The litigation brought by Standard Chartered Bank in respect of losses caused by the tendering of fraudulently antedated bills of lading threatens to attain the proportions of Dickens’ Jarndyce v. Jarndyce . No fewer than three first instance hearings1 and five trips to the Court of Appeal2 have been necessary to resolve the matters in dispute. Now the House of Lords has had its say too, holding that: (i) contributory negligence is not a defence to an action based on the tort of deceit; and (ii) (reversing a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal) a company director who makes a fraudulent misrepresentation within the scope of his employment is nonetheless personally liable in deceit and derives no immunity from the fact that his statements were made in a representative capacity: Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. and others (Nos 2 and 4) .3

Standard Chartered Bank (‘‘SCB’’) was the confirming bank under an irrevocable letter of credit issued by Incombank, a Vietnamese bank. The beneficiary of the credit was Oakprime International Ltd (‘‘Oakprime’’), an English company which had sold a large quantity of Iranian bitumen on c.i.f. terms to Vietnamese buyers. It was a term of the credit that the cargo should be shipped no later than 25 October 1993. In fact, however, the loading operation was delayed and was not completed until 5 December 1993. Yet, in order that payment could be obtained, Oakprime’s managing director, a Mr Mehra, agreed with the shipowners, Pakistan National Shipping Corp. (‘‘PNSC’’), and the shipping agents that

1