Category: Transport

North British Railway Co v Steel Co of Scotland Ltd: HL 8 May 1922

Held (aff. judgment of the Second Division) that so long as the Ministry of Transport Act 1919 remained in operation the Minister had power, under and subject to the provisions of that Act, to prescribe the ‘free time’ to be allowed for loading and unloading waggons, and also to fix the charges payable for their detention beyond that time, that his decision in regard to both must be deemed to be reasonable, and that any right to appeal to arbitration under section 5 of the schedule to the Railway Rates and Charges, No. 25 (North British Railway, and co.) Order Confirmation Act 1892 (55 and 56 Vict. cap. lxiii) was, so long as the Minister remained in charge, superseded.

Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Viscount Cave, and Lord Dunedin
[1922] UKHL 275, 59 SLR 275
Bailii
Scotland

Transport

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.632802

PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc Product Shipping and Trading SA v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Others: CA 22 Oct 2015

The oil owners had contracted for its transport with OWBM aboard Res Cogitans under standard terms which would allow the captain to use the oil for navigation before transfer of the title in the oil. The court was now asked whether the agreement amounted to a sale governed by 1979 Act allowing for a claim for payment of the price under section 49(1).
Held:
Moore-Bick V-P said: ‘Whatever label one attaches to the contract (and I see nothing incongruous in describing it in commercial terms as a contract for the sale of goods), its essential nature is in my view reasonably clear. It is a contract under which goods are to be delivered to the owners as bailees with a licence to consume them for the propulsion of the vessel, coupled with an agreement to sell any quantity remaining at the date of payment, in return for a money consideration which in commercial terms can properly be described as the price. That may not satisfy the definition of a contract of sale of goods in section 2(1) of the 1979 Act, but there is no reason why the incidents of a contract of sale of goods for which the Act provides should not apply equally to such a contract at common law, save to the extent that they are inconsistent with the parties’ agreement. The difficulties in the present case stem entirely from the owners’ attempt to establish that the consideration for the payment of the price was the transfer of property in the whole of the goods to which the contract related, despite the fact that that does not correspond to the express terms of the contract relating to the use of the goods and the passing of title. The commercial background and the terms of the contract make it clear that what the owners contracted for was not the transfer of property in the whole of the bunkers, but the delivery of a quantity of bunkers which they had an immediate right to use but for which they would not have to pay until the period of credit expired. From the suppliers’ point of view the retention of title clause provided an ever diminishing degree of security for the payment of what was due to them. Since the contract provided for the transfer to the owners of property in any part of the bunkers remaining at the time of payment, it was to that extent a contract for the sale of goods to which the Act, including the implied condition in section 12, applied. A failure to pass title to any residue remaining at the time of payment would therefore involve a breach of contract, but it would not be one which entitled the owners to treat the contract as a whole as discharged, unless (contrary to all expectations) it represented such a large proportion of the quantity originally delivered that there could be said to have been a total failure of consideration.
For these reasons I agree with the judge that the transfer of property in the bunkers from OWBM to the owners was not the essential subject matter of the contract and that a failure to transfer property in the bunkers, all of which had been consumed when the period of credit expired, did not relieve the owners of the obligation to pay for them.’

Moore-Bick VP CA, Longmore, McCombe LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1058, [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 503, [2016] 2 WLR 1072, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 228, [2015] WLR(D) 426
Bailii, WLRD
Sale of Goods Act 1979 2 49(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At ComC – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another (Res Cogitans) ComC 14-Jul-2015
The OW Bunker Group had gone into insolvency. Purchasers from them were no concerned at the possibility, under the industry standard tersm, of having to pay twice.
Held: The owners’ appeal from the arbitration award failed.
The court . .
Cited – Arnold v Britton and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
Absurdity did not defeat a clear clause
A standard lease of plots on a caravan park, contained a provision which appeared to increase the rent by 10% in each year. The tenants argued that such a substantial increase could not have been intended.
Held: The tenants’ appeal failed . .
Cited – Clough Mill Ltd v Martin CA 1984
The plaintiff had supplied yarn to a company H on terms that the goods were to remain its property until paid for in full, although H was granted the power to sell the goods or use them for the purpose of manufacturing products. The terms also . .
Cited – Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd CA 1979
The plaintiff sold a quantity of resin to the defendant for use in the manufacture of chipboard. The contract contained a reservation of title clause, but both parties contemplated that the resin would be used in the process of production before it . .

Cited by:
At CA – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Insolvency

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553685

Stolt Kestrel Bv v Sener Petrol Denizcilik Ticaret As: CA 15 Oct 2015

Interlocutory appeal against a decision of Hamblen J sitting in the Admiralty Court and an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Admiralty Registrar, in three collision actions in the Admiralty Court.

Sir Brian Levesson P QBD, Tomlinson, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1035
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553480

William Collier, Captain of His Majesty’s Ship The Mermaid v Robert Stewart, Provost of Aberdeen, and Company, Owners and Freighters, and Alexander Inglis, Master of The Ship Joanna of Aberdeen: HL 8 Jul 1715

Prize – A French privateer having captured a Scots ship, took a quantity of goods out of her, and some money from the ship-master, and upon payment of a ransom agreed upon, allowed the ship to depart with a ransom brief; the privateer having continued upon the coast, and being there captured by a British ship of war the money and goods taken by force, as well as the ransom, were to be restored by the captors.

[1715] UKHL Robertson – 130, (1715) Robertson 130
Bailii

Scotland, Transport

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553487

Whitby v Secretary of State for Transport Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 14 Oct 2015

‘The Claimant brings three related claims challenging the decision to construct the Ordsall Chord – a proposed 340m elevated chord railway in the Ordsall area of Greater Manchester – which will link the three main stations in Manchester, and improve rail capacity. The challenge arises from the choice of route, which will result in substantial harm to a collection of listed heritage assets associated with the historic development of the railways in the 19th century.’

Land DBE J
[2015] EWHC 2804 (Admin)
Bailii

Planning, Transport

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553446

Council v Commission C-73/14: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Action for annulment – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing – Advisory opinion proceedings – Submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the European Union – No prior approval of the content of that statement by the Council of the European Union – Article 13(2) TEU, Article 16 TEU and Article 17(1) TEU – Article 218(9) TFEU and Article 335 TFEU – Representation of the European Union – Principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance – Principle of sincere cooperation

ECLI:EU:C:2015:663, [2015] EUECJ C-73/14
Bailii
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
European

Transport, Agriculture

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553093

Tyzack and Branfoot Steamship Co Ltd v Sandeman and Sons: HL 18 Jul 1913

A ship’s cargo consisted of a number of consignments of bales of jute, and at the port of delivery it was found that the number of bales was short by 14, while, further, 11 bales were unidentifiable with any particular consignment and contained a different quality of jute. In an action by the shipowners for freight against a firm of consignees who had received short delivery, held that the consignees were not bound to accept pro tanto a proportion of the unidentifiable bales.

Lord Chancellor (Haldane), Earl Loreburn, Lord Shaw, and Lord Moulton, Lord Parker being present at delivering judgment
[1913] UKHL 869
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract, Transport

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.632753

The South West Strategic Health Authority v Bay Island Voyages: CA 14 Jul 2015

potential liability of sea carriers to contribute to the liability incurred by third parties for the death of or personal injury to a passenger, or the loss of or damage to his luggage, occurring in the course of carriage performed by the sea carrier.

[2015] EWCA Civ 708, [2016] 2 WLR 649, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 652, [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 821, [2016] 4 All ER 107, [2016] QB 503
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550307

Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and others: ComC 10 Apr 2003

The Claimant sought damages for breach of the Rome Treaty Articles 82 and 81. His shipping company had faced organised anti-competitive attempts by the respondents to put him out of business.
Held: A cause of action for breach of a statutory duty first arises when the breach causes damage to the claimant: ‘In this connection it is important to recognise that there are different ways in which such a breach may cause damage. Thus, an isolated event amounting to such a breach may cause a chain of damage development commencing when the effects of the breach first affect the claimant, and those [effects] may continue for a long period of time. If that period commences prior to the cut-off date for the purposes of the period of limitation, the claim will prima facie be time-barred notwithstanding that the effects of the breach may continue beyond that date. The position is similar to a claim in tort for negligence. By contrast, there may be a continuing or repeated breach of statutory duty, over an extended period, such as an unlawful emission of toxic fumes which continues to affect and injure those exposed to it over the whole period of that breach. In such a case, if the limitation cut-off date occurs during the period, the claimant’s cause of action for the damage suffered after the date in question will not be time-barred.’
Colman J concluded that the case before him fell into the latter category.

Colman J
[2003] EWHC 687 (Comm), [2000] EuLR 232, [2003] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 225
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Yeheskel Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd ComC 11-Nov-1999
A claimant in an action for damages for breaches of Articles 85, 86 of Rome Treaty, who had previously complained of such breaches to the European Commission but failed to complain of matters subsequently, attempted to raise in an action is . .

Cited by:
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
See Also – Arkin v Borchard Lines Limited Andzim Israel Navigation Company Ltd and others v Managers and Processors of Claims QBD 27-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – Chester City Council and Another v Arriva Plc and others ChD 15-Jun-2007
The claimant council alleged that the defendant had acted to abuse its dominant market position in the provision of bus services in the city.
Held: It was for the claimant to show that the defendant had a dominant position. It had not done so, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Transport, Limitation

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.180760

ADM Rice Inc v Corporacion Comercializadora De Granos Basicos Sa and Others: AdCt 21 Jul 2015

The claimant applied to commit the defendant and first respondent (abbreviated to ‘CORCOSA’) for contempt of court, also applying to commit the second and third respondents on the basis that they are directors and/or officers of CORCOSA and are responsible for CORCOSA’s failure to comply with the relevant orders.

Phillips J
[2015] EWHC B1 (Admlty)
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Contempt of Court

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.553923

Niki Luftfahrt v Commission – T-162/10: ECFI 13 May 2015

ECJ Judgment – Competition – Concentrations – Air transport – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition – Commitments

D. Gratsias, P
T-162/10, [2015] EUECJ T-162/10, ECLI: EU: T: 2015: 283
Bailii

European, Commercial, Transport

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546606

Splitt Chartering Aps and Others v Saga Shipholding Norway As and Others: CA 15 Dec 2021

The issue on this appeal is whether the respondent (‘Stema UK’) was ‘the manager or operator’ of the STEMA BARGE II within the meaning of article 1(2) of the Limitation Convention[1]. Early that morning, whilst off Dover, the barge’s anchor dragged during a storm and damaged an underwater cable owned by the appellant, RTE. The issue arises because Stema UK was the receiver of the cargo on the unmanned barge and did not have any formal role in respect of the barge’s management or operation, but its personnel did operate the machinery of the barge whilst off Dover and were involved in monitoring the weather and in the decision to leave the barge at anchor during the storm.

Lord Justice Phillips,
Sir David Richards,
And,
Sir Launcelot Henderson
[2021] EWCA Civ 1880, [2021] WLR(D) 625
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.670463

Midland Container Logistics Limited and James Donlon D K Barnsley and Sons Limited: UTAA 14 Feb 2020

AdBlue emulators; whether the fitting of an emulator can be for any purpose other than to give the misleading impression that engine emission standards are not being met; whether such an act can/should be categorised as ‘dishonest’ or ‘deceitful’; whether the fitting of an emulator is in itself unlawful; whether a recording of excessive emissions is required before any adverse findings can be made arising out of the fitting of such a device; whether in principle, the fitting of an emulator can/should be compared to the fitting of a magnet to a tachograph; call up letters; approach to evidence.

[2020] UKUT 5 (AAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.651791

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another: CA 11 Mar 2015

[2015] EWCA Civ 203
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544225

Wucher Helicopter And Euro-Aviation Versicherung v Fridolin Santer: ECJ 26 Feb 2015

ECJ Judgment – References for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 – Air carriers and aircraft operators – Insurance – Requirements – Definitions of ‘passenger’ and ‘member of the crew’ – Helicopter – Carriage of an expert in the blasting of avalanches using explosives – Injury suffered during a work flight – Compensation

A. Tizzano, P
C-6/14, [2015] EUECJ C-6/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:122
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 785/2004
European

European, Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543692

Navig8 Inc v South Vigour Shipping Inc and Others: ComC 16 Jan 2015

Navig8 Inc., the charterers of four Aframax vessels, claim damages from the First to Fourth Defendants, the registered owners of those vessels, on the grounds that they breached the charterparties by withdrawing the vessels from service. The charterers say that the charterparties were fixed by an agent, the Fifth Defendant, on behalf of the registered owners. In response the registered owners deny that they were party to the charterparties and, if they were party to them, that the Fifth Defendant had authority to act on their behalf.

Teare J
[2015] EWHC 32 (Comm)
Bailii

Contract, Transport

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541504

Air Berlin v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbande: ECJ 15 Jan 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 – Air services – Second sentence of Article 23(1) – Price transparency – Computerised booking system – Air fares – Indication at all times of the final price

C-573/13, [2015] EUECJ C-573/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008

European, Consumer, Transport

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541492

Herculito Maritime Ltd and Others v Gunvor International Bv and Others ‘Polar’: CA 1 Dec 2021

Claim by the owner of the mv POLAR to recover cargo’s proportion of general average expenditure, the expenditure in question consisting of a ransom payment to pirates who had detained the vessel in the Gulf of Aden. The claim is defended by the cargo owners on the ground that the shipowner’s only remedy in the event of having to pay a ransom to pirates was to recover under the terms of insurance policies, the premium for which had been paid by the voyage charterer. Whether that is a good defence depends on the construction of the contract contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading, which incorporated the terms of the charterparty.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson,
Lord Justice Males,
And,
Sir Patrick Elias,
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
[2021] EWCA Civ 1828
Bailii
England and Wales

Contract, Transport

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.670254

Barreiro, Alonso, Rodriguez v Air France SA: ECJ 13 Oct 2011

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(l) – Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight – Meaning of ‘cancellation’ – Article 12 – Meaning of ‘further compensation’ – Compensation under national law

K Lenaerts, P
[2011] EUECJ C-83/10, [2012] Bus LR 1596
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
European
Citing:
Opinion – Barreiro, Alonso, Rodriguez v Air France ECJ 28-Jun-2011
barreiroECJ11
ECJ Air transport – Assistance, care and compensation for passengers – Meaning of ‘cancellation’ and ‘further compensation’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Consumer

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540514

Campbell v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd: CA 30 Oct 2014

The court was asked whether the provisions of paragraph 33(2) of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act excluded the application of the duties contained in section 29 of the 2010 Act to the provision of airport services at an airport outside the European Union (EU).

Vos, McCombe, Longmore LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1668, [2014] WLR(D) 454
Bailii, WLRD
Equality Act 2010 29, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006
England and Wales

Discrimination, Transport

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540484

Heli-Flight v EASA: ECFI 11 Dec 2014

ECJ Judgment – Civil Aviation – Application for approval of flight conditions for a type of Robinson R66 helicopter – Decision EASA – Action for annulment – Extent of review of the Board of Appeal – Court’s review of Scope – failure to act – Non-contractual liability ‘

T-102/13, [2014] EUECJ T-102/13
Bailii
European
Cited by:
See Also – Heli-Flight v EASA ECJ 27-Oct-2017
Procedure – Costs of costs – Legal fees – Representation of an institution by two lawyers – Participation of agents of the institution at the hearing – Recoverable costs . .
See Also – Heli-Flight v EASA ECJ 28-Jan-2016
ECJ Judgment – Appeal – Civil Aviation – Submissions flight conditions presented – Decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency – Rejection of application – compulsory preliminary administrative procedure – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539905

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport: CA 9 Dec 2014

[2014] EWCA Civ 1578
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another Admn 6-Aug-2014
The claimants objected to the proposed HS2 rail link seeking now judicial review of safeguarding arrangements made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539781

Siewert And Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH: ECJ 14 Nov 2014

ECJ Order Of The Court – Preliminary reference – Rules of Procedure – Article 99 – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Long delay of flights – Right passengers for compensation – Conditions for exemption of air carrier of its obligation to Compensation – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Jet damaged by a boarding escalator during a previous flight ‘

T. von Danwitz, P
C-394/14, [2014] EUECJ C-394/14 – CO, ECLI: EU: C: 2014: 2377
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
European

European, Transport, Consumer

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539176

Haeger and Schmidt GmbH v Mutuelles du Mans assurances IARD: ECJ 23 Oct 2014

ECJ Judgment – References for a preliminary ruling – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations – Article 4(1), (2), (4) and (5) – Law applicable by default – Commission contract for the carriage of goods – Contract for the carriage of goods

Ilesic P
C-305/13, [2014] EUECJ C-305/13
Bailii

European, Contract, Transport

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.538005

FI, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Oct 2014

The court was asked whether the use of control and restraint on persons being removed by aircraft from the United Kingdom is subject to a sufficient framework of safeguards to meet the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Sir Terence Etherton C, Richards, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1272
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Human Rights

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537464

The Anemone: 1987

Owners wished to let their vessel on time charter to Afram Line Limited but were unwilling to do so without a guarantee. The negotiations were conducted by Centre Shipping on behalf of owners and Dipgrove Holdings on behalf of charterers. It was agreed at an early stage of the negotiations that there would be a guarantee. Main terms but not the details were agreed by noon on 23 December 1983. The terms of a proposed guarantee were sent by telex to Shirlstar, the proposed guarantor, by Centre, soon after 12 noon on 23 December. Later in the afternoon in the course of a telephone conversation Mr Bott of Dipgrove confirmed to Mr Sorensen of Centre that Shirlstar was willing to give a guarantee in the terms proposed.
Held: The effect of the conversation was that Mr Bott on behalf of Shirlstar offered to guarantee the obligations of charterers if the owners entered into a charterparty with the main terms that had by then been agreed by Mr Bott and Mr Sorensen. That offer was one which could be accepted by the conclusion of such a charterparty. Before that happened, it might of course have been revoked. Thereafter negotiations continued on the details, with agreement being reached shortly after midnight on 23/24 December.
The typing of an alleged guarantor’s signature on a telex was ‘in writing and signed by the parties to be charged’ for the purposes of section 4: ‘I reached a provisional view in the course of the argument that the answerback of the sender of a telex would constitute a signature, whilst that of the receiver would not since it only authenticates the document and does not convey approval of the contents. But in the event the point does not arise.’

Staughton J
[1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 546
Statute of Frauds 1677 4
Citing:
Cited – Eccles v Bryant and Pollock CA 1947
The Plaintiff contended that a letter written by the purchaser’s solicitor which effectively set out the terms of the agreement, enclosed the part of the contract signed by the purchaser, and asked in exchange for the counter-part signed by the . .
Cited – Von Hatzfeldt-Wildensburg v Alexander ChD 26-Jul-1911
A purchaser wrote offering to purchase a house, saying acceptance was subject to her solicitor approving title, covenants, lease and form of contract.
Held: It was not a complete contract capable of enforcement: ‘It appears to be well settled . .

Cited by:
Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another CA 9-Mar-2012
The court was asked ‘whether a contract of guarantee is enforceable where contained not in a single document signed by the guarantor but in a series of documents duly authenticated by the signature of the guarantor. It is common in commercial . .
Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another CA 9-Mar-2012
The court was asked ‘whether a contract of guarantee is enforceable where contained not in a single document signed by the guarantor but in a series of documents duly authenticated by the signature of the guarantor. It is common in commercial . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.188228

Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer (Storm Emma): CA 3 Nov 2021

Provision allowing dock owners to limit liability for loss or damage to vessel- Definition of ‘dock’ including ‘stages, landing places and jetties’

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls
[2021] EWCA Civ 1585, [2021] Bus LR 1874
Bailii
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 191(9)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer and Others (Emma) AdCt 7-Jul-2020
Moorings in harbour were dock – limited liability
Several small vessels were moored in a marina, secured to floating pontoons. They were damaged in a bad storm. The claimants operated the marina under a lease, and now sought a declaration so as to limit their liability under s191 of the 1995 Act. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.669055

Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer and Others (Emma): AdCt 7 Jul 2020

Moorings in harbour were dock – limited liability

Several small vessels were moored in a marina, secured to floating pontoons. They were damaged in a bad storm. The claimants operated the marina under a lease, and now sought a declaration so as to limit their liability under s191 of the 1995 Act. The defendants said that the marina was not a dock within section 191(9).
Held: The court struck out the defence that the marina was not a dock. A dock is an enclosed space affording protection from the sea, and a place where passengers and goods could be transferred. While the dock itself did not meet that provision, the pontoons provided for mooring did. The section was created to allow dock owners to limit liability for damage to a vessels. This was balanced out by allowing vessel owners to limit their own liability to dock owners for damage which they might cause.

Teare J
[2020] EWHC 1750 (Admlty), [2020] WLR(D) 395
Bailii, WLRD
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 191
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Holyhead Marina Ltd v Farrer (Storm Emma) CA 3-Nov-2021
Provision allowing dock owners to limit liability for loss or damage to vessel- Definition of ‘dock’ including ‘stages, landing places and jetties’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.653116

Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti etc: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

ECJ Judgment – Requests for a preliminary ruling – Road transport – Amount of the minimum operating costs determined by a body representing the operators concerned – Association of undertakings – Restriction of competition – Public interest objective – Road safety – Proportionality

T. von Danwitz, P
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2147, C-184/13, [2014] EUECJ C-184/13
Bailii

European, Transport

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536442

Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 2, 5 and 7 – Right to compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight – Length of delay – Concept of ‘arrival time’

M. Safjan, P
C-452/13, [2014] EUECJ C-452/13
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

European, Transport, Consumer

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536450

Manchester Airports Holdings Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: Admn 20 Jul 2021

Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift
[2021] EWHC 2031 (Admin), [2021] WLR(D) 404
Bailii, WLRD
Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) Regulations 2021, Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
England and Wales

Transport, Health

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.666453

Scottish 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 jurisdiction of the cargo was ‘delivered’ in England.
Held: The cargo was delivered on being shipped, and the English court had jurisdiction. This was clear under section 32 of the 1979 Act.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 11
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 5(1)(b), Sale of Goods Act 1979 32(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Scottish and Newcastle International Ltd v Othon Ghalanos Ltd CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
Cited – Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop Ag. ECJ 6-Oct-1976
Europa The new member states are entitled to submit observations in the context of proceedings relating to the interpretation of one of the conventions, for which provision is made in article 220 of the Treaty, . .
Cited – Dunlop v Lambert HL 16-Jun-1839
A cargo of whisky was lost in carriage by sea between Leith and Newcastle. A second shipment was made and the loss was claimed. The House was asked whether ‘in a question between a carrier and the person to whom the carrier is responsible in the . .
Cited – Color Drack GmbH v LEXX International Vertriebs GmbH (Area Of Freedom, Security and Justice) ECJ 15-Feb-2007
Europa Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Article 5(1)(b) Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract Sale of goods Several places of delivery in a Member State.
The court explained the aim of the . .
Cited – P and O Nedlloyd B v Dampskibsselskabet Af, 1912, Aktieselskab, Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg v Utaniko Limited, East West Corporation CA 12-Feb-2003
The claimants shipped goods to Chile through the defendant shipping line. The goods were lost. The shippers rights of suit under the contract of carriage had been transferred to a third party.
Held: The shippers as the bank’s principals . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Owners of Cargo On K H Enterprise v Owners of Pioneer Container PC 29-Mar-1994
Owners who were claiming under a bailment must accept the terms of a sub-bailment to which it had agreed. This result is both principled and just. A sub-bailee can only be said for these purposes to have voluntarily taken into his possession the . .
Cited – Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders and Shippers QBD 1954
In testing whether a buyer of goods has acted inconsistently with the rights of the seller so as to lose the right of rejection where as in this case, property in the goods has passed to the buyer, the ownership of the seller with which the buyer . .
Cited – Morris v CW Martin Ltd CA 1966
Diplock LJ said: ‘The legal relationship of bailor and bailee of a chattel can exist independently of any contract.’ Where goods are lost or damaged, the burden is on the bailee (or sub-bailee) to ‘show – that the loss or damage caused without any . .
Cited – Albacruz (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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Transport

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.264639

Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade): HL 1983

The House considered giving relief from forfeiture where an owner had justifiably withdrawn his vessel in accordance with the terms of the charter.
Held: A withdrawal clause under a time charter, exercised on the ground of the charterer’s failure to make punctual payment of an instalment of hire, was not subject to the equitable right to relief against forfeiture, even though it involved the loss of a valuable charter. Such rights of withdrawal are usually exercised where the market rate of hire is substantially above the charter rate. The remedy of relief from forfeiture was unavailable in part because a Court of Equity would not grant specific performance in respect of it.
The House distinguished between merely contractual rights, and contracts concerning the transfer or creation of proprietary or possessory rights. The House warned against the wholesale importation into commercial law of equitable principles inconsistent with the certainty and speed which are essential requirements for the orderly conduct of business affairs.
An injunction restraining the ship owner from exercising his right of withdrawal of the vessel (a contractual right given to him under the charter) was to be equated with an order for specific performance.
Lord Diplock said: ‘A time charter, unless it is a charter by demise, with which your Lordships are not here concerned, transfers to the charterer no interest in or right to possession of the vessel; it is a contract for services to be rendered to the charterer by the shipowner through the use of the vessel by the shipowner’s own servants, the master and the crew, acting in accordance with such directions as to the cargoes to be loaded and the voyages to be undertaken as by the terms of the charterparty the charterer is entitled to give to them. Being a contract for services it is thus the very prototype of a contract of which before the fusion of law and equity a court would never grant specific performance: Clarke v Price (1819) 2 Wils. 157; Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 De G.M and G. 604. In the event of failure to render the promised services, the party to whom they were to be rendered would be left to pursue such remedies in damages for breach of contract as he might have at law. But as an unbroken line of uniform authority in this House, from Tankexpress [1949] A.C. 76 to A/S Awilco of Oslo v Fulvia S.p.A. di Navigazione of Cagliari (The Chikuma) [1981] 1 WLR 314, has held, if the withdrawal clause so provides, the shipowner is entitled to withdraw the services of the vessel from the charterer if the latter fails to pay an instalment of hire in precise compliance with the provisions of the charter. So the shipowner commits no breach of contract if he does so; and the charterer has no remedy in damages against him. To grant an injunction restraining the shipowner from exercising his right of withdrawal of the vessel from the service of the charterer, though negative in form, is pregnant with an affirmative order to the shipowner to perform the contract; juristically it is indistinguishable from a decree for specific performance of a contract to render services; and in respect of that category of contracts, even in the event of breach, this is a remedy that English courts have always disclaimed any jurisdiction to grant. This is, in my view, sufficient reason in itself to compel rejection of the suggestion that the equitable principle of relief from forfeiture is juristically capable of extension so as to grant to the court a discretion to prevent a shipowner from exercising his strict contractual rights under a withdrawal clause in a time charter which is not a charter by demise.’
Lord Diplock said that his judgment was concerned only with time charters that were not by demise: ‘the reasoning in my speech has been directed exclusively to time charters that are not by demise. Identical considerations would not be applicable to bareboat charters and it would in my view be unwise for your Lordships to express any views about them.’
. . And: ‘The classic form of penalty clause is one which provides that upon breach of a primary obligation under the contract a secondary obligation shall arise on the part of the party in breach to pay to the other party a sum of money which does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss likely to be sustained by him as the result of the breach of primary obligation but is substantially in excess of that sum. The classic form of relief against such a penalty clause has been to refuse to give effect to it, but to award the common law measure of damages for the breach of primary obligation instead.’

Diplock, Keith of Kinkel, Scarman, Roskill and Bridge of Harwick LL
[1983] 2 AC 694, [1983] 2 AC 694, [1983] 2 All ER 763, [1983] 3 WLR 203
England and Wales
Citing:
Affirmed – Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) CA 1983
Charterers of a ship sought refielf from forfeiture of the charterparty on equitable grounds.
Held: No jurisdiction existed to grant such a rlief. In a commercial agreement between commercial parties, the court had no jurisdiction to relieve a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lady Navigation Inc v Lauritzencool Ab and Another CA 17-May-2005
The shipowner appealed the award against them of an injunction requiring them not to act inconsistently with a time charterparty. The company said that such a form of order was improper.
Held: The existence of the contract to do what was . .
Applied – Sport International Bussum BV v Inter-Footwear Ltd HL 2-Jan-1984
A contractual licence was granted to use names and trademarks for sports shoes. An earlier action between the parties had been stayed on the terms scheduled to a Tomlin order, which provided for Inter-Footwear to pay a sum in instalments and to have . .
Cited – Sport Internationaal Bussum BV v Inter-Footwear Ltd CA 1984
There had been a contractual licence to use names and trademarks for sports shoes. An earlier action between the parties had been stayed on the terms scheduled to a Tomlin order, which provided for Inter-Footwear to pay andpound;105,000 in three . .
Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages, Contract, Equity

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.225442

Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co: QBD 1954

Under a classic FOB contract, a seller places the goods on board the ship, and procures a bill of lading in terms usual in the trade. The buyer nominates the shipper and bears all the expenses associated with the vessel including port charges, freight, customs duties, storage and arrivals charges. However, the parties to the contract of carriage can by express agreement depart from or vary their respective responsibilities. Devlin J said: ‘. The phrase ‘shall properly and carefully load’ may mean that the carrier shall load and that he shall do it properly and carefully: or that he shall do whatever loading he does properly and carefully. The former interpretation perhaps fits the language more closely, but the latter may be more consistent with the object of the rules. Their object as it is put, I think, correctly in Carver’s Carriage of Goods by Sea, 9th ed. (1952), p. 186, is to define not the scope of the contract service but the terms on which that service is to be performed. The extent to which the carrier has to undertake the loading of the vessel may depend not only upon different systems of law but upon the custom and practice of the port and the nature of the cargo. It is difficult to believe that the rules were intended to impose a universal rigidity in this respect, or to deny freedom of contract to the carrier. The carrier is practically bound to play some part in the loading and discharging, so that both operations are naturally included in those covered by the contract of carriage. But I see no reason why the rules should not leave the parties free to determine by their own contract the part which each has to play. On this view the whole contract of carriage is subject to the rules, but the extent to which loading and discharging are brought within the carrier’s obligations is left to the parties themselves to decide. ‘

Devlin J
[1954] 2 QB 402, [1954] 2 WLR 1005, [1954] 1 Lloyds Rep 321, [1954] 2 All ER 158
Hague-Visby Rules
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’ CA 17-May-2002
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.181086

Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’: CA 17 May 2002

There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should be read so as to reflect the clearly expressed intention of the parties. The bill of lading is the bedrock on which the mandatory code is founded. Did it contain the terms required. This was a contract for carriage, and not a charterparty. The rules did therefore apply obligatorily, the limitation of liability applied, and the appeal succeeded.

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Tuckey And Lord Justice Rix
[2002] EWCA Civ 694, [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 357, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 24, [2003] 1 CLC 122
Bailii
Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1971
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Adamastos Shipping v Anglo Saxon Petroleum HL 1959
Where the terms of a statute are incorporated into a contract by reference, the contract has to be read as if the words of the statute are written out in the contract and construed, as a matter of contract, in that contractual context. The Hague . .
Cited – Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co QBD 1954
Under a classic FOB contract, a seller places the goods on board the ship, and procures a bill of lading in terms usual in the trade. The buyer nominates the shipper and bears all the expenses associated with the vessel including port charges, . .
Distinguished – President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co (The ‘Dunelmia’) CA 1970
Voyage charterers and owners disputed whether a claim for short delivery was subject to the jurisdiction clause in the charter party or in the bills of lading.
Held: As the charter party authorised the master to sign the bill of lading . .
Distinguished – The Chitral 2000
The PNSC bill of lading named the consignee of goods carried on the defendant’s vessel. Goods were damaged during the voyage. The bill of lading was otherwise in conventional form, but the box in which the consignee was to be named said ‘If order . .

Cited by:
Cited – Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another CA 3-Apr-2003
The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied.
Held: It . .
Cited – J 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.171284

Stichting Cartel Compensation and Equilib Netherlands (Judgment): ECJ 11 Nov 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 81, 84 and 85 EC – Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Agreements – Conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between the European Economic Area (EEA) and third countries which have taken place under the rule of Articles 84 and 85 EC – Action for compensation for damage – Competence of national courts to apply Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

C-819/19, [2021] EUECJ C-819/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:904
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.670050

HS2 Action Alliance Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: Admn 6 Aug 2014

The claimants objected to the proposed HS2 rail link seeking now judicial review of safeguarding arrangements made.

Lindblom J
[2014] EWHC 2759 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport CA 9-Dec-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535656