Jeil Crystal: BCGE v Jeil Intl - Switch Bills of Lading, Wrongful Arrest

In ADM 256/2020, Banque Cantonale de Genève (BCGE), a Swiss bank, sued Jeil International Co Ltd, owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal”, for breach of contract and duty related to the switching of bills of lading. BCGE initially claimed damages for conversion of cargo but later amended its claim. Jeil International counterclaimed for wrongful arrest of the vessel. The General Division of the High Court dismissed BCGE’s claim and partially allowed Jeil International’s counterclaim, awarding damages for wrongful arrest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed and defendant's counterclaim partially allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Swiss bank BCGE's claim against shipowner Jeil Intl for wrongful switch of bills of lading and wrongful arrest of vessel dismissed; counterclaim partially allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

14 March 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Owners of or other persons interested in the cargo lately laden onboard “Jeil Crystal”	Plaintiff	Other	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Liew Teck Huat of Niru & Co LLC Phang Cunkuang of Niru & Co LLC
Owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal”	Defendant	Corporation	Counterclaim Allowed in Part	Partial	Tan Chai Ming Mark of Focus Law Asia LLC Ahn Mi Mi of Focus Law Asia LLC Genesa Tan Yun Ru of Focus Law Asia LLC Tan Zu Er Joey of Focus Law Asia LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
S Mohan	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Liew Teck Huat	Niru & Co LLC
Phang Cunkuang	Niru & Co LLC
Tan Chai Ming Mark	Focus Law Asia LLC
Ahn Mi Mi	Focus Law Asia LLC
Genesa Tan Yun Ru	Focus Law Asia LLC
Tan Zu Er Joey	Focus Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

BCGE provided trade financing to GP Global for the purchase of Lube Base Oil.
GP Global chartered the Vessel from Jeil International for the carriage of the cargo.
First Set BLs were issued with BCGE as the consignee.
GP Global requested Dae Myung to switch the First Set BLs.
BCGE endorsed the First Set BLs to GP Global.
Dae Myung issued the Switch BLs after receiving the First Set BLs from GP Global.
BCGE commenced ADM 256 and obtained a warrant of arrest for the Vessel based on the First Set BLs.
BCGE did not have possession of the First Set BLs when ADM 256 was commenced.

5. Formal Citations

The “Jeil Crystal”, Admiralty in Rem No 256 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 74
The “Jeil Crystal”, , [2021] SGHC 292
The “Jeil Crystal”, , [2022] 2 SLR 1385

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-05-12	GP Global entered into a contract with IRPC to buy Lube Base Oil.
2020-05-13	GP Global on-sold the Cargo to Prime Oil.
2020-05-16	Jeil International and GP Global entered into a Charterparty.
2020-05-27	BCGE agreed to provide trade financing to GP Global.
2020-05-28	BCGE issued Irrevocable Documentary Credit DC123770/MBX.
2020-06-02	RG Chartering sent an email to Dae Myung containing GP Global’s voyage instructions.
2020-06-13	First Set BLs were issued.
2020-06-16	RG Chartering instructed Dae Myung to switch the First Set BLs.
2020-06-17	Dae Myung prepared and circulated drafts of the Switch BLs to RG Chartering for approval.
2020-06-17	IRPC’s bank in Thailand, Bank of Ayudhya, dispatched the original shipping documents including the First Set BLs to the plaintiff for payment.
2020-06-19	BCGE received original shipping documents from the Bank of Ayudhya.
2020-06-22	RG Chartering sent a draft letter of indemnity to Dae Myung for the discharge of the Cargo without presentation of the Switch BLs.
2020-06-25	BCGE endorsed the First Set BLs to the order of GP Global and forwarded them together with the original shipping documents to GP Global by courier.
2020-06-27	RG Chartering sent a letter of indemnity signed by GP Global to Dae Myung.
2020-06-29	Dae Myung received all three originals of the First Set BLs from GP Global. Dae Myung thereupon issued the Switch BLs and cancelled the First Set BLs.
2020-06-30	The Vessel arrived at the discharge port at Chattogram, Bangladesh.
2020-06-30	Dae Myung discharged and delivered the Cargo to Standard Asiatic without production of the original Switch BLs, but against the LOI.
2020-07-22	Standard Asiatic surrendered the full set of the Switch BLs to the defendant’s agent’s office in Chittagong, Bangladesh for cancellation and return of the same to Dae Myung.
2020-08-10	BCGE wrote to the Master of the Vessel, and later to the defendant and the defendant’s Protection and Indemnity Club, giving notice of its purported interest in the Cargo.
2020-10-10	BCGE commenced ADM 256 and obtained a warrant of arrest for the Vessel.
2020-10-11	The Vessel was arrested.
2020-10-12	Jeil International instructed their solicitors to seek BCGE’s confirmation that BCGE was still in possession of the First Set BLs.
2020-10-13	BCGE’s solicitors replied that they were instructed that BCGE was in possession of the First Set BLs.
2020-10-20	Jeil International furnished security for BCGE’s claim by paying into court the sum of S$2.1m.
2020-10-21	The Vessel was released.
2020-11-04	BCGE filed its statement of claim in ADM 256.
2020-11-10	Jeil International filed a notice to produce documents referred to in pleadings, requesting BCGE to produce for its inspection the First Set BLs.
2020-11-16	BCGE’s solicitors indicated that they were “taking steps to request the Plaintiffs to send the “original Bill of Lading” to the Plaintiff’s solicitors.
2020-12-10	Jeil International’s solicitors wrote to BCGE’s solicitors requesting, again, for BCGE to furnish the First Set BLs for their inspection.
2020-12-18	Jeil International’s solicitors wrote to BCGE’s solicitors requesting, again, for BCGE to furnish the First Set BLs for their inspection.
2020-12-22	BCGE’s solicitors responded, stating among other things that they were still taking their clients’ instructions on the matter.
2021-01-09	BCGE’s solicitors informed Jeil International’s solicitors that the First Set BLs were “not available for inspection”.
2021-01-15	BCGE filed its reply and defence to counterclaim, acknowledging that it had, in late June 2020, voluntarily released the First Set BLs to GP Global.
2021-02-04	BCGE filed an application to amend its statement of claim to abandon its original claim for misdelivery of the Cargo.
2021-10-05	Jeil International filed an appeal against the decision to set aside WA 39.
2022-08-08	The Court of Appeal allowed Jeil International’s appeal and set aside WA 39.
2023-10-30	Judgment reserved.
2024-03-15	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant did not breach any contractual obligation owed to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
Negligence
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant did not breach any tortious duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
Bailment
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant did not breach any duty as bailee owed to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
Wrongful Arrest
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was liable for wrongful arrest of the Vessel.
- Category: Substantive
Rights of Suit under Bills of Lading Act
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff ceased to have any rights of suit under the First Set BLs after 25 June 2020.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for Breach of Contract
Damages for Negligence
Damages for Breach of Duty as Bailee
Damages for Wrongful Arrest

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Negligence
Breach of Duty as Bailee
Wrongful Arrest

10. Practice Areas

Admiralty
Shipping
Commercial Litigation
Wrongful Arrest

11. Industries

Shipping
Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The “Luna” and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 1054	Singapore	Cited for the functions of a bill of lading.
The “Star Quest” and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1280	Singapore	Cited for the terms of the contract of carriage between the carrier and the shipper.
The “Dolphina”	High Court	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 992	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a negotiable bill of lading.
APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 1119	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a negotiable bill of lading and the characteristics of a straight bill of lading. Distinguished on the facts.
The “Yue You 902” and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 573	Singapore	Cited for the transfer of rights of suit to the lawful holder of a bill of lading.
The President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co Ltd, The Dunelmia	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1970] 1 QB 289	England and Wales	Cited for the contract of carriage subsisting in the Charterparty and not the bills.
Partenreederei M/S Heidberg v Grosvenor Grain and Feed Co Ltd, The Heidberg	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 287	England and Wales	Cited for the terms transferred to the consignee or endorsee consisting of the terms on the front and reverse of the bill of lading.
The “Pacific Vigorous”	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 374	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the lawful holder of a bill of lading is entitled to sue in contract in respect of any breach of the contract of carriage committed even prior to the time at which the claimant became holder of the bill. Distinguished on the facts.
MacWilliam (JI) Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, The Rafaela S	House of Lords	Yes	[2005] 2 WLR 554	United Kingdom	Cited for the importance of bills of lading as one of the pillars of international trade.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that where the rights and duties between two parties are governed by contract, that constitutes a cogent policy reason negating the imposition of an overlapping tortious duty of care.
Seatrium New Energy Ltd (formerly known as Keppel FELS Ltd) v HJ Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Ltd (formerly known as Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co Ltd)	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 264	Singapore	Cited for the views expressed in Seatrium New Energy Ltd (formerly known as Keppel FELS Ltd) v HJ Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Ltd (formerly known as Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co Ltd) [2023] SGHC 264 (at [58]–[59]): where the parties have privately agreed to an allocation of risk by means of contract, that would militate against the imposition of a duty of care in tort as one cannot avoid the exemptions and limitations imposed by contract between the parties simply by turning to a cause of action in tort.
The “Kiku Pacific”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 91	Singapore	Cited for the test for wrongful arrest of a vessel.
The Evangelismos	Privy Council	Yes	12 Moo PC 352	United Kingdom	Cited for the test for wrongful arrest of a vessel.
The “Xin Chang Shu”	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1096	Singapore	Cited for the cautionary statement of Steven Chong J (as he then was) in The “Xin Chang Shu” [2016] 1 SLR 1096 (“The “Xin Chang Shu””) at [3]:Ship arrest is an extremely draconian remedy.
Seagate Technology International v Changi International Airport Services Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 57	Singapore	Cited for the point that a perverse concession made by counsel on a point of law may be disregarded by the court if it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
East West Corpn v DKBS AF 1912 A/S and another; Utaniko Ltd v P & O Nedlloyd BV	House of Lords	Yes	[2003] 3 WLR 916	United Kingdom	Cited for the law that the duties of a bailee arise out of the voluntary assumption of possession of another’s goods.
Barclays Bank v Commissioners of Customs and Excise	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81	England and Wales	Cited for the contract of carriage as evidenced by bills of lading is “a combined contract of bailment and transportation under which the shipowner undertakes to accept possession of the goods from the shipper, to carry them to their contractual destination and there to surrender possession of them to the person who, under the terms of the contract, is entitled to possession of them from the shipowners
Borealis AB (formerly Borealis Petrokemi AB) v Stargas Limited and others	House of Lords	Yes	[2001] 2 WLR 1118	United Kingdom	Cited for the point that only persons to whom the bailee has attorned can enforce the bailee’s duties as such.
The “Jeil Crystal”	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 292	Singapore	Cited for the dismissal of the defendant’s application to set aside WA 39 and strike out the Writ and ADM 256, and instead, allowed the plaintiff’s application to amend its statement of claim.
The “Jeil Crystal”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 1385	Singapore	Cited for the Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal and set aside WA 39.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Bills of Lading Act 1992	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bills of Lading
Switch Bills of Lading
Charterparty
Trade Financing
Wrongful Arrest
Misdelivery
Letter of Indemnity
Consignee
Shipper
Lawful Holder
Self-liquidating transaction

15.2 Keywords

bills of lading
switch bills
wrongful arrest
admiralty
shipping
trade finance

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Switch Bills of Lading	95
Shipping	90
Admiralty and Maritime Law	90
Bills of Lading Act	80
Wrongful arrest	80
Admiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest	80
Contract Law	70
Breach of Contract	70
Duty of Care	70
Bailment	60
Torts	60
Damages	50
Trade Finance	50
Civil Litigation	40
Civil Procedure	40
Personal Injury	30
Property Damage	30
Remedies	30
Agency Law	20
Estoppel	20
Arbitration	10

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Bills of Lading
Wrongful Arrest
Trade Finance