APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer: Straight Bills of Lading & Delivery Obligations
In APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed the question of whether a shipowner may deliver goods to a named consignee without production of a straight bill of lading. Mr. Voss, the respondent, sued APL Co Pte Ltd, the appellant, for the loss of the balance of the purchase price of a car after APL delivered the car to the buyer without requiring presentation of the bill of lading. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that shipowners should only deliver cargo against presentation of a straight bill of lading.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer addresses whether a shipowner can deliver goods to a consignee without the straight bill of lading. The court held that presentation of the straight bill of lading is required.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APL Co Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Loo Dip Seng, Gan Seng Chee |
| Voss Peer | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Ian Koh, Bryan Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Loo Dip Seng | Ang & Partners |
| Gan Seng Chee | Ang & Partners |
| Ian Koh | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Bryan Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Voss agreed to sell a Mercedes Benz to Seohwan Trading Co Ltd for DM108,600.
- Seohwan Trading Co Ltd made a down payment of DM48,500.
- Mr. Voss arranged with APL to ship the car from Hamburg to Busan.
- The bill of lading named Seohwan Trading Co Ltd as the consignee.
- Mr. Voss retained the three original bills of lading.
- APL's Busan office released the car to Seohwan without requiring production of the bill of lading.
- Seohwan provided APL with a copy of Mr. Voss' invoice and a copy of a cable showing a remittance.
- Mr. Voss did not receive the balance payment and demanded it from APL.
5. Formal Citations
- APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer, CA 18/2002, [2002] SGCA 41
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Motorcar loaded onto vessel | |
| Mr Voss wrote to Seohwan demanding payment | |
| Mr Voss demanded payment from APL | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Obligation to Deliver Cargo Against Presentation of Bill of Lading
- Outcome: The court held that shipowners should only deliver cargo against presentation of a straight bill of lading.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of straight bill of lading
- Comparison of straight bill of lading and sea waybill
- Related Cases:
- [1929] 35 L. IL. R163
- [1959] AC 576
- [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Conversion
10. Practice Areas
- Shipping
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Automobile
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise | Unknown | Yes | [1963] 1 Lloyd Rep 81 | Unknown | Cited in relation to the shipowner's obligation to surrender possession of goods only on production of the bill of lading. |
| Evans & Reid v "Cornouaille" | Unknown | Yes | [1921] Lloyd’s Rep 76 | Unknown | Cited regarding the shipowner's duty to deliver only upon presentation of the bill of lading. |
| Glyn Mills, Currie & Co v East & West India Dock | House of Lords | Yes | [1882] 7 App Cas 591 | United Kingdom | Cited in relation to the carrier delivering goods without the bill of lading being produced. |
| Henderson & Co v The Comptoir d’Escompte de Paris | Privy Council | Yes | [1873-4] LR 5 PC 253 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the absence of 'or order or assigns' in a bill of lading and its implications. |
| Interstate Window Glass Co v New York N.H & H.R Co. | Unknown | Yes | 133A.102, 104 [1926] | United States | Cited in relation to the carrier's obligation regarding non-negotiable bills. |
| Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd v Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 143 | Singapore | Cited regarding the open question of the carrier's duty to deliver only against production of the original bill of lading in a straight consigned bill. |
| Skibsaktieselskapet Thor v Tyrer | Unknown | Yes | [1929] 35 L. IL. R163 | Unknown | Followed regarding the principle that a shipowner who delivers without production of the bill of lading does so at his peril. |
| Sze Hai Tong Bank v Rambler Cycle Co | Privy Council | Yes | [1959] AC 576 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding delivery without production of the bill of lading as a breach of contract. |
| The Brij | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 Lloyd Rep 431 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the carrier's ability to deliver directly to the specified consignee without the production of the bill of lading in the case of a straight bill of lading. |
| The Chitral | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 529 | Unknown | Cited regarding the interpretation of a bill of lading with a blank consignee field. |
| The Happy Ranger | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] EWCA Civ 694 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the views of textbook writers on the necessity of production of a straight bill of lading for delivery. |
| The Houda | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 Lloyds 541 | Unknown | Cited regarding the owner's obligation to deliver without the production of negotiable bills of lading. |
| The Rafaela S | Unknown | Yes | [2002] EWHC 593 | England and Wales | Cited regarding whether a straight bill of lading is a 'document of title'. |
| The River Ngada | Unknown | Yes | [2001] LMLN 570 | Unknown | Cited regarding the production of a straight bill of lading by the named consignee as a necessary pre-condition for delivery. |
| The Sormovskiy 3068 | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266 | Unknown | Followed regarding the commercial sense of having a simple rule that the master must only deliver the cargo to the holder of the bill of lading who presents it to him. |
| The Stettin | Unknown | Yes | [1889] 14 PD 142 | Unknown | Cited regarding a shipowner not being entitled to deliver goods to the consignee named in the bill of lading without its production. |
| Thrige v United Shipping Co Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1924] Lloyd’s Rep 6 | Unknown | Cited regarding the shipowner who delivered to the named consignee without production of the bill of lading. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 | United Kingdom |
| Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 | United Kingdom |
| Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 | United States |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Straight bill of lading
- Sea waybill
- Consignee
- Negotiability
- Document of title
- Delivery obligation
- Presentation of bill of lading
15.2 Keywords
- Bill of lading
- Sea waybill
- Shipping
- Admiralty
- Delivery
- Consignee
- Carrier
- Goods
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Bills of Lading
- Commercial Law
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Contract Law
- Bills of Lading