Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
“STRAIGHT” BILLS OF LADING IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The Rafaela S
Introduction
The House of Lords1
has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal2
(and the formidable judgment of Rix LJ3
) that a non-negotiable or “straight” bill of lading is within the scope of s 1(4) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 and Art I(b) of the Hague-Visby Rules (“HVR”).4
Accordingly, the HVR supplies the applicable carriage regime for straight bills. At bottom this was a question of construction of the language defining the sphere of application of both the statute and the international Convention to which it gave the force of law. The relevant words in each concerned “contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title”.
The decision
As long ago as 1989 four containers of printing machinery were shipped on the terms of the carrier’s standard form bill of lading. The form employed could serve as either a transferable document by the insertion of the words “or order” in the consignee box5
on the face of the bill (an “order bill”); or, in the absence of those two words, it could be simply directed to one named consignee (a “straight bill”). The bill evidenced a contract for the carriage of goods by sea initially between the shipper and the defendant carrier
1. J I MacWilliam Co Inc
v. Mediterranean Shipping Co SA
[2005] UKHL 11; [2005] 2 WLR 554; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347.
2. [2003] EWCA Civ 556; [2004] QB 702; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113; rev’ing
[2002] EWHC 593 (Comm); [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403 (Langley J). For a characteristically meticulous discussion of the decision of the Court of Appeal, see Sir G Treitel, “The Legal Status of Straight Bills of Lading” (2003) 119 LQR 608. The view of Tomlinson J in The Happy Ranger
[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 530, 539 to the contrary was also rejected; cf
the Court of Appeal in The Happy Ranger
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 357, paras [30–31] (Tuckey LJ) and para [49] (Rix LJ).
3. Three law lords gave substantive speeches, each concurring with the other, and agreeing in large measure with Rix LJ’s leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, which Lord Bingham of Cornhill described as “comprehensive and erudite” (para [3]) and Lord Steyn found “entirely convincing” (para [51]).
4. HVR was a development of the original Hague Rules, which were given legal effect in the UK by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924. The provisions under consideration (Arts I(b), V and VI) are identical in both versions.
5. The consignee box was headed: “Consignee (B/L not negotiable unless ‘ORDER OF’)”. It was, in the language of Rix LJ, a “hybrid” form which invited “error and litigation”: [2004] QB 707, para [146].
273