Sucre Export SA v Northern Shipping Ltd (The Sormovskiy 3068)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1994 |
| Date | 25 April 1994 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty) |
Before Mr Justice Clarke
Queen's Bench Division
Shipping - bill of lading - role in cargo delivery
A master or shipowner was not ordinarily entitled to deliver cargo otherwise than in return for the original bill of lading unless it was proved to his reasonable satisfaction that the person seeking the goods was entitled to possession of them and a reasonable explanation was given for what had become of the bill of lading.
Mr Justice Clarke so held in a reserved judgment in the Admiralty Court of the Queen's Bench Division in which the defendants, Northern Shipping Ltd, owners of the vessel Sormovskiy 3068, were held liable to pay damages to the plaintiff charterers, Sucre Export SA, for delivering cargo to the port of discharge without the production of an original bill of lading in breach of the contract of carriage.
Mr Christopher C Russell for the plaintiffs; Mr Steven Berry for the defendants.
MR JUSTICE CLARKE said that the defendants had accepted that under the bill of lading they had been obliged to deliver the goods to the persons entitled to possession under it.
The issue between the parties was whether it was a breach of such a contract to deliver the cargo without presentation of an original bill of lading.
The plaintiffs submitted that shipowners who delivered other than in return for the original bill of lading did so at their peril, the reason underlying that principle was that unless they insisted on seeing and obtaining the original bill there was a risk that the goods would be delivered to someone who did not have the actual authority of the persons entitled to possession.
In his Lordship's judgment, subject to the particular terms of the contract concerned, which might and often did include a provision whereby the master was to deliver the cargo in return for a letter of indemnity, a master or shipowner was not entitled to deliver goods otherwise than against an original bill of lading unless it was proved to his reasonable satisfaction both that the person seeking the goods was entitled to possession of them and that there was some reasonable explanation of what had become of the bills of lading.
It made commercial sense to have a simple rule that in the absence of an express term of the contract the master must only deliver the cargo to the holder of the bill of lading who presented it to him. In that way both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The "Dolphina"
-
APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer
...The Houda [1994] 2 Lloyds 541 (refd) The Rafaela S [2002] EWHC 593 (refd) The River Ngada [2001] LMLN 570 (refd) The Sormovskiy 3068 [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266 (folld) The Stettin [1889] 14 PD 142 (refd) Thrige v United Shipping Co Ltd [1924] Lloyd’s Rep 6 (refd) Legislation referred to Carri......
- Westpac Banking Corporation v "Stone Gemini"
-
East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 (East West Corporation v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S)
......The Chilean agents of shipping lines, who were AJ Broom in the case of Maersk ... the absence of the bill (cf The Sormorksy 3068 [1994] 2 Ll.R.266, Motis Exports Ltd. v. ......
-
RIGHTS UNDER BILLS OF LADING: TRAWLING THROUGH SINGAPORE WATERS
...deliver goods on production of the bill of lading. On this issue, the court agreed with Clarke J’s reasoning in The Sormovskiy 3068[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266 at 274 that such a contractual provision “contemplated that [the shipowners] would be liable to the holder of the bill of lading if the......
-
Book Review: Shipping law and admiralty jurisdiction in South Africa
...Oil Carriers Ltd (The 'Houda') [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep 541 (CA); SA Sucre Export v Northern River Shipping Ltd (The 'Sormovskiy 3068') [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep 266), most recently in relation to the carrier's liability for presentation of forged bills of lading (Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselska......
-
HOLDER OF A BILL OF LADING
...Rep 81 at p. 91. 26 Supra, note 12, at pp. 98—99. Judge Diamond QC’s comments found favour with Clarke J in The Sormovskiy 3068[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266 at 273 who declined to decide the question as it was not relevant in that case. 27 This is consistent with the decision in Short v Simpson(......