The House considered the relationship between a merchant vessel in convoy and a convoying naval vessel.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Atkinson: ‘With all respect, I am quite unable to concur in the learned judge’s view that the merchant ships convoyed, whose task was simply to sail peacefully on the course they might be directed to follow, and to keep their proper places in the convoy, became so identified with the ships of war directing and protecting them, as to be treated as members of a joint flotilla on a common enterprise. I concur with Atkin LJ in thinking that the learned judge treats as he said the sheep and the shepherd as both engaged in the operation of shepherding. The duties and proper tasks of convoying warships and the ships they convoy are respectively indicated in ss 30 and 31 of the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 . . The naval officers are to diligently perform the duties of convoying and protecting the ships they are appointed to convoy according to instructions, to defend these ships and the goods they carry without deviation, to fight in their defence if they are assailed and not to abandon them or expose them to hazard. Every master or other officer in command of any merchant or other vessel convoyed is bound to obey the commanding officer of the ships of war in all matters relating to the navigation or security of the convoy, and is also bound to take such precautions for avoiding the enemy as may be directed by this commanding officer. It does not appear, however, that this latter officer has any power to require the master, officers or crew of any merchant ship which is being convoyed to take combative action against a vessel of any kind, or to join in such action if taken by all or any of the ships of war. The roles of the two classes of ships are entirely different in nature and character. That of the ships of war is protective and if need be combative; that of the merchantmen is not at all combative in nature and character as would be their enterprise in time of peace’ Viscount Cave: ‘But in the present case the orders were a part of the convoying operation which included the choice of the route, the setting of the course, and the precautions taken on the voyage; and I do not think that the transaction can be split up and treated as in part an operation and in part something other than an operation . . .’
Lord Shaw: ‘ . . I think that the putting of a vessel under convoy, with all that that involves, is an actual and accomplished change of circumstances and an operation which is conducted in the course of hostilities or war . . .’ and ‘To all intents and purposes it is the same as if he had placed on the convoyed ship a naval officer in command as subordinate to himself. In short, so far as the direction of the course of the vessel was concerned, the merchant captain and officers were no longer in control. The naval officers were. Not only so, but the orders of the commander of the convoy were clothed with the instant sanction of force . . . I myself see great force in the view which Bailhache J. so clearly expresses to the effect that all the vessels – those acting as convoy and those under convoy – must be treated as a unity. . . . I am humbly of opinion that, so far as ships under convoy are concerned, all these ships are, along with the ships acting as convoy, under a unified command, and that command issuing from the commander of the convoy is, as part of the direction of the convoy, a military operation.’
Judges:
Lord Atkinson, Lord Wright, Viscount Cave, Lord Shaw
Citations:
[1921] 1 AC 99
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At First instance – Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’) CA 1919
(Year?) The steamship was insured under a time policy against perils of the sea and stranding, and under further insurance against risks excluded under the first, particularly risks of hostile action. It was in a convoy of four ships zig zagging in . .
Appeal from – Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’) CA 1919
The court was asked wheter a merchant vessel was acting a a military ship when in convoy.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Warrington LJ said: ‘Of course the sailing with convoy may easily assume the character of a warlike operation; if the convoy . .
Cited by:
Applied – Clan Lines Steamers Ltd v Liverpool and London War Risks Insurance Association Ltd 1942
In a collision in fog between the steamship Clan Stuart and the steamship Orlock Head, whilst both were travelling in convoy in the English Channel, the Clan Stuart was lost. It was said that the Orlock Head was engaged on a warlike operation and . .
Cited – Fogg and Ledgard v The Secretary of State for Defence, Short Admn 13-Dec-2005
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent not to name the wreck of the merchant ship SS STORAA as a protected site under the 1986 Act. It had been a merchant ship forming part of a convoy, and was sunk by enemy action in . .
Applied – Fogg and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 5-Oct-2006
The Secretary of State appealed an order declaring the wreck of a merchant ship lost through enemy action in 1943 when part of a convoy. He said it was wrong in law to make the declaration, having not been in military service as such when sunk even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Transport
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.237694
