The court held that a statement in a bill of lading that goods have been shipped is of only prima facie evidential value, and its terms may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
The justification for the case was that a carrier should not suffer liability if (as was not uncommon at the time) the ship's master had fraudulently colluded with a dishonest shipper and had issued a bill declaring untruthfully that goods had been loaded.
The Hague-Visby Rules continued with this view, with Article III (4) stating: "Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with paragraph 3 (a), (b) and (c).
"Although the UK has adopted the Hague-Visby Rules,[2] for the purposes of English Law a bill of lading is now deemed to be conclusive (not merely prima facie) evidence of receipt as a result of section 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.
The reason for the change is that the Law Commission[3] deemed that, if international confidence were to be maintained, it was crucial that a bill of lading should be relied upon as a conclusive statement of fact.