Briefing

Caught in the middle: When carriers face rival claims for delivery and how English law responds

When two or more parties are in a dispute as to who is entitled to a cargo under a bill of lading, the carrier often finds itself caught in the middle, exposed to a potential misdelivery claim should it deliver to one party over another. English law has long recognised that carriers should not be forced to referee underlying sales disputes, but what should a carrier do when rival claims are made?

In Kama Metal Trading LLC v Maersk, the Commercial Court held that a carrier can (if the relevant conditions are satisfied) take advantage of CPR Part 86 and make a stakeholder application, asking the Court for directions as to which party the cargo should be delivered without liability to the non-receiving party. This is the first instance of a carrier using the stakeholder procedure under CPR Part 86 in a bill of lading dispute concerning competing claims to the cargo. The decision offers a welcome route to carriers faced with competing and inconsistent claims.

Kama Metal Trading LLC v Maersk & Others [2026] EWHC 940 (Comm)

Background

On 1 November 2025, Maersk issued a bill of lading in respect of three containers. The cargo was shipped on board a Maersk vessel on 29 September 2025 at Mombasa, Kenya, for discharge at Penang, Malaysia. The claimant, Kama Metal Trading LLC, was the named consignee under the bill of lading. Discharge took place on 1 November 2025, the same day the bill of lading was issued.

The claimant, being the holder of the bill of lading, would ordinarily be entitled to seek delivery up of the cargo upon presentation of the original bills, subject to competing claims or other circumstances which may give rise to a carrier seeking the Court’s directions. In this case, the named shipper asserted that it retained an interest in the cargo, that delivery of the original bills to the claimant had been obtained by subterfuge and that there should therefore be no delivery up of the cargo to the claimant by Maersk.

On 3 December 2025, Maersk received a letter of demand from the claimant, claiming that it was the consignee, the lawful holder of the bills of lading, and therefore entitled to delivery up of the cargo. On 19 December 2025, the shipper commenced proceedings in Kenya against Maersk’s Kenyan subsidiary, as well as against the claimant, seeking an injunction restraining the release and delivery up of the relevant cargo. This was notwithstanding the bills of lading, which contained an English law and High Court jurisdiction clause.

Stakeholder application

Maersk had no interest in the dispute and merely wanted directions as to what should happen to the cargo without incurring any liability to the non-receiving party for misdelivery. Accordingly, Maersk made a stakeholder application to the Commercial Court for directions under CPR Part 86 as to what it should do with the cargo.

Both the claimant and the shipper were served with the application, although the shipper did not participate in the English proceedings.

Judgment

In order to qualify for stakeholder relief, under CPR rule 86.1 the applicant must show that it is a ‘stakeholder’, properly defined, namely: (a) a person under a liability “in respect of… goods”; and (b) that “competing claims are made or expected to be made against that person in respect of … those goods… by two or more persons”.

HHJ Pelling found that Maersk qualified as a stakeholder for the purposes of CPR 86 such that there was jurisdiction to make the order sought. Applying SKAT v Sanjay Shah [2020] EWHC 1658 (Comm), the Court confirmed that a ‘relevant party’ under CPR rule 86.1 is one which faces competing and inconsistent claims arising from a dispute between rival claimants, rather than from any inconsistent obligations of its own making. HHJ Pelling considered that there were competing claims in the present case.

Accordingly, the only remaining issue was what should be done in relation to the cargo. While the shipper’s correspondence was capable of constituting a competing claim (such that the stakeholder jurisdiction was engaged), the Court found there was no evidence substantiating that claim. By contrast, the consignee was able to produce the original bills of lading and provide (via evidence submitted) a credible explanation as to why it was entitled to delivery.

The Court reaffirmed the long‑established principle of English law: a carrier is both entitled and obliged to deliver cargo against presentation of an original bill of lading. On the evidence before the Court, there was not sufficient basis to justify departure from that rule. Accordingly, the Court considered it appropriate to make the order sought, namely for Maersk to deliver the cargo to the claimant.

Maersk and the consignee were able to agree on payment of container demurrage/detention costs and Maersk’s own legal costs and so the Court did not have to address these issues in its judgment.

Comment

This decision is the first time that a carrier has used the new CPR Part 86 stakeholder procedure to resolve competing claims for delivery. The decision provides welcome clarity and a useful precedent to carriers faced with similar scenarios, wishing to avoid misdelivery claims. It enables carriers to step out of the firing line and allow the two parties claiming a right to the cargo to fight it out between themselves.

Further, the decision reaffirms that delivery against presentation of an original bill of lading remains the rule, not the exception. Carriers are not expected to investigate or adjudicate underlying disputes between shippers and consignees, even where those disputes are vigorously asserted. Although this remains the fundamental principle, the stakeholder procedure demonstrates that the position is not immutable where genuine competing claims exist.

While not the focus of the decision, the case illustrates the challenges of operating in a multi‑jurisdictional environment. Foreign proceedings commenced in disregard of English law and jurisdiction clauses remain a real risk, particularly where overseas courts may be reluctant to give effect to those clauses and where anti suit injunctions can be expensive to obtain and may not in fact always assist in practical terms.

When drafting clauses in bills of lading and related terms, it is worth considering express reference to interpleader rights, clear recovery provisions for storage, demurrage, detention and legal costs, and indemnities against foreign proceedings to further bolster a carrier’s rights.

Overall, Kama Metal Trading LLC v Maersk reinforces a simple message: carriers who act prudently, neutrally and in accordance with the bill of lading can expect English law to stand firmly behind them.

HFW’s Rory Butler and Miranda Stock acted for Maersk, assisted by trainee Michail Sarantellis. HFW instructed Joseph Gourgey of Quadrant Chambers as Counsel.