In Lord Marine Co S.A. v Vimeksim SRB D.O.O. (“The Lord Hassam”) [2024] EWHC 3305 the English High Court considered whether it could order the sale of cargo over which a shipowner was exercising a contractual lien as security for a claim brought in arbitration against charterers for unpaid charterparty freight, even though charterers did not own the cargo. A freight pre-paid bill of lading had been issued by owners for a cargo of corn in bulk carried under a voyage charterparty on amended SYNACOMEX 2000 terms. The charterparty included a clause permitting owners to exercise a lien on cargo for freight, deadfreight, demurrage and average contributions due under the charterparty. The bill of lading was on the CONGENBILL94 form and contained standard wording incorporating the voyage charterparty. The lien clause in the charterparty was, therefore, incorporated into the bill of lading. Although the bill was marked “freight pre-paid” , the evidence produced to the Court was that freight had not been paid and that the original bill of lading was retained by owners and had not come into the possession of charterers or the receivers named in the bill. Having loaded the cargo in Ukraine, the vessel proceeded to the discharge port in Turkey, where owners exercised a contractual lien over the cargo for freight due under the charterparty. The cargo was discharged into a warehouse under owners’ control. An owner’s obligation is to deliver the cargo to the lawful holder of the bill of lading. However, in this case, charterers were not the shippers, and charterers, receivers nor any other party had ever been lawful holders of the bill. Under English law, a bill of lading marked “freight pre-paid” creates an estoppel (i.e. indisputable evidence that freight has been paid) except against a party who has not relied upon that statement or who knows that freight has not been paid. As neither charterers nor receivers ever lawfully held the bill of lading, they could not say that they re