The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a demand. An assertion of a formal right was required. A person to whom a bill of lading had been endorsed, ceased to be liable on it when he successfully endorsed it again to someone else.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 27-Mar-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] UKHL 17, [2001] 2 All ER 193, [2002] 2 AC 205
House of Lords, Bailii
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 3(1), Bills of Lading Act 1855
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Borealis Ab v Stargas Ltd and Others CA 30-Jul-1998
The holder of a bill of lading became liable upon completing any one of some initial steps, and retained that liability unless he actually took delivery. He remained liable until the bill was endorsed to somebody else who in turn fulfilled such a . .
Cited – Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk) HL 22-Jan-1998
A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an . .
Cited – Sanders v Maclean CA 1883
‘The law as to the indorsement of bills of lading is as clear as in my opinion the practice of all European merchants is thoroughly understood. A cargo at sea is incapable of physical delivery, and a bill of lading by the law merchant is universally . .
Cited – Dublin City Distillery (Great Brunswick Street, Dublin) Limited and Another v Doherty HL 1914
D had advanced monies to a distillery company on the security of manufactured whisky stored in a warehouse. On the occasion of each advance, the company delivered to D an invoice and a warrant which described the particulars of the whisky and stated . .
Cited – Lickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
Cited – Dawes v Peck 1799
Where there is a named consignee on a bill of lading it may be inferred that the contracting party is the consignee not the shipper. . .
Cited – Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
Cited – Bryans v Nix 1839
. .
Cited – Evans v Nichol 1841
. .
Cited – Kum and Another v Wah Tat Bank Ltd HL 1971
‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a . .
Cited – Thompson v Dominy 1845
. .
Cited – Glynn Mills v E and W India Dock Co 1880
The effect of the assignment of a bill of lading on the title to the goods depends on the circumstances and the intention of the transferor and transferee. . .
Cited – Sewell v Burdick HL 1884
What does the word ‘property’ encompass in the context of the assignment of a bill of lading? Is it limited to the general property in the goods, that is, the legal title to the goods as is transferred by a sale? Or does it include the special . .
Cited – Cock v Taylor 1811
The carrier’s liens under a bill of lading are a qualification of the rights of the endorsee against the shipowner. . .
Cited – Allen v Coltart 1883
‘Where goods are deliverable to the holder of a bill of lading on certain conditions being complied with, the act of demanding delivery is evidence of an offer on his part to comply with those conditions, and the delivery accordingly by the master . .
Cited – Sanders, Snow and Cockings v Vanzeller 2-Feb-1843
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading . .
Cited – Stindt v Roberts 1848
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading. . .
Cited – Young v Moeller 1855
. .
Cited – Brandt v Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co Ltd CA 1924
The plaintiff claimed damages from the shipowner for negligence in the carriage of a consignment of goods. He was not able to bring himself within the terms of the 1855 Act but he succeeded on the contract to be inferred from the presentation of the . .
Cited – The Delfini 1990
. .
Cited – Fox v Nott 1861
. .
Cited – Smurthwaite v Wilkins 1862
The endorser of a bill of lading is not liable after he has endorsed over the bill of lading to another who is liable; the shipper remains liable as an original party to the contract. ‘Looking at the whole statute it seems to me that the obvious . .
Cited – The Aramis CA 1989
The court considered the circumstances under which a contract might be implied: ‘As the question whether or not any such contract is to be implied is one of fact, its answer must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case – and the . .
Cited – In re Wait 1927
In the case of a Bill of lading issued for quantities out of undivided consignments and where those quantities had been sold to different buyers and the various bills of lading endorsed over to them, those endorsements were ineffective to pass the . .
Cited – Margarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince Steamship Co Ltd 1969
The practice of issuing delivery orders for parcels out of a bulk cargo were ineffective and the intended buyers were left without remedy against the carrier.
Roskill J said: ‘In my judgment, there is nothing in Hedley Byrne to affect the . .
Cited – Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) HL 24-Apr-1985
The plaintiff contracted to buy a cargo to be shipped on the defendant’s vessel. Because of poor stowage, the cargo was damaged. At the time of the damage the claimant was neither the owner nor possessor of the cargo, but under the terms of the . .
Cited – Aegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (‘The Aegean Sea’) AdCt 1998
The Aegean Sea was lost at sea causing very extensive damage through the escape of its cargo of crude oil. AST asserted as a preliminary issue, that RP had become liable for that damage. RP’s wholly owned subsidiary ROIL was the charterer, argued . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Borealis Ab v Stargas Ltd and Others CA 30-Jul-1998
The holder of a bill of lading became liable upon completing any one of some initial steps, and retained that liability unless he actually took delivery. He remained liable until the bill was endorsed to somebody else who in turn fulfilled such a . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle International Limited v Othon Ghalanos Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The defendant challenged a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a claim in contract saying that the appropriate court was in Cyprus. The cargo was taken by ship from Liverpool to Limassol. An English court would only have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Commercial, Contract
Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.78491
