From Paper to Platform: Attornment and Electronic Bills of Lading

This paper was presented by Ms. Kimarie Cheang of Watson Farley & Williams LLP, Singapore at the ICMA XXIII  at Singapore. We thank her for allowing us to post in our site for the wider dissemination as this topic would be of interest to our readers. A copy of her presentation can be downloaded from this link.

Over the years, international and national legal reforms have sought to confer the same legal effect on electronic bills of lading as paper bills. While adoption of electronic bills of lading is accelerating among carriers and traders, banks remain cautious, chiefly due to concerns relating to issues about Attornment and Title to Sue. This paper contends that the Attornment hurdle is surmountable in a digital environment: targeted, precise adjustments can replicate, and in places improve upon, paper-based safeguards while leveraging the functional equivalence framework of the United Kingdom’s Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023,Singapore’s Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act 2021, and the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records.

1. Introduction
   1. Law reforms over the years seek to recognise electronic bills of lading (“eBLs”) as having thesame legal effect as paper bills (“PBLs”). A PBL normally has three functions¹ as: (1) receipt for thegoods described in it; (2) evidence of the Contract of Carriage; and (3) a document of title.
   2. In respect of its function as a document of title, while proprietary consequences vary by jurisdiction, in general, the lawful holder of a paper bill will have constructive possession of the goods, which,depending on the circumstances, could come together with full ownership (general property) or asecurity interest in the form of a pledge (special property).
   3. For centuries, the bill of lading has been in its paper form, but recently more and more drawbacks toPBLs have been
   4. Over the past few decades, much effort has been put into dematerialising PBLs and transferring it intoits electronic Adoption of eBLs is accelerating among carriers and traders, driven by gains insafety, efficiency, simplicity, and speed. Banks, however, remain slow to adopt.
   5. Banks’ hesitancy is primarily due to uncertainty over whether eBLs function as documents of title forpledging goods, and over the mechanics of Attornment and Title to Sue particularly in cases of Misdelivery(as defined at Definitions).
   6. This paper focuses on Attornment: the transfer of constructive possession without physical delivery (as defined at Definitions). In brief, Attornment occurs when
      1. notice is given to the carrier or otherbailee identifying the third party entitled to the goods, and
      2. the carrier or other bailee acknowledges that it now holds the goods for that party.
   7. This paper contends that, with regard to Attornment in the digital environment, targeted, narrowly tailored adjustments can replicate and in places improve paper‑based safeguards by leveraging thefunctional‑equivalence framework under the Electronic Trade Documents Act (“ETDA”) and the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (“MLETR”). These adjustments should provide banks withgreater legal certainty and encourage wider eBL adoption across the financial
2. Definitions
   “Attornment” means the bailee’s (usually the carrier’s or terminal’s) express acknowledgment that,following a transfer of rights, it holds the goods for the new bailor (e.g., a financing bank). Typicallyeffected by a tripartite letter or attornment clause; indorsement alone usually does not re‑anchor the bailee’s delivery obligation.
   “Bailee / Carrier / Terminal” means the party in possession of the goods that owes delivery obligationsunder the Contract of Carriage or terminal terms. Courts focus on delivery to the lawful holder of the bill oflading, not operational shortcuts.
   “Bill of Lading” (paper), “BL” or “PBL” means the document performing three functions: (i) receipt for goods; (ii) evidence of the Contract of Carriage; (iii) document of title—delivery ordinarilyagainst surrender of an original.
   “Contract of Carriage” means a legally binding agreement under which a carrier transports goods from A to B at the shipper’s request in return for freight.
   “Electronic Bill of Lading” (“eBL”) means the legal equivalent of a PBL when held on a reliablesystem that ensures singularity, integrity, exclusive and demonstrable control, and effective divestmenton transfer. Under ETDA (UK), possession and indorsement can attach to electronic trade documents;under MLETR, control is the functional proxy for possession.
   “Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act 2021” (“ET(A)A”) means the Singapore legislationproviding for the creation and use of eBLs with the same legal standing as traditional BL.
   “Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023” (“ETDA”) means the UK legislation granting electronic trade documents (including eBLs) the same legal effect as paper.
   “eUCP 2.1” (“ICC”) means the electronic supplement to UCP 600 governing electronic presentationunder letters of credit, now expressly aligned with electronic transferable records.
   “Interoperability” means the ability to transfer eBLs across platforms without losing singularity, control, or legal characteristics. Recent cross‑platform pilots (e.g., DCSA/FIT ecosystem) indicate feasibilitywith registry‑backed control tracking.
   “Letter of Indemnity” (“LOI”) means a legally binding document which protects against loss and is issued (often by the charterer/shipper) to permit discharge without production of original BLs.
   “Misdelivery” means delivery without production of an original BL to a non‑entitled party.
   “Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records” (“MLETR”) means the model legislative framework of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which, among other things, establishes functional equivalence for electronic transferable records by using control as the digital proxy for possession.
   “Title to Sue” means the lawful holder’s right under the bill of lading to bring claims against the carrier (e.g., for Misdelivery or breach of the Contract of Carriage).
   “UNCITRAL” means the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
3. The role of BL in international trade
   1. The BL is one of the cornerstones of international trade and shipping, mainly because of its essential role in facilitating documentary sales and raising commodity trade finance. 
   2. Under the law of England and Wales, BLs are governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971(“COGSA 1971”), the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 (“COGSA1992”) and the common law. COGSA 1971 implements the Hague-Visby Rules, an international convention that applies to BLs and sets out requirements of form and content.
   3. A BL, typically, has three distinct characteristics:
      1. It is evidence of the Contract of Carriage between the consignor and the carrier. The BL is not itself acontract as the contract will have been made before the Rather, it is evidence of the contract.
      2. It shows that the goods have been accepted on board by the carrier and contains a description of thequantity and condition of the goods and information as to their
      3. Not all BL are negotiable but those that are can be used to transfer ownership rights in the It enables goods to be traded by trading the document while the cargo is in transit. A BL is not transferable where it provides that delivery is only to a named consignee (a “straight” BL). Alternatively, the BL may provide that delivery will be to a named consignee or to its order or to itsassignees, in which case the BL may be transferred to a third party. Transfer is effected by endorsing the BL and delivering it to the assignee.
      4. Section 1 of COGSA 1992 applies the Act to “documents” including any “bill of lading” and by section5(1) provides that “‘bill of lading’ shall be construed in accordance with section 1 above“. However,section 1(2)(a) expressly excludes “straight” BL from the statutory definition by excluding all documentsthat would otherwise have fallen within the term BL but that are “incapable of transfer either by indorsementor, as a bearer bill, by delivery without indorsement“. Thus, despite a partial definition of a BL, resort may still be necessary to the common law definitions of a bill².
      5. The definition of a BL depends on the relevant context. Further, the question whether a document satisfies the relevant definition depends on the substance of the document and not its A documentdescribing itself as a BL will not be one unless it has the necessary attributes. Conversely, a document may be a BL without those words appearing in it. The most common types of documents with which a BL must be contrasted are receipts, waybills, delivery orders and warrants, charterparties and booking notes³.
      6. As a document of title, the BL entitles the lawful holder to demand delivery of the goods at the port of discharge. Consequently, in transactions involving trade finance or secured lending, possession of theoriginal bill(s) of lading usually forms a central component of the lender’s collateral, enabling control over release of the goods.
      7. Various stakeholders have identified technical and legal difficulties encountering the emergent use of eBL, predominantly in relation to the characteristic of transferability⁴.
      8. This paper argues that the key functions of a BL (i.e., receipt for goods, evidence of the Contract of Carriage, document of title and transferability of the bill) can be replicated in an electronic format.
4. The movement towards eBL
   1. Before considering the issue of Attornment specifically, it is necessary to briefly make a case for why the industry should move towards eBLs. The commercial and risk management advantages of eBLs are sufficiently compelling that adoption should not be
   2. The concept of eBLs has been discussed for decades⁵. However, movement towards them has been slow, in part because UNCITRAL’s MLETR was only recently adopted in English law with theETDA⁶. Given that English law is the legal framework for many cross-border trade disputes, the ETDA is an important step towards embracing eBLs.
   3. The adoption of eBLs materially mitigates the risk of Misdelivery by aligning delivery with real‑time electronic title and control. For example, release can be made conditional upon a verified electronic transfer of control within the platform, ensuring delivery is made to the party then entitled under the eBL.
   4. Adopting eBLs addresses the underlying timing mismatch between document flow and cargo movement:eBLs can be issued, transferred, and presented in near real time, substantially reducing the need torelease cargo without presentation of the
   5. For banks, this alignment of control and delivery materially reduces exposure to Misdelivery, title,and collateral
5. The approach taken by banking and financial institutions – Attornment and why it matters for banks
   1. Banks typically finance trade on the premise that a BL confers effective control over the goods andprovides the ability to enforce rights if necessary.
   2. At common law, a pledge cannot be created except by delivery of possession of the goods pledged, either actual or This involves a bailment. If the pledgor has the actual goods in his physicalpossession, he can effect the pledge by actual delivery. In other cases, he can give possession by some symbolic act. Where the goods are in the custody of a third party, who holds for the bailor so thatin law his possession is that of the bailor, the pledge can be effected by a change of the possession of the third party by an order to him from the pledgor to hold for the pledgee, the change being perfected by the third party attorning to the pledgee by acknowledging that he thereupon holds for the pledgee. There is thus a change of possession and a constructive delivery.
   3. Where goods are represented by documents, the mere transfer of documents does not change thepossession of the goods unless the carrier/warehouseman is notified of the transfer and agrees to hold infuture as bailee for the The one exception is the case of PBL, the transfer of which operates as a transfer of the possession of, as well as the property in, the goods. Thus, save in the case of BL, apledge of documents is not a pledge of the goods, and banks will require actual or constructive delivery of the goods. A pledge of BL (and of the goods represented thereby) is effected by delivery of the BL to abank, indorsed to the bank or in blank.
   4. It is for this reason that tender of presentation of the original BL is often required in sale contracts onIncoterms and in letters of
6. What is the status of EBLs and can EBLs be considered documents of title?
   1. Legislative amendments have addressed this issue. Specifically, paragraph 66 of the Explanatory Noteswhich accompany the ETDA provides: “To effect a possessory security, there has to be a transfer ofpossession of the relevant paper trade document to the Because the Act provides for electronic trade documents to be possessed, it will be possible to make them subject to possessory security arrangements. In order to effect a possessory security in relation to an electronic trade document, there has to be transfer of possession. Anything less would not be sufficient because that action in relation to the equivalent of paper trade document would not be sufficient. Section 3(3) [of the ETDA] therefore entails a transfer of possession of the electronic trade document, and this hasthe same effect as a transfer of possession of the equivalent paper trade document.“⁷
   2. Given the lack of legal clarity as to its status in other jurisdictions, banks are not able to treat EBLs as BL for the purposes of obtaining a pledge over the goods. An alternative way needs to be found of ensuring thatsuch a pledge is acquired (one not requiring the holdership of a BL). Under English law, one way of doing so is through Attornment (as described above).
   3. Attornment is a way of achieving transfer of constructive possession in the absence of a PBL. It requires the involvement of the carrier in each transfer (unlike transfer using a PBL). When parties sign onto an electronic platform for the issuance, transfer and control of the EBLs, the terms and ruleswould typically provide for the carrier to ensure that there is only one holder of the BL at any one time.The terms and conditions of each electronic platform together with international legal framework such as the MLETR, and national legislation ought to replicate the effect of a document of title in law, by a combination of contractual bailment, agency and Attornment.
7. Statutory gateways:
   1. This paper now provides an overview of the legal gateways to recognising eBLs as functionally andlegally equivalent to PBLs:
      

      Statute	Jurisdiction	Requirements for recognising eBLs
      MLETR8	UNCITRAL	establishes functional equivalence using control; mandates reliability in identifying the ETR, subjecting it to control throughoutits life, and preserving its integrity. These enactments resolve the historical objection that “intangibles cannot be possessed.”
      ETDA9	United Kingdom	electronic trade documents can be possessed and indorsed; a reliablesystem is required (singularity; integrity; exclusive control; demonstrable control; effective transfer; change of form).
      ET(A)A10	Singapore	a reliable method must be used to identify the eBL and ensure that it is under control from start to finish, maintaining integrity throughout; signature must use a reliablemethod and the person in control of the eBL must identified.

      MLETR

   2. The MLETR applies to “transferable documents or instruments” in electronic form, which does not include straight BL or “documents or instruments, which are generally transferable, but whose transferability may be limited due to other agreements”¹¹.

   3. In order to have functional equivalence with a transferable document or instrument, an electronic record must satisfy a number of requirements¹². It must: contain the information that would be required to be contained in its paper equivalent; and a reliable method must be used to

      1. identify it as the electronic transferable record;
      2.  render it capable of being subject to “control” from its creation until it ceases to have any effect or validity; and
      3. retain its integrity so that the information in the record remains complete and unaltered.
   4. The MLETR also sets out the functional equivalence of possession, being control. Article 11requires that a “reliable method” be used to establish “exclusive control” of an electronic transferablerecord by a person, and to identify that person as the person in control. Paragraph (2) of article 11 provides that transfer of control will have equivalent effects at law to the transfer of possession of a paper document. “Control” is not defined but the Explanatory Note says that it is intended to operate as a functional equivalent to the fact of
   5. The MLETR is silent on the exact legal consequences of the exclusive control of an eBL. The philosophy of the MLETR is to leave these matters to the applicable national law and not intend to modify the existing law on
   6. The “reliable method” referred to in articles 10 and 11 must be “as reliable as appropriate” havingregard to criteria set out in article MLETR sets out a series of elements to assess the reliability,among which “the existence of a declaration by a supervisory body, an accreditation body or a voluntaryscheme regarding the reliability of the method” suggests that the reliability of the method to establish controlof an EBL may be subject to the approval of an independent body.

      United Kingdom

   7. The ETDA recognises that the EBLs have the same effect as their paper counterparts (see the ETDA, section 3(2)), provided that certain gateway criteria are met to qualify EBLs as “electronictrade documents” capable of being The criteria lie in seven aspects, including theinformation contained in a document in electronic form, the reliability, integrity, exclusive control and divestibility of the electronic document; as well as the identification of an electronic document and theperson who can exercise control of the document. The rules set out set up the criterion that an electronic trade document must be susceptible to exclusive control to qualify as an “electronicdocument” under the ETDA.

   8.  Control, for the purpose of the gateway criteria is merely concerned with what the person in control may do in relation to the electronic document, namely, “use, transfer, and dispose of the document”, regardless of whether the person has a legal right to do Therefore, control, in essence, is a fact-based concept rather than a legal right-based concept. ETDA does not treat control as an equivalent concept to possession, making the position differ from ET(A)A and MLETR, but align with the current English law and principles on possession.

   9. Under previous English law, intangible things such as contractual rights and electronic databases werenot amenable to possession.¹³ When reforming the law, the Law Commission took the approach that the electronic trade documents satisfying the gateway criteria should be capable of being possessed, given the recent development of technology and law. It should be noted that there are two types of possession under English law, actual possession (a matter of fact) and legal or constructive possession (based on rights). According to the Law Commission, the possession mentioned in the Bill only refers to actual possession as a matter of fact.¹⁴
   10. In terms of legal aspect, the evolution of the law on “control” provides a ground for recognising thatelectronic trade documents are What amounts to a sufficient degree of custody and control depends on “the subject matter and the manner in which the subject matter is commonly enjoyed”. The Law Commission noted that the control is not limited to physical contact. In Mainline PrivateHire Ltd v Nolan, Arden LJ stated that a common constituent element of the possession of land orchattel is a requisite degree of “actual custody and control”.¹⁵ Using the word “actual” rather than “physical” indicates that the “control” is not locked up with the tangible property only. The LawCommission thereby concluded that control is a fact-based concept that can apply to different types of property, including electronic trade documents, to establish possession.
   11. Under English law, possession is a concept playing an essential role in the function of PBL as a document of title and its transferability. According to the Factors Act, the possessor of a document of title such as PBL can transfer or receive goods covered by it by “endorsement or delivery” of the document.¹⁶ The “delivery” mentioned herein refers to the “voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another”.¹⁷ The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 defines the “holder” of a PBL as “aperson with possession of thebill.“¹⁸ Therefore, by using “control” to construct the gateway criteria to make the EBLs amenable topossession, the ETDA fits EBLs into the existing legal regime governing PBLs.
   12. The ETDA requires electronic systems to be “reliable” so that EBLs operated under them can be qualified as “electronic trade documents”. Section 2(5) of the ETDA provides for a non-exhaustive list of factors courts may consider when determining the reliability of a system. Singapore
   13. Amendments to the Singapore Electronic Transactions Act 2010 were adopted in 2021, implementing reforms in line with the Under the ET(A)A, eBLs are within the scope of electronic transferable documents stipulated.¹⁹ Like the MLETR, the ET(A)A provides that the possession of a paper transferable document such as PBL can be replicated in the electronic systems “if a reliable method is used to establish exclusive control of that electronic transferable record by a person; and to identify that person as the person in control.” ²⁰ The ET(A)A further provides that “where the law requiresthe transfer of possession of a transferable document or provides for certain consequences ifpossession of a transferable document is not transferred”, that requirement is met with respect to anelectronic counterpart via the transfer of control. The aforesaid rules appear to use control and possession as interchangeable concepts. The ET(A)A follows the same pattern as the MLETR, which does not set out the exact legal consequences of transferring the control over the electronictransferable document, nor does the Act define “control”. As a result, it seems that the control under theET(A)A merely equates to possession in a factual sense.
   14. The most significant divergence from the MLETR in the Singapore legislation is that the Singapore legislation envisages the possibility of an accreditation system for Section 16O provides that, if an electronic transferable record is associated with an electronic transferable record management system provided by an approved provider, the methods used by that management system are presumed “reliable”. Singapore is yet to introduce an accreditation system and, unless and until such a system is set up, reliability is assessed in the same way as under the MLETR.
   15. Several platforms already meet some or all of the tests set out in the ETA, ETDA and MLETR, and theInternational Group of P&I Clubs have approved several eBL systems as being able to accomplish a transfer of title, rights, and liabilities (endorsement as a matter of law)²¹. For example:
       

       Platform	Features for compliance with tests in statutory gateways
       Bolera	Operates by sending bills on behalf of the carrier to prospective consignees via a cloud-based platform, following authentication by a digital signature, before being submittedto the Bolero Title Registry.
       ICE Digital Trade(formerlyessDOCS)	Allows for eBLs to be drafted directly onto a system known as DocHub and supports exchange of documents through its DocEx platform. Documents can be shared directly with banks.
       E-Title	A peer-to-peer system which utilises the user’s back-office functions to create electronic titles through a Hardware Security Modules (“HSMs”) and e-signatures, safeguardinginformation.

       Figure 2 – Platforms which meet most of the statutory tests.

   16. Critically, cross-platform eBL transfers have been demonstrated using DCSA and FIT Alliance standards, supported by a control-tracking registry to ensure singularity and divestment across systems²².
   17. Therefore, it is possible for banks to incorporate such inter-platform liability frameworks and require registry-issued receipts as conditions of trade finance.
8. The Key Concerns for banks and the Potential Mitigations:
   1. Banks have several concerns regarding the digitalisation of international trade and adopted of eBLs. However, this paper suggests mitigations are readily available:
      1. To mitigate the risk of no attornment on endorsement for goods exiting the European Union,it is essential to embed the Export Accompanying Document (“DAE”) within the process. Additionally, carrier Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) and terminal instructions should include explicit attornment language. The platform must also clearly reflect who the bailee holds goods for at every transfer point to ensure transparency and legal certainty.
      2. To reduce exposure to Misdelivery risks and reliance on LOIs, banks can consider implementing instant electronic surrender and verification of the current If LOIs remain necessary, they should strictly follow International Group (IG) recommended wording and, where feasible, include a bank countersignature to strengthen enforceability and reduce risk.
      3. To address jurisdictional fragmentation, banks should select appropriate governing law under frameworks such as ETDA or MLETR, incorporate change-of-form protocols to prevent duplication of originals and contract for cross-platform registry receipts to maintain consistency and legal validity across systems.
      4. Banks can ensure readiness for electronic processes by adopting eUCP 1 standards.
      5. Banks can mitigate cybersecurity risks by requiring providers to furnish SOC 2 or ISO27001 attestations, penetration testing reports, and escrowed business continuity commitments. These measures help safeguard data integrity and operational resilience in the event of disruptions.
   2. In light of the above proposals, this paper suggests that banks can increase their adoption of eBLs significantly, and thus benefit from the considerable benefits of digitalisation, whilst managing the various
9. Conclusions:
   1. For banks, the adoption of eBLs presents considerable advantages. The legal framework is supportive: under the UK’s ETDA, Singapore’s ET(A)A, and UNCITRAL’s Model Law, eBLs carry the same legal effect as paper bills, supported by reliable systems that guarantee singularity, integrity, and exclusive This removes the historical uncertainty that has slowed financial sector uptake.
   2. The benefits for banks are compelling and measurable. eBLs virtually eliminate the timing mismatchbetween document flow and cargo movement, reducing Misdelivery risk and the reliance on
   3. Real-time control over title means lenders can enforce rights immediately, strengthening collateralsecurity and reducing exposure to
   4. Digital platforms also provide audit trails and cybersecurity safeguards far superior to paper processes, ensuring compliance with risk management and regulatory standards.
   5. Critically, the mitigations for Attornment, the key concern for banks, are already By embedding Attornment clauses in carrier SOPs, requiring platform-level visibility of bailee obligations, and leveraging registry-backed Interoperability, banks can achieve the same level of certainty astraditional tri-partite letters, but with greater speed and reliability. These measures transform theoretical rights into enforceable, practical protections.
   6. The trade ecosystem is moving rapidly toward Carriers and traders are already reaping efficiency gains, and banks that delay risk being left behind in a market that values speed, transparency, and ESG alignment.
   7. Overall, the adoption of eBLs will position banks as leaders in innovation, reducing operational risk, and unlocking cost savings.
   8. The question is no longer whether eBLs work. The question for banks is whether they will seize this opportunity to strengthen their risk posture and remain competitive in a digital-first trade finance landscape.

^1.Law Commission (England and Wales), “Rights of Suit in Respect of Carriage of Goods by Sea”, 1991, Law Com. No. 196, HC Paper No.250, para 2.50.
^2. Richard Aikens, Richard Lord QC, Michael Bools QC, Michael Bolding, Kian Sing Toh SC, Bills of Lading, 3rd Edition, 2021, 2.113
^3. Ibid, 2.8
^4. For example, see Mohd Hwaidi and Graham Ferris, “Switching from Paper to Electronic Bills of Lading”, Journal of International Maritime Law, 2020, 25(5)
^5. Ling Zhu, Xuan Pan, “A conceptual analysis of the electronic bill of lading”, J.B.L. 2021, 4, 336-356
^6. Richard Calnan, Rebecca Oliver, Magda Raczynska, Calnan on Taking Security, “Section 7: The Electronic Trede Documents Act 2023”, ^6. 5th Edition, 2024, Ch.2
^7. See ETDA 2023, para 66.
^8. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records 2017
^9. Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023
^10. Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act 2021
^11. MLETR, Article 10
^12. ibid
^13.Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 281
^14.Law Commission (England and Wales), “Electronic trade documents, Report and Bill”, 2022, HC 188, p. 136 and HC 1188, p. 85
^15.Mainline Private Hire Ltd v Nolan [2011] EWCA Civ 189
^16.Factors Act 1889 s. 1(4). 17Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 61(1).
^17.Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 61(1)
^18.Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, s.5(2)
^19.Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act 2021, Section 16A
^20.Ibid, Section 16I(1)
^21.International Group of P&I Clubs, “IG Approved electronic bills of lading systems”, 2025, available at https://www.igpandi.org/article/ig-approved-electronic-bill-of-lading-systems/
^22.FIT Alliance, “Future International Trade (FIT) Alliance: 2023 in review”, https://www.fit-alliance.org/post/future-international-trade-alliance-2023-in-review

Commentary and Textbooks 

Richard Aikens, Richard Lord QC, Michael Bools QC, Michael Bolding, Kian Sing Toh SC, Bills of Lading, 3rd Edition, 2021
Richard Calnan, Rebecca Oliver, Magda Raczynska, Calnan on Taking Security, “Section 7: The Electronic Trede Documents Act 2023”, 5th Edition, 2024
FIT Alliance, “Future International Trade (FIT) Alliance: 2023 in review”, 2023, https://www.fit-alliance.org/post/future-international-trade-alliance-2023-in-review
Mohd Hwaidi and Graham Ferris, “Switching from Paper to Electronic Bills of Lading”, Journal of International Maritime Law, 2020, 25(5)
International Group of P&I Clubs, “IG Approved electronic bills of lading systems”, 2025, available at https://www.igpandi.org/article/ig-approved-electronic-bill-of-lading-systems/
Law Commission (England and Wales), “Rights of Suit in Respect of Carriage of Goods by Sea”, 1991, Law Com. No. 196, HC Paper No.250.
Law Commission (England and Wales), “Electronic trade documents, Report and Bill”, 2022, HC
Ling Zhu, Xuan Pan, “A conceptual analysis of the electronic bill of lading”, J.B.L. 2021, 4, 336-356 

Case Law 

Mainline Private Hire Ltd v Nolan [2011] EWCA Civ 189
Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 281 

Statute 

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992
Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023
Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act 2021
Factors Act 1889
Sale of Goods Act 1979
UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records 2017