In this update
Summary and Facts
In MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA and Another v Interglobal Technologies Ltd and Others [2026] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 24, the English Commercial Court considered whether a cargo receiver was bound by shipping terms requiring claims to be brought in the English High Court. MSC carried containers from China to Nigeria. Interglobal, the named cargo receiver, took delivery and later sued in Nigeria for repayment of approximately US$32,000 in container charges and approximately US$35 million in damages. The defendants also secured the arrest of MSC Tasmania. MSC obtained an interim injunction restraining the Nigerian proceedings. Interglobal sought to discharge it, arguing that it had received only the front pages of the shipping documents and was not bound by the terms on the reverse.
Legal Issues
Was Interglobal bound by the English court clause despite allegedly not receiving the full terms?
Did Nigerian law, MSC’s participation in the Nigerian proceedings or alleged disclosure failures justify lifting the injunction?
Was further protection needed against attempts to obstruct the English proceedings?
Commercial Court’s Findings
Although described as bills of lading, the non-negotiable documents were treated as sea waybills under the English Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. Interglobal acquired rights as the named receiver under section 2. Taking delivery and making contractual claims also engaged section 3, making it subject to contractual liabilities, including the English court clause.
The Court did not decide whether Interglobal had seen those terms. Its statutory obligations did not depend on specific notice. In any event, references on the documents to the reverse-side terms and MSC’s website provided reasonable notice.
English law governed the clause’s validity. MSC’s steps to protect or release its vessel did not amount to accepting Nigerian jurisdiction over the substantive dispute. The Court also rejected the alleged failure to give full and frank disclosure.
The original injunction continued until trial. A further injunction restrained attempts to obtain Nigerian orders undermining the English proceedings or injunction. Withdrawal of the later Nigerian proceedings did not remove the real risk of repetition. MSC received indemnity costs for both applications.
Practical Implications
Cargo receivers should obtain the full shipping terms and check the chosen court before taking delivery or bringing claims.
Under the English statutory framework, not signing or seeing every term does not necessarily prevent a receiver from being bound.
Proceedings brought contrary to an exclusive court clause may attract injunctions and substantial costs.
This decision concerned interim protection of the agreed forum; it did not finally determine the underlying shipping claims