Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd v Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeGoh Joon Seng J
Judgment Date09 June 1995
Neutral Citation[1995] SGHC 145
Citation[1995] SGHC 145
Subject MatterWhether constituting a document of title,Whether it needed to be surrendered for delivery of cargo,Bills of lading,Bills of lading as document of title,Straight consigned bill of lading,Review of authorities,Admiralty and Shipping
Docket NumberSuit No 1769 of 1994 (Registrar's Appeal No 17 of 1995)
Date09 June 1995
Defendant CounselLoo Dip Seng (Ang & Pnrs)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselSteven Chong and Thyaparan Kathiravel (Drew & Napier)

The plaintiffs are a company incorporated in Singapore and are engaged inter alia in the export of colour television sets.

The defendants are a company incorporated in Singapore and are engaged in the business of forwarding, packing, crating and shipping agency services.

In or about March 1994, the plaintiffs agreed to sell 320 colour television sets (the cargo) to Orient Plus (Khabarovsk) Pte Ltd (Orient Plus) 680009 Khabarovsk Prospect, 60 Letia Oktiabria D-24 Russia, for US$85,780.00 (the contract of sale).

Pursuant to the contract of sale, the plaintiffs entered into a contract of carriage of the cargo from Singapore to Vostochny, Russia. The contract of carriage is contained in and evidenced by bill of lading No W6930472 (the bill of lading).

On or about 30 March 1994, the defendants shipped the cargo on board the vessel `Leeward` and issued the bill of lading acknowledging receipt of the two containers containing the cargo.

It was stated in the bill of lading that the plaintiffs were the shipper and Orient Plus the consignee and the notify party. The bill of lading also stated `In witness whereof one (1) original bill of lading has been signed if not otherwise stated above, the same being accomplished the other(s), if any, to be void. If required by the carrier one (1) original bill of lading must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery order.`

On the arrival of the cargo at Vostochny, it was delivered by the defendants or their servants or agents to Orient Plus on 19 April 1994 without production of the bill of lading. The plaintiffs have not received payment in respect of the cargo.

On 3 November 1994, the plaintiffs commenced these proceedings. On 23 November 1994, the plaintiffs applied for judgment under O 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1990. On 6 January 1995, the assistant registrar granted the defendants leave to defend on condition that they furnish a bank guarantee for US$80,000 within 21 days with costs in the cause. Against that order both the plaintiffs and defendants appealed. Both appeals came before me on 18 April 1995. I dismissed the appeals with costs reserved to the trial judge. I extended the time for furnishing the bank guarantee to 21 days from the date of my order. The defendants have appealed against my order dismissing their appeal. I now give my reasons.

It was the plaintiffs` case that in releasing the cargo without production of the bill of lading which remained in the possession of the plaintiffs, the defendants were in breach of the contract of carriage implied and or express. In the alternative the plaintiffs contended that the defendants were liable to them for conversion.

The defendants, on the other hand, contended that as the bill of lading was made out to a named consignee, Orient Plus, it was not a document of title. Consequently, the delivery of the cargo to the named consignee without production of the bill of lading which was in accordance with the practice and custom of the port of Vostochny, was not a breach of contract nor would it render them liable for conversion.

Implied term

In the case where the bill of lading is made out ` to order ` the law is clear. If the carrier releases the goods not against production of the bill of lading, the carrier is liable for breach of contract and for conversion. See Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd where at p 586 Lord Denning, in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council, said:

It is perfectly clear law that a shipowner who delivers without production of the bill of lading does so at his peril. The contract is to deliver, on production of the bill of lading, to the person entitled under the bill of lading. In this case it was `unto order or his or their assigns,` that is to say, to the order of the Rambler Cycle Co, if they had not assigned the bill of lading, or to their assigns, if they had.

The defendants contended that whilst the Rambler Cycle case1 might be the law on bills of lading made out `...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • J I MacWilliam Company Inc. v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 April 2003
    ...45 above). 102 This then is the background to a series of modern cases. The first of them comes from Singapore – Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd v. Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd [1995] 3 SLR 143. The straight bill of lading in question covered the carriage of a shipment of television sets from S......
  • JI MacWilliam Company Inc. v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA ('The Rafaela S')
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 April 2003
    ...CLC 515 (CA). MSC Magallanes, The (16 May 2002, Court of Appeal of Rennes). Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd v Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd[1995] 3 SLR 143. Parsons Corp v CV Scheepvaartonderneming The Happy Ranger[2003] 1 CLC Peer Voss v APL Co Pte LtdUNK[2002] 2 Ll Rep 707. Portorafti (Cia) Com......
  • The "Star Quest" and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 May 2016
    ...production of the bills of lading: see The Sormovskiy 3068 at 280–282; Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd v Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd [1995] 2 SLR(R) 527. Each of them has failed for one reason or another. Assuming that the respondents are able to adduce reliable and consistent evidence to suppo......
  • APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 3 October 2002
    ...Window Glass Co v New York N.H & H.R Co. 133A.102, 104 [1926] (refd) Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd v Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd [1995] 3 SLR 143 Skibsaktieselskapet Thor v Tyrer [1929] 35 L. IL. R163 (folld) Sze Hai Tong Bank v Rambler Cycle Co [1959] AC 576 (refd) The Brij [2001] 1 Lloyd Re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT