The case concerned the question whether a contract could be implied between the transferee of a bill of lading to whom the goods had been delivered and the carrier.

The facts of the case were as follows: The plaintiffs were consignees of a cargo of steel coils shipped from Japan to Rotterdam under a bill of lading issued by the defendants, who were shipowners.

The plaintiffs argued that there was an implied contract because it was necessary to give business efficacy to the transaction and to reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The implication of a contract between a transferee of a bill of lading and a carrier was based on a doctrine known as Brandt v Liverpool, after a case decided in 1924.

This doctrine was developed to overcome the difficulties faced by transferees who could not sue on the original contract of carriage under the Bills of Lading Act 1855.