Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE PRESENTATION RULE REVISITED
John F. Wilson*
Two recent decisions in The Houda and The Sormovskiy 3068 provide the opportunity for a critical reappraisal of the practical effects of the traditional presentation rule, requiring delivery of cargo to be made by the shipowner only on production of an original bill of lading. While the operation of the rule in both cases is considered in the context of time charters, the principles which emerge are equally applicable whenever cargo is shipped under the cover of bills of lading.
The two cases illustrate the opposite sides of the same coin. The Court of Appeal in The Houda
1 was faced with the problem of a master who, having initially failed to comply with the charterers’ sailing instructions, subsequently refused to deliver the cargo in the absence of the relevant bills of lading. On the other hand, Clarke, J., in The Sormovskiy 3068
2 had to deal with the reverse situation of a master seeking to justify delivery of cargo without requiring production of an original bill. The issues raised by each of these cases will be considered separately and a final section will be devoted to an assessment, in the light of these decisions, of the effectiveness of the presentation rule.
1. The Houda
The plaintiffs in The Houda were a state-owned oil corporation with their head office in Kuwait City. They chartered the Houda from the defendant shipowners on the Shelltime 4 form to ship a cargo of oil at Mina Al Ahmadi for delivery at the port of Ain Sukhna. The loading operation was interrupted on 2 August 1990 on the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, whereupon the Houda sailed part loaded and proceeded to an anchorage off Fujaireh. Before her departure blank bills of lading had been issued and signed by the master, to be completed by the charterers when the amount of cargo was known. These bills named the charterers as shippers and provided for the cargo to be delivered at Ain Sukhna to the order of the charterers. These bills were left behind in Kuwait on the departure of the vessel and subsequently disappeared in the confusion following the Iraqi invasion.
The issues in contention involved a period of 12 days’ delay off Fujairah while the shipowners queried the authority of the charterers to order the vessel to sail to Ain Sukhna, and a further delay of some 23 days off Ain Sukhna during which the shipowners refused to discharge the cargo on the failure of the charterers to produce the relevant bills of
* Emeritus Professor of Law, Institute of Maritime Law, University of Southampton.
1. [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541; rvrsg [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 333, noted Davenport [1993] LMCLQ 40.
2. [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 266. See also the recent Australian cases: The Antwerpen [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213; Kamil Export (Aust.) Pty v. N.P.L. (Australia) Pty (1992) Unreported.
289