The Chitral: 2000

The PNSC bill of lading named the consignee of goods carried on the defendant’s vessel. Goods were damaged during the voyage. The bill of lading was otherwise in conventional form, but the box in which the consignee was to be named said ‘If order state notify party’ and no notify party was stated. It was nevertheless endorsed to another party. The defendant carrier said that having endorsed the bill, the claimant had no title to sue. The claimant said that its endorsement was ineffective because, since no notify party had been stated, the bill was not to order but a straight bill of lading. The carrier said that the bill remained an order bill because the general printed language of the bill said that delivery was to be ‘unto the above-mentioned consignee or to his or their assigns’.
Held: The argument was rejected. The form was drafted to permit its use either as a straight or order bill, and that therefore the more general language ‘consignee or . . assigns’ should be understood as subject to the implicit words ‘as applicable’


Steel J


[2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 529

Cited by:

DistinguishedJ I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
DistinguishedParsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’ CA 17-May-2002
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.181895