Buttrose J:

In this action the plaintiff claimed damages from the first defendant for breach of contract or duty in and about the carriage of three cases of goods (hereinafter referred to as 'the said three cases') by sea and/or conversion and in the alternative against the second defendant for negligence in the care and custody of the said three cases and for wrongfully detaining and/or converting the same. The parties concurred in stating questions of law arising therein in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court under O. XXXIII of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1934.

The special case is as follows:

1 By two bills of lading No KS-25 and KS-37 both dated 15 October 1964 (hereinafter called 'the said bills of lading') the first defendant acknowledge the shipment by Iwai & Co. Ltd. of Osaka on the first defendants vessel Shohaku Maru (hereinafter called 'the vessel') at Kobe of the five cases therein mentioned (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') and agreed to deliver the same at Singapore to order and to the order of The Bank of India Ltd. respectively. Copies of the said bills of lading are annexed hereto as Appendices A & B and form part of this case. The said goods included the said three cases.

(2) The contracts evidenced by the said bills of lading were subject to all the terms provisions and conditions of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading signed at Brussels on 25 August 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hague Rules').

(3) The said goods were duly shipped as aforesaid and the said vessel arrived in Singapore and docked alongside Godowns 40 and 41 of the second defendant on 7 November 1964.

(4) For the purpose of this special case and not otherwise it is agreed that the plaintiff was at all material times the owner of the said goods and was further the endorsee of the said bills of lading to whom the property in the said goods passed upon or by reason of such endorsement.

(5) For the purpose of this special case and not otherwise the said goods are to be, regarded as having been duly discharged ex ship's tackle by the first defendant into the possession of the second defendant between 7 November and 11 November 1964.

(6) On 12 November 1964 the plaintiff presented delivery orders issued by the first defendant in respect of the said goods to the second defendant and on such representation the second defendant delivered to the plaintiff two cases out of the said goods but failed to deliver the said three cases.

(7) The said three cases have never subsequently come into the possession of the plaintiff nor has the plaintiff recovered any part of the value of the said three cases. The said three cases have not been destroyed or damaged after they were delivered into the possession of the second defendant as aforesaid, but save as aforesaid the second defendant in unable to account for the same.

(8) The second defendant is a corporate body established under the Port of Singapore Authority Ordinance 1963. Certain By-Laws have been made by the Singapore Harbour Board, the predecessor of the second defendant, under the Ports Ordinance, and to the extent that they were validly made remain in force under s. 128(2) of the said Ordinance of 1963 despite the repeal of the said Ports Ordinance by s. 131 of the said Ordinance of 1963. The parties shall be at liberty to refer to the said Ordinance of 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Ordinance') and to the said By-Laws (hereinafter called 'the By-Laws') for their full terms and effect. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to challenge the validity of any of the By-Laws, including By-Law 34(1) hereinafter referred to, as being ultra vires the said Singapore Harbour Board and therefore invalid.

(9) For the purposes of this special case and not otherwise it is agreed that the said goods were not transhipment goods within the meaning of s. 88(3) of the Ordinance and that the said goods w