The “Jag Shakti”
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1985 |
| Date | 18 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 25 of |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1985] SGPC 8
Privy Council
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
,
Lord Keith of Kinkel
,
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
,
Lord Roskill
,
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Privy Council Appeal No 25 of 1983
Anthony Colman QC (C Arul with him) (Philip Conway Thomas & Co) for the appellant
Timothy Walker QC (Clyde & Co) for the respondents.
Claridge v South Staffordshire Tramway Co [1892] 1 QB 422 (refd)
London Joint Stock Bank Ltd v British Amsterdam Maritime Agency Ltd [1910] 16 Com Cas 102 (distd)
Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 App Cas 74 (folld)
Swire v Leach (1865) 18 CB NS 479; 144 ER 531 (folld)
Winkfield, The [1902] P 42 (folld)
Bills of Lading Act 1855 (c 111) (UK)
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (c 60) (UK) s 503
Admiralty and Shipping–Bills of lading–Delivery of cargo against presentation of bills of lading–Wrongful delivery of goods–Whether holder and indorsee for value of bill of lading entitled to recover full market value of goods–Tort–Conversion–Quantum of damages–Failure to adduce reliable evidence to prove market value of goods–Whether entitled to recover full market value of goods–Tort–Conversion–Recovery of damages for conversion–Wrongful delivery of goods–Holder and indorsee for value of bill of lading–Whether entitled to recover market value of goods or confined to value of interest in goods
The appellant claimed against the owner of the ship Jag Dhir (the respondent) for failure to deliver a cargo of salt carried by that ship from Tuticorin in India to Chittagong in Bangladesh. The claim was raised by an action in rem against the ship Jag Shakti, which was owned by the respondent, in accordance with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred on the High Court. The trial judge awarded the appellant $389,117.62 in damages plus interest. However, he did not consider the issue of whether the appellant's entitlement to damages lay in contract or in the tort of conversion or both.
The respondent appealed on the basis that the damages awarded were too high and the appellant cross-appealed on the basis that the damages were too low. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's cross-appeal. As regards the respondent's appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was entitled to recover damages from the respondent both for breach of contract to deliver and in tort for conversion. Further the proper measure of damages in law, on either basis, was not the market value of the salt on delivery at Chittagong, but only the amount which had been expended in the transaction, in respect of the opening of two letters of credit, bank charges and insurance premiums to cover the salt in transit.
However the Court of Appeal substituted the trial judge's award of damages with a lower amount of $275,620.82. This appeared to be based on the premise that the proper measure of damages was the value of the appellant's limited interest in the goods as holder and indorsee of the bills of lading. The appellant was thus precluded from recovering the market value of the salt, and was confined to the amount it had spent in financing the transaction.
On appeal before the Privy Council, both parties conceded that the appellant could only recover in tort for conversion and that the appellant had a good cause of action in this respect.
Two questions came before the Privy Council for decision. First, whether the proper measure of damages recoverable by the appellant was the full market value of the salt on delivery at Chittagong as held by the trial judge, or the total amount expended in financing the purchase of the salt as held by the Court of Appeal. Second, assuming that the market value of the goods was the appropriate measure of damages, whether the appellant had adduced evidence to prove the full market value of the goods.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) The pledgee of a bill of lading was entitled, on presentation of it to the ship at the port of discharge, to the possession of the goods represented by it. Therefore, as holder and indorsee for value of the bills of lading, the appellant had a right to delivery of the salt at Chittagong: at [13] and [21].
(2) Where a person who has or is entitled to have possession of the goods is deprived of such possession by the tortuous conduct of another, whether such conduct consists in conversion or negligence, the proper measure in law of the damages recoverable by the former from the latter is the full market value of the goods at the time when and the place where possession of them should have been given: at [13].
(3) The proper measure of the damages recoverable by the appellant from the respondent for conversion of the salt was the full value of the salt on delivery at Chittagong. This was because the proper measure of damages for conversion was the full market value of the goods and not merely the value of the plaintiff's interest in them. It was therefore irrelevant whether the plaintiff had the general property in the goods as its outright owner, or only a special property in them as pledgee, or only possession or a right to possession of them as a bailee. It was also irrelevant that the appellant may have had to account to a third party for the whole or part of what it had recovered from the respondents: at [13], [14], [21] and [22].
(4) The burden of proving the market value of the salt on delivery at Chittagong was on the appellant. While the market value of the salt may have exceeded the amount spent in financing the transaction, the appellant had failed to adduce any reliable evidence to prove what the amount of excess was. The Court of Appeal's award of damages would thus stand although it was arrived at on a basis that was incorrect in law: at [26].
Judgment reserved.
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 This appeal arises out of a claim by Chabbra Corporation Pte. Ltd. (“Chabbra”) against the owners of the ship Jag Dhir (“the shipowners”) for failure to deliver a cargo of salt carried by that ship from Tuticorin in India to Chittagong in Bangladesh in July 1977.
2 The claim was raised by an action in rem against the ship Jag Shakti, a ship in the same ownership as the Jag Dhir,begun in the High Court of Singapore on 29 April 1978 in accordance with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred on that court by statute. The action was tried by A P Rajah J who, by an order dated 18 March 1981, awarded Chabbra damages of S$389,117.62 with interest at 12% per annum from 27 July 1977 and costs.
3 The shipowners appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore (Wee Chong Jin CJ, F A Chua and Lai Kew Chai JJ) on the ground that the damages awarded were too high. Chabbra cross-appealed on the ground that they were too low. The Court of Appeal, by an order dated 19 August 1982, varied the award of damages made by A P Rajah J by substituting for the amount awarded by him the lower amount of S$275,620.82 with interest at 12% per annum from 5 August 1977. The Court of Appeal at the same time dismissed Chabbra's cross-appeal.
4 Chabbra now appeal, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, to this Board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marco Polo Shipping Company Pte Ltd v Fairmacs Shipping&Transport Services Pte Ltd
...v Harikutai Engineering Pte Ltd [2015] 1 SLR 904 (refd) Furness v Adrium Industries Pty Ltd [1996] 1 VR 668 (refd) Jag Shakti, The [1985-1986] SLR (R) 448 (refd) M&J Marine Engineering Services Co Ltd v Shipshore Ltd [2009] EWHC 2031 (Comm) (refd) Pioneer Glory, The [2002] 1 SLR (R) 232; [2......
-
Fairmacs Shipping & Transport Services Pte Ltd v Harikutai Engineering Pte Ltd and another
...where delivery up of possession of the goods ought to have taken place. In this regard, the Privy Council in The “Jag Shakti” [1985-1986] SLR(R) 448 (“The Jag Shakti”) held as follows (at [13]): So far as the first question is concerned, it is not in dispute that the pledgee of a bill of la......
-
Fairmacs Shipping & Transport Services Pte Ltd v Harikutai Engineering Pte Ltd and another
...where delivery up of possession of the goods ought to have taken place. In this regard, the Privy Council in The “Jag Shakti” [1985-1986] SLR(R) 448 (“The Jag Shakti”) held as follows (at [13]): So far as the first question is concerned, it is not in dispute that the pledgee of a bill of la......
-
RIGHTS UNDER BILLS OF LADING: TRAWLING THROUGH SINGAPORE WATERS
...with the owner’s rights, coupled with an intention to deny the owner’s rights, or to assert a right inconsistent with them. 150 [1986] 1 MLJ 197; [1986] AC 337 (“The Jag Shakti”). See also Commercial & Savings Bank of Somalia v Joo Seng Co[1988] SLR 699. 151 A mere contractual right to poss......