Lam Huat Lighterage Co (the plaintiff) claimed for lighterage, stevedoring and other services against the owners of cargo carried on board the Asia Star (the vessel), owned by Kai Fah Marine Co SA of Taiwan. At the material time, the vessel was chartered to Pacific Ever-Green Marine Corp (the charterer). The vessel loaded a cargo of parboiled rice and textiles in Bangkok before sailing for Jeddah and Hodeidah, ports in the Red Sea. The vessel arrived in Singapore and the master lodged two marine protests to say that en route from Bangkok to Singapore the vessel had encountered heavy seas and there had been damage to the vessel and the cargo. It was decided to transship the cargo and the charterer entered a fixture to charter the Dong Hing to carry the cargo that was on the Asia Star. The vessel’s agent, Gibson Agency Co (Pte) Ltd, refused to act.

Around 10 days later, Constant Shipping & Travel Services (Pte) Ltd (Constant Shipping) was appointed as the vessel’s agent. They were requested to discharge the rice and general cargoes on board the Asia Star onto lighters pending transshipment by the Dong Hing. Constant Shipping engaged Kim Chye Trading & Transport Co (Kim Chye Trading) to do the job. Kim Chye Trading did not own any lighters and engaged the plaintiff to provide them.

The plaintiff sent the lighters to the Asia Star. The cargo was unloaded into 16 lighters. Kim Chye Trading provided the tally clerks and labourers to handle the cargo. The plaintiff presented its bill of SGD 25,895.55 to Kim Chye Trading. The Dong Hing never arrived in Singapore and the Asia Star left the Port of Singapore without clearance.

The plaintiff threatened to commence legal proceedings against Constant Shipping if its bill (that was increasing) was not paid. Constant Shipping commenced an action in rem against the owners of the cargo and freight. Constant Shipping obtained a court order for the sale of the cargo of parboiled rice that was still lying in the lighters of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff applied to intervene in the proceedings. The Registrar ordered the defendants to furnish bail in the amount of SGD 230,000 as security for whatever claims Constant Shipping may have had against the defendants. The bail was to be furnished by way of bail bonds in proportion to their respective tonnage of cargo, and the Registrar ordered the intervener (the current plaintiff) to deliver the cargo to the defendants; that the order of sale be stayed; and that the defendants furnish security to the intervener in the sum of SGD 120,000.

The plaintiff then commenced its claim. The plaintiff claimed it was entitled to payment on the following grounds:

1. Offloading onto the lighters was done lawfully on behalf of the owners authorised by the bills of lading by the plaintiff as agent of necessity; 
2. Offloading onto the lighters was done lawfully on behalf of the owners authorised by the bills of lading by virtue of the fact that the bills of lading authorised the goods to be transshipped; and/or
3. The master of the vessel had ostensible or apparent authority to offload the cargo on behalf of the defendants.

The plaintiff claimed to have a maritime lien. It also claimed damages against each of the defendants caused by the delay in the defendants' refusing or delaying to take prompt delivery of the cargo.

The defendants submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to transship the cargo. In support of this argument, the defendants relied upon two clauses in the bills of lading. Clause 13 provided that forwarding ‘is at the risk of the shipper, consignee and/or owner of goods; and clause 14 provided that in the case of transshipment, the vessel and/or carrier is absolved ‘from all claims or liabilities of every description’. The defendant submitted that, as these clauses seek to relieve the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with the goods, they are contrary to the Hague Rules and void under art 3.8. As such they were of no legal effect and not binding on the defendants.

Held: The claim was allowed. Article 3 of the Hague Rules is an article providing that the carrier must exercise due diligence in certain respects. Clauses 13 and 14 are merely terms of the contract under which shippers agreed that the master would be their agent in doing various things. This cannot be a lessening of the carrier’s liability.

There was no suggestion that the two marine protests had been made fraudulently by the master. The evidence shows that the cargo and vessel received damage from rough weather and the vessel could not undertake the long sea voyage to the Red Sea. It was the master and the charterer’s representative who instructed Constant Shipping to discharge the cargo onto the plaintiff’s lighters. The lighters were seaworthy and the plaintiff had taken all reasonable means to protect the cargo. The plaintiff proved its claim.