The Plaintiff carried a cargo of iron ore from Itaguai in Brazil to Lianyungang in China. There were two types of iron ore; sinter, which was carried under Bill of Lading No. 1, and pellets, which was carried under Bill of Lading No. 2. Both Bills of Lading were endorsed to the First Defendant. The Bills of Lading recorded the weight of each portion of the cargo as “said to weigh” and the Plaintiff did not separately calculate the weight of each type of cargo, but rather measured the draft weight of the whole ship. Upon discharge in Lianyungang, it was found that the quantity of cargo discharged under Bill of Lading No. 1 was less than the Bill of Lading weight and the quantity of cargo discharged under Bill of Lading No. 2 was more than the Bill of Lading weight. In separate legal proceedings, the Plaintiff was held liable to the First Defendant’s cargo insurer for short delivery of the cargo under Bill of Lading No. 1. The Plaintiff now sued the First Defendant (the endorsee of the Bill of Lading), the ultimate importer of the goods (the Second Defendant Beijing Taifa, which did not appear), the company that had arranged delivery of the goods from the wharf to the actual receivers (the Third Defendant, Lianyungang Forwarding, now in liquidation) and the terminal operator (the Fourth Defendant, Xinluqiao). The Plaintiff argued that it was entitled to possession of the extra cargo under Bill of Lading No. 2, and the Defendants had combined to deprive it of possession of that cargo, thereby causing it loss as it was unable to use the extra cargo under Bill of Lading No. 2 to make up for the shortage under Bill of Lading No. 1.