swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Transport - From: 1998 To: 1998
This page lists 43 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
The Kumanovo [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep.301
1998
Clarke J
Transport
The court was requested to apply the standard allowance to a claim by cargo owners arising out of a collision. Held: The court would not do so. There was no evidence as to what the cargo owners did as a result of the loss of their cargo, and the practice had never been challenged in a collision case and so the Court had never been asked to reject it. However: "I would certainly not encourage a party to challenge the approach in the future because it seems to me to be rooted in good sense. Shipowners' businesses will almost inevitably be disrupted by collision so that there is likely to be an expenditure of management time and cost. It seems to me to be more sensible to adopt the conventional approach of adding 1 per cent. to the damages than to require the shipowners to prove the actual cost."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bridge Oil Ltd v The Owners and/or demise charters of the Ship "Guiseppe Di Vittorio" (No. 2) [1998] CLC 165
1998
CA
Transport
1 Cites
1 Citers
The Aegean Sea [1998] 2 Lloyd's 39
1998
Thomas J
Transport, Contract
1 Citers
Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk); HL 22-Jan-1998 - Times, 29 January 1998; Gazette, 18 February 1998; [1998] UKHL 1; [1998] AC 605; [1998] 2 WLR 206; [1998] 1 All ER 495
Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others C-266/96; [1998] EUECJ C-266/96_1
22 Jan 1998
ECJ
Transport
Opinion - "the Court has once again been asked to assess the compatibility with the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods and services and on competition of the Italian legislation governing ports. The reference concerns companies having exclusive rights at two of Italy's leading Mediterranean ports, where shipping companies are obliged to avail of their mooring services. It is in particular alleged that the fees charged are not compatible with Community law."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Humber Oil Terminal Trustee Limited v Owners of Ship Sivand [1998] EWCA Civ 100
29 Jan 1998
CA
Transport
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Civil Aviation Authority ex parte Jones [1998] EWHC Admin 134
3 Feb 1998
Admn
Transport, Licensing
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to refuse him a licence to fly aircraft.
[ Bailii ]
Owners of the Ship Kumanova and Another v Owners of the Ship Massira Times, 05 February 1998; (1998) 2 Lloyd's Rep 301
5 Feb 1998
Admn
Clarke J
Transport, Litigation Practice
Conventional addition of one per cent to ship owners losses to allow for business disruption was not to be extended to cargo owners losses.
Northumbria Motor Services Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate [1998] EWHC Admin 179
12 Feb 1998
Admn
Transport
[ Bailii ]
Hydro Agri Espana SA (Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Vessel Fairway, ex Celtic Commander) v Charles M Willie and Co (Shipping) Limited Times, 05 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 273
18 Feb 1998
CA
Limitation, Transport
A valid writ which had not been served because of pending foreign litigation, could not be extended in validity beyond the limitation period appropriate for that action.
[ Bailii ]
Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd; QBD 5-Mar-1998 - Gazette, 18 March 1998; Times, 05 March 1998
J A Chapman and Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v Kadirga Denizcilik Ve Ticaret J a Chapman and Co Ltd (In Liquidation) v Chios Breeze Marine Company J a Chapman and Company Ltd (In Liquidation) v Kadirga Denizcilik Ve Ticaret As and others [1998] EWCA Civ 400
5 Mar 1998
CA
Insurance, Transport
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Galaxy Energy International Limited and Novorossiysk Shipping Company, "the Petr Shmidt" [1998] EWCA Civ 429
10 Mar 1998
CA
Transport
[ Bailii ]
Criminal Proceedings Against Sjoberg Times, 23 March 1998; C-387/96; [1998] EUECJ C-387/96
23 Mar 1998
ECJ
Transport, European
Regulation of road transport applied to passenger transport services contracted to public authority, and to carry duty roster extracts.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85
[ Bailii ]
Galaxy Energy International Ltd v Novorossiysk Shipping Co Times, 26 March 1998
26 Mar 1998
CA
Transport
Telex or fax notice of arrival of ship and commencement of lay time given outside working hours took effect at start of next working hours.
Tsako's Shipping and Trading SA Sena Marine Company Limited v Orizon Tanker Company Limited Centauras Mar [1998] EWCA Civ 567
27 Mar 1998
CA
Transport
[ Bailii ]
London Street Tramways v London County Council; HL 25-Apr-1998 - [1898] AC 375; [1898] UKHL 1
Georgian Maritime Corporation Plc v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 861; [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 21; [1998] CLC 1395
20 May 1998
CA
Transport
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Peter Black Distribution Limited; Peter Black International Limited and Filanto Spa v Brian Yeardley Continental Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 956
10 Jun 1998
CA
Transport, Contract
[ Bailii ]
Commission v Belgium (Transport) C-177/97; [1998] EUECJ C-177/97
11 Jun 1998
ECJ
European, Transport
ECJ Failure to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Freedom to provide maritime transport services - Maritime Agreement concluded with a third country - Cargo-sharing arrangement.
[ Bailii ]
Marion Clark v L A Fiegel and Paul Stapley T/A Corporate Balloon Company; Paul Stapley and Payne Marsh Stillwell (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 971
11 Jun 1998
CA
Transport, Personal Injury, Limitation
Injury in inflated balloon - defence under limitation under Warsaw Convention - arguable - leave to appeal granted.
[ Bailii ]
Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others C-266/96; [1998] EUECJ C-266/96
18 Jun 1998
Transport
Judgment - Freedom to provide services - Maritime transport - Undertakings holding exclusive rights - Mooring services for vessels in ports - Compliance with the competition rules - Tariffs
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Civil Aviation Authority ex parte Jones [1998] EWCA Civ 1056
22 Jun 1998
CA
Transport, Licensing
Renewed application for judicial review of decision not to grant licence to fly aircraft.
[ Bailii ]
Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Company, and others Times, 07 August 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1077; [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 46; [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 461
24 Jun 1998
CA
Transport
A court need not first decide liability before applying grant of limitation of liability decree under the Act. That different Conventions were applied by UK and South Africa did not stop the establishment of a limitation fund for payment of damages allowing a ship release.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
British Airways and others and British Midland Airways v Commission T-371/94; [1998] EUECJ T-371/94
25 Jun 1998
ECFI
Bellamy P
European, Transport
ECFI 1 Far from enjoying the same rights to a fair hearing as those which individuals against whom a procedure has been instituted are recognised as having, concerned parties, within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, have only the right to be involved in the administrative procedure to the extent appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case.
There may be two reasons for restricting the extent of the right to participate and to be informed which such parties enjoy. First, where a Member State notifies the Commission of planned aid and submits supporting documentation, and the relevant Commission departments subsequently hold a series of meetings with officials from the Member State in question, the amount of information in the Commission's possession may already be relatively extensive, leaving outstanding only a small number of doubts which information supplied by the parties concerned may dispel. In so far as they relate to the details of the planned aid, to the economic, financial and competitive position of the recipient undertaking and to its internal operations, the discussions between the Member State and the Commission will inevitably be more thorough than those conducted with the parties concerned. While providing such parties with general information on the essentials of the planned aid, therefore, the Commission may confine itself to concentrating its communication in the Official Journal on those aspects of the planned aid concerning which it still harbours doubts. Second, the Commission is required, under Article 214 of the Treaty, not to disclose to interested parties information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular information relating to the internal operations of the recipient undertaking.
The limited nature of the rights of concerned parties to participate and to be informed, in so far as they relate solely to the administrative procedure, is not at variance with the Commission's duty under Article 190 of the Treaty to provide, in its final decision authorising planned aid, sufficient reasons which must address all the essential complaints which parties directly and individually concerned by that decision have made either on their own initiative or as a result of information supplied by the Commission. Thus, even on the assumption that the Commission may validly prefer to use other sources of information and thereby reduce the significance of the participation of concerned parties, it is not thereby released from its obligation to include an adequate statement of reasons in its decision.
2 There is nothing in the Treaty or in Community legislation requiring decisions on State aid adopted at the conclusion of the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty to comply with a fixed period. On the assumption that the Commission acted with excessive haste and did not give itself sufficient time to examine proposed aid, such conduct could not, by itself, justify annulment of the decision authorising that aid. To entail annulment, such conduct would have to involve a breach of specific rules governing procedure, the duty to provide reasons or the internal legality of the decision in question.
Nor is there anything in the Treaty or in Community legislation which requires the Commission to seek assistance from external experts in order to draft a decision relating to State aid.
3 In view of the fact that interveners must, under Article 116(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, accept the case as they find it at the time of their intervention and that their submissions in an application to intervene are, under the fourth paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, limited to supporting the submissions of one of the main parties, an intervener is not entitled to raise a plea in law that was not raised by the applicant.
4 The text of Article 93 of the Treaty does not require the Commission to forward to the other Member States observations which it has received from the Government of the State seeking authorisation to grant aid. On the contrary, it follows from the third subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty that the other Member States may be involved in a specific case of aid only where that case has, at the request of the State concerned, been submitted to the Council.
5 The Commission enjoys a broad discretion in the application of Article 92(3) of the Treaty. Since that discretion involves complex economic and social appraisals, the Court must, in reviewing a decision adopted in that context, confine itself to verifying whether the Commission complied with the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons, whether the facts on which the contested finding was based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error in the assessment of those facts or misuse of powers.
In that regard, in the context of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty, the legality of a Community measure falls to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted and cannot depend on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy. In particular, the complex assessments made by the Commission must be examined solely on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time when those assessments were made.
6 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community authority which adopted the contested measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and the Community judicature to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. The question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and all the legal rules governing the matter in question. While the Commission, in the statement of reasons for a decision, is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by interested parties during the administrative procedure, it must none the less take account of all the circumstances and all the relevant factors of the case in question.
In regard to a decision authorising State aid, the persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations, are to be regarded as concerned parties within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty and considered, in that capacity, to be directly and individually concerned by that decision.
Since the requirement of a statement of reasons must be assessed on the basis, in particular, of the interest which those to whom the measure is addressed or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, may have in receiving explanations, it cannot be determined solely on the basis of the interest which the Member State to which that decision is addressed may have in obtaining information. Where a Member State has obtained from the Commission that which it was seeking, namely authorisation for its planned aid, its interest in having a reasoned decision addressed to it may be greatly reduced, in contrast to that of competitors of the beneficiary of the aid, in particular where it has received sufficient information during the negotiations with the Commission through, inter alia, exchange of correspondence with that institution before the authorising decision was taken.
7 Since, according to well-established case-law of the Court of Justice and a consistent administrative practice on the part of the Commission, investment in normal modernisation intended to maintain an undertaking's competitiveness should be carried out using the undertaking's own financial resources, and not through State aid, and investment intended for the renovation and technical modernisation of a production line, which has to be carried out periodically, cannot be regarded as designed to facilitate the development of certain economic activities within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission must, when replying to the observations of concerned parties regarding specific planned aid during the administrative procedure and relating to that case-law and administrative practice, provide precise indications as to whether the criteria established by that case-law and practice can be regarded as having been satisfied or whether it is appropriate, for specific reasons, to derogate from them.
8 The operative part and the statement of reasons of a decision, which must be reasoned under Article 190 of the Treaty, constitute an indivisible whole, with the result that it is for the college of Commissioners alone, in accordance with the principle of collegiate responsibility, to adopt both the one and the other, any alteration to the statement of reasons going beyond simple corrections of spelling or grammar being the exclusive province of that college.
9 In regard to State aid, while there can be no grounds for denying that the Commission is entitled to compare the restructuring measures envisaged by the recipient undertaking with those taken by other undertakings operating in the same economic sector, the fact remains that the restructuring of an undertaking must be targeted at its own specific problems and that the experiences of other undertakings, in different economic and political contexts and at other times, may be irrelevant.
10 The Commission was entitled to form the view that genuine restructuring of one of the three largest European airline companies, which was the recipient of State aid, would have the effect of facilitating the economic development of the European civil aviation sector.
11 Information as to the situation on the markets in question, in particular the position of the undertaking benefiting from the aid and of competing undertakings, constitutes an essential element in the reasoning of a decision relating to the compatibility of planned aid with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, both where the decision has been taken pursuant to Article 92(1) and where it has been taken pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty and Article 61(3)(c) of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area in regard to the question whether the aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
12 Economic assessments pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, in respect of which the Commission enjoys a broad discretion, must be made in a Community context. The Commission is for that reason under an obligation to examine the impact of the aid on competition and intra-Community trade.
In order to determine whether aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, it is necessary to consider, in particular, whether there is an imbalance between the charges imposed on the undertakings concerned on the one hand and the benefits derived from the aid in question on the other. The Commission is under an obligation, when examining the impact of State aid, to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition.
The Commission may in principle make a decision authorising aid under Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty subject to conditions for ensuring that authorised aid does not alter trading conditions to an extent contrary to the general interest.
The legal and practical utility of such conditions of authorisation lies in the fact that, if the recipient undertaking were to fail to observe them, it would be for the Member State concerned to ensure proper implementation of the authorisation decision and for the Commission to assess whether it was appropriate to demand that the aid be repaid. If the State were not to comply with the conditions imposed by the Commission in a decision approving aid, the Commission would be entitled, under the second subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, to refer the matter directly to the Court of Justice by way of derogation from Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty.
Having regard to the way in which the conditions underlying a decision to authorise aid thus operate, the mere assertion that one of those conditions will not be complied with cannot cast doubt on the legality of that decision. In general, the legality of a Community act cannot depend on the possible existence of opportunities for circumvention or on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy.
13 Since the purpose of Article 155 of the Treaty is to provide a general definition of the Commission's powers, it cannot be argued that each time the Commission infringes a specific Treaty provision such infringement involves an infringement of the general provision of Article 155 of the Treaty.
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Airport Co-Ordination Limited ex parte Aravco Limited; Dravidian Air Services Limited; Falcon Jet Centre Limited; Gama Aviation Limited; Heathrow Jet Charter Limited; Metro Business Aviation Limited and Siebe Plc [1998] EWHC Admin 749
14 Jul 1998
Admn
Transport, Licensing
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Airport Co-Ordination Limited ex parte Aravco Limited; Dravidian Air Services Limited; Falcon Jet Centre Limited; Gama Aviation Limited; Heathrow Jet Charter Limited; Metro Business Aviation Limited and Siebe Plc [1998] EWHC Admin 750
14 Jul 1998
Admn
Transport, Licensing
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Aher-Waggon v Bundesrepublik Deutschland C-389/96; [1998] EUECJ C-389/96
14 Jul 1998
ECJ
European, Transport, Environment
ECJ (Judgment) Measures having equivalent effect - Directives on noise emissions from aircraft - Stricter domestic limits - Barrier to the importation of an aircraft - Environmental protection
[ Bailii ]
Owners of the Ship Herceg Novi v Owners of the Ship Ming Galaxy Times, 30 July 1998; [1998] EWCA (Civ) 1223
16 Jul 1998
CA
Transport, Negligence, Jurisdiction
A claim for daages was made after ships collided, and one sank. Held: The judge had been wrong not to stay an action here where the proper jurisdiction was Singapore. That higher damages might be available under a different convention applying here did not mean that a party should be deprived of justice in Singapore. There is no one dominant international standard.
[ Bailii ]
Islamic Investment Company ISA v Transorient Shipping Limited Alfred C Toepfer International Gmbh [1998] EWCA Civ 1287
24 Jul 1998
CA
Transport, Contract
[ Bailii ]
Prankerd, Regina (On the Application of) v The Carrick District Council [1998] EWHC 2005 (QB); [1999] QB 1119; [1999] 2 WLR 489; [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 675
24 Jul 1998
QBD
Lightman J
Local Government, Transport
The court considered the unresolved question as to the statutory power of a harbour authority to distrain for non-payment of mooring charges in respect of a private yacht.
[ Bailii ]
Major Shipping Company Limited Rudolph a Oetker v Cosco Feoso (Singapore) Limited (the St Michaelis) [1998] EWCA Civ 1373
31 Jul 1998
CA
Transport
[ Bailii ]
Gefco (UK) Ltd v Mason Times, 24 August 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1181
24 Aug 1998
CA
Transport
The Convention was intended to achieve harmony between the laws of different countries, not uniformity. There was no need to impose an implied term which would impose uniformity beyond the scope of the actual words and requirements of the convention.
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road
Regina v Cambridge City Council, Ex Parte Lane Gazette, 03 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1202; (1999) RTR 1982
3 Sep 1998
CA
Licensing, Transport, Health and Safety
A trishaw was properly a form of hackney carriage, not a 'stage coach,' and the Local Authority was able to impose conditions upon the licensing of a service, including limiting the number of passengers and so as to ensure safety. A trishaw was a " . . . cross between a rickshaw and a bicycle and a tricycle. Like a tricycle, it has three wheels; a single front wheel and two rear wheels. Over the rear wheels, a compartment in which the passengers may sit is suspended. The vehicle is an adaptation of a rickshaw replacing the individual running on the ground and pulling the vehicle with an individual using cycle technique to provide the power for propelling the vehicle."
Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 38 - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 47
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
K A and S B M Feakins Ltd v Dover Harbour Board Gazette, 23 September 1998; Times, 09 September 1998
9 Sep 1998
QBD
Damages, Transport
A wrongful decision by a harbour authority not to allow exports of live animals through the port, did not give a right to a private claim for damages, even though it was in breach of a statutory duty.
Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 33
Borealis Ab v Stargas Ltd and Others Times, 14 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1336; [1998] EWCA Civ 1337
14 Sep 1998
CA
Transport
The holder of a bill of lading became liable upon completing any one of some initial steps, and retained that liability unless he actually took delivery. He remained liable until the bill was endorsed to somebody else who in turn fulfilled such a condition
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 2
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Ryanair v Commission T-140/95; T-140/95; [1998] EUECJ T-140/95
15 Sep 1998
ECFI
European, Transport
[ Bailii ]
European Night Services v Commission T-384/94 [1998] EUECJ T-384/94
15 Sep 1998
ECFI
Commercial, Transport
(Competition) Competition - Transport by rail - Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel - Restrictions on competition - Directive 91/440/EEC - Appreciable effect on trade - Supply of necessary services - 'Essential facilities' - Statement of reasons - Admissibility
[ Bailii ]
European Night Services v Commission T-388/94 [1998] EUECJ T-388/94
15 Sep 1998
ECFI
Transport, Commercial
ECFI Competition - Transport by rail - Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel - Restrictions on competition - Directive 91/440/EEC - Appreciable effect on trade - Supply of necessary services - 'Essential facilities - Statement of reasons - Admissibility.
[ Bailii ]
Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another; ECJ 27-Oct-1998 - Times, 16 November 1998; C-51/97; [1998] ECR I-6511; [1998] EUECJ C-51/97
Northern Shipping Company and Deutsche Seereederei Gmbh (Formerly Deutsche Seereederei Rostock Gmbh), and Senator Line Gmbh and Co Kommanditgeselleschaft, Cho Yang Shipping Co Limited (Trading As Cho Yang Line) [1998] EWCA Civ 1684
4 Nov 1998
CA
Transport, Contract
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association; Admn 6-Nov-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 1052
Skerries Salmon Limited v The Braer Corporation and Assuranceforeningen Skuld and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund [1998] ScotCS 83
1 Dec 1998
SCS
Lord Gill
Scotland, Transport, Damages
The pursuer salmon farmer sought damages from the defender for damage to his business following the sinking of the Braer.
Merchant Shipping Act 1974 6
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
