BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland): HL 18 Oct 2001

A ship owned by the defenders caused substantial damage whilst moored at the claimant’s docks. The claim was made against different members of the defendants as they asserted and denied responsibility. The last company asserted that the claim was now time barred.
Held: Subject to interruption, the limitation period continued to run whatever the cause of the delay. For the purposes of the 1847 Act, any charterer, including a bareboat charterer was not the ‘owner’ of a vessel.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Millett
Times 19-Oct-2001, Gazette 22-Nov-2001, [2001] UKHL 50, 2001 SLT 1394, 2002 SC (HL) 19, 2001 SCLR 1029, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 1, [2002] 1 LLR 77, 2001 GWD 33-1316, [2003] 1 AC 197, [2001] 3 WLR 949
House of Lords, Bailii
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6(4), Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 74, Zetland County Council Act 1974 4
CitedPlaya Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congreso del Partido (Owners) QBD 1978
The trading or commercial activities of states are not protected by state immunity. The basic principle of international law is that all states are equal, the rule is ‘par in parem non habet imperium’. . .
CitedWorkington Harbour and Dock Board v Towerfield (Owners) (‘The Towerfield’) HL 1951
The occasions upon which the master is called upon to exercise his reserve of authority either by interfering with the conduct of the ship or by taking the navigation out of the hands of a competent pilot are rare and should the master exercise that . .
CitedEdgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .
At Outer HouseBP Exploration Operating Company Ltd v Chevron Shipping Company; Same v Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Ltd; Same v Chevron Transport Corporation OHCS 26-Jan-1999
Where an action had been delayed beyond the five year prescription period because of an error induced by the party sued, the prescriptive period did not restart until the party was disabused of its mistake. . .
Appeal fromBP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Shipping Company and Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Ltd and Chevron Transport Corporation SCS 13-Apr-2000
. .

Cited by:
CitedSawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
See AlsoBP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Shipping Company Chevron Transport Corporation Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Limited OHCS 13-Nov-2002
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.166630