For the first time, an English court has used the Civil Procedure Rules to direct a shipowner caught between rival cargo claims — and the order went firmly in favour of the bill of lading holder.

In Kama Metal v Maersk, the Commercial Court directed Maersk to deliver three containers to the consignee, Kama Metal Trading LLC, after the named shipper asserted a competing interest in the goods. The ruling gives carriers a procedural route out of one of the oldest commercial traps in shipping: delivering against the wrong claimant and facing a misdelivery suit with effectively no defence.

The cargo was loaded aboard a Maersk vessel at Mombasa, Kenya, on 29 September 2025, for discharge at Penang, Malaysia. On 1 November 2025 — the same day the boxes were discharged — Maersk issued a bill of lading naming Kama as consignee. Delivery never took place. The named shipper claimed it retained an interest in the cargo.

On 3 December 2025, Maersk received a letter of demand from Kama's solicitors. Kama said it was the consignee, the lawful holder of the bill of lading, in possession of all three original copies, and entitled to delivery under the usual principles.

Sixteen days later, on 19 December, the shipper upped the stakes. It commenced proceedings in Kenya against Maersk's Kenyan subsidiary and against Kama itself — despite the bill of lading incorporating an English law and High Court jurisdiction clause. The shipper sought an injunction restraining release of the cargo, arguing it was either the unpaid seller of the goods or, in the alternative, a partially unpaid seller. Kama countered that while it had paid less than originally agreed, the shortfall reflected quality and purity issues with the cargo, and it had paid what was due.

The stakeholder application

Rather than gamble on a commercial judgment at its own risk, Maersk took a novel route: an application to the Commercial Court under CPR Part 86. That provision allows a neutral party facing competing claims over money, goods or chattels — and claiming no personal interest — to ask the court for directions on how to deal with the disputed property.

The judge applied the principles set out in SKAT v Shah, which distinguish a true stakeholder — a party facing competing and inconsistent claims arising from a dispute between rival claimants — from a party facing inconsistent liabilities arising from its own actions. Maersk A/S qualified. The court had jurisdiction to make the order sought.

The shipper was served with the application but neither appeared nor was represented. The judge found the shipper's correspondence was capable of constituting a competing claim, even though no evidence ultimately supported it. Kama produced the original bills and made what the court regarded as a strong case for delivery.

The judge ordered Maersk to deliver the cargo to Kama. The decision upholds the long-standing English law principle that a shipowner is both entitled and bound to deliver goods against production of an original bill of lading.

Why it matters for carriers

For carriers, the judgment is a welcome template. Where an English court has jurisdiction — as it did here via the bill of lading clause — a Part 86 application offers a clear, low-cost exit from a delivery stand-off, without the carrier shouldering the misdelivery risk itself.

But the underlying exposure remains. Under English law, an owner that misdelivers is liable in conversion to the bill of lading holder, a claim to which there is usually no defence. In Motis Exports, the court held the loss falls on the owner even where the bill presented was fraudulent and the owner neither knew nor had notice — ignorance is no protection.

Nor does the common workaround of delivering against a Letter of Indemnity restore the position. Club cover for liabilities arising from delivery without production of original bills is discretionary, and an LOI does not reinstate or preserve it. An LOI is only as good as the party giving it, and it must be carefully drafted — a point reinforced by recent High Court litigation over undisclosed principals behind LOIs.

P&I clubs continue to urge Members to raise bill of lading and delivery concerns with their usual P&I contact before discharge, not after. With short sea voyages and multiple sub-sales routinely outpacing the banking chain, Part 86 now stands as the confirmed procedural backstop for carriers trading under English law clauses.