• TUTORIAL 3 - BILLS OF LADING [Bol – often issued in a set of ¾ - so when we say bills we make

reference to the entire copies.]

• STEP 1:
• BOL: simply a document with sets up a contractual undertaking of a carrier to carry specified
goods from one place to the stated port of discharge for an agreed defined consideration
(remuneration) called freight. (also referred to as goods)
• Freight = pay carrier for carrying goods
• Lord Adodo’s view : the applicable regime – in the given scenario we are to advise Singa lines.
[suppose BoL was governed by English law – how would Hague-visby rules apply? ]
• Bol are often subject to one of The Hague regimes. Today there are 4 main ; rules of 1924,
Hague-visby rules 1968 [incorportaed into English law CoSoGa 1974], rotterdam rules 2008 and
Hamburg rules of 1978. —> therefore it is essential to define which rules are applicable. In
Komino S we are told by CA tan the mere fact the BoL makes itself subject to English law isn’t in
itself suffiecnt to make it applicable under Hague-Visby rules.
• The question then arises as to the ways in which BoL which is governed by English law, by virtue
of article 3 [explicitly states it’s governed by English law] or article 5 of the Rome 1 regulations
which has been implemented and continues to apply in uk via virtue of eu-brexit reform act
2023.
• BoL is the contract of carrriage , therefore we need to now determine whether the BoL in this
case are subject to The Hague visby rules or not. —> how do we determine this?
• Critic: can we have a uniform set of rules applicable to all BoL despite there being so many rules?
• Bol tend to be subject. To at least one of the regimes, and the most common in uk is Hague-
visby rules 1968 – unfortunately these tend to be subject to criticism of failed attempt of
uniformity in governing the bills.
• Are the BoL governed by Hague visby rules in the given hypothetical facts of Singa lines?
• There are 2 stages for this discussion:
• 1. By reference to s1[3] of the carriage of goods by sea act 1971 – where the contract of
carriage containing BoL – where the ship is from a port within the uk, then the Bol will be
governed by uk law – i.e., HVR will apply.. In the given case it doesn’t apply, as it is unclear -
> s1(3) falls away.
• 2. By reference to article 10 of The Hague-visby rules – there are 3 sub articles 1. Whether
BoL are issued by an entity in the contracting state. -> Here, simply just told that line of
journey is from Singapore to London – so can assume that it was issued in Singapore (where
the ship departed from).. But also, could’ve been issued anywhere. 2. Whether the
shipment/carrigae originated form the contracting state. At least, this (clause 3) states that
HVR applies. 3. Whether Bol themselves explcitly contain a clause making them subject to
Hague-visby rules.
• Contracting state menaing = the states which ratified The Hague-visby rules. When states
ratify a convention/teraty, they are in essence contracting the party into the contract [here
• What issues are arising?
1. Whether Hitchens was entitled to request carrier to issue Bol in accordance with art 3 of Hague visby rules – yes he is as the parties are entitled to add in
clauses. Lo – unless the shipper makes this request, the carrier has the obligation to issue this BoL, however in issuing this certain information must be
included under article 3 — when not requested it is the carriers option to issue the BoL —> look at noble chartering v priminds shipping hk company limited
[2021] : this case demonstrates what is required [expected] of a carrier when issuing a BoL. When a shipper has requested a BoL , in issuing the Bol the carrier
is required to undertake a reaosnable examination of thr goods – in the Bol he should state the apparent examintaiton [state,codniton] of the goods. Rule: a
visual examination of the goods as loaded onto the vessel is all that is required.
Here, the words were the printed words ‘shipped in apparent good order and condition’ were crossed out, and the bill was stamped with ‘contents not inspected
ecause of manner of packing’.
Legal effect of crossing it out —> the carrier has the right to cross out the pre-printed terms words as upon examining the goods upon shipment, if the goods were in
a. Condition which wouldn’t justify one to satisfy they were shipped in :good condition” the condition would have to strike through the printed words.
- When goods arrive damage but Bol states they’re in good condition –prima facie evidence of the Bol under article 3, the carrier becomes liable for the bad
condition of the goods
- Case: Volcafe limited v compania sud Americana Vapores [2019] ac 358 – this case shows that the basic obligation of the carrier is that of a bailore and so the
carrier is expected to exercise diligence and take reaonable care to look after the cargo, and if the cargo arrives damaged. The carrier can escape liability if it can
demonstrate 2 things [either];
- 1. Show it indeed did exercise reasonable care
- 2. Where he cannot demonstrate that he exercised diligence [requirement 1] he must demonstrate that this breach is protected by the long list if exclusion
clauses under article 4 – rule 1 and 2.
- Examples of exclusion clause = act of god, or an event which the carrier had no control of.
- Her, Hitchens transfers the Bol to Allen – what is the effect of the transfer of the Bol from Hitchens to Allen’s. Here there are 3 [role of Bol or what use the
transferee can do with it;
- 1. He can use the Bol to claim goods upon arrival of the cargo at the port of destination – Holland Colombo trading case
- 2. In event of misdelivry of cargo it would enable Allen to bring an action against the carrier.
- 3. Where a 3rd party wrongfully interferes with Allen’s ownership of the cargo [allens proeprty in the cargo] for example by theft or damage in the course of on
loading the cargo for instance by stevedores, Allen can bring a claim in tort against the 3 rd carry [3rd vesssel – who has wrongfully interfered with allne’s cargo].
- Where interference to cargo is warranted by law, this cannot be deemed wrongful. Therefore Allen can only bring a claim against one who has wrongfully
interfered with his property.
- Here, Allen can aslo being a claim for conversion, as someone came to dispose of them, the Bol can enable Allen to show 3 rd parties permanent dominance
interference over the goods , and so a action in tort for conversion of the goods can be brought against this party.
• will be liable [duty of shipper to guarantee the accuracy of information, shipper indemnified the carrier all the losses or liability for
inaccuracy of information]
• Chair has broken legs – in reality, no way the carrier can check whether the chair has broken [reasonable outward inspection] – if
carrier has done that then not an issue here.
• 5th para – batik sustained stains – inspection is not relevant – accident happened during the voyage -Article III Rule 2 – properly
loaded, keep and care for it [carelessness of cargo management] Seaworthy problem [Article III Rule 1] Carrier should be made liable.
Article 4 Rule 2 navigation, act of god, fire…. Carrier would be liable for either one. Hague Visby Rule – upper limit – Article 4 rule 5 –
666 units of package, calculated in accordance with kilo. IML website – what unit of SDR [around 2 dollars
• -potential damages – 66 x 2]
• 6th para – deviation – assist ship is distress – Article 4 Rule 4 -not an issue if it is to save life and property Rule 2 (L) to get away from
any liability. Case law – Stag Line

• 7th para – 40 tons due to officer fall asleep – Seaworthiness – incompetent crew member Article 3 Rule 1(b) Article 4 Rule 2(a)
navigation of management
• 60 tons of canned pineapples – seaworthiness – poorly fitted hatches
• Cargo management problem – not cover properly after routine check – carrier may be get away Article 4
• Rule 2(a) negligence of worker (b) peril of the sea
• Article 4 Rule 2 (n) insufficiency of packing -substandard can

• 8th para – Should the carrier hand the cover to Timothy, Dominic have the bill of lading as well.
• Obligation to handed to original holder of bill of lading, Section 5 COGSA, have copy then able to claim.
• First come, first serves basis. Then the carrier has to release the cargo. Glyn Mills case.
• Extra: Allen handed to two people, who actually is the owner of the goods? Nemo dat rule – Seller in
• possession [sold the goods twice] S24 SGA 1979 Timothy should be the rightful owner of the goods,
• presented bill of lading and in good faith