劳氏法律报告

Lloyd'sLawReports[2011]Vol.1LLOYD¡¯SLAWREPORTS1QUEEN¡¯SBENCHDIVISION(COMMERCIALCOURT)19;26February2010____________________APMOLLER-MAERSKA/SvSONAECVILLASCENSADFADOULANDOTHERS[2010]EWHC355(Comm)BeforeMrJusticeChristopherClarkeCarriageofgoodsbysea¡ªJurisdiction¡ªStraightbillofladingcontainingexclusiveEnglishjurisdictionclause¡ªShippersurrenderingbilltocarrierinreturnfornewbillnamingdifferentconsignee¡ªCarrierdeliveringgoodstoconsigneenamedinnewbill¡ªWhethershipperentitledtoagreewithcarriertoterminateoriginalcontractofcarriage¡ªConsigneeunderoriginalbillbringingproceedingsagainstcarrierinBenin¡ªWhetherjurisdictionclausesurvivedterminationofcontractofcarriage¡ªWhetherconsigneeinbreachofexclusivejurisdictionclause¡ªWhetherconsignee¡¯srightsunderoriginalbillceasedtoexistonsurrenderofbill¡ªCarrierapplyingforsummaryjudgment¡ªWhethercourthadjurisdictiontomakedeclarationssought¡ªCarriageofGoodsbySeaAct1992.Byacontractofsale,YekalonIndustryInc(Yekalon),aChinesecompany,soldaquantityoftilestotheseconddefendant(Sonaec),aBenincompanywhichownedaresidentialdevelopmentinBenin.DeliverywastobefobinaccordancewithIncoterms2000.ThegoodswerebookedonboardMaersk¡¯slinerserviceinChinathroughHighGoalLogisticsGDLtd(HighGoal).On17January2008Maerskissuedabilloflading(theFirstBill),whichwasgiventoHighGoal.TheshippersnamedinthebillwereB&DCoLtdp/c(pourcomptede),VernalInvestment(Vernal)andYekalon.VernalwasasubsidiaryorassociatecompanyofSonaec.TheportofloadingwasSanshan,ChinaandtheportofdischargewasCotonouinBenin.Theconsigneewasthefirstdefendant(SonaecVillas)inCotonou,Benin.ThenotifypartywasVernalp/cSonaecVillas.ItappearedthatSonaecVillaswasnotalegalentityseparatefromSonaec.Clause26oftheFirstBillprovidedthatalldisputesarisinghereundershouldbedeterminedexclusivelybytheEnglishcourts.ShortlyaftertheFirstBillwasissuedadisputearoseinChinaastowhowasitslawfulholder.Yekalon,whohadnotbeenpaid,askedHighGoalforit.HighGoalrefusedonthebasisthattheyhadreceivedinstructionsfromB&D.YekalonappliedtotheGuangzhouMaritimeCourtforanorderthatHighGoaldeliveruptheoriginalbillsofladingandforadeclarationthatYekalonwereentitledtopossessionofthesame.HighGoalcontendedthattheshipperwasB&DandnotYekalon.ThecourtheldthatYekalonwastheownerandtheshipperofthecargoes,andwasentitledtohavethebilloflading.ItorderedHighGoaltodelivertheFirstBilltoYekalon.AsaresultoftheorderintheChineseproceedingstheFirstBillwasgivenuptoYekalon.Sometimebefore18February2008MaerskwastoldbyYekalonthatithadnotbeenpaidunderthecontractofsale.YekalonthensurrenderedthethreeoriginalsoftheFirstBilltoMaerskand,atYekalon¡¯srequest,anewbillofladingwasissuedtotheorderofYekalon(theSecondBill).ThedestinationontheSecondBillremainedthesameasontheFirstBill.YekalonsoughttoagreepaymentwithSonaec.SuchpaymentwasnotforthcomingandYekalonsoughtandfoundanalternativebuyer,HondugresSA.On18February2008YekalonsurrenderedtheSecondBilltoMaerskandanewbillofladingwasissuedbyMaerskwhichidentifiedHondugresSAastheconsigneewithdeliveryinHonduras(theThirdBill).MaerskproceededtodeliverthecargotoHondugresSAinHonduras,inaccordancewiththetermsoftheThirdBill.SonaecbroughtproceedingsinBeninagainstMaersk¡¯sBeninagentsandagainstMaerskitself.RelyingonaphotocopyoftheFirstBill,Sonaeccontendedthatitwastheownerofthecargodescribedthereinbecausethesalecontractwasfobandthegoodshadbeenloadedonthevessel.SonaecassertedthatitwasthereforeentitledtodeliveryofthegoodsfromMaersk.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[2011]Vol.1LLOYD¡¯SLAWREPORTS2QBD(CommCt)APMoller-MaerskvSonaecVillasMaersksubmittedthattheproceedingswerebroughtinbreachoftheexclusivejurisdictionclauseintheFirstBillandthat,inanyevent,anyrightswhichSonaechadhadundertheFirstBillhadbeenbroughttoanendwhentheFirstBillhadbeencancelledbytherightfulshipper,Yekalon,andreplaced.Despitethosesubmissions,theBenincourtmadeaninterimrulingrequiringMaersktoshipthecargodescribedintheFirstBilltoSonaecinCotonou.AnappealbyMaerskwasdismissedonproceduralgrounds.SonaecsubsequentlyappliedtotheBenincourtfortheenforcementofthedecisionagainsttheprincipalofMaersk¡¯sBeninagents.MaerskbroughtproceedingsintheEnglishCommercialCourtagainstSonaecVillas,Sonaec,andZouhairMichelFadoul(thebeneficialownerandcontrollerofSonaec),seekingdeclarations:(1)thatalldisputesarisingundertheFirstBillweretobedeterminedbytheEnglishcourts;and(2)thatthedefendantsdidnotinanyeventhavetitletosueundertheFirstBill.Maerskappliedforsummaryjudgmentonthebasisthattherewasnorealdefencetoitsclaimforthetwodeclarations.¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ªHeldbyQBD(CommCt)(ChristopherClarkeJ)that:(1)MaerskwasentitledtoadeclarationagainstthefirsttwodefendantsthatunderEnglishlawtheEnglishcourtshadexclusivejurisdictionundertheFirstBill.(a)Clause26oftheFirstBillwasanagreementbetweenthepartiestoittohavealldisputesarisinghereunderdeterminedbytheEnglishcourts.TherewasnodoubtthatadisputeastowhetheraclaiminrespectoftheFirstBillwassubjecttoEnglishlawandjurisdictionwasadisputearisingthereunder.So,also,wasadisputeastowhetherornotSonaecstillenjoyedrightsunderthatBill(s