Category: Transport

Wilson; 7 Nov 1834

References: , [1834] EngR 993, (1834) 6 Car & P 605, (1834) 172 ER 1384
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Lyndhurst, C B, Parke, B, Alderson, B, Gurney, B
Wilson applied for a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, on two grounds – first, that the verdict was against evldence , and, second, that the survey of the manor was receivable in evldence to prove the plaintiff’s title to wreck.

Sanders, Snow and Cockings v Vanzeller; 2 Feb 1843

References: (1843) 4 QB 260, [1843] EngR 316, (1843) 114 ER 897
Links: Commonlii
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading
This case is cited by:

El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA; 10 Aug 2004

References: [2004] FCAFC 202, [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537
Links: Austilii
Coram: Black, Beaumont, Allsop JJ
(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’ – where ‘normal value’ of goods at destination not determined. ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – limitation of liability – bill of lading – how to treat posters and prints enumerated as ‘pieces’ – whether an enumeration of packages or units – whether contractual limitation applies. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – construction of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth), Art 4 Rule 5(c) – meaning of ‘enumeration of packages or units’ – meaning of ‘as packed’.
This case is cited by:

Voaden v Champion, ‘The Baltic Surveyor’: 2001

References: [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 739
Coram: Colman J
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Voaden -v- Champion ( ‘Baltic Surveyor’ ) CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 89, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623)
    The ‘Baltic Surveyor’ was lost at its moorings in a storm. A neighbouring ship had been negligently secured, and freed itself and sank the Baltic Surveyor. The owner appealed findings as to the value of the boat, and securing pontoon. She asserted . .

The ‘Rosa S’: 1988

References: [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 574
Coram: Hobhouse J
THe effect of article IX is to make plain that what article IV rule 5 refers to is the gold value of the pound sterling not its nominal or paper value. ‘Fortunately for carriers this result is not disastrous, as most nations where Hague Rules are still mandatorily applicable have converted the package limitation into local currency instead of using the gold limitation. However, great care is needed in drafting bill of lading contracts (which usually contractually apply Hague Rules to shipments from those nations that have no mandatorily applicable law) to write in only Articles I to VIII of the Hague Rules and then provide separately for a package limitation of £100 (or whatever), thereby avoiding the ‘Gold Clause’ trap.’
Statutes: Hague Rules
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dairy Containers Ltd -v- Tasman Orient Line Cv PC (PC, Bailii, [2004] UKPC 22)
    PC (New Zealand) The appeal concerned the correct interpretation of a damage limitation clause in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea.
    Held: Clause 6(B)(b)(i) must be construed in the context of the . .

El Al Israel Airlines Ltd v Tsui Yuan Tseng; 16 Sep 1997

References: (1999) 525 US 155, 919 FSupp 155, 147 ALRFed 783, 65 USLW 2817, 142 L Ed 2d 576, 119 SCt 662, 122 F3d 99
Links: USSC
(US Supreme Court) The Warsaw Convention should be applied in a consistent manner internationally, without reference to the local laws of the high contracting parties.
Statutes: Warsaw Convention 29
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barclay -v- British Airways Plc CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1419, Times)
    The claimant sought damages for personal injury. The airline said that the injury was not the result of an accident within article 17.1. She was walking down the aisle and slipped.
    Held: The appeal was dismissed. The meaning of ‘accident’ . .

Bridge Oil Ltd v The Owners and/or demise charters of the Ship ‘Guiseppe Di Vittorio’ (No. 2): CA 1998

References: [1998] CLC 165
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

Havelet Leasing Ltd v Cardiff-Wales Airport Ltd; 29 Jun 1988

References: 29 June 1988, (unreported)
Coram: Phillips J.
In order to exercise the statutory power of detention, of an aircraft the airport had to do some overt act evidencing the act of detention. Detention by an airport authority must be begun by some overt act. Such act need take no particular form. A simple declaration that the aircraft was detained, had it been made to [the operator], would have sufficed; so would an administrative act that would de facto have prevented the aircraft from being flown from the airport. In this case the fixing to the aircraft of a ‘lien notice’ was an act of detention.
Statutes: Civil Aviation Act 1982
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bristol Airport Plc and Another -v- Powdrill and Others CA (lip, [1990] 2 WLR 1362, [1990] Ch 744, [1990] BCLC 585)
    An airline company went into administration. The airport seized two airplanes. The administrators claimed they were property within the administration, could not be seized without a court order, and the court should exercise its discretion not to . .

Naviera Mogor SA v Societe Metallurgique de Normandie: ‘The Nogar Marin’: CA 1988

References: [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412
Coram: Mustill LJ
It is the duty of the Master (or his agent) to ensure that the description of the cargo and the condition of the cargo as set out in the bill of lading are accurate before he signs it. It is up to the charterer/shipper how the goods are described in the Mate’s receipts and bill of lading.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Sea Success Maritime Inc -v- African Maritime Carriers Ltd ComC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1542 (Comm), Times 06-Sep-05)
    The ship’s master had refused to accept the cargo relying on clause 52 of the standard form charterpraty agreement saying that the cargo had been damaged.
    Held: Only if the shippers continued to insist on the description, and the master . .

Nickel and Goeldner Spedition GmbH v ‘Kintra’ UAB: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

References: C-157/13, [2014] EUECJ C-157/13
Links: Bailii
Coram: A. Tizzano, P
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Article 3(1) – Concept of an ‘action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings’ – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(2)(b) – Concept of ‘bankruptcy’ – Action for payment of a debt brought by the insolvency administrator – Debt arising out of the international carriage of goods – Relationship between Regulations Nos 1346/2000 and 44/2001 and the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR)
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 3(1), Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 1(2)(b), Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road

Boukadoura Maritime Corporation v Societe Anonyme Marocaine de L’Industrie et due Raffinage: ‘The BOUKADOURA’: 1989

References: [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.393
Coram: Evans J
A claused bill of lading is one which qualifies the apparent good order and condition of the cargo as described in the bill of lading.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Sea Success Maritime Inc -v- African Maritime Carriers Ltd ComC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1542 (Comm), Times 06-Sep-05)
    The ship’s master had refused to accept the cargo relying on clause 52 of the standard form charterpraty agreement saying that the cargo had been damaged.
    Held: Only if the shippers continued to insist on the description, and the master . .

Black and Others v Arriva North East Ltd; 1 May 2013

References: Unreported, 1 May 2013
Coram: Bowers HHJ
Middlesborough County Court. The claimants complained of a policy by the defendant bus company as to the use of wheelchair spaces on buses in that disabled users were not given absolute priority above buggy users.
Held: The company were not guilty of unlawful discrimination.
Statutes: Equality Act 2010
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Firstgroup Plc -v- Paulley CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1573)
    The claimant a wheelchair user had been unable to travel on a bus when a mother had left her sleeping child in a pushchair. The mother said she was unable to fold down the pushchair, and would not move the child. The claimant said that the driver . .
  • Cited – Firstgroup Plc -v- Paulley CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1573)
    The claimant a wheelchair user had been unable to travel on a bus when a mother had left her sleeping child in a pushchair. The mother said she was unable to fold down the pushchair, and would not move the child. The claimant said that the driver . .

Freeman v Read; 4 Jun 1863

References: [1863] EngR 643, (1863) 4 B & S 174, (1863) 122 ER 425
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Cockburn CJ
When the relevant period for the giving of a notice is a month or specified number of months after the giving of a notice, the general rule is that the period ends upon the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month, ie the day of that month that bears the same number as the day of the earlier month on which the notice was given. Cockburn CJ described the rule as ‘in accordance with common usage . . and with the sense of mankind’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dodds -v- Walker HL ([1981] 1 WLR 1027, [1981] 2 All ER 609)
    The landlord served his notice to determine the tenancy on the last day of a 30 day month. The tenant served his counternotice on the 31st day of the month four months later.
    Held: Dismissing the tenant’s appeal, the House found that the court . .
  • Cited – O’ Connor Utilities Ltd -v- HMRC Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 3704 (Admin), [2010] STI 624, [2010] STC 682)
    . .

SIB International SRL v Metallgesellschaft Corporation (‘The Noel Bay’): CA 1989

References: [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 361
Coram: Staughton LJ
The Noel Bay was let on a charterparty to carry oil between ports in Europe, with demurrage provisions. The owners treated the charterer’s failure to nominate a port, as a repudiation. The owners found alternative employment for the ship and sought the difference in return as damages and demurrage for 72 hours which they would have earned together with the cost of getting the ship to the new port. They appealed refusal of the award of these additional sums.
Held: The appeal failed. Though they would have earned the demurrage had the contract continued, since it had not been, the proper basis for delay, giving credit for earnings in that period. The cost of getting the ship to the new port (the approach voyage) was part of the cost of the new contract for which the owner had to give credit. Staughton LJ accepted counsel’s submission that the value of the contract which the owners lost ‘must be assessed as at . . the date when repudiation was accepted’ and ‘It is established law that, at any rate if the option has not already been exercised at the date of the breach, the charterer must be assumed to have exercised that option in a way most favourable to himself.’
This case cites:

  • Approved (Megaw LJ) – Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA -v- BergbauHandel GmbH (The Mihalis Angelos) CA ([1971] 1 QB 164, Bailii, [1970] EWCA Civ 4, [1970] 3 WLR 601, [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 43, [1970] 3 All ER 125)
    The parties had agreed a charterparty. The ship was to sail to Haiphong to load a cargo for delivery in Europe. The charterer had a right to cancel if the vessel was not ready on a certain date, but a few days earlier they repudiated the charter. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Golden Strait Corporation -v- Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 12, Times 30-Mar-07, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164, [2007] Bus LR 997, [2007] 3 All ER 1, [2007] 2 AC 353, [2007] 1 CLC 352, [2007] 2 WLR 691, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)
    The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .

The ‘Spontaneity’: 1962

References: [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460
Where the negligence of vessel X caused vessel Y to run aground, vessel X was not liable for such damages as were attributable to the subsequent, clearly separate and negligent re-floating of vessel Y. The original negligence of vessel X had ceased to be operative.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Borealis Ab -v- Geogas Trading Sa ComC (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 2789 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 482)
    The parties had contracted for sale and purchase of butane for processing. It was said to have been contaminated. The parties now disputed the effect on damages for breach including on causation, remoteness, mitigation and quantum.
    Held: The . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 28-Feb-16 Ref: 425892

Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’): CA 1919

References: [1919] 2 KB 670
Coram: Bailhache J
(Year?) The steamship was insured under a time policy against perils of the sea and stranding, and under further insurance against risks excluded under the first, particularly risks of hostile action. It was in a convoy of four ships zig zagging in the dark under the command of a naval officer to avoid possible torpedos. The court considered whether a merchant ship had been acting when in convoy as a military vessel: ‘sailing in convoy on a chosen route and taking precautionary measures [zig-zagging] necessary because of the presence of hostile submarines had led to the vessel being stranded. It was subsequently torpedoed’.
Held: There was no negligence on the part of the ship’s master or of the naval officer. The loss was not he proximate consequence of warlike operations, and responsibilty fell on the insurers, and not the King.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 19-Jan-16 Ref: 237696

A Meredith Jones and Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd (The Apostolis”): CA 11 Jul 2000″

References: [2000] EWCA Civ 213, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 337, [2000] CLC 1488
Links: Bailii
Coram: Waller LJ,
The proper construction of a contractual clause must not consider that clause in isolation, but must consider the clause in the context of the contract as a whole.
This case cites:

This case is cited by: