This page contains reference materials. See also substantive material on documentation.
Transfer of property and possession, Protection of carrier who delivers against bill of lading, Delivery without production
Back to legal home page, Back to home page, Back to international trade page, Table of cases.
It was recognised as early as Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787) 5 T.R. 683 that a bill of lading can transfer property, but only later that it might follow as a consequence that it could also transfer possession (e.g., Barber v. Meyerstein (1870) L.R. 4 H.L. 317, and Sanders v. Maclean (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 327). It is not entirely clear, however, that even today the courts fully recognise this; e.g. The Future Express, where possession of the bill of lading gave the holder no rights at all as against the carrier.
Top of page, Back to legal home page, Back to home page, Back to international trade page.
Glyn Mills Currie & Co. v. East and West India Dock Co. (1882) 7 App. Cas. 591 - how far does the reasoning extend to documents apart from the bill of lading?
Sze Hai Tong Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co. [1959] A.C. 576;
The Sagona [1984] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 194.
See also the discussion of the latter case in The Nogar Marin
[1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 412, noted [1988] 3 J.I.B.L. 131.
The Sina [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 144;
The Houda [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 541, differing in part from
Phillips J.: [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 333;
The
Future Express [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 79, affd. C.A., [1993] 2
Lloyd's Rep. 542 (but 1st instance more detailed);
Sucre Export S.A. v. Northern River Shipping Ltd., The Sormovskiy 3068
[1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 266. Casenote
by myself (fairly large file)
Dematerialisation of Shipping Documents [1994] 10 JIBL 410-419, republished in Cross-Border Electronic Banking (ed. J. Norton et. al.), Lloyd's of London Press (1995), ISBN 1850440000, pp. 105-120 (full text - large file).
Top of page, Back to legal home page, Back to home page, Back to international trade page.
This page was last updated on 05 Oct 97.
toddpn2@cf.ac.uk