‘Strathlorne’ Steamship Co Ltd v Hugh Baird and Sons Ltd: HL 1 Mar 1916

The owners of a ship chartered to carry a cargo of barley claimed right to deliver the cargo at the port of delivery, Leith, in bulk, and not in sacks as received by them at Portland, Oregon. The bills of lading acknowledged receipt of a certain number of sacks of barley ‘to be delivered in the like good order and condition,’ and the charter-party provided that the vessel was to discharge according to the custom at the port of delivery. The evidence showed that this trade to Leith in any quantity began in that from that year there had been about 80 cargoes, all save two delivered according to the alleged custom, but 44 to two firms who spoke of the delivery as having been merely for their convenience; that taking the last ten years 24 out of 32 cargoes had gone to those firms; that an important witness in favour of the alleged custom maintained that it freed the shipowner from responsibility for any shortage of sacks; that one cargo at least during the period from 1896 had been delivered in sacks; and that in correspondence the alleged custom had never been admitted by the shipowner.
Held that the alleged custom had not been proved.

Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
[1916] UKHL 293, 53 SLR 293
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.630679

Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others: 18 Jun 1998

Judgment – Freedom to provide services – Maritime transport – Undertakings holding exclusive rights – Mooring services for vessels in ports – Compliance with the competition rules – Tariffs

C-266/96, [1998] EUECJ C-266/96
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionCorsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others ECJ 22-Jan-1998
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572710

European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dynamiki v Commission: ECFI 13 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Public procurement of services – Tender procedure – Technical assistance, development and implementation of an ASEAN Customs Transit System (ACTS) – Rejection of a tender offer – Award of the contract To another tenderer – Selection criteria – Award criteria – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Equal treatment – Transparency

ECLI:EU:T:2016:723, [2016] EUECJ T-764/14
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572579

Commission v Luxembourg C-152/16: ECJ 1 Dec 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 – Common rules on the conditions for exercising the profession of transport by road – Article 16, paragraphs 1 and 5 – national electronic register of road transport undertakings – lack of interconnection with the national electronic registers of other Member States

ECLI:EU:C:2016:919, [2016] EUECJ C-152/16
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009
European

Transport

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572317

Commission v Italy C-447/99: ECJ 4 Jul 2001

(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) – Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 – Access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes – Departure tax

[2001] EUECJ C-447/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:382, [2001] ECR I-5203
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.162781

United States Shipping Board (Owners of Ss ‘West Camak’) v Laird Line, Ltd (Owners of Ss ‘Rowan’) The ‘Rowan’ v The ‘West Camak’: HL 18 Dec 1923

Two vessels were approaching each other through a dense fog. The master of one of the vessels, which without fault on her part had been put in a position of danger by the action of the other, suddenly saw a white light slightly on his starboard bow and only 1200 feet away, and gave the order ‘hard a-starboard.’ Three seconds later he saw a red light close on his starboard bow, and he then gave the correct command ‘hard a-port and full speed astern.’ The second order superseded the first at so short an interval that the course of the vessel was not deflected by the first order. Held ( rev. the judgment of the First Division) that the delay of three seconds from the time the first order was given till the correct command was issued was not such negligence on the part of the master as to infer liability on the part of the ship, and appeal allowed.

Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, Lord Phillimore, and Lord Blanesburgh
[1923] UKHL 55, 61 SLR 55
Bailii
Scotland

Transport

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.633271

Van Liewen v Hollis Brothers and Co, Ltd, and Others – The ‘Lizzie’: HL 12 Dec 1919

The appellant claimed demurrage under a charter-party, clause 3 of which provided that the cargo was ‘to be loaded and discharged with customary steamship dispatch as fast as steamer can receive and deliver during the ordinary working hours of the respective ports, but according to the custom of the respective ports. . . Should the steamer be detained beyond the time stipulated as above for loading or discharging, demurrage shall be paid at pounds 25 per day.’ He maintained that by the custom of the port there was an absolute obligation upon the respondents to provide immediately upon arrival a berth for the ship and facilities for unloading.
Held that unless the charter plainly defines the period of time within which delivery of the cargo is to be accomplished such phrases as ‘with all dispatch’ or ‘as fast as the steamer can deliver’ only import an obligation to use all dispatch reasonable under the circumstances of the case.
Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Lords Haldane, Dunedin, Atkinson, Wrenbury, and Buckmaster
[1919] UKHL 709, 57 SLR 709
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.632792

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd: QBD 17 Apr 2008

The claimant was injured in a hot air balloon. The defendant relied on the Rules in the Act to limit his liability to two years after the event.
Held: An internal flight in a hot air balloon was to be characterised as a journey by aircraft. The two year limitation period applied.

Eady J
[2008] EWHC 788 (QB), Times 23-Apr-2008, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1076, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 34, [2008] 4 All ER 494
Bailii
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromLaroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.266967

Vinnlustodin Hf and Another v Sea Tank Shipping As: ComC 14 Oct 2016

‘There are two issues in this Part 8 claim, namely whether the package limitation provisions in Article IV r.5 of the Hague Rules (‘Article IV r.5’) apply to bulk cargoes and, if they do, how they apply to the damaged cargo of fishoil with which this action is concerned. Article IV r.5 provides that the carrier’s liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods shall not exceed andpound;100 ‘per package or unit’. The Defendant’s case is that Article IV r.5 can be applied to bulk or liquid cargo by reading the word ‘unit’ as a reference to the unit used by the parties to denominate or quantify the cargo in the contract of carriage. The Defendant relies on the description of the cargo in the charterparty as ‘2,000 tons cargo of fishoil in bulk’. The Claimants’ case is that the word ‘unit’ can only refer to a physical item of cargo, or to a combination of physical items bundled together for shipment. Article IV r.5 does not apply to a liquid or other bulk cargo: when cargo is shipped in bulk, there are no relevant ‘packages’ or ‘units’.’

Sir Jeremy Cooke
[2016] EWHC 2514 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570437

EL-EM-2001 Ltd v Nemzeti Ado-es Vamhivatal Del-alfoldi Regionalis Vam- es Penzugyori Foigazgatosaga: ECJ 19 Oct 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Road transport – Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Article 10(3) – Articles 18 and 19 – Fine imposed on the driver – Measures necessary to the execution of the penalty taken against the transport company – Immobilisation of the vehicle

ECLI:EU:C:2016:777, [2016] EUECJ C-501/14
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570371

Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited: ECJ 5 Oct 2016

ECJ (Order) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Absence of reasonable doubt – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(l) – Definition of ‘cancellation’ – Flight making an unscheduled stopover

C-32/16, [2016] EUECJ C-32/16 – CO, ECLI:EU:C:2016:753
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570150

William Nowell Lickbarrow, And Another v Edward Mason, And Others (In Error): 14 Jun 1793

[1793] EngR 1503, (1793) 4 Bro PC 57, (1793) 2 ER 39
Commonlii
Commonwealth
Citing:
See AlsoLickbarrow And Another v Mason And Others 9-Nov-1787
The consignor may stop goods in transit before they get into the hands of the consignee, in case of the insolvency of the consignee : but if the consignee assign the bills of lading to a third person for a valuable consideration, the right of the . .
See AlsoMason And Others v Lickbarrow And Others 11-Feb-1790
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 1793
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 28-Nov-1794
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow And Others v Mason And Others HL 1827
Direction for venire facias de novo granted . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.358090

Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd v Spar Shipping As: CA 7 Oct 2016

Is charterers’ failure to pay an instalment of hire punctually under a time charterparty a breach of condition, strictly so called? Or, without more, does such a failure ‘merely’ entitle shipowners to withdraw the vessel from service under the charterparty in accordance with the express provisions of a withdrawal clause?

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gross, Hamblen LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 982
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569918

Sussex Police v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: QBD 28 Sep 2016

The chief constable sought disclosure of documents held in respect of an investigation of an airplane crash at an air show.

Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ
[2016] EWHC 2280 (QB)
Bailii
Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944, Civil Aviation Act 1982 60, Council Directive 94/56/EC
England and Wales

Police, Transport, Information

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569657

Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV v Demey: ECJ 21 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Rail transport – Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 – Passengers’ rights and obligations – Absence of a ticket – Failure to regularise within the prescribed period – Criminal offence

F. Biltgen, P
ECLI:EU:C:2016:709, [2016] EUECJ C-261/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007
European

Transport

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569502

Trajektna Luka Split v Commission: ECFI 14 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) State aid – Port services – Alleged aid to the public ferry operator of Jadrolinija – Setting of fees by the Croatian authorities for port services in the Port of Split in respect of domestic traffic at an allegedly lower level than that of the fees applied in other Croatian ports and those applied for international traffic – Private operator holding an allegedly exclusive concession for the operation of the passenger terminal at the Port of Split – Decision finding no State aid – Definition of aid – State resources

ECLI:EU:T:2016:470, [2016] EUECJ T-57/15
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569388

ENAC v INEA: ECFI 13 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Financial assistance – Projects of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks – Conducting a study for intermodal development of the airport of Orio al Serio – Determination of the final amount of financial assistance – ineligible costs – Error of law – Obligation to state reasons

ECLI:EU:T:2016:464, [2016] EUECJ T-695/13
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569356

Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd: HL 16 May 2007

The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that the value of any one item did not exceed the stated limit. The claimants said that the alleged misconduct of the defendant’s staff meant that UPS could not rely on the limitation of liability provided by the Convention, and that with both restrictions not applying, UPS’s liability was unlimited.
Held: The contract should be read to reflect the commercial reality under which there remained an effective contract despite the excess value. Had the misconduct been proved? The judge had not reflected the proper effect of the expert evidence, and ‘theft involving a UPS employee was shown on a strong balance of probability to have been the cause of this loss. ‘ UPS’ appeal was therefore dismissed.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Times 18-May-2007, [2007] UKHL 23, [2007] 1 WLR 1325, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 114, [2007] Bus LR 1291
Bailii
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 81, Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedManning v Stylianou CA 26-Oct-2006
Where an appeal is against a judge’s evaluation of the facts, the Court of Appeal should consider the evaluation in the same way it would approach an appeal against the exercise of discretion. . .
CitedQuantum Corporation Inc and Others v Plane Trucking Ltd and Another CA 27-Mar-2002
A valuable cargo was stolen whilst being transported. Part of the journey was by road, and part by air. The carriers sought to limit their liability, because of the provisions of the Act and Convention. It was argued that that did not apply, because . .
ApprovedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
At First InstanceDatec Electronic Holdings Ltd and Another v United Parcels Service Ltd and Another ComC 22-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for the loss of goods in transit under the care of the defendant. Andrew Smith J held as regards the burden of proof in an allegation of wilful misconduct: ‘I should add that I was properly reminded by counsel that the . .
Appeal fromDatec Electronic Holdings Ltd and Another v United Parcels Service Ltd CA 29-Nov-2005
The parties put forward alternative explanations for the loss of a mail packet. Richards LJ said: ‘Nor do I see any inconsistency between my approach and the observations of Lord Brandon in The Popi M. The conclusion that employee theft was the . .

Cited by:
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
CitedIde v ATB Sales Ltd and Another CA 28-Apr-2008
Each appellant challenged how the judge had decided between alternative proofs of causation of the respective loss. In Ide, the claimant asserted a fault in a cycle handlebar, and in Lexus, the claimant asserted that it caught fire whilst . .
CitedBarlow Clowes International Ltd and Others v Henwood CA 23-May-2008
The receiver appealed against an order finding that the debtor petitioner was not domiciled here when the order was made. The debtor had a domicile of origin in England, but later acquired on in the Isle of Man. He then acquired a home in Mauritius . .
CitedFosse Motor Engineers Ltd and others v Conde Nast and National Magazine Distributors Ltd and Another TCC 20-Aug-2008
The claimant said that the defendant’s employees had negligently started a fire which burned down the claimant’s warehouse. There was limited evidence to establish the cause.
Held: The claim failed. The scientific evidence did not point to any . .
CitedSony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd v Cinram Logistics UK Ltd CA 8-Aug-2008
Various items were deemed to have been lost whilst being transported by the defendants. The claimants sought damages based on the price for which they would have been sold. The defendants appealed a judgment on that basis.
Held: The carrier’s . .
CitedAlford v Cambridgeshire Police CA 24-Feb-2009
The claimant police officer had been held after an accident when he was in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle into the neighbouring respondent’s area. The prosecution had been discontinued, and he now appealed against rejection of his claims for . .
CitedWhitehouse v Lee CA 14-May-2009
The tenant appealed against an order requiring her to give up possession of her flat, held under the 1977 Act, saying that the court should not have found it reasonable to make an order after finding alternative accommodation suitable.
Held: . .
CitedCooper and Others v Fanmailuk.Com Ltd and Another CA 17-Dec-2009
F claimed to be the beneficial owner of shares registered in the names of the claimants. The appellants challenged a finding that the shares were held on trust for F, and the implication that the first appellant had presented a dishonest claim.
CitedNulty and Others v Milton Keynes Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
There had been two fires at a depot owned by the claimants. The fires were found to have been likely to have been caused by the deceased employee. His insurers had repudiated liability saying that the had not been notified oin a timely fashion.
CitedFortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
CitedFortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
CitedMichalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
MentionedShagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd SC 5-Aug-2020
Allegations had been made that a contract had been procured by bribery. The other party said that the admissions of bribery had been extracted by torture and were inadmissible. The CA had decided that the unproven possibility that it was obtained by . .
CitedActavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract, Damages

Leading Case

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.252416

Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of ‘road transport’ – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions
A National Court, when applying domestic law and in particular legislative provisions specifically adopted for the purposes of implementing the requirements of a Directive, is bound to interpret national law, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the Directive. It is the responsibility of the National Court to ensure that the rules of Community law are fully effective.
Europa Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of – road transport – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions.

C-399/01, [2004] EUECJ C-399/01, C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-403/01, C-397/01, C-398/01, C-402/01, C-403/01, C-400/01, [2005] IRLR 137, [2004] ECR 8835, [2005] ICR 1307, [2004] ECR I-8835
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Directive 93/104/EC
European
Citing:
ApprovedLandeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger ECJ 9-Sep-2003
Concepts of working time and rest period – On Call
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Concepts of working time and rest . .
See AlsoPfeiffer etc v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV 4 ECJ 5-Oct-2004
ECJ Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red . .

Cited by:
CitedGreenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .
CitedAttridge Law (A Firm of Solicitors) v Coleman and Law EAT 20-Dec-2006
The claimant asserted associative disability discrimination. She was the carer for her disabled son.
Held: To succeed the claimant would have to show that associative discrimination was prohibited by the directive and that the 1995 Act could . .
CitedEnglish v Thomas Sanderson Ltd CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for harrassment and sex discrimination. Though heterosexual, he had been subject to persistent jokes that he was homosexual. The court first asked whether the alleged conduct was ‘on the grounds of sexual . .
CitedBritish Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 24-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the calculation of annual leave pay for crew members in civil aviation under the Regulations. The company argued that it was based on the fixed annual remuneration, and the pilots argued that it should include other . .
CitedO’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 28-Jul-2010
The appellant had worked as a part time judge. He now said that he should be entitled to a judicial pension on retirement by means of the Framework Directive. The Regulations disapplied the provisions protecting part time workers for judicial office . .
CitedTwentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
CitedForensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another ChD 9-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones.
Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection . .
CitedBritish Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 17-Oct-2012
The claimants, airline pilots, and the company disputed the application of the 1998 Regulations to their employment. They sought pay for their annual leave made up of three elements: a proportionate part of the fixed annual sum paid for their . .
CitedR and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Transport, Employment, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.215895

Lickbarrow v Mason: 1793

[1793] EngR 672, (1793) 5 TR 368, (1793) 101 ER 206 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoLickbarrow And Another v Mason And Others 9-Nov-1787
The consignor may stop goods in transit before they get into the hands of the consignee, in case of the insolvency of the consignee : but if the consignee assign the bills of lading to a third person for a valuable consideration, the right of the . .
See AlsoMason And Others v Lickbarrow And Others 11-Feb-1790
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoWilliam Nowell Lickbarrow, And Another v Edward Mason, And Others (In Error) 14-Jun-1793
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 28-Nov-1794
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow And Others v Mason And Others HL 1827
Direction for venire facias de novo granted . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.357259

‘Vitruvia’ SS Co Ltd v Ropner Shipping Co, Ltd: HL 6 Dec 1923

In an action of damages for detention for repairs alleged to be due to collision the defenders, while admitting responsibility for the collision, disputed their liability for the loss incurred by the vessel during the time she was laid up. Proof was led, in the course of which it appeared that during the time the vessel was under repair there was extant a defect in her propeller which the defenders alleged made the vessel unseaworthy. This question was argued both in the Outer and Inner House, though the appropriate averments and pleas hinc inde were not set forth on record. The pursuers having been awarded damages the defenders appealed to the House of Lords. Held that the procedure followed was not in accordance with the Rules of Pleading in Scotland, and cause remitted to the Court of Session with a direction to allow the parties to amend the record in terms of the minutes tendered at the bar, to allow a proof thereof, and to make findings of fact and to report the same to the House.

Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, Lord Phillimore, and Lord Blanesburgh
[1923] UKHL 52, 61 SLR 52
Bailii
Scotland

Transport

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.633272

Standard Oil Co of New York v Clan Line of Steamers Ltd (Owners of SS ‘Clan Gordon’): HL 23 Nov 1923

The owners of a line of steamers agreed to supply a vessel for the carriage of goods from New York to China. The charter-party provided that the contract should be subject to all the exemptions contained in the Harter Act of the United States of 1893, clause 3 of which provides ‘That if the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy, . . neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agents, or charterers shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the said vessel.’ The bills of lading issued in conformity with that Act provided that the following exemptions from liability should apply:-‘Perils of the sea . . or any latent defect in hull, machinery, or appurtenances . . or other accidents of navigation of whatsoever kind (even where occasioned by the negligence, default, or error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, or other servants of the shipowner, not resulting, however, in any case from want of due diligence by the owners of the ship. . . ‘
The ‘Clan Gordon,’ the vessel supplied, was a ‘turret’ steamer, a type of vessel in regard to which the builders had, consequent on a disaster to a vessel of that class, circulated to owners of such vessels loading instructions which contained, inter alia, the following direction:-‘This vessel is not intended to load down to her marks with a homogeneous cargo without water ballast.’ This information was not supplied to the master of the ‘Clan Gordon,’ who had a wide experience in the command of ships, and of ‘turret’ ships in particular. When she left New York the ‘Clan Gordon,’ which was loaded with a homogeneous cargo, had two of her water-ballast tanks full and was down to her marks. Two days out the master, thinking his ship would trim and sail better without water ballast, ordered the tanks to be pumped out. When they were nearly empty the ship, in fine weather and in a calm sea, turned turtle on the application of the port-helm owing to the loss of stability due to the withdrawal of the water in the ballast tanks. In an action of damages by the owners of the cargo against the owners of the ship, held ( rev. the judgment of the First Division, diss. Lord Sands) that the ‘Clan Gordon’ was not, having regard to her structure as a turret vessel and to her loading, seaworthy without having two out of her six ballast tanks filled to the extent of containing 290 tons of water; that this fact had not been communicated to the master by the owners who were aware of it; that it was the duty of the owners to have brought to his notice the loading instructions issued by the builders regarding the necessity for water ballast, and to have informed him that the vessel was only conditionally seaworthy; that in neglecting to do so they had failed to use due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy; and that accordingly they were liable for the loss. Held further, that the owners were not entitled to the limitation of liability provided for by section 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, the loss not having taken place without fault or privity on their part.

Earl of Birkenhead, Viscount Haldane, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Parmoor
[1923] UKHL 15, 61 SLR 15
Bailii
Scotland

Transport

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.633269

North Staffordshire Railway Co v Edge: HL 8 Dec 1919

In 1913 the appellants intimated an increase in the rates applicable to carriage of coal. The respondent disputed the legality of the increase. In 1914 the North Staffordshire Colliery Owners’ Association applied to the Railway and Canal Commissioners to have the increase disallowed. A compromise (to which the respondent was not a party) was arrived at under which the appellants agreed to a smaller increase. The appellants sued the respondent for the full increased rates from July 1913 to December 1915. Held that to charge the respondent a higher rate than that fixed by the agreement with the association was in breach of section 90 of the Railways Clauses Act 1845, and that the appellants was only entitled to recover from the respondent the rates charged the association. Further, that it was incompetent at this stage to introduce a new plea on which the respondent might have led evidence at the trial, i.e., that section 90 did not apply to ‘through rates.’
Decision of the Court of Appeal, 1918, 1 K.B. 367, affirmed.

Lord Chancellor (Birkenhead), Lords Haldane, Dunedin, Atkinson, and Buckmaster
[1919] UKHL 447, 57 SLR 447
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.632791

Re The Bumbesti: AdCt 22 Jun 1999

Application was made for the setting aside of the instant proceedings and for the immediate release of the ship ‘Bumbesti’. The owners said that the arrest was an abuse of process because first provision had already been made for adequate security for the sums claimed, and now also that jurisdiction in rem was denied.

Aikens j
[1999] CLC 1413, [1999] EWHC B6 (Admlty), [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 187, [2000] QB 559, [2000] 2 WLR 533, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 481, [2000] 2 All ER 692
Bailii

Transport

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568025

Thyssen Inc v Calypso Shipping Corp Sa: ComC 23 Jun 2000

Application by the Claimants, who were receivers of a steel cargo, for a declaration that their claim against the Respondents, who were the owners of the carrying ship, is not time-barred. In the alternative, the Claimants seek an extension of time to commence arbitration proceedings pursuant to Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

David Steel J
[2000] EWHC B20 (Comm)
Bailii

Transport, Limitation

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568024

The Ruta: QBD 21 Mar 2000

Where a ship-owner became insolvent, and the only remedy for unpaid employees was against the proceeds of sale of the ship, such claims would be granted a priority over lienors of the ship. No formal system can be created compartmentalising such competing claims, but it was characteristic that the employees on the ship once engaged had had to continue. Where several ships were damaged in what was one incident they should be ranked equally.

Times 21-Mar-2000, Gazette 23-Mar-2000
England and Wales

Insolvency, Transport, Employment

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89844

Kirby v the Owners of the Scindia (The ‘Marie Joseph’): PC 23 Jun 1866

A Bill of lading for the delivery of goods to order and assigns, is a negotiable instrument, which by indorsement and delivery passes the property in the goods to the indorsee, subject only to the right of the unpaid vendor to stop them in transitu.

[1866] UKLawRpPC 14, (1865-1867) LR 1 PC 219
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTakhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others SC 20-Mar-2019
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.671561

Swift and Others v Fred Olsen Cruise Lines: CA 29 Jul 2016

The cruise operator appealed against a finding that it was liable to the several claimants who had succumbed to the norovirus whilst on a cruise with them.
Held: The appeal failed.

Lord Dyson MR, Gross, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 785
Bailii
Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea, Merchant Shipping Act 1995
England and Wales

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567808

Bolle Transport Bv v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 27 Jul 2016

Appeal against the imposition of a civil penalty on the appellant by the Secretary of State pursuant to the provisions of the 1999 Act on the grounds that, upon arrival of one its vehicles at the international Royal Mail depot at Langley, Berkshire, six ‘clandestine entrants’ (as per the relevant statutory language, but in the vernacular, illegal immigrants) were discovered hiding in the appellant’s trailer.

Gloster, King, Simon LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 783
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
England and Wales

Transport, Crime

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567672

In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation: QBD 20 Dec 2002

The claimants claimed to have suffered deep vein thrombosis having been sat in cramped conditions for long periods whilst travelling by air. They sought compensation, saying that the failure by the airlines to warn them and take steps to minimise the dangers was culpable. Under the Convention they had to establish that the injuries constituted accidents.
Held: The injuries were not accidents. The test was set out in Morris, namely ‘a simple criterion of causation by an accident’. An accident is ‘an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger’ (Saks). There was nothing in the respective flights which satisfied these tests. Article 17 was not fault based, nor was any theory of risk allocation to be applied, and the Convention was the exclusive remedy. Neither Human Rights law nor European regulations provided alternative remedies.

Nelson J
Times 17-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2825 (QB)
Bailii
Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929 17, Carriage by Air Act 1961, EC Regulation 2027/97/EC on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, European Convention on Human Rights 6 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedKing v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
CitedAir France v Saks 1985
(United States Supreme Court) The claimant suffered damage to and become permanently deaf in one ear as a result of pressurisation changes while the aircraft descended to land. The pressure system had worked normally. The airline said that the . .
See AlsoDeep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, Re CA 3-Jul-2002
Group litigation between the appellant passengers and the respondent carriers. Most of the passengers allege that they have suffered deep vein thrombosis leading to serious injury, as a result of travelling in the carriers’ aircraft. In some . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromIn re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation CA 3-Jul-2003
Passengers on air flights who had suffered deep vein thrombosis through inactivity whilst travelling sought damages.
Held: The claim in its nature was for something unrelated to any particular event. The word ‘accident’ necessitated some sort . .
At first instanceDeep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation HL 8-Dec-2005
The appellants had suffered deep vein thrombosis whilst travelling on long haul air flights. The defendants said that their liability was limited because the injuries were not accidents.
Held: The claimants’ appeal failed. The definition of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Transport, European, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.178701

London and North-Western Railway Co v J P Ashton and Co: HL 29 Jul 1919

To give a carrier the benefit of the provision of the Carriers Act 1830 limiting liability on the part of the carrier, he must prove that the loss of the goods occurred during transit by land.
Decision of the Court of Appeal, 1918, 2 K.B. 488, affirmed.

Lords Finlay, Atkinson, Shaw, and Sumner
[1919] UKHL 436, 57 SLR 436
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.632782

The Myrto: ChD 1977

A ship had been charged. A third party sought to arrest the ship for a debt.
Held: ‘Where the owner makes a contract with a third party for the employment of the ship, of such a kind and made or performable in such circumstances, that the security of the mortgagee is not impaired, and the owner is both willing and able to perform such contract, the mortgagee is not entitled, by exercising his rights under the mortgage, whether by taking possession, or selling, or arresting the ship in a mortgage action in rem, to interfere with the performance of such contact.’

Brandon J
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDen Norske Bank Asa v Acemex Management Company Ltd CA 7-Nov-2003
Money had been loaned for the purchase of three ships,and mortgages over the ships had been given given. The borrowers were in default, and the lender sought to arrest the vessels. The defendant argued that the way the arrest had been undertaken . .
CitedAnton Durbeck Gmbh v Den Norske Bank Asa ComC 11-Nov-2005
The defendant bank arrested a ship carrying the claimant’s load of bananas. The cargo deteriorated while under arrest and was lost. It was not insured. The consignee sought damages from the arresting bank on the ground that it wrongfully interfered . .
CitedAnton Durbeck Gmbh v Den Norske Bank Asa ComC 11-Nov-2005
The defendant bank arrested a ship carrying the claimant’s load of bananas. The cargo deteriorated while under arrest and was lost. It was not insured. The consignee sought damages from the arresting bank on the ground that it wrongfully interfered . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.187670

Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others: HL 27 Mar 2001

The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a demand. An assertion of a formal right was required. A person to whom a bill of lading had been endorsed, ceased to be liable on it when he successfully endorsed it again to someone else.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 27-Mar-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] UKHL 17, [2001] 2 All ER 193, [2002] 2 AC 205
House of Lords, Bailii
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 3(1), Bills of Lading Act 1855
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBorealis Ab v Stargas Ltd and Others CA 30-Jul-1998
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 . .
CitedEffort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk) HL 22-Jan-1998
A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an . .
CitedSanders v Maclean CA 1883
‘The law as to the indorsement of bills of lading is as clear as in my opinion the practice of all European merchants is thoroughly understood. A cargo at sea is incapable of physical delivery, and a bill of lading by the law merchant is universally . .
CitedDublin City Distillery (Great Brunswick Street, Dublin) Limited and Another v Doherty HL 1914
D had advanced monies to a distillery company on the security of manufactured whisky stored in a warehouse. On the occasion of each advance, the company delivered to D an invoice and a warrant which described the particulars of the whisky and stated . .
CitedLickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
CitedDawes v Peck 1799
Where there is a named consignee on a bill of lading it may be inferred that the contracting party is the consignee not the shipper. . .
CitedAlbacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
CitedBryans v Nix 1839
. .
CitedEvans v Nichol 1841
. .
CitedKum and Another v Wah Tat Bank Ltd HL 1971
‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a . .
CitedThompson v Dominy 1845
. .
CitedGlynn Mills v E and W India Dock Co 1880
The effect of the assignment of a bill of lading on the title to the goods depends on the circumstances and the intention of the transferor and transferee. . .
CitedSewell v Burdick HL 1884
What does the word ‘property’ encompass in the context of the assignment of a bill of lading? Is it limited to the general property in the goods, that is, the legal title to the goods as is transferred by a sale? Or does it include the special . .
CitedCock v Taylor 1811
The carrier’s liens under a bill of lading are a qualification of the rights of the endorsee against the shipowner. . .
CitedAllen v Coltart 1883
‘Where goods are deliverable to the holder of a bill of lading on certain conditions being complied with, the act of demanding delivery is evidence of an offer on his part to comply with those conditions, and the delivery accordingly by the master . .
CitedSanders, Snow and Cockings v Vanzeller 2-Feb-1843
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading . .
CitedStindt v Roberts 1848
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading. . .
CitedYoung v Moeller 1855
. .
CitedBrandt v Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co Ltd CA 1924
The plaintiff claimed damages from the shipowner for negligence in the carriage of a consignment of goods. He was not able to bring himself within the terms of the 1855 Act but he succeeded on the contract to be inferred from the presentation of the . .
CitedThe Delfini 1990
. .
CitedFox v Nott 1861
. .
CitedSmurthwaite v Wilkins 1862
The endorser of a bill of lading is not liable after he has endorsed over the bill of lading to another who is liable; the shipper remains liable as an original party to the contract. ‘Looking at the whole statute it seems to me that the obvious . .
CitedThe Aramis CA 1989
The court considered the circumstances under which a contract might be implied: ‘As the question whether or not any such contract is to be implied is one of fact, its answer must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case – and the . .
CitedIn re Wait 1927
In the case of a Bill of lading issued for quantities out of undivided consignments and where those quantities had been sold to different buyers and the various bills of lading endorsed over to them, those endorsements were ineffective to pass the . .
CitedMargarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince Steamship Co Ltd 1969
The practice of issuing delivery orders for parcels out of a bulk cargo were ineffective and the intended buyers were left without remedy against the carrier.
Roskill J said: ‘In my judgment, there is nothing in Hedley Byrne to affect the . .
CitedLeigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) HL 24-Apr-1985
The plaintiff contracted to buy a cargo to be shipped on the defendant’s vessel. Because of poor stowage, the cargo was damaged. At the time of the damage the claimant was neither the owner nor possessor of the cargo, but under the terms of the . .
CitedAegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (‘The Aegean Sea’) AdCt 1998
The Aegean Sea was lost at sea causing very extensive damage through the escape of its cargo of crude oil. AST asserted as a preliminary issue, that RP had become liable for that damage. RP’s wholly owned subsidiary ROIL was the charterer, argued . .

Cited by:
Appealed toBorealis Ab v Stargas Ltd and Others CA 30-Jul-1998
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 . .
CitedScottish and Newcastle International Limited v Othon Ghalanos Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The defendant challenged a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a claim in contract saying that the appropriate court was in Cyprus. The cargo was taken by ship from Liverpool to Limassol. An English court would only have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Commercial, Contract

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.78491

J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The “Rafaela S”: HL 16 Feb 2005

A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and ‘Rafaela S’. The goods were shipped from Durban aboard the ‘Rosemary,’ as evidenced by a document entitled ‘Bill of Lading’ dated 18 December 1989, which was issued by the demise charterers at Durban. The bill of lading evidenced a contract for the carriage of the cargo to Felixstowe and for on-carriage to be subsequently arranged to the final destination at Boston. The Bill of Lading named the buyers as consignees The machinery was damaged in the course of their carriage.
Held: The document was a bill of lading. The contract of carriage fell within the terms of article I(b) of the Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules. Appeal dismissed.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Times 21-Feb-2005, [2005] UKHL 11, [2005] 2 All ER 86
House of Lords, Bailii
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromJ I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
CitedThe Ship ‘Marlborough Hill’ v Alex Cowan and Sons Limited PC 1921
The question was whether a document, describing itself as a bill of lading but written in the form of a receipt of goods for (rather than of) shipment, was a bill of lading for the purposes of the Act, which set out the jurisdiction of the admiralty . .
CitedEl Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA 10-Aug-2004
(Federal Court of Australia) ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – carriage of goods by sea – Hague-Visby Rules – Australian COGSA Art 3 Rules 3, 4 and 8 – method for assessing value of cargo – where no ‘commodity exchange price’ or ‘current market price’ – . .
CitedHomburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
CitedKum and Another v Wah Tat Bank Ltd HL 1971
‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a . .
CitedLickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
CitedC P Henderson and Co v The Comptoir D’Escompte de Paris PC 1873
The court considered a bill of lading in the usual form, save that the words ‘or order or assigns’ are omitted. The court was prepared to assume that such a bill was not a negotiable instrument. It was argued that, notwithstanding the omission of . .
CitedJ I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co Sa ComC 17-Apr-2002
A straight bill of lading did not fall within section 1(4) of the 1971 Act and article I (b) of the Rules. . .
CitedFothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd HL 10-Jul-1980
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
CitedGlyn Mills Currie and Co v The East and West India Dock Company CA 1880
. .
CitedThrige v United Shipping Company Limited 1923
. .
CitedThrige v United Shipping Company Ltd CA 1924
The plaintiff sold machinery to a purchaser in England. The terms of sale were cash against documents. Thrige took a straight bill of lading which named the Victoria Company as the consignee without any reference to ‘or order or assigns’. The goods . .
CitedVoss v APL Co Pte Limited 2002
(Court of Appeal of Singapore) The court asked whether a straight bill had to be produced by the consignee to obtain delivery.
Held: It had. The main characteristics of a bill of lading were its negotiability and its recognition as a document . .
CitedThe Stettin 1889
A bill of lading was issued by the owners of a German flag vessel and covered carriage from London to Stettin. It was made out to a named consignee ‘or to his or their assigns’ who was the agent for Julius Manasse in Breslau, and was instructed by . .
CitedHansson v Hamel and Horley Ltd HL 1922
Appeal dismissed . .
CitedHansson v Hamel and Horley Ltd 1921
The court explained the role of a contract of carriage: ‘What is meant by the expression ‘Contract of Affreightment’? In my opinion, to satisfy the requirements with reference to contract of affreightment, the seller must bring into existence a . .
CitedPyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954
The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules was not to override freedom of contract to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.222768

Lickbarrow v Mason: 2 Jul 1794

The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee.

(1794) 5 Term Rep 683, [1794] EngR 2244, (1794) 5 TR 683, (1794) 101 ER 380
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoLickbarrow And Another v Mason And Others 9-Nov-1787
The consignor may stop goods in transit before they get into the hands of the consignee, in case of the insolvency of the consignee : but if the consignee assign the bills of lading to a third person for a valuable consideration, the right of the . .
See AlsoMason And Others v Lickbarrow And Others 11-Feb-1790
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 1793
. .
See AlsoWilliam Nowell Lickbarrow, And Another v Edward Mason, And Others (In Error) 14-Jun-1793
. .

Cited by:
CitedBorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
CitedJ I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 28-Nov-1794
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow And Others v Mason And Others HL 1827
Direction for venire facias de novo granted . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.194548

Lickbarrow And Another v Mason And Others: 9 Nov 1787

The consignor may stop goods in transit before they get into the hands of the consignee, in case of the insolvency of the consignee : but if the consignee assign the bills of lading to a third person for a valuable consideration, the right of the consignor as against such assignee is divested. There is no distinction between a bill of lading iridorsed in blank, and an indorsement to a particular person.

[1787] EngR 193, (1787) 2 TR 63, (1787) 100 ER 35
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoMason And Others v Lickbarrow And Others 11-Feb-1790
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 1793
. .
See AlsoWilliam Nowell Lickbarrow, And Another v Edward Mason, And Others (In Error) 14-Jun-1793
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 28-Nov-1794
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow And Others v Mason And Others HL 1827
Direction for venire facias de novo granted . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.368867

Mason And Others v Lickbarrow And Others: 11 Feb 1790

[1790] EngR 2288, (1790) 1 H Bl 357, (1790) 126 ER 209
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoLickbarrow And Another v Mason And Others 9-Nov-1787
The consignor may stop goods in transit before they get into the hands of the consignee, in case of the insolvency of the consignee : but if the consignee assign the bills of lading to a third person for a valuable consideration, the right of the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 1793
. .
See AlsoWilliam Nowell Lickbarrow, And Another v Edward Mason, And Others (In Error) 14-Jun-1793
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 2-Jul-1794
The attornment of a bill of lading is transferrable and therefore the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading is capable of transferring the endorser’s right to the possession of the goods to the endorsee. . .
See AlsoLickbarrow v Mason 28-Nov-1794
. .
See AlsoLickbarrow And Others v Mason And Others HL 1827
Direction for venire facias de novo granted . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.365341

Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge Sa: ComC 24 Jun 2016

The question of law which arises on these arbitration appeals is as follows: ‘Where under a time charter the owner warrants to the time charterer that the vessel shall maintain a particular level of performance throughout the charter period, and the time charterer alleges underperformance in breach of that warranty, is it a defence for the owner to prove that the underperformance resulted from compliance with the time charterer’s orders?’

Phillips J
[2016] EWHC 1506 (Comm)
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 69

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566292

FSL-9 Pte Ltd and Another v Norwegian Hull Club: ComC 10 May 2016

The court was asked whether the claimant owners can apply to the court to require the defendant PandI club to increase the level of security available under a letter of undertaking issued by the club to the owners on 31 October 2013. In summary, the owners say that the use of the words ‘liberty to apply’ in the LOU means that the court has power to make such a requirement. The club says that the court has no such power.

Blair J
[2016] EWHC 1091 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565731

Fronsdal and Co (Owners of SS ‘Hansa’) v William Alexander and Sons: HL 29 Jul 1919

Charterers of a ship were under the charter-party to unload its cargo of timber at the rate of 100 standards per day, ‘always provided that steamer can . . discharge at this rate.’ Owing to shortage of labour the rate was not maintained and the shipowners claimed demurrage.
Held: The charterers were liable, as there was no fault on the part of the shipowner, and the proviso of the charter-party did not cover want of labour, but referred to the capacity and fittings of the vessel herself.

Viscount Finlay, Viscount Cave, and Lords Dunedin, Shaw, and Wrenbury
[1919] UKHL 611, 56 SLR 611
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.632779

Buonotourist v Commission: ECJ 4 Mar 2020

State Aid – Undertaking Operating Bus Route Networks – Judgment – Appeal – Competition – State aid – Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) – Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) – European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market

C-586/18, [2020] EUECJ C-586/18P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:152
Bailii
European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654856

CSTP Azienda Della Mobilita v Commission: ECJ 4 Mar 2020

State Aid – Undertaking Operating Bus Route Networks – Judgment – Appeal – Competition – State aid – Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) – Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) – European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market

C-587/18, [2020] EUECJ C-587/18P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:150
Bailii
European

Commercial, Transport

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654871

Ryanair Designated Activity Company v Orszagos Rendor-fokapitanysag: ECJ 27 Feb 2020

Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Directive 2004/38 / EC – Articles 5, 10 and 20 – Right of entry into the territory of a Member State of a national of a third State, member of the family of a citizen of the Union – Visa exemption – Residence card for a family member – Permanent residence card – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Article 26 – Obligation on carriers to ensure that their passengers have the travel documents required to enter the Member State of destination

C-754/18, [2020] EUECJ C-754/18_O, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 131, [2020] EUECJ C-754/18
Bailii, Bailii
European

Transport, Immigration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654822

Costello (Pauper) v Owners of Ship ‘Pigeon’: HL 13 Jun 1913

The Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, sec. 7 (2), enacts-‘This Act shall not apply to such members of the crew of a fishing vessel as are remunerated by shares in the profits or gross earnings of the working of such vessel.’
Where a member of a crew of a fishing vessel was paid under agreement partly by a fixed wage, partly by a share of the profits of the venture, held that he was remunerated by a share in the profits within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, sec. 7 (2), and was thereby excluded from the benefit of the Act.

Earl of Halsbury, Earl Loreburn, and Lords Atkinson, Mersey, and Parker
[1913] UKHL 976, 50 SLR 976
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.632745

Percy v Glasgow Corporation: HL 26 May 1922

The bye-laws made under the powers conferred by the Glasgow Corporation Tramways Acts 1870 to 1893 provide that it shall be lawful for any officer or servant of the Corporation to seize and detain any passenger attempting to evade payment of his fare whose name or residence is unknown to such officer or servant.
In an action of damages brought by a passenger against the Corporation the pursuer averred that he tendered in payment of the fare a penny slightly marked but not defaced; that the conductor refused to accept it and summoned a tramway inspector, who demanded another penny from the pursuer, which the pursuer declined to pay; that the inspector and conductor then called a police constable, and gave the pursuer into custody on a charge of refusing to pay the fare not with standing that the pursuer had offered them his name and address; that it was within the scope of their authority as employees of the defenders to give into custody any person attempting to evade payment of his fare whose name and address were unknown to them; that if they had exercised due care in examining the coin tendered by the pursuer they would have seen that they had no ground for exercising this power; that pursuer gave them his name and address at the time; that they, however, recklessly, maliciously, and in an excess of zeal, and in furtherance of the defenders’ interests, gave the pursuer into custody; and that the defenders as their employers were liable. Held ( rev. judgment of the First Division, who had dismissed the action on the ground that the pursuer had pled himself out of court by averring that the officials had acted outside the scope of their authority) that the pursuer’s averments fairly read meant that the defenders’ servants, acting in the course of and within the general scope of their employment, improperly exceeded the powers conferred upon their employers, and that accordingly the case must go to trial.
Observations per Lord Dunedin as to whether in this case the scope of employment need be put in issue.

Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Viscount Cave, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Wrenbury
[1922] UKHL 313, 59 SLR 313
Bailii
England and Wales

Police, Transport

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.632803

London Borough of Enfield, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Others: CA 24 May 2016

The Appellant Borough claimed judicial review of the Respondent’s decision to issue an Invitation to Tender for a Franchise without a minimum requirement that bidders provide a 4 trains per hour service. Elisabeth Laing J granted Enfield permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed its claim. From that decision Enfield seeks to appeal.

Lord Dyson MR, Gross, Lindblom LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 480
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564691

Broads Authority v Fry: Admn 5 Nov 2015

The court was asked as to the liability of the owner of a vessel to pay tolls to the Broads Authority in respect of a vessel moored outside the navigation area of the Broads. The vessel is moored at a private mooring on waters which qualify as ‘adjacent waters’ because a vessel may be navigated into the navigation area from it.

Beatson LJ, Mitting J
[2014] EWHC 4139 (Admin)
Bailii
Broads Authority Act 2009

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564420

Kralova v Primera Air Scandinavia: ECJ 26 Mar 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of ??freedom, security and justice – Jurisdiction and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 5, point 1 – Jurisdiction in contractual matters – Articles 15 to 17 – Jurisdiction over contracts concluded by consumers – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 6 and 7 – Right to compensation in the event of long delay of a flight – Transport contract combining travel and accommodation concluded between the passenger and a travel agency – Claim for compensation against the air carrier not party to this contract – Directive 90/314 / EEC – Package travel

C-215/18, [2020] EUECJ C-215/18, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 235, [2019] EUECJ C-215/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Transport, Consumer

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.654919

SL v Vueling Airlines SA (Compensation in the event of loss of luggage): ECJ 11 Mar 2020

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – International air transport – Montreal Convention – Liability of air carriers with regard to baggage – Proven loss of checked baggage – Compensation – Conditions for granting the maximum amount of compensation – Burden of proof – Standard of proof required – Nature of proof required – Procedural autonomy of the Member States – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness

C-86/19, [2020] EUECJ C-86/19_O, [2020] EUECJ C-86/19
Bailii, Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.654931

Stoomvaart Maatsohappij Sophie H v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd: HL 20 Nov 1919

A ship was lost owing to encountering mines supposed to have broken loose from Russian minefields protecting the Finnish coast. Under insurance policies the ship was covered against marine risks and damage from explosions, but the insurers were exempt in the case of ‘capture, seizure, detention, and all other consequences of hostilities piracy, riots, civil commotions, and barratry excepted).’ In an action on the policies the appellants contended that the ship was lost by marine and not war risks, and that the clause warranted free from capture, and co., referred to hostile acts which amounted to taking possession of the ship insured and did not include consequences of hostilities which were not ejusdem generis with capture, seizure, and detention, such as the destruction of the ship by drifting mines. Held that the loss of the vessel was the direct consequence of hostilities, and the respondents were not liable therefor under the policies.
Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Lord Chancellor (Lord Birkenhead) Lords Haldane, Dunedin, and Buckmaster
[1919] UKHL 439, 57 SLR 439
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.632790

NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa: SC 11 May 2016

The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the time charter for IBG’s acts or omissions in the conduct of cargo handling operations at the port of discharge, extended only to acts or omissions in the actual performance of those operations while they were in progress.
Lord Clarke (dissenting) said: ‘The real question, he says, concerns the scope of that ‘agency’. To what acts or omissions did it extend?
Approaching the matter in that way, I am of the opinion that the answer is that it extends to the operation of the vessel from the time that notice of readiness was given (or perhaps earlier) until the completion of discharge. Throughout that time the vessel was complying with the orders of the charterers (ie Cargill) as to proceeding to a berth, waiting to discharge and subsequently discharging. If she had been arrested by Transclear or IBG in the course of the discharging operations themselves there could surely be no doubt that they would be treated as the ‘agents’ of Cargill. To my mind the same is true of an arrest during the period during which she was waiting to discharge.’ and ‘I would hold that the failure to discharge the cargo was caused by the acts or omissions of the charterers’ ‘agents’ and that when the vessel was arrested by Transclear she was arrested by the charterers’ agents within the meaning of clause 49. ‘

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 20, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 587, [2016] WLR(D) 255, [2016] 4 All ER 298, [2016] 1 WLR 1853
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Arbitration Act 1996 69
England and Wales
Citing:
At ComCNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC 1-Feb-2013
The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
At CANYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA CA 8-Apr-2014
The court was asked as to ‘the true construction and application of a proviso to an off hire clause in a time charterparty, dealing with the capture, seizure, detention or arrest of the vessel. The issue thus raises the familiar question as to the . .
CitedHyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty (‘Doric Pride’) CA 25-Jan-2006
The court considered the relationship between express an implied warranties.
Held: Under a time charterparty, hire continues to run unless the charterer can bring himself within the plain words of an off-hire provision; the risk of delay is . .
CitedMediolanum Shipping Co v Japan Lines Ltd (‘The Mediolanum’) CA 1984
The charterers had contracted to provide and pay for fuel. They ordered her to a safe port but she was directed to an unsafe place in that port by the refinery with whom the charterer had contracted for the supply of bunkers. The court was asked to . .
CitedRichmond Shipping v D/S and A/S Vestland (‘The Vestland’) 1980
The court was asked whether the charterer was in breach of a positive obligation imposed on him by the charter. . .
CitedThe ‘Goodpal’ 2000
The court dealt with the apportionment of claims under the Interclub NYPE Agreement . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563294

Feest v South West Strategic Health Authority and Others: QBD 7 Feb 2014

The claimant sustained a serious spinal injury whilst a passenger on board a 9 metre RIB (rigid inflatable boat) called the Celtic Pioneer. She and 10 work colleagues were participating in a 1 hour boat trip in the Bristol Channel as part of a corporate team building exercise.

Havelock Allen QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 177 (QB), [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 419
Bailii
Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea

Transport, Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563235

OI v Air Nostrum: ECJ 30 Apr 2020

Air Passengers denied boarding – Compensation

Air Transport – Compensation for Air Passengers In The Event of Denied Boarding – Judgment Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for air passengers in the event of denied boarding – Denied boarding – Cancellation – Connecting flights – Change of the reservation in respect of one of the flights comprising the journey by air against the passenger’s will – Arrival of the passenger without delay at his or her final destination)

C-191/19, [2020] EUECJ C-191/19
Bailii
European

Transport, Consumer

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654958

John Grahame, James Coulter, and Others, Underwriters of The Ship “The Jean,” and Her Cargo v Robert M’Nair: HL 29 Mar 1770

Marine Insurance – Deviation.-
Held that deviation of the ship in the course of the voyage insured, must be wilful, in order to void the policy, and that accidental or involuntary deviation will not have that effect. Circumstances in which held wilful deviation not proven.

[1770] UKHL 2 – Paton – 244
Bailii
Scotland

Transport

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561672