AP MOLLER-MAERSK A/S ("MAERSK LINE ") V SONAEC VILLAS CEN SAD FADOUL

[2010] EWHC 355 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, The Hon Mr Justice Christopher Clarke, 26 February 2010

Shipping - Jurisdiction - Bills of lading - Shipper's rights under bill of lading issued in respect of goods sold FOB - Carriage organised and freight paid for by buyer - Bill of lading issued to shipper's and consignee's common agent - Handed over to shipper pursuant to court order for delivery up - Whether shipper entitled to agree with carrier to cancel and replace bill - Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 - Summary judgment - Civil Procedure Rules, Part 24

The claimant shipping line, Maersk, had issued a bill of lading to HG for a consignment of tiles shipped from China. HG was the booking agent for the shipper, named in the bill of lading as B&D. B&D was acting "pour compte de" both the seller, Y, and the defendant buyer, Sonaec. Y had sold the tiles FOB subject to Incoterms 2000 to Sonaec, who were property developers in Benin. Y did not get paid and obtained a court order from the court in China against HG for delivery up of the bill of lading. Once it had obtained the bill of lading, it requested that Maersk replace it, first by a second then by a third bill of lading, pursuant to which Maersk delivered the goods to a new consignee in Honduras. Sonaec obtained judgment against Maersk from a court in Benin on the basis that since the goods had been delivered on board under the FOB sale, Sonaec was the owner of the goods and Maersk had not been entitled to cancel the bill of lading at Y's request. The first bill of lading contained an English law and jurisdiction clause and Maersk commenced this action seeking summary judgment under CPR 24 against the defendants, arguing that there was no real defence to its claim for two declarations.