Tag: Bills of Lading

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

ADMIRALTY – SINGAPORE HIGH COURT CLARIFIES RIGHTS OF SUIT UNDER BILLS OF LADING ACT AND WRONGFUL ARREST THRESHOLD IN THE JEIL CRYSTAL

In Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board “Jeil Crystal” v Owners of the Vessel “Jeil Crystal” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 299, the Singapore High Court clarified the operation of the Bills of Lading Act 1992 and the threshold for wrongful arrest. The Court held that Banque Cantonale de Genève (BCGE) ceased to be the lawful holder of the bills of lading once it endorsed and delivered them to its customer, GP Global. Having divested itself of all rights, BCGE had no standing to sue for wrongful switch bills or misdelivery when it arrested the vessel months later. The arrest was found wrongful, as BCGE acted with gross negligence by failing to verify that it possessed the original bills before seeking arrest. This decision reinforces the strict requirement of poss…

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

In Lord Marine Co Ltd v Vimeksim Trans SA & Anor [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, the English Commercial Court exercised its powers under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to order the sale of a deteriorating cargo of Ukrainian corn over which the shipowners had exercised a lien for unpaid freight. Mr Justice Bryan held that the cargo was the “subject of the proceedings” and that the court could intervene to preserve its value pending LMAA arbitration. The decision clarifies that a “freight prepaid” stamp does not estop owners where freight has not actually been paid and the bills of lading never left owners’ possession, and that possession can be maintained even when the cargo is stored in a receivers’ warehouse. This case reinforces the court’s readiness to act swiftly to prevent the loss of value in perishable cargo while safeguarding parties through fortified undertakings in damages.