The plaintiff entered a CIF contract to sell 14,000 t shirts at USD 20,300 to a Canadian company (Potirna Rep). The plaintiff as shipper entered a contract with the defendant for the carriage of 117 cartons of T-shirts from Ningbo Container Freight Station in the People's Republic of China to Trieste, Italy. Under the contract of carriage, the goods were to be transhipped in Hong Kong. Clause 17(A) of the bill of lading incorporated the Hague Rules into the contract.

The bill of lading named Karlovacka Pivovara Croatia as consignee and Potirna Rep was named as notify party. By cl 5 of the bill of lading, the bill was negotiable. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the cargo in apparent good order and condition. The bill of lading was not claused.

When the goods were transhipped in Hong Kong, the defendant contracted with Freight Links Express (HK) Ltd (formerly known as Vincent Shipping Ltd) for the onward carriage from Hong Kong to Trieste. Upon arrival at Trieste, the goods were released without production of the original bill of lading. The plaintiff claimed for the loss of the goods, alleging the defendant’s breach of the contract of carriage and/or the defendant’s duty as bailee and/or as carrier for reward and/or negligently.

Held: Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of USD 20,300 plus interest.

This is a case where there really is no defence to the head claim. When a bill of lading has been issued, the carrier is under the obligation to deliver the goods at the port of destination to the holder of the bill upon presentation of the bill itself. If the goods are delivered to a third party who does not present the original bill of lading, even if that person is a named consignee, the carrier will be liable for the resulting loss in tort for conversion and/or in breach of the contract of carriage.

The bill of lading was not claused. Under cl 12 of the terms and conditions of the bill of lading and art 3.4 of the Hague Rules, this representation is prima facie evidence of the description of the cargo when loaded. Under art 3.2 of the Hague Rules, the defendant was under a duty to properly and carefully, amongst other things, to 'handle, carry and keep and care for the cargo', and subject to any contrary evidence to be provided by the defendant (which is non-existent in this case) the damage to the cargo is presumed to be caused during the shipment.

This is one of the few cases in the Commercial Court suitable for summary judgment. No defence has been made out to the plaintiff's claim.