Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd: Carrier's Delivery Obligation & Bill of Lading
In Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the delivery of a Mercedes Benz motorcar without the production of the original bill of lading. Voss Peer, the plaintiff/respondent, sued APL Co Pte Ltd, the defendants/appellants, for breach of contract and negligence after APL delivered the car to Seohwan Trading Co Ltd without requiring the bill of lading. The High Court dismissed APL's appeal, finding that APL was not entitled to deliver the cargo without production of the original bill of lading.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd concerns a carrier's obligation to deliver cargo only upon presentation of the original bill of lading. The court ruled in favor of Voss Peer.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APL Co Pte Ltd | Defendants, Appellants | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Voss Peer | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gan Seng Chee | Ang & Partners |
| Bryan Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Ian Koh | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Voss contracted with APL to ship a Mercedes Benz to Seohwan Trading Co. in Korea.
- APL issued a bill of lading naming Seohwan as the consignee.
- Mr. Voss retained the original bills of lading pending full payment from Seohwan.
- APL delivered the car to Seohwan without requiring production of the original bill of lading.
- Mr. Voss had not received full payment for the car at the time of delivery.
- Mr. Voss claimed that APL breached the contract of carriage by delivering the car without the bill of lading.
5. Formal Citations
- Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd, Adm Action in Personam 600213/2001, RA 600202/2001, [2002] SGHC 81
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Seohwan Trading Co Ltd purchased a Mercedes Benz motorcar from Mr. Voss. | |
| The car was loaded on board the vessel ‘Hyundai General’. | |
| APL issued a bill of lading for the shipment. | |
| Mr. Voss sent an invoice to Seohwan for the full price of the car. | |
| The vessel arrived at Busan sometime in the third week of September 2000. | |
| APL’s Korean office authorised the release of the car into Seohwan’s custody. | |
| Mr Voss’s forwarders told APL’s Hamburg office not to release the cargo to Seohwan without production of the original bill of lading. | |
| Mr Voss wrote to Seohwan demanding payment of the balance sum by 7 November 2000. | |
| Mr Voss wrote to APL’s Hamburg office regarding the alleged mis-delivery of the cargo. | |
| Action commenced by Mr. Voss. | |
| Mr. Voss made an application for summary judgment. | |
| High Court dismissed APL’s appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that APL breached the contract of carriage by delivering the cargo without requiring production of the original bill of lading.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to deliver cargo against presentation of the original bill of lading
- Carrier's Delivery Obligation
- Outcome: The court held that the carrier was obligated to deliver the cargo only upon presentation of the original bill of lading, regardless of whether it was an 'order bill' or a 'straight bill'.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Nature of carrier's delivery obligation
- Whether carrier can discharge cargo without production of bill of lading
- Distinction between 'order bill' and 'straight bill'
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Breach of Duty as Bailee
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Automobile
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sze Hai Tong Bank v Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1959] 25 MLJ 200 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that a shipowner who delivers without production of the bill of lading does so at his peril. |
| Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd v Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 143 | Singapore | Cited as a case with practically identical facts, where the court did not reach a concluded decision on the issue of delivery without production of the bill of lading. |
| The Stettin | Unknown | Yes | [1889] 14 PD 142 | England | Cited for the proposition that a shipowner is not entitled to deliver goods to the consignee without the production of the bill of lading. |
| Evans & Reid v Cornouaille | Unknown | Yes | [1921] 8 LLR 76 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that the master of a vessel could not deliver cargo to a consignee named in a bill of lading without production of the original bill. |
| Thrige v United Shipping Company Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1923] 16 Ll.L. Rep 198 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that a shipowner owes a duty to the shipper not to hand over the goods until there is production of the bill of lading. |
| Thrige v United Shipping Company Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1924] 18 Ll.L. Rep 829 | Unknown | Cited as a case where Scrutton LJ doubted the correctness of The Stettin. |
| Barclays Bank Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise | Unknown | Yes | [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that the shipowner is not bound to surrender possession of the goods to any person whether named as consignee or not, except on production of the bill of lading. |
| The ‘Houda’ | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541 | England | Cited for the principle that owners do not fulfil their contractual obligations if the cargo is delivered to a person who cannot produce the bill of lading. |
| The Sormovskiy 3068 | English Admiralty Court | Yes | [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266 | England | Cited for the principle that a shipowner must not deliver the goods otherwise than against presentation of an original bill of lading. |
| The ‘Ines’ | English Admiralty Court | Yes | [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 144 | England | Cited for the principle that shipowners were liable for breach of contract because the goods had been delivered without presentation of an original bill of lading. |
| The Taveechai Marine | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 MLJ 413 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that it is a breach of contract for a shipowner to deliver cargo without the production of the bill of lading even when delivery is made to the consignee. |
| The Brij | Hong Kong High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 43 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that straight bills are not negotiable and the contractual mandate is to deliver to named consignee without the production of the original document. |
| The Chitral | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 1 LLR 529 | England | Cited as authority for the proposition that a bill of lading form may be drafted in such manner that it contemplates that it may be used both as a straight bill and as a negotiable bill as required by the carrier. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bill of Lading
- Consignee
- Carrier
- Delivery Obligation
- Order Bill
- Straight Bill
- Sea Waybill
- Mis-delivery
15.2 Keywords
- Bill of Lading
- Carriage of Goods
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Delivery Obligation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 90 |
| Shipping Law | 90 |
| Bills of Lading Act | 90 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty and Shipping
- Carriage of Goods by Sea