SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Mathiew Christophe Rajoo, Probin Dass and Tan Hui Tsing, DennisMathiew
4.2 Title to Sue on a Bill of Lading Under Section 2 (1)(a) of the Bill of Lading Act 1992, it is the lawful holder of the bill of lading who has the right to sue the carrier under a contract of carriage. A person shall be regarded as having become the lawful holder of a bill of lading wherever they have become the holder of the bill in good faith (Section 5 (2) of the Bill of Lading Act 1992). In this regard, Section 5 (2) of the Bill of Lading Act 1992 provides three categories of persons who would be considered holders of the bill of lading: • the person with possession of the bill who is identi - fied as the consignee of the goods to which the bill relates; • the person with possession of the bill of lading as a result of the completion, by delivery of the bill, of any endorsement of the bill or, in the case of a bearer bill, of any other transfer of the bill; and • the person with possession of the bill as a result of any transaction by virtue of which they would have become a holder as defined in the foregoing two bullet points, had the transaction not been effected at the time when possession of the bill no longer gave the right to possession of the goods to which the bill relates. Thus, this will depend on the construction of, and endorsements on, the bill of lading. For the Singapore legal position on whether a bill of lading is a document of title, see the recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision in The “Luna” and another appeal [2021] 2 SLR 1054. Title or right of suit in a straight consigned bill of lad - ing – ie, a bill of lading where the goods are specified for delivery to a named party – is not transferrable. In contrast, title or right of suit in a bill of lading where the consignee is not named (eg, “to order” a bill of lading) may be transferred by endorsement. 4.3 Ship-Owners’ Liability and Limitation of Liability for Cargo Damages A ship-owner may be found liable in contract (depend - ing on the terms of the contract) or in negligence for cargo damage (depending on whether damage sus -
tained by the cargo was caused by negligence on the part of the ship-owner and whether the shipowner owed a duty of care to the party alleging loss). Fol - lowing the Singapore High Court decision in Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd v Heroic Warrior Inc [2019] SGHC 143, a party who may not be the owner of the cargo may claim for cargo damage if it can be shown that the ship-owner owed a duty of care to them. The limitation of liability for cargo damage would be governed by the LLMC 1976 (as amended by the 1996 Protocol). The general limits of liability are set out in 3.5 Procedure and Requirements for Establishing a Limitation Fund . Where contracts of carriage incorporate the Hague– Visby Rules, Article IV Rule 5 (a) limits the carrier’s liability for cargo damage to whichever is the higher of: • 666.67 units of account per package(s) or units(s); or • 2 units of account per kilogram of gross weight. 4.4 Misdeclaration of Cargo There are no reported cases in Singapore that deal with the misdeclaration of cargo. However, Article III Rule 5 of the Hague–Visby Rules states that the shipper shall be deemed to have guar - anteed to the carrier the accuracy of cargo information at the time of the shipment and that the shipper shall indemnify the carrier for losses arising from the inac - curacy of such particulars. 4.5 Time Bar for Filing Claims for Damaged or Lost Cargo Under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague–Visby Rules (as enacted by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act), the limitation period for cargo damage is one year from delivery or the date on which the cargo should have been delivered. That said, parties can mutually agree to extend the limitation period.
547 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook