processes

Intermediaries should consider whether adequate cargo-acceptance policies and due-diligence processes are in place where the Intermediary may assume liability arising from information supplied by the underlying shipper.

Stay up to date on developments across Transport, Trade & Logistics

Complete the form below to receive Wotton Kearney’s latest insights on freight forwarding, transport, logistics, and evolving regulatory and contractual developments impacting the supply chain.