ING Bank NV v Navig8 Ametrine: Misdelivery of Cargo & Summary Judgment

ING Bank NV, Singapore Branch sued the demise charterer of the ship or vessel “Navig8 Ametrine” in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore for misdelivery of a cargo of light naphtha. The cargo was delivered to Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd without presentation of the bills of lading. ING Bank NV applied for summary judgment. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Justin Yeo, granted interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Interlocutory judgment granted with damages to be assessed.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

ING Bank NV sues Navig8 Ametrine for misdelivery of cargo. The court granted interlocutory judgment for ING Bank NV, with damages to be assessed.

1.7 Decision Date

7 April 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
ING Bank N.V., Singapore Branch	Plaintiff	Corporation	Interlocutory judgment granted with damages to be assessed	Partial	Nathanael Lin of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Bhieman Anandakumar of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Marcus Chiang of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
The Demise Charterer of the Ship or Vessel “Navig8 Ametrine”	Defendant	Corporation	Plaintiff’s prayer for judgment on the Invoice Sum dismissed	Lost	Ang Kaili of Virtus Law LLP Daryll Ng of Virtus Law LLP Chan Yi Ching of Virtus Law LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Justin Yeo	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Nathanael Lin	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Bhieman Anandakumar	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Marcus Chiang	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ang Kaili	Virtus Law LLP
Daryll Ng	Virtus Law LLP
Chan Yi Ching	Virtus Law LLP

4. Facts

ING Bank NV, Singapore Branch, sued the demise charterer of the ship or vessel “Navig8 Ametrine” for misdelivery of a cargo.
The cargo of light naphtha was shipped under original bills of lading.
The cargo was delivered to Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd without presentation of the bills of lading.
ING Bank NV sought summary judgment for USD8,561,342.03, the invoice value of the cargo.
The Plaintiff had granted HLT credit facilities secured by a pledge of documents of title, including bills of lading.
The Vessel was time-chartered by the Defendant to Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc, who voyage chartered the Vessel to AEI.
The Plaintiff mistakenly endorsed the Bills of Lading to Totsa before correcting the error.

5. Formal Citations

ING Bank NV, Singapore Branch v The Demise Charterer of the Ship or Vessel “Navig8 Ametrine”, ADM No 308 of 2020 (Summons No 2709 of 2021), [2022] SGHCR 5

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-07-29	Facility letter issued regarding HLT Banking Facilities.
2020-01-20	Voyage charterparty dated.
2020-01-22	HLT submitted a letter of credit application form to the Plaintiff.
2020-01-23	Plaintiff issued a letter of credit advised to AEI.
2020-02-07	Vessel arrived in Singapore.
2020-02-11	Defendant discharged and delivered the Cargo to HLT without presentation of the Bills of Lading.
2020-02-19	AEI presented an invoice and a letter of indemnity.
2020-03-03	Plaintiff paid the Invoice Sum to AEI under the Letter of Credit.
2020-03-13	Plaintiff received the full set of Bills of Lading from SMBC.
2020-06-09	Plaintiff mistakenly endorsed the Bills of Lading to Totsa.
2020-06-15	Plaintiff discovered the mistake.
2020-06-16	Plaintiff endorsed and delivered the correct bills of lading to Totsa.
2020-06-18	Plaintiff's solicitors informed the Defendant of the Plaintiff being the lawful holder of the Bills of Lading.
2020-07-29	Plaintiff's representative went to Totsa's offices, where Totsa stamped the Bills of Lading to the order of the Plaintiff.
2020-08-25	Defendant's solicitors informed the Plaintiff that the Defendant had delivered the Cargo to Totsa.
2020-11-19	Plaintiff commenced the present action and arrested the Vessel.
2020-12-22	Vessel was released after security was provided.
2022-03-01	Hearing date.
2022-04-08	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Misdelivery of Cargo
- Outcome: The court found a prima facie case for misdelivery but ordered damages to be assessed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Delivery without presentation of bills of lading
  - Liability for misdelivery
Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court found triable issues in relation to the quantum of damages and granted interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Triable issues
  - Leave to defend
Authority to Take Delivery
- Outcome: The court found that no triable issue arises in relation to the Authority Issue.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Actual authority
  - Ratification
Quantum of Damages
- Outcome: The court found that there are triable issues in relation to the Quantum Issue.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Invoice value
  - Market value
  - Notional date of delivery
Good Faith
- Outcome: The court found that the Good Faith Issue does not present any triable issue.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Honest conduct
  - Improper means
Spent Bills
- Outcome: The court found that the Spent Bills Issue does not present any triable issue.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Accomplishment of bills of lading
  - Exhaustion of bills of lading

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Summary Judgment
Interlocutory Judgment

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract of Carriage

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Admiralty
Shipping
Bills of Lading
Summary Judgment

11. Industries

Banking
Shipping
Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Bee Cheng Hiang Hup Chong Foodstuff Pte Ltd v Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 305	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the summary judgment process is intended to prevent delay and enable a plaintiff to obtain a quick judgment without trial where there is plainly no defence to the claim.
Akfel Commodities Turkey Holding Anonim Sirketi v Townsend, Adam	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 412	Singapore	Cited for the principle that unconditional leave to defend may be granted if a defendant demonstrates “a fair probability of a bona fide defence”, while conditional leave to defend may be granted where the defendant is only able to show that the defence raised is “not hopeless”.
Mirae Asset Daewoo Co, Ltd v Sng Zhiwei Joei	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 166	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court adopts a robust approach when considering summary judgment applications.
The “Yue You 902” and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 573	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the fact that an action may involve complex issues is not an answer to a claim for summary judgment if the claim is otherwise well-founded.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 675	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the fact that an action may involve complex issues is not an answer to a claim for summary judgment if the claim is otherwise well-founded.
Engineering Centre of Industrial Constructions and Concrete v EFE (SEA) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in seeking leave to defend, it is insufficient for a defendant to merely throw up factual assertions without more; instead, the court assesses whether the defence is equivocal, lacking in precision, inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or inherently improbable.
The Star Quest	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1280	Singapore	Cited as a case where a prima facie case was made out for the purposes of summary judgment in the context of a claim for misdelivery without presentation of original bills of lading.
Aegean Sea Traders Corporation v Repsol Petroleo SA and another (The “Aegean Sea”)	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a person does not become the lawful holder of a bill of lading if that person “obtains the bill of lading merely in consequence of someone endorsing it and sending it to him”.
Lin Securities (Pte) Ltd v Noone & Co Sdn Bhd	Malaysia High Court	Yes	[1989] 1 MLJ 321	Malaysia	Cited by the Defendant's counsel for the proposition that if foreign law applies to the contract being considered, that alone provides sufficient cause for leave to defend to be granted, but the court expressed doubts about this proposition.
PMA Credit Opportunities Fund and others v Tantono Tiny	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 89	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court should not be too quick to grant leave to defend simply because the applicability of foreign law is in question, or because there are differing opinions advanced by foreign law experts.
The Hung Vuong-2	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 11	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it does not follow that in every instance where there is a conflict of opinions, the Singapore courts should always shy away from examining the opinions given.
Barclays Bank Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is a breach of a bill of lading contract for delivery to be effected other than against presentation of the bill of lading.
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation v I & D Oil Carriers Ltd (The Houda)	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is a breach of a bill of lading contract for delivery to be effected other than against presentation of the bill of lading.
SA Sucre Export v Northern River Shipping Ltd (the “Sormovskiy 3068”)	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 266	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is a breach of a bill of lading contract for delivery to be effected other than against presentation of the bill of lading and that it is a defence for a contractual carrier if the carrier had delivered the cargo to an agent of the holder of the bills of lading, where such agent was authorised by the holder to collect the cargo on the holder’s behalf without presenting the bills of lading.
Fimbank Plc v Discover Investment Corporation (The “Nika”)	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 109	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is a defence for a contractual carrier if the carrier had delivered the cargo to an agent of the holder of the bills of lading, where such agent was authorised by the holder to collect the cargo on the holder’s behalf without presenting the bills of lading.
Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Ltd (The “Erin Schulte”)	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court will consider what would have happened in the counterfactual situation that the contract was performed.
Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Shipping SA (the “Spiros C”)	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is an implied term of the contract of carriage that the goods will be unloaded by the consignee within a reasonable time, but the court disagreed with this interpretation.
Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd (the “Sea Master”)	England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court)	Yes	[2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 500	England and Wales	Cited as an example where the English court concluded that implying a term that the goods will be unloaded by the consignee within a reasonable time was not necessary given that the proposed implied term was contrary to and inconsistent with the express terms of the voyage charterparty.
UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the “good faith” requirement was “obviously to preclude the case where possession is obtained unlawfully, or by other improper means”.
The “Cherry” and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 471	Singapore	Cited for principles relating to the Authority Issue.
Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 823	Singapore	Cited by the Plaintiff for the position that the damages should be awarded by reference to the Invoice Value.
Star Line Traders Limited v Transpac Container System Limited	Hong Kong Court of First Instance	Yes	[2009] HKCU 1355	Hong Kong	Cited by the Plaintiff for the position that the damages should be awarded by reference to the Invoice Value.
He-Ro Chemicals Ltd v Jeuro Container Transport (HK) Ltd	Hong Kong High Court	Yes	[1993] 2 HKC 368	Hong Kong	Cited by the Plaintiff for the position that the damages should be awarded by reference to the Invoice Value.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 14 r 1 of the revoked Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Bills of Lading Act (Cap 384, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bills of Lading
Misdelivery
Summary Judgment
Interlocutory Judgment
Letter of Credit
Cargo
Demise Charterer
Invoice Value
Good Faith
Spent Bills

15.2 Keywords

Admiralty
Shipping
Bills of Lading
Misdelivery
Summary Judgment
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Bills of Lading Act	90
Misdelivery	85
Summary Judgement	80
Civil Practice	75
Admiralty and Maritime Law	75
Shipping Law	70
Contract Law	60

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Civil Procedure
Contract Law