Skip to main content
Book cover

The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea pp 21–78Cite as

Shipping Documents

  • 397 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces the three types of shipping documents: bills of lading, sea waybills and ship’s delivery orders. It analyses bills of lading in fine detail. This includes setting out the common terminologies used in connection with bills of lading, a millennium’s history briefly and development of laws since Lickbarrow v Mason in 1974 to Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 to rightly understand the law in its current state and be clear of misconceptions. The three functions of the bill of lading, namely, receipt, undertaking to deliver and constructive possession, and evidence of contract of carriage, are clearly set out. The differences between ‘received for shipment’ bill and ‘shipped’ bill are dealt with. The choice of words between ‘document of title’ and ‘document of constructive possession’, and ‘negotiability’ and ‘transferability’, are considered. The commercial problems and legal issues with house or combined transport bills issued by non-vehicle owning carriers like freight forwarders, and their transferability, are critically examined. Bills issued by time-charterers and through bills are considered. Then considered is transferability of bills of lading, period of carrier’s responsibility, effect of would-be terms of the carriage-contract, and application of international conventions. Then, a note about electronic bills of lading.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-981-33-6793-7_2
  • Chapter length: 58 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-981-33-6793-7
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    E.g. SGS.

  2. 2.

    The latest version is BIMCO CONLINEBILL 2016. This is meant to be a liner bill of lading.

  3. 3.

    The latest version is BIMCO CONGENBILL 2016. This format is for use with charterparty.

  4. 4.

    The difference between the two words, and the controversy over which is the right word, is discussed later in Chap. 2.2.9.

  5. 5.

    MacWilliam (JI) Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Rafaela S) [2005] UKHL 11, [2005] 2 AC 423, [2005] 2 All ER 86, [2005] 2 WLR 554, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 393, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347 (UK HL).

  6. 6.

    The River Ngada [2003] Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter 13 Sept 2001 (EW HC): any purported transfer from the consignee to any other person will be invalid.

  7. 7.

    Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd v Keppel Tatlee Bank Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 295 (SG CA).

  8. 8.

    Barber v Meyerstein (1870) LR 4 HL 317, [1861–73] All ER Rep Ext 1810 (UK HL), speech of Lord Hatherley: “When they have arrived at the docks, until they are delivered to some person who has the right to them, the bill of lading still remains the only symbol that can be dealt with by way of assignment, mortgage, or otherwise.” Other similar and equivalent document of title too can transfer the rights under the document to the transferee, discussed later in this chapter.

  9. 9.

    Discussed later in this chapter.

  10. 10.

    See MacWilliam (JI) Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Rafaela S) [2005] UKHL 11, [2005] 2 AC 423, [2005] 2 All ER 86, [2005] 2 WLR 554, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 393, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347 (UK HL).

  11. 11.

    Discussed later in this chapter.

  12. 12.

    Mitchell v Ede (1840) 11 Ad & El 888.

  13. 13.

    See Bennett, ‘The History and Present Position of the Bill of Lading’, UK, Cambridge, 1914, p. 7.

  14. 14.

    See Article 1 definition of ‘carrier’ that deals with description of ‘shipper’ and Article III(3) that assumes, albeit without basis in the current marketplace, that the shipper must be the consignor (which may not in actual fact be so, particularly in a pure fob contract).

  15. 15.

    Bensa, ‘The Early History of Bills of Lading’, UK, Caimo & C, 1925, p. 7.

  16. 16.

    Translated.

  17. 17.

    Malynes, ‘Consuetudo, vel Lex Mercantoria’, UK, Adam Islip-Anno Dom, 1622: “No ship should be freighted without a Charterpartie …”.

  18. 18.

    See Hurlocke and Saunderson v Collett (1539) Select Pleas, vol I, pp. 88–89; The Mary (1541) Select Pleas, vol. 1, p. 112; The John Evangelist (1544) Select Pleas, vol. I, p. 126; The While Angel (1577) Select Pleas, vol II, pp. 59–60.

  19. 19.

    See Malynes, ‘Consuetudo, vel Lex Mercantoria’, UK, Adam Islip-Anno Dom, 1622: “… Bills of lading do declare what goods are laden, and bindeth the Master to deliver them well conditioned to the place of discharge, according to the contents of the Charterpartie, binding himself, his ship, tackle, and furniture of it, for the performance thereof”.

  20. 20.

    See The Thomas (1538) Select Pleas, vol I, p. 61; The Mary (1541) Select Pleas, vol. 1, p. 112; The John Evangelist (1544) Select Pleas, vol. I, p. 126; The While Angel (1577) Select Pleas, vol II, pp. 59–60; The George of Legh (1544) Select Pleas, vol II, p. 61; The Andrewe (1544) Select Pleas, vol. I, p. 126.

  21. 21.

    Source: Cadwallader Colden Papers, 1677–1832, Box 7.

  22. 22.

    (1794) 5 TR 683, 101 ER 380 (EW HC).

  23. 23.

    The reason for this was that Freeman did not pay and the shipper came to know that Freeman had become a bankrupt.

  24. 24.

    Conversion.

  25. 25.

    (1806) 6 East 17 (EW Court of King’s Bench).

  26. 26.

    (1816) 5 M & S 350, 105 ER 1079 (EW Court of King’s Bench).

  27. 27.

    Conversion.

  28. 28.

    (1845) 14 M & W 403 (EW Court of Exchequer Chambers).

  29. 29.

    (1850) 9 CB 297 (EW Court of Common Pleas).

  30. 30.

    E.g. cheques and promissory notes.

  31. 31.

    A tort.

  32. 32.

    And is largely.

  33. 33.

    See Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 All ER 158, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 321 (EW HC).

  34. 34.

    (1870) LR 4 HL 317 (UK HL).

  35. 35.

    (1883) 11 QBD 327 (EW CA).

  36. 36.

    Sewell v Burdick (The Zoe) (1884) 10 App Case 74 (UK HL).

  37. 37.

    A tort.

  38. 38.

    See Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 All ER 158, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 321 (EW HC).

  39. 39.

    The bill of lading.

  40. 40.

    Article 1(a) of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules defines carrier to include “the owner or charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper.”

  41. 41.

    Date of loading on board the ship.

  42. 42.

    Captain.

  43. 43.

    Section 4 of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. See Article IV of the Hague-Visby Rules. Under the common law, this will be by way of estoppel against the carrier.

  44. 44.

    Kuwait Petroleum Corpn v I & D Oil Carriers Ltd (The Houda) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541 at 553 (EW CA), speech of Leggatt LJ.

  45. 45.

    See Article IV of the Hague-Visby Rules.

  46. 46.

    Containers commonly belong to the carrier. However, they may belong to the consignor or shipper.

  47. 47.

    The American Astronaut [1978–1979] 1 SLR 187 (SG CA).

  48. 48.

    The American Astronaut [1978–1979] 1 SLR 187 (SG CA).

  49. 49.

    [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256, [1891–94] All ER Rep 127 (EW CA).

  50. 50.

    Enichem Anic SpA and Others v Ampelos Shipping Co Ltd (The Delfini) [1990] 1 Ll L Rep 252 at 268 (EW CA), speech of Mustill LJ: “It is a symbol of constructive possession of the goods which (unlike many such symbols) can transfer constructive possession by endorsement and transfer; it is a transferable ‘key to the warehouse’.”

  51. 51.

    Comptoir d’Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge S/A v Luis de Ridder Ltda (The Julia) [1949] AC 293, [1949] 1 All ER 269 (UK HL); Chan Cheng Kum v Wah Tat Bank [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439, [1971] 1 MLJ 177 (PC on appeal from Singapore).

  52. 52.

    Delivery to the wrong party, which will constitute misdelivery and conversion.

  53. 53.

    (1870) LR 4 HL 317 (UK HL), discussed above under the heading ‘History of Bill of Lading’.

  54. 54.

    Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 Aktieselskab and Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 91, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 211, [1999] All ER (D) 1490 (EW CA).

  55. 55.

    Glyn Mills Currie & Co v The East and West India Dock Co (1882) 7 App Cas 591, [1881–5] All ER Rep 674 (UK HL).

  56. 56.

    The Jian He [2000] 1 SLR 8 (SG CA).

  57. 57.

    Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 Aktieselskab and Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 91, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 211, [1999] All ER (D) 1490 (EW CA). The same is true when a carrier delivers against a stolen pin code: MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Glencore International AG [2017] EWCA Civ 365, [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 881, [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 186, [2017] All ER (D) 02 (Jun) (EW CA).

  58. 58.

    Ownership is transferred only as intended: Section 17 of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979.

  59. 59.

    [1935] AC 53, 104 LJPC 1, 40 Com Cas 143, 4 LDAB 462, [1934] All ER Rep 237, 152 LT 170 (PC on appeal from India).

  60. 60.

    Known as ‘official assignee’.

  61. 61.

    By specific reference to the then Section 178 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872, which provided “A person who is in possession of any goods, or of any bill of lading order for delivery, or any other document of title to goods, may make a valid pledge of such goods, or documents …”.

  62. 62.

    [1977] 2 MLJ 134 (MY FC).

  63. 63.

    Permission.

  64. 64.

    Claimant.

  65. 65.

    In some way, there was not much choice of substance to the Federal Court, since the essential part of the High Court order as to entitlement of the bank to possession of the goods were already spent and the proceeds of sale was safe in the court. This might have induced the Federal Court to maintain the interim order made by the High Court even if it was not rightly made. The option of applying for summary judgement was always open to the bank once the interpleader proceedings have commenced.

  66. 66.

    [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256, [1891–94] All ER Rep 127 (EW CA).

  67. 67.

    Malaysian Contracts Act 1950.

  68. 68.

    Section 8. In Malaysia, by the same numbered section in the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950.

  69. 69.

    See SS Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v SS Ardennes (Owners) [1951] 1 KB 55, [1950] 2 All ER 517 (EW HC).

  70. 70.

    See Leduc v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475, [1886–90] All ER Rep 266 (EW CA).

  71. 71.

    A shipowner’s shipped bill was referred to as ‘on board ocean bill of lading’ in the contract of carriage in Ocean Projects Inc v Ultratech Pte Ltd [1994] 2 SLR 369 (SG CA).

  72. 72.

    Playing Cards (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v China Mutual Navigation Co Ltd [1980] 2 MLJ 182 (MY FC).

  73. 73.

    [1921] 3 KB 443, [1921] All ER Rep 283 (EW HC).

  74. 74.

    This does not affect the ‘received for shipment’ bill being a negotiable document—discussed later in this chapter.

  75. 75.

    Almost invariably, the banks have adopted standard contract terms drawn by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) known as Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) in issuing letters of credit. This is a standard form, meant for voluntary adoption.

  76. 76.

    UCP 600, Article 20(ii).

  77. 77.

    Section 20(2)(g) of the UK Superior Courts Act 1981.

  78. 78.

    See Malynes, ‘Consuetudo, vel Lex Mercantoria’, UK, Adam Islip-Anno Dom, 1622: “… Bills of lading do declare what goods are laden, and bindeth the Master to deliver them well conditioned to the place of discharge, according to the contents of the Charterpartie, binding himself, his ship, tackle, and furniture of it, for the performance thereof.”

  79. 79.

    Article III(7).

  80. 80.

    See Section 1(2)(a) and (b).

  81. 81.

    And the Singapore Bills of Lading Act.

  82. 82.

    The Ship “Marlborough Hill” v Alex Cowan and Sons Limited, and Others [1921] 1 AC 444 (PC on appeal from NSW).

  83. 83.

    Predecessor to the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, that rendered bills of lading negotiable. This point was decided with the result, in that case, that it was the effect of the ‘received for shipment’ bill under UK Admiralty Court Act 1861.

  84. 84.

    Elder Dempster Lines v Ishag (The Lycaon) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 548 (EW HC).

  85. 85.

    [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439, [1971] 1 MLJ 177 (PC on appeal from Singapore).

  86. 86.

    [2000] 5 MLJ 721 (MY HC in Sarawak).

  87. 87.

    (1916) 85 LJPC 214 at 215.

  88. 88.

    Lickbarrow v Mason (1794) 5 TR 683, 101 ER 380 (EW HC).

  89. 89.

    Devlin, ‘The Relationship between Commercial Law and Commercial Practice’, The Modern Law Review, vol. 14, no. 3, July 1951.

  90. 90.

    Robert Desty, ‘Manual of the Law relating to Shipping and Admiralty’, (San Francisco, Section Whitney, 1879), chap. X.

  91. 91.

    UCP 600, Article 20(a)(ii).

  92. 92.

    See Sections 20(2)(g) and 21(4) of the UK Senior Courts Act 1981.

  93. 93.

    Comparatively, the court in The Maheno [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 (NZ SC) did not consider a through bill issued by a NVOC to be a document of title.

  94. 94.

    Indeed, only the shipowner (disponent shipowner) can properly confirm or acknowledge ‘shipped’.

  95. 95.

    [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 153 (EW County Court).

  96. 96.

    UCP 600, Article 20(c)(i).

  97. 97.

    See Barber v Meyerstein (1870) LR 4 HL 317 (UK HL).

  98. 98.

    (1920) 4 Ll L Rep 127 at 127 (EW HC).

  99. 99.

    See Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd (The Ythan) [2005] EWHC 2399 (Comm) at [68] [70], [2006] 1 All ER 367, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 157, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 457, [2005] All ER (D) 05 (Nov) (EW HC).

  100. 100.

    Comptoir d’Achat et de Vente du Boerenbond Belge S/A v Luis de Ridder Ltda (The Julia) [1949] AC 293, (1948) 82 Ll L Rep 270 (UK HL).

  101. 101.

    Robert Desty, ‘Manual of the Law relating to Shipping and Admiralty’, (San Francisco, S. Whitney, 1879), chap. X.

  102. 102.

    [2018] MLJU 1716 (MY HC).

  103. 103.

    E.g. Minmetals South-East Asia Corp Pte Ltd v Nakhoda Logistics Sdn Bhd [2019] 3 CLJ 19, [2018] 6 MLJ 152 (MY CA).

  104. 104.

    Punjab National Bank v Malayan Banking Berhad [2020] 1 LNS 232, [2020] 5 MLJ 732 (MY CA).

  105. 105.

    UCP 600, Articles 20 and 22.

  106. 106.

    See UCP 600, Articles 2 and 3.

  107. 107.

    Demise charterer.

  108. 108.

    E.g. BIMCO CONGENBILL 2016, cl. 6(a); BIMCO CONLINEBILL 2016, cl. 15(a).

  109. 109.

    Which is a matter between the seller and the buyer/buyer’s bank.

  110. 110.

    The predecessor to UCP 600.

  111. 111.

    Who represents the shipowner or disponent shipowner.

  112. 112.

    See Minmetals South-East Asia Corp Pte Ltd v Nakhoda Logistics Sdn Bhd [2019] 3 CLJ 19, [2018] 6 MLJ 152 (MY CA); Malayan Banking Bhd v Punjab National Bank [2018] MLJU 1716 (MY HC).

  113. 113.

    John S Mo, ‘Forwarder’s Bill and Bill of Lading’, Asia Pacific Law Review, vol. 5, no. 2 (Summer 1997): 96–110. This article was referred to in Punjab National Bank v Malayan Banking Berhad [2020] 1 LNS 232, [2020] 5 MLJ 732 (MY CA).

  114. 114.

    See Minmetals South-East Asia Corp Pte Ltd v Nakhoda Logistics Sdn Bhd [2019] 3 CLJ 19, [2018] 6 MLJ 152 (MY CA); Malayan Banking Bhd v Punjab National Bank [2018] MLJU 1716 (MY HC).

  115. 115.

    John S Mo, ‘Forwarder’s Bill and Bill of Lading’, Asia Pacific Law Review, vol. 5, no. 2 (Summer 1997): 96–110. This article was referred to in Punjab National Bank v Malayan Banking Berhad [2020] 1 LNS 232, [2020] 5 MLJ 732 (MY CA).

  116. 116.

    See Arun Kasi, “Freight Forwarders’ Bill of Lading: Are they Bills of Lading?”, THAC's Newsletter, No. 3, December 2020, p. 2, where the discussion herein also appears.

  117. 117.

    The antonym to it is ‘unimodal’ bills, in which only one mode of transport is involve, e.g. sea voyage.

  118. 118.

    See BIMCO MULTIDOC 2016 and BIMCO COMBICONBILL 1995 forms.

  119. 119.

    In the case of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, the Hague Rules.

  120. 120.

    Section 1(2) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971; and Articles I(e) and II.

  121. 121.

    Subject to any compulsory rules applicable for the land-transport legs.

  122. 122.

    Article I(b), read together with Article II.

  123. 123.

    Barber v Meyerstein (1870) LR 4 HL 317 (UK HL).

  124. 124.

    UCP 600, Article 19.

  125. 125.

    ‘United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’.

  126. 126.

    ‘International Chamber of Commerce’.

  127. 127.

    Although they are not seen in the popular forms of charterparty bill of lading such as the BIMCO CONGENBILL 2016.

  128. 128.

    Section 20(2)(g) of the UK Superior Courts Act 1981.

  129. 129.

    A freight forwarder will usually be an agent for the shipper when he merely arranges the carriage contract and earns a commission therefor. However, occasionally the forwarder will be the principle when he imposes on the shipper an all-in-all charge. It is unlikely that the forwarder will be the agent of any on-carrier. Generally, freight forwarders can be compared to travel agents.

  130. 130.

    The Maheno [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 (NZ SC).

  131. 131.

    UCP 600, Article 20(c)(i).

  132. 132.

    Articles I(b) and 4bis(1); Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 All ER 158, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 321 (EW HC) (the common law position).

  133. 133.

    Cl. 7.

  134. 134.

    UCP 600, Article 20(c)(ii).

  135. 135.

    [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 317 (EW HC).

  136. 136.

    A conflict of laws issue may arise because the single place of issuance of the bill may render a particular rule applicable for the entire carriage, while the different loading ports may call for different rules to apply based on the loading port for the voyage from that port to the next one.

  137. 137.

    Article III(4).

  138. 138.

    [1932] AC 562, [1932] All ER Rep 1.

  139. 139.

    See Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] UKHL 12, [2004] 1 AC 715, [2003] 2 All ER 785, [2003] 2 WLR 711, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 625, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571 [2003] All ER (D) 192 (Mar) (UK HL).

  140. 140.

    A tort.

  141. 141.

    Discussed in more detail in Chap. 4.

  142. 142.

    [2006] 3 MLJ 235 (MY CA).

  143. 143.

    In Malaysia.

  144. 144.

    In Libya.

  145. 145.

    However, the factual matrix of the case was highly different, as the seller procured a false bill stating that the cargo was shipped on board a vessel from Port Kelang when in fact the cargo was never shipped to Benghazi after arriving at Singapore. Accordingly, it was a straightforward case for the court to find for the buyer, as it did, even without deciding the question of meaning of ‘transshipment’.

  146. 146.

    (1794) 5 TR 683, 101 ER 380 (EW HC).

  147. 147.

    (1870) LR 4 HL 317 (UK HL).

  148. 148.

    Both Lickbarrow and Barber have been discussed in detail above in Chap. 2.2.2.

  149. 149.

    Robert Desty, ‘Manual of the Law relating to Shipping and Admiralty’, (San Francisco, S. Whitney, 1879), chap. X.

  150. 150.

    E.g. MacWilliam (JI) Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Rafaela S) [2005] UKHL 11, [2005] 2 AC 423, [2005] 2 All ER 86, [2005] 2 WLR 554, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 393, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347 (UK HL); Chan Cheng Kum v Wah Tat Bank [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439, [1971] 1 MLJ 177 (PC on appeal from Singapore); Minmetals South-East Asia Corp Pte Ltd v Nakhoda Logistics Sdn Bhd [2019] 3 CLJ 19, [2018] 6 MLJ 152 (MY CA).

  151. 151.

    E.g. UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, Section 1(4).

  152. 152.

    Hague Rules/Hague-Visby Rules, Articles I(b) and III(7).

  153. 153.

    JK Roy, Analysis of Carver’s Carriage of Goods by Sea, London, Stevens and Sons, 1913, p. 66.

  154. 154.

    Section 17 of the UK Sale of Goods Acts 1972.

  155. 155.

    See Arun Kasi, ‘A Critical Analysis of the Court of Appeal Decision on Misdelivery in Minmetals South-East Asia Corp Pte Ltd v Nakhoda Logistics Sdn Bhd’, The Law Review, [2020] LR 105. This article was referred to in Punjab National Bank v Malayan Banking Berhad [2020] 1 LNS 232, [2020] 5 MLJ 732 (MY CA).

  156. 156.

    See Arun Kasi, ‘Bill of Lading: Document of Title or Possession?’, Journal of The Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, vol. 30, no. 3, December 2020, p. 27.

  157. 157.

    Official Assignee of Madras v Mercantile Bank of India Ltd [1935] AC 53 (PC on appeal from India).

  158. 158.

    [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439, [1971] 1 MLJ 177 (PC on appeal from Singapore).

  159. 159.

    In Malaysia.

  160. 160.

    [2000] 5 MLJ 721 (MY HC in Sarawak).

  161. 161.

    Malaysian Contracts Act 1950, Section 131: “A person who is in possession of any goods, or of any bill of lading, dock-warrant, warehouse-keeper’s certificate, wharfinger’s certificate, or warrant or order for delivery, or any other document of title to goods, may make a valid pledge of the goods or documents …”

  162. 162.

    Official Assignee of Madras v Mercantile Bank of India Ltd [1935] AC 53, 104 LJPC 1, 40 Com Cas 143, 4 LDAB 462, [1934] All ER Rep 237, 152 LT 170 (PC on appeal from India).

  163. 163.

    UCP 600, Article 2.

  164. 164.

    Section 31 of the UK Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Identical provision is found in the same numbered section in the Malaysian Bills of Exchange Act 1949 and the Singapore Bills of Exchange Act.

  165. 165.

    (1794) 5 TR 683, 101 ER 380 (EW HC).

  166. 166.

    (1870) LR 4 HL 317 (UK HL).

  167. 167.

    A tort.

  168. 168.

    See Chap. 2.2.2.

  169. 169.

    Now repealed and replaced with the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  170. 170.

    It is taken that there is a priori attornment.

  171. 171.

    Contractual.

  172. 172.

    Now repealed and replaced by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  173. 173.

    Read with Section 5(1).

  174. 174.

    Literally, the Section 2(1) transfers the contractual rights held by the contracting party. In a case where the shipper in the bill of lading is also the charterer of the vessel from the carrier, the bill has no contractual effect in the hands of the charterer. In such cases, a literal interpretation of the section will mean that there is no contractual right to transfer to the lawful holder. However, this section has been purposely interpreted so that the bill, insofar as it represents the contractual function, is treated as a as a contractual document meant to confer the rights thereunder on a holder other than the charterer.

  175. 175.

    Repealed and replaced by the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  176. 176.

    (1884) 10 App Cas 74, [1881–5] All ER Rep 223 (UK HL).

  177. 177.

    Indeed, Section 1(2)(b) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 expressly include ‘received for shipment’ bills into the definition of a bill of lading for the purpose of transferability. Even without such a provision, as in the case of Malaysia where the UK 1855 Act is largely applicable, a received for shipment bill of lading has been recognised as being transferable.

  178. 178.

    Playing Cards (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v China Mutual Navigation Co Ltd [1980] 2 MLJ 182 (MY FC).

  179. 179.

    (1888) 20 QBD 475, [1886–90] All ER Rep 266, (1888) 20 EBD 475 (EW CA).

  180. 180.

    Evryalos Maritime Ltd v China Pacific Insurance Co Ltd (The Michael S) [2001] All ER (D) 325 (Dec) (EW HC).

  181. 181.

    OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy and Others (The Kribi) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 76, [2000] All ER (D) 1571 (EW HC).

  182. 182.

    E.g. buyer.

  183. 183.

    ‘Good faith’ is what turns the holder into a ‘lawful’ holder: Section 5(2) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  184. 184.

    Aegean Sea Traders Corpn v Repsol Petroleo SA (The Aegean Sea) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39, [1998] All ER (D) 135 (EW HC).

  185. 185.

    Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Ltd (The Erin Schulte) [2014] EWCA Civ 1382, [2016] QB 1, [2015] 2 All ER 395, [2015] 3 WLR 261, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 362, [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 97, [2014] All ER (D) 273 (Oct) (EW CA).

  186. 186.

    [2005] SGCA 42, [2006] 1 SLR 1 (SG CA).

  187. 187.

    Section 2(2) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  188. 188.

    A ‘spent’ bill can possibly be defined to mean an ‘accomplished’ bill, whereby the carrier has delivered cargo against presentation of the bill.

  189. 189.

    Champerty or transfer of bare right of action is prohibited at common law.

  190. 190.

    Section 2(2)(a) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  191. 191.

    Provided that the principal transaction was made when the bill still represented the cargo: Section 2(2)(b) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  192. 192.

    See Section 5(4) of the Act (which applies not only to bills of lading, but also to sea waybills and ship’s delivery orders), which provides: “Without prejudice to Sections 2(2) …, nothing in this Act shall preclude its operation in relation to a case here the goods to which a document relates (a) cease to exist after the issue of the document; or (b) they cannot be identified (whether because they are mixed with other goods or for any other reason”. Although the Section 5(4)(a) does not bar the operation of the Act in case of transfer of bills after the goods cease to exist, however it does not transfer the rights to the lawful holder of a bill of lading except otherwise than pursuant to Section 2(2) of the Act.

  193. 193.

    The Dolphina [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 304, [2011] SGHC 273 (SG HC).

  194. 194.

    Chabbra Corporation Pte Ltd v Jag Shakti (Owners) (The Jag Shakti) [1986] 1 MLJ 197, [1986] AC 337, [1986] 1 All ER 480, [1986] 2 WLR 87, [1987] LRC (Comm) 228, [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, 130 Sol Jo 51, [1986] LS Gaz R 45 (PC on appeal from Singapore); Wolff v Trinity Logistics USA Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2765, [2019] 1 WLR 3997, [2019] All ER (D) 37 (Jan) (EW CA)—Longmore LJ: “It has long been a cardinal principle of the English law of carriage by sea that the carrier should only deliver the goods to a person who presents an original bill of lading. If he delivers to anyone else he is liable for misdelivery.”

  195. 195.

    The Stettin (1889) 14 PD 142 (EW HC).

  196. 196.

    The Yue You 902 [2019] SGHC 106 (SG HC).

  197. 197.

    Under Singapore Bills of Lading Act, which is for all practical purposes identical to the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea 1992 Act.

  198. 198.

    Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Ltd (The Erin Schulte) [2014] EWCA Civ 1382, [2016] QB 1, [2015] 2 All ER 395, [2015] 3 WLR 261, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 362, [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 97, [2014] All ER (D) 273 (Oct) (EW CA) will support this position.

  199. 199.

    Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd (The Ythan) [2005] EWHC 2399 (Comm), [2006] 1 All ER 367, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 157, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 457, [2005] All ER (D) 05 (Nov) (EW HC).

  200. 200.

    Read with Section 2(2)(a).

  201. 201.

    Transfer of liability under Section 3(1) is discussed in detail later in this chapter. In essence, a holder will only become liable under the bill if he makes a demand for delivery of goods, makes a claim or takes delivery under the bill.

  202. 202.

    (2001) Admiralty Court, 2 Feb 2001 (EW HC).

  203. 203.

    Enichem Anic SpA and Others v Ampelos Shipping Co Ltd (The Delfini) [1990] 1 Ll L Rep 252 (EW CA).

  204. 204.

    The David Agmashenebeli (cargo owners) v The David Agmashenebeli (owners) [2002] EWHC 104 (Admlty), [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 806, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, [2002] All ER (D) 535 (May) (EW HC).

  205. 205.

    Meaning ‘job completed’.

  206. 206.

    Identically reproduced in the Singapore Bills of Lading Act with the same section numbering.

  207. 207.

    Identically reproduced in the Singapore Bills of Lading Act with the same section numbering.

  208. 208.

    Price payable to the carrier for the carriage.

  209. 209.

    Section 3 of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  210. 210.

    One sided in the sense that the rights are immediately conferred on the holder but not on the carrier.

  211. 211.

    A general rule whereby only parties to a contract may sue and be sued on the contract: Provender v Wood (1630) Hetley 30, (1627) 124 ER 318 (EW Court of Common Pleas).

  212. 212.

    In Tradigrain SA and Others v King Diamond Marine Ltd (The Spiros C) [2000] All ER (D) 979, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319 (EW CA), the court observed that the end consignee will be under an obligation to discharge the cargo within a reasonable time when the original shipper was bound by such implied obligation.

  213. 213.

    In the case of an assignment with notice, no attornment will be necessary. In Malaysia, the requirement for such notice in case of assignment is codified in Section 4(8) of the Singapore Civil law Act/Section 4(3) of the Malaysian Civil Law Act 1956.

  214. 214.

    Common law prohibits champerty. Bare right of action cannot be assigned.

  215. 215.

    Such an assignment of bare rights will be invalidated by the law of champerty.

  216. 216.

    Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256, [1891–94] All ER Rep 127 (EW CA).

  217. 217.

    This explanation for transferability of bills of lading is novel and introduced in this work.

  218. 218.

    [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256, [1891–94] All ER Rep 127 (EW CA).

  219. 219.

    East West Corp v Dampskibsselskabet AF, 1912, Aktieselskab; Utaniko Ltd v P&O Nedlloyd BV [2003] EWCA Civ 174, [2003] 4 Costs LR 531, [2003] All ER (D) 249 (Feb), [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 265n (EW CA).

  220. 220.

    [2003] 1 SLR 295 (SG CA).

  221. 221.

    In the case of ship’s delivery orders, the rights of the last holder of the bill of lading, in exchange for which the ship’s delivery orders were issued, are not divested. In the case of sea waybills, the rights of the original shipper are not divested.

  222. 222.

    East West Corp v Dampskibsselskabet AF, 1912, Aktieselskab; Utaniko Ltd v P&O Nedlloyd BV [2003] EWCA Civ 174, [2003] 4 Costs LR 531, [2003] All ER (D) 249 (Feb), [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 265n (EW CA).

  223. 223.

    Section 1(3) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  224. 224.

    Original shipper in sea waybills and ship’s delivery orders is not divested, by virtue of the Section 2(5), of his rights by statutory vesting of rights under the bill on a third party by operation of the Section 2(1).

  225. 225.

    East West Corp v Dampskibsselskabet AF, 1912, Aktieselskab; Utaniko Ltd v P&O Nedlloyd BV [2003] EWCA Civ 174, [2003] 4 Costs LR 531, [2003] All ER (D) 249 (Feb), [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 265n (EW CA).

  226. 226.

    Unlike what is provided in the Section 2(5) for extinction of rights of intermediate holders of bills of lading.

  227. 227.

    That transferred rights in a bill of lading to the indorsee, prior to coming into force of the 1992 Act. The 1855 Act is now repealed by and replaced with the 1992 Act.

  228. 228.

    142 ER 1026, (1862) 11 CB NS 842, [1862] 2 WLUK 49 (EW Court of Common Pleas), approved by the House of Lords in Borealis AB (formerly Borealis Petrokemi AB and Statoil Petrokemi AB) v Stargas Ltd (The Berge Sisar) [2001] UKHL 17, [2002] 2 A.C. 205, [2001] 2 WLR 1118, [2001] 2 All ER 193, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 673, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 663, [2001] 3 WLUK 638, [2001] CLC 1084, (2001) 98(20) LSG 43, (2001) 145 SJLB 93 (UK HL).

  229. 229.

    Materially identical to Singapore Bills of Lading Act.

  230. 230.

    Borealis AB (formerly Borealis Petrokemi AB and Statoil Petrokemi AB) v Stargas Ltd (The Berge Sisar) [2001] UKHL 17, [2002] 2 AC 205, [2001] 2 WLR 1118, [2001] 2 All ER 193, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 673, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 663, [2001] 3 WLUK 638, [2001] CLC 1084, (2001) 98(20) LSG 43, (2001) 145 SJLB 93 (UK HL).

  231. 231.

    The liability in question was as to liability for alleged damage to the ship resulting from corrosive state of the copper carried.

  232. 232.

    Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd (The Ythan) [2005] EWHC 2399 (Comm), [2006] 1 All ER 367, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 157, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 457, [2005] All ER (D) 05 (Nov) (EW HC) will support this proposition.

  233. 233.

    A popular standard form of such contract is BIMCO GENCON 1994.

  234. 234.

    Such terms will include details as to loading, carriage, discharge, freight, laytime, demurrage, etc.

  235. 235.

    Rodocanachi, Sons & Co v Milburn Bros (1886) 18 QBD 67 (EW CA); President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co Ltd (The Dunelmia) [1970] 1 QB 289, [1969] 3 All ER 1549, [1969] 3 WLR 1120 (EW CA).

  236. 236.

    The bill will lose its contractual effect if it returns to the hands of the charterers after it was initially parted with by the charters: President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co Ltd (The Dunelmia) [1970] 1 QB 289, [1969] 3 All ER 1549, [1969] 3 WLR 1120 (EW CA). However, the bill will not lose its contractual effect, if it returns to the charterer as pledgee: Calcutta Steamship Co Ltd v Andrew Weir & Co [1910] 1 KB 759 (EW HC).

  237. 237.

    Such clauses are called ‘clause paramount’.

  238. 238.

    Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd [1959] AC 576, [1959] 3 All ER 182, [1959] 3 WLR 214, [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 114 (PC on appeal from Singapore).

  239. 239.

    Article II; Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 All ER 158, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 321 (EW HC). See also Article I(e), read together with Article II, for definition of ‘carriage of goods’ that means the ‘tackle-to-tackle’ period.

  240. 240.

    Article VII of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules.

  241. 241.

    Article VII of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules.

  242. 242.

    Articles II and III(8).

  243. 243.

    Contractual freedom is preserved by Article VII of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules except for the period from loading to discharge regulated by the Rules.

  244. 244.

    Largely.

  245. 245.

    Which may be more favourable to the carrier, such as in case of liability-limitation—see Chap. 10.

  246. 246.

    Armour & Co Ltd v Leopold Walford (London) Ltd [ 1921] 3 KB 473 (EW HC).

  247. 247.

    Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 All ER 158, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 321 (EW HC).

  248. 248.

    By Section 3(1) of the Singapore Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, read together with para 2 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Singapore Currency Equivalents) Order.

  249. 249.

    Largely.

  250. 250.

    By Section 2 the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 for Peninsular Malaysia, by reg. 2 of the Merchant Shipping (Implementation of Conventions Relating to Carriage of Goods by Sea and to Liability of Shipowners and Others) Regulations 1960 for Sarawak and by reg. 3(1) of the Merchant Shipping (Applied Subsidiary Legislation) Regulations 1961 for Sabah, with Labuan left in lacuna since it was severed from Sabah in 1984.

  251. 251.

    ‘International Chamber of Commerce’.

  252. 252.

    ‘Comité Maritime International’.

  253. 253.

    ‘Bills of Lading in Europe’.

  254. 254.

    Article 17(1) and (3) read with Article 2(a) and (b).

  255. 255.

    Article 10(1)(b) read with Article 17(1).

  256. 256.

    Materially identical to the Singapore Bills of Lading Act, with the reference to ‘Secretary of State’ in Section 1(5) of the UK Act changed to ‘Minister’ in Section 1(5) of the Singapore Act.

  257. 257.

    Similarly, in Singapore, the Minister has not made any such regulation.

  258. 258.

    [2017] EWCA Civ 365 (EW CA).

  259. 259.

    ‘Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication’.

  260. 260.

    However, unlike in the case of bills of lading, this does not divest the shipper of his rights under the carriage of contract: Section 2(5) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  261. 261.

    Wolff v Trinity Logistics USA Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2765, [2019] 1 WLR 3997 (EW CA), speech of Longmore LJ: “It is by no means unknown for carriers … to succumb to pressure from the receivers/buyers of goods to release goods without production of an original bill. Any carrier who does so will be in breach of the contract of carriage. … He will therefore hardly ever release the goods without a guarantee or letter of indemnity from the receiver or whoever wants delivery of the goods.”

  262. 262.

    MacWilliam (JI) Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Rafaela S) [2005] UKHL 11, [2005] 2 AC 423, [2005] 2 All ER 86, [2005] 2 WLR 554, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 393, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347 (UK HL). Although a straight bill will usually, as in the case also of BIMCO standard forms, say that delivery is to be made against presentation of the bill, likely the obligation to deliver will be against presentation of the bill even if the absence of such statement in the bill: Obiter of Rix LJ at the Court of Appeal reported as [2003] EWCA Civ 556, [2004] QB 702 (EW CA).

  263. 263.

    Section 1(4) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971; Article I((b) read together with Article II; MacWilliam (JI) Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (The Rafaela S) [2005] UKHL 11, [2005] 2 AC 423, [2005] 2 All ER 86, [2005] 2 WLR 554, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 393, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347 (UK HL); APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer [2002] 4 SLR 481 (SG CA), also reported as Voss v APL Co Pte Ltd [2003] 3 LRC 632, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 707 (SG CA).

  264. 264.

    Section 1(6)(b) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971/Section 1(4)(b) of Singapore Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (however, there is a material difference between the two, namely “as if receipt were a bill of lading” in the closing is there in the UK provision, but not in the Singapore provision.

  265. 265.

    [2002] 4 SLR 481 (SG CA), also reported as Voss v APL Co Pte Ltd [2003] 3 LRC 632, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 707.

  266. 266.

    Section 2(1), read with Section 5(1), of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  267. 267.

    Section 2(5) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  268. 268.

    Section 2(1), read with Section 5(1), of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  269. 269.

    Section 2(5)(a) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  270. 270.

    Section 3(3) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  271. 271.

    Article III(4) of the Hague-Visby Rules.

  272. 272.

    The Hague-Visby Rules do not apply to sea waybills, unless contractually incorporated.

  273. 273.

    The consignor.

  274. 274.

    Unlike in the case of bills of lading.

  275. 275.

    Section 2(3) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. This section reads “The rights vested in any person by virtue of the operation of subsection (1) above in relation to a ship’s delivery order—(a) shall be so vested subject to the terms of the order; and (b) where the goods to which the order relates form a part only of the goods to which the contract of carriage relates, shall be confined to rights in respect of the goods to which the order relates.”

  276. 276.

    Section 3(2) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

  277. 277.

    Unlike in the case of bills of lading.

  278. 278.

    Inserted into the Act in 1995.

  279. 279.

    As an exception to the general rule in Section 16 of the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 prohibiting the transfer of property in goods that are not ascertained. The Section 16, as amended, reads “Subject to section 20A below where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods no property in the goods is transferred to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arun Kasi & Co, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Arun Kasi

Authors
  1. Arun Kasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arun Kasi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kasi, A. (2021). Shipping Documents. In: The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6793-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6793-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-33-6792-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-33-6793-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)