Changes

This was a case involving carriage of goods by air where the goods were mis-delivered to the buyer without payment or the consent of the plaintiff bank. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial judge and held that the bank was entitled to sue the carrier for conversion as the seller had pledged the goods in its favour. The pledge was completed when the goods were delivered to the freight forwarder for carriageunder an air waybill showing the Bank's agent and receiving bank in Hong Kong as the consignee.

Barma Barman JA (with whom Lam and Lunn VPP agreed) gave the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the Bank was the pledgee of the Diamonds and was entitled to bring a claim in conversion against Brink’s HK. Articles II.1 and II.5 of the Agreement amounted to an agreement on the part of the Company to pledge its finished goods (i.e. the Diamonds) to the Bank. The pledge was complete when the Diamonds were delivered to the freight forwarder for carriage to Hong Kong under the Air Waybills. This constituted constructive delivery of the Diamonds to the Bank and placed them in its possession. The present case was indistinguishable from the decision of the Privy Council in Kum v Wah Tat Bank Ltd [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439. The trial judge erred by focusing on the irrelevant question of whether the Air Waybill was a negotiable document of title.