WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

Summary and Facts:

UniCredit Bank AG (claimant) financed a cargo purchase for Gulf (the buyer), while Euronav NV (defendant) was the owner of the vessel Sienna, chartered by BP (the seller).

BP sold a cargo of low-sulphur fuel oil to Gulf, with UniCredit financing the deal. Euronav issued a bill of lading on 19.02.2020, showing BP as the shipper. Gulf defaulted on its payment to UniCredit, but before this, Euronav delivered the cargo through a ship-to-ship transfer without requiring the presentation of the original bill of lading.

The bill of lading was consigned “to order” and was endorsed to UniCredit on 07.08.2020, after the cargo had already been discharged in April-May 2020. This delayed endorsement created a central legal issue in the case.

Legal issues:

i. Failure to Collect the Bill of Lading – Euronav delivered the cargo without retrieving the original bill of lading, a serious oversight for any shipowner. This left the bill of lading in circulation, and it was later endorsed to UniCredit, who then sought to claim for misdelivery. The bill of lading serves as a document of title, and its possession signifies the right to claim the cargo. By failing to collect it, Euronav exposed itself to legal claims even after the cargo was delivered.

ii. Misdelivery – The failure to require the original bill of lading before delivering the cargo constituted a misdelivery. Although Euronav argued that UniCredit was aware of the discharge, the court found that the shipowner had breached its contractual obligations by delivering the cargo without the bill. This act created the risk of double claims, as UniCredit, having received the endorsed bill, was entitled to sue despite the cargo already being delivered.

iii. Endorsement After Discharge – The endorsement of the bill of lading to UniCredit post-discharge complicated the case.

iv. Owner’s Responsibility – Shipowners are contractually obligated to deliver cargo only against the presentation of the bill of lading. In this case, Euronav’s decision to release the cargo without the bill represented a significant breach of duty. By allowing the bill of lading to remain in circulation, Euronav created legal complications and potential liabilities, even though it believed the discharge was authorized.

Outcome:

While the Court of Appeal upheld that a bill of lading can still evidence a contract of carriage after the novation of the charterparty, it dismissed UniCredit’s claim on the grounds of causation. UniCredit’s approval and knowledge of the discharge weakened its case, as the court found that any breach by Euronav did not directly cause UniCredit’s financial loss.

Conclusion:

This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of the bill of lading in maritime trade. Shipowners must exercise caution and always ensure that the original bill of lading is returned before releasing cargo. Failing to do so exposes owners to potential misdelivery claims, even if the cargo has already been lawfully discharged. For parties financing such transactions, the timing of endorsements can also heavily influence their ability to enforce their rights.

Reference cases:

Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

14 July ,2026 No Comments