The author has previously written about the English and Singapore courts’ departure from the conventional position that a carrier that delivers cargo without the production of original bills of lading (“OBLs”) essentially has no defence to a claim for misdelivery.1 Since then, the English Court of Appeal, in The Sienna,2 has doubled down on the causation defence discussed in that case by endorsing the view that a carrier would not have caused the losses suffered by a claimant bank if it was found that, pursuant to its trade finance arrangements, the bank would have acquiesced to the delivery of the cargo without production of OBLs.3

There was hope for some judicial parity with the Singapore courts when they dismissed a number of summary judgment applications made by claimant banks concerning similar factual matrices, such as The STI Orchard 4 and The Maersk Princess.5 However, in The Maersk Katalin 6 (which, much like The Sienna, involved a full trial on the facts), the court rejected the causation defence and found in favour of the claimant bank.