When it was not paid by S, Y brought an action before the Guangzhou Maritime Court, which made an order requiring G, a logistics company to whom the original bills of lading had been sent, to deliver up those original bills of lading. At Y’s request, a second set of bills of lading was issued, naming S as buyer. Y eventually sold the cargo to H, and M effected delivery to H. S obtained an interim ruling from a court in Benin requiring M to ship the cargo described in the first set of bills of lading to it in Benin.

M brought the present proceedings, seeking declarations that all the disputes under the bills of lading were to be determined by the English High Court in accordance with cl.26 and that any rights which S had under the first set of bills of lading were lost when these were cancelled and replaced by the subsequent bills of lading. M submitted that cl.26 might be regarded as an ancillary contract (albeit in the first set of bills of lading), which survived any cessation of the operation of the other parts, and so the High Court could decide and make the declarations being sought. It further submitted that the bills of lading were seawaybills for the purposes of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. Accordingly, if under s.2 of that Act Y had the right to redirect the goods by changing the original bill of lading terms through changing the named consignee, it also had the right to agree with M to terminate that contract and substitute a new one through the issue of new bills of lading.

Decision: Claim allowed.