Steelmet v APL Co: Title to Goods, Bills of Lading & Right to Sue for Conversion

Steelmet Pte Ltd sued APL Co Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract, duty as bailees, negligence, and conversion regarding the delivery of goods without the original bills of lading. The High Court struck out Steelmet's claim, finding that Steelmet did not have the right to possess the goods at the time of the alleged mis-delivery. Steelmet's appeal against this decision was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Steelmet sued APL for mis-delivery of goods. The court struck out Steelmet's claim, holding they lacked the right to possess the goods at the time of conversion.

1.7 Decision Date

26 November 2000

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
APL Co Pte Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Loo Dip Seng of Ang & Partners Goh Seng Chee of Ang & Partners
Steelmet Pte Ltd	Plaintiff, Appellant	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Goh Yin Dee of Khattar Wong & Partners Yang Lih Shyng of Khattar Wong & Partners
P & O Nedlloyd B V	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Loo Dip Seng of Ang & Partners Goh Seng Chee of Ang & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Loo Dip Seng	Ang & Partners
Goh Seng Chee	Ang & Partners
Goh Yin Dee	Khattar Wong & Partners
Yang Lih Shyng	Khattar Wong & Partners

4. Facts

Steelmet contracted to sell cotton knitted fabrics to an American buyer on CIF terms.
The goods were shipped on board two vessels in February 1999.
Steelmet submitted invoices and bills of lading to three Singapore banks on 26 March 1999.
The banks forwarded the documents to Broadway National Bank in New York for payment collection.
The goods were released to Haiti Evans Corp without production of the original bills of lading.
Broadway forwarded the bills of lading back to the Singapore banks in November and December 1999.
Steelmet commenced action against the defendants on 13 December 1999.

5. Formal Citations

Steelmet Pte Ltd v APL Co Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 1736/1999, RA 600283/2000, [2000] SGHC 252

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1999-02-01	Goods shipped on board two vessels at Singapore.
1999-03-22	Six bills of lading dated.
1999-03-26	Two bills of lading dated; plaintiffs submitted invoices, original bills of lading, drafts to banks.
1999-03-30	Alleged mis-deliveries took place.
1999-03-31	Alleged mis-deliveries took place.
1999-04-12	Alleged mis-deliveries took place.
1999-10-01	Singapore banks wrote to New York bank to enquire about payment.
1999-11-01	Singapore banks wrote to New York bank to enquire about payment.
1999-11-17	Broadway forwarded four bills to UCO Bank.
1999-11-22	UCO Bank received four bills from Broadway.
1999-12-03	Broadway forwarded three bills to Indian Overseas Bank.
1999-12-09	Indian Overseas Bank received three bills from Broadway.
1999-12-13	Plaintiffs commenced action against defendants.
1999-12-15	Broadway forwarded final bill to Bank of India.
1999-12-17	Plaintiffs collected three bills from Indian Overseas Bank.
1999-12-20	Bank of India received final bill from Broadway.
2000-03-01	Defendants entered an appearance to the action.
2000-04-28	Defendants filed their statement of claim.
2000-05-01	Plaintiffs filed an application for summary judgment.
2000-07-01	Defendants filed an application to strike out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim.
2000-08-15	Both applications heard by the Senior Assistant Registrar.
2000-08-31	Plaintiffs given liberty to apply to amend their writ and statement of claim by this date.
2000-11-27	Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

Right to Sue for Conversion
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs did not have an immediate right to possession of the goods at the time of the alleged conversion and therefore could not sue for conversion.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Immediate right to possession
  - Ownership of goods
Title to Goods under Bills of Lading
- Outcome: The court found it unclear whether the plaintiffs retained title to the goods after endorsing the bills of lading to the banks.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Endorsement of bills of lading
  - Sale vs. security for advances

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for breach of contract
Damages for breach of duty as bailees
Damages for negligence
Damages for conversion

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Duty as Bailees
Negligence
Conversion

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Shipping Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping
Banking
Textiles

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The Future Express	Court of Appeal	Yes	The Future Express	N/A	Cited to illustrate that the right on which the plaintiff relies must have existed at the time of the alleged conversion.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Bills of Lading Act (Cap 384)	Singapore
Bills of Lading Act (Cap 384) s 52	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bills of Lading
Conversion
Right to Possession
Title to Goods
Endorsement
CIF Terms
Mis-delivery
Bailee
Holder

15.2 Keywords

Bills of Lading
Conversion
Shipping
Singapore
Title to Goods
Right to Possession

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Bills of Lading Act	85
Conversion	80
Contract Law	75
Breach of Contract	70
Bailment	65
Torts	60
Agency Law	50
Commercial Law	40
Banking and Finance	30

16. Subjects

Shipping
Banking
International Trade
Agency