Category: Transport

Burrell v Simpson and Co and Others: HL 13 Dec 1878

Two steamships belonging to the same owner came into collision. One was sunk, the fault being solely attributable to the other. In a petition, brought under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1854 and 1862, for a limitation of the liability of the petitioner qua owner of the offending vessel, and for a ranking of claimants upon the fund- held ( rev. the Court of Session) that the right of the underwriters on a total loss was merely to make such claim of damages as the insured himself could have made, and that if the person insured, as in this case, caused the damage, a claim by the underwriters was not maintainable.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, Lord Penzance, Lord Blackburn, and Lord Gordon

Citations:

[1878] UKHL 293, 15 SLR 293

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.646315

Haltergemeinschaft v Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf: ECJ 21 Dec 2011

ECJ Directive 2003/96/EC – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Article 14, paragraph 1, b) – Exemption of energy products used as fuel for aircraft navigation – Fuel provided by the lessor of an aircraft used by charterers of it for their flights for purposes other than providing an air service for consideration

Judges:

Bonichot P

Citations:

C-250/10, [2011] EUECJ C-250/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2003/96/EC

European, Utilities, Transport

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452816

Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others: ComC 29 Mar 2012

Trial of preliminary issues in an action in which the Claimant claims under its war risks insurance for the constructive total loss of the vessel ‘B Atlantic’ (‘the Vessel’). Between 7 and 12 August 2007 the Vessel loaded a cargo of coal at Maracaibo, Venezuela, for carriage to Italy in the course of routine trading. The following day, 13 August 2007, a pre-departure inspection by the Venezuelan authorities discovered 3 bags of cocaine strapped to her hull below the waterline. The Vessel has been detained in Venezuela ever since then.

Judges:

Hamblen J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 802 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Preliminary Issues – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 8-Dec-2014
The claimant’s vessel and its crew had been detained after illegal drugs were found to be attached to its hull in port in Venezuela by ship crew members. The ship owners asserted effective total loss.
Held: The owners were entitled to recover . .
Preliminary Issues ComC – Atlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others CA 1-Aug-2016
(The B Atlantic) The court was asked whether Flaux J was right to find that the owners of a ship were entitled to be indemnified by the insurers in respect of the constructive total loss of the vessel under war insurance after detention ‘by reason . .
Preliminary Issues ComC – Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452389

Moore v British Waterways Board: ChD 10 Feb 2012

The claimant said that the defendant did not have the powers it claimed in serving notices requiring him to remove boats from a section of the Grand Union Canal.
Held: The respondent did have the power under section 8 of the 1983 Act. As a riparian owner, but having no interest in the bed of the canal, at common law there was no positive riparian right to moor vessels permanently.

Judges:

Hildyard J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 182 (Ch), [2012] 1 WLR 3289

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Waterways Act 1983, Grand Junction Canal Act 1793

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Moore v British Waterways Board ChD 12-Mar-2009
. .
See Also – Moore v British Waterways Board CA 5-Feb-2010
The claimant sought the right to moor his houseboats on the Grand Union Canal, a waterway regulated by the defendant who issued licences. The claimant said that rights granted under the 1793 Act survived the new scheme. The defendant said that a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Moore v British Waterways Board CA 14-Feb-2013
The claimant resisted an attempt by the respondent to enforce the removal of his four vessels on a stretch of the Grand Union Canal at Brentford. He was the riparian owner, but did not own any part of the bed.
Held: His appeal was allowed. . .
Cited – Ravenscroft v Canal and River Trust ChD 14-Sep-2016
Special Circumstances to appoint McKenzie Friend
An application was made to have a nominated person appointed as McKenzie friend and as advocate for the claimant. The claimant’s narrow boat had been seized by the defendant for non payment of licence fees and for not having a Pleasure Boat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451435

Crown Prosecution Service v Inegbu: Admn 26 Nov 2008

The CPS appealed aganst a decision on a charge under the railway byelaws, that the charge be dismissed, the prosecution not having formally proved in accordance with any applicable statutory provision. The byelaws had in fact been properly introduced, but the 2000 Act had been repealed and replaced by the 2005 Act. The certificate provided had been made under the 2000 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Davis J said: ‘If there is here a seeming lacuna in the legislation, plainly not filling Parliament’s intention, I think that in this particular case it can be properly filled by the court by a process of interpretation: and section 46(4) of the 2005 Act in my view is, on its wording, sufficient to convey the continuing applicability of Schedule 20 to byelaws made under the 2000 Act which continue in effect.’
Latham LJ said: ‘the intention of Parliament can be clearly gleaned from the structure of the amended legislation which envisaged that the byelaws would continue in effect, which could only be an effective provision if continued together with the procedural provisions in Schedule 2. It seems to me that there is no need to go, therefore, beyond section 46(4) in order to provide the right answer.’

Judges:

Latham LJ, Davis J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3242 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2327

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 2000 219, Railways Act 2005, Interpretation Act 1978 16 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates Court and others Admn 18-Jul-2006
The defendants were said to have been found in possession of false passports. They successfully argued that the offence charged under the 1981 Act had been repealed by the 2006 Act. The prosecutor argued that a Schedule only came into effect when . .
Cited – Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
Cited – Floor v Davis (Inspector of Taxes) HL 1979
The House considered whether the meaning of the phrase ‘a person having control’ extended to control by more than one person. This depended on whether the word ‘person’ in the singular was to be construed as including the plural.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Transport

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.293930

Sang Stone Hamoon Jonoub Co Ltd v Baoyue Shipping Co Ltd ‘Bao Yue’: ComC 31 Jul 2015

Claim for the conversion of a cargo of iron ore carried from Bandar Abbas in Iran to Tianjin in China on board the defendant’s vessel ‘Bao Yue’ in February and March 2012 and a counterclaim for storage charges incurred on the cargo.

Judges:

Males J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2288 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.552794

Westbahn Management Gmbh v Obb-Infrastruktur Ag: ECJ 22 Nov 2012

ECJ Transport – Rail transport – Obligation of the railway infrastructure manager to provide railway undertakings in real time with all information concerning train movements, in particular information on delays to connecting trains

Judges:

Tizzano P

Citations:

C-136/11, [2012] EUECJ C-136/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.466013

Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd and Another: CA 7 Feb 2012

The claimants were disabled and, despite promises, had not had their seating needs met when flying with the defendants.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ VP CA, Sullivan LJ, Janet Smith Dame

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 66

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006, Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007 S1 2007/1895, Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 28 May 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina, ex parte International Air Transport Association, European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport ECJ 10-Jan-2006
ECJ Carriage by air – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5, 6 and 7 -Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Validity – . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd SC 5-Mar-2014
The Court was asked whether a person may recover damages for discomfort and injury to feelings caused by a breach of the 2007 Regulations, which implement EC Regulation No. 1107/2006. The disabled passenger claimant alleged failure by the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Discrimination

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450589

The 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 the shipper on arrival in Stettin to arrange for the goods to be sent on by lighter to Manasse. No bill of lading was produced by him for delivery, however, and the shipper was not paid. The shipper sued the carrier for misdelivery of the goods. The defendant shipowner’s said that where there was a named consignee ‘or order’ but the consignee did not endorse the bill (as in that case), the effect was the same as a straight bill of lading. The shipowner could deliver to the consignee without production of a bill of lading unless told by the shipper not to do so, taking the risk, presumably as against an endorsee, of whether there had been an endorsement or not.
Held: German law does not essentially differ from English law, according to which a shipowner may not deliver goods to the consignee without production of the bill of lading. The shipowner must take the consequences.

Citations:

(1889) 14 PD 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.181894

The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company (SS) Limited v Singapore Harbour Board: PC 10 Jun 1952

(Singapore) The parties disputed liability for damage to 17 tyres belonging to the plaintiff received in the harbour operated by the defendant but never delivered. The defendant claimed the protection of an Ordinance requiring any claim to be made within six months. To claim that protection, the defendant had to establish that in receiving the tyres, it was doing an act ‘in pursuance of any public duty or authority’.
Held: The Company’s appeal failed.
To claim the defence, the act must be in the discharge of a public duty. In deciding this it will sometimes be relevant go ask whether the contract had been entered into voluntarily but the existence of a contract as such is not decisive to exclude the defence. Some effect must be given to the word ‘authority’.
In this case, the Board was under a duty to provide the harbour services, and these included warehousing as a normal adjunct.

Judges:

Mormand, Tucker, Asquith of Bishopstone, Cohen LL

Citations:

[1952] UKPC 17, 50 LGR 619, [1952] 1 TLR 1625, [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, [1952] AC 452, [1952] 2 All ER 219

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Transport, Limitation, Administrative

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445963

Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another: QBD 2015

The sip had been taken by pirates. The parties disputed the burden of expenses while negotiations took place for its release.
Held: the hypothetical other expense must be one which would have been reasonably incurred in a sense ‘interpreted and applied with a sufficient degree of latitude to give rule F practical effect’. The deputy judge found difficulty in seeing how any ransom payment could be described as reasonable: ‘At least in one sense, no ransom payment could ever be described as ‘reasonable’. Pirates are criminals engaged in extortion and their demands are unlawful and deplorable. How can a payment extorted by pirates be described as ‘reasonable’? In my view, it cannot. The idea of a ‘reasonable ransom’ is radically misconceived and the term an oxymoron.’
It would not be reasonable to say that an owner under an obligation to proceed with due despatch had not reasonably incurred a ransom paid. He went on: ‘Even if it may be said that, by January 2009, a pattern of dealing between Somali pirates and shipowners had developed, as described by David Steel J in Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd (The Bunga Melati Dua) [2010] 2 All ER 593′ [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 509 at paras 19, 23, 25 and 26 (affirmed on appeal: [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 630; [2011] 1 WLR 2012), such a pattern would not remove the potential for unreasonable, irrational and illogical behaviour.’
Negotiation is an uncertain process and it ‘was not possible to state with reasonable certainty when the ransom demand was made that the amount of the ransom would inevitably be significantly reduced by the process of negotiation’. Whether or not it is ‘possible to state with reasonable certainty’ that a negotiation will achieve significant success cannot however be the test of whether or not negotiation should reasonably be essayed. The deputy judge also derived comfort from his conclusion on this point from the consideration that ‘natural justice requires that all should contribute to the substituted expenses incurred’

Citations:

[2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 73

Statutes:

York Antwerp Rules 1974 F

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another SC 25-Oct-2017
This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared . .
At First Instance – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg and Others CA 13-Jul-2016
The court was asked whether the general expenses incurred when a ship was taken by pirates were allowable in General Average while the negotiations for release took place. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.645852

Marida Ltd v Oswal Steel (The Bijela): CA 1993

Hoffmann LJ dissented

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 411

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another SC 25-Oct-2017
This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.645851

Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg and Others: CA 13 Jul 2016

The court was asked whether the general expenses incurred when a ship was taken by pirates were allowable in General Average while the negotiations for release took place.

Judges:

Kitchin, Hamblen LJJ, Sir Thomas Lloyd

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 708, [2016] WLR(D) 390, [2016] Bus LR 1285

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

York Antwerp Rules 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another QBD 2015
The sip had been taken by pirates. The parties disputed the burden of expenses while negotiations took place for its release.
Held: the hypothetical other expense must be one which would have been reasonably incurred in a sense ‘interpreted . .

Cited by:

At CA – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another SC 25-Oct-2017
This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.566888

Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another: SC 25 Oct 2017

This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared proportionately between all those whose property and entitlements were imperilled as a result of that seizure – or whether they must be borne by the shipowner alone. The Appellants submitted that the negotiation period expenses fell within the expression ‘expense incurred’ by the owners within Rule F and those expenses were incurred ‘in place of another expense’ (i.e. the $4.15m saved as a result of the negotiations with the pirates). Further, the negotiation period expenses were less than the ‘general average expense avoided’ and it thereby followed that they were properly allowable under Rule F.
Held: (Lord Mance dissenting on the facts) The appeal succeeded. The Courts below had incorrectly assumed that the owners had to establish that it would have been reasonable to accept the pirates’ initial demand in order to justify the contention that the negotiation period expenses were allowable under Rule F. If accepted, this would lead to odd results, meaning that, where a ship-owner incurs expense to avoid paying a reasonable sum, he can in principle recover under Rule F, but that if he incurs expense to avoid paying
an unreasonable sum (i.e. a larger sum), he cannot recover.
Lord Neuberger said: ‘the reference to an ‘expense which would have been allowable’ is to an expense of a nature which would have been allowable. First, the word ‘allowable’ in Rule F naturally takes one to Rule C, where the similar word ‘allowed’ is used, rather than Rule A, where there is no reference to anything being ‘allowed’ (the same point applies to the French version – ‘admissible’ in Rule F and ‘admis’ in Rule C). Unlike Rule A, Rule C is concerned purely with the type of expense, and not with quantum. Secondly, the opening part of Rule F is unlikely to be concerned with quantum, as that is dealt with in the closing part, which imposes a cap on a sum recoverable under Rule F, namely ‘only up to the amount of the general average expense avoided’. Thirdly, the interpretation assumed in the courts below imposes an unnecessary fetter on the allowability of an ‘extra expense’, as there is already a reasonable fetter in the concluding part of Rule F. Fourthly, the interpretation I favour produces an entirely rational outcome: whenever an expense is incurred to avoid a sum of a type which would be allowable, that expense would be allowable, but only to the extent that it does not exceed the sum avoided.’
Lord Sumption said: ‘The York-Antwerp Rules have a status in shipping law similar to that of the Uniform Customs and Practices in the law relating to documentary credits. They depend wholly on contractual incorporation for their binding force. But they are designed to create a body of principle applicable internationally in a uniform way, although incorporated in shipping agreements of different kinds, governed by different laws. It will therefore rarely if ever be appropriate to imply matter into them which is not apparent from the natural meaning of the words, unless the implication is necessary to make them workable or intelligible or to avoid absurdity. Rule F is simplicity itself. It provides for the allowance of expenditure which is not allowable as general average expenditure but has successfully mitigated expenditure or sacrifice which would have been allowable as general average. The cost of maintaining the ship and crew during a period of delay which would not have occurred but for the peril but was necessary to enable the ransom to be reduced, is deemed to be general average up to the amount of the reduction.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 68, [2017] Bus LR 1909, [2017] WLR(D) 703, UKSC 2016/0164

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170717 am Video, SC 20170717 pm Video, SC 20170718 am Video, SC 20170718 pm Video

Statutes:

York Antwerp Rules 1974 F

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Birkley and Others v Presgrave 3-Feb-1801
An action upon promises lies by a ship owner to recover from the owner of the cargo his proportion of general average loss incurred by sacrificing the tackle belonging to a ship for an unusual purpose, or on an extraordinary occasion of danger, for . .
Cited – James Buchanan and Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd HL 1978
A consignment of whisky was stolen whilst on consignemt from a bonded warehouse under CMR terms for Teheran. In bond, it was worth 7,000 pounds, and on export no excise duty was to be paid. Being stolen in the course of transit, excise duty of . .
Cited – Marida Ltd v Oswal Steel (The Bijela) CA 1993
Hoffmann LJ dissented . .
Cited – King 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 . .
At First Instance – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another QBD 2015
The sip had been taken by pirates. The parties disputed the burden of expenses while negotiations took place for its release.
Held: the hypothetical other expense must be one which would have been reasonably incurred in a sense ‘interpreted . .
At CA – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg and Others CA 13-Jul-2016
The court was asked whether the general expenses incurred when a ship was taken by pirates were allowable in General Average while the negotiations for release took place. . .
Cited – Marida Ltd and Others v Oswal Steel and Others (The Bijela) HL 2-May-1994
Ship owners may claim for the cost of interim repairs in average, but still subject to the overall limits imposed by the rules. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.597669

Theresa Libra, The Owners of The Ship v Ship MSC Pamela, The Owners of The Ship: AdCt 19 Sep 2013

The parties had entered into an agreement apportioning liability after a collision between two ships, but without settling the sums involved. The defendanats now asserted that the claim was out of time under the 1995 Act.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2792 (Admlty)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995 190

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Limitation

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.515321

Walton and Others v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 11 Aug 2011

Outer House – Opinion

Judges:

Lord Tyre

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 131, [2011] CSOH 131, 2011 SCLR 686, 2011 GWD 34-703

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

Cited by:

At Outer House – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
At Outer House – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SCS 29-Feb-2012
The reclaimer challenged the making of several orders redesignating roads around the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Transport, European

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442726

Birkley and Others v Presgrave: 3 Feb 1801

An action upon promises lies by a ship owner to recover from the owner of the cargo his proportion of general average loss incurred by sacrificing the tackle belonging to a ship for an unusual purpose, or on an extraordinary occasion of danger, for the benefit of the whole concern.

Judges:

Lawrence J

Citations:

[1801] EngR 117, (1801) 1 East 220, (1801) 102 ER 86

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another SC 25-Oct-2017
This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.345363

Hammond and Brown and King v Bristow Helicopters Limited: SCS 13 Nov 1998

Three actions arising from three separate incidents which occurred when the respective pursuers were passengers on board helicopters operated by the defenders, Bristow Helicopters Limited, serving North Sea Oil Platforms and Installations.

Citations:

[1998] ScotCS 66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.163382

Commission v Luxembourg C-481/03: ECJ 30 Sep 2004

ECJ (Transport) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directives 2001/12 / EC and 2001/13 / EC – Community railways – Development – Level playing, uniform and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure – Licensing of railway undertakings – Common scheme – Failure -transposition within the prescribed period

Citations:

C-481/03, [2004] EUECJ C-481/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.214653

Port Swettenham Authority v T W Wu and Co (M) Sdn Bhd: PC 19 Jun 1978

A gratuitous bailee assumes a duty to take reasonable care of the chattel: ‘This standard, although high, may be a less exacting standard than that which the common law requires of a bailee for reward [but] the line between the two standards is a very fine line, difficult to discern and impossible to define.’
‘When, a bailee puts goods which have been bailed to him in the care of his servants for safe custody, there can be no doubt that the bailee is responsible if the goods are lost through any failure of those servants to take proper care of the goods . . Cheshire v Bailey [1905] 1 KB 237 laid down the startling proposition of law that a master who was under a duty to guard another’s goods was liable if the servant he sent to perform the duty for him performed it so negligently as to enable thieves to steal the goods, but was not liable if that servant joined with the thieves in the very theft. This proposition is clearly contrary to principle and common sense, and to the law: Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716,740. Their Lordships agree with the decision in Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd and consider that Cheshire v Bailey mis-stated the common law.’

Citations:

[1979] AC 580, [1978] UKPC 13, [1978] 3 WLR 530, [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 11, [1978] 3 All ER 337

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Morris v C W Martin and Sons Ltd CA 1965
The plaintiff took her mink stole to the defendants for cleaning. An employee received and stole the fur. The judge had held that the defendants were not liable because the theft was not committed in the course of employment.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited – Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust CA 4-Feb-2009
The defendant hospital had custody of sperm samples given by the claimants in the course of fertility treatment. The samples were effectively destroyed when the fridge malfunctioned. Each claimant was undergoing chemotherapy which would prevent them . .
Cited – Thakrar v The Secretary of State for Justice Misc 31-Dec-2015
County Court sitting at Milton Keynes. The claimant prisoner sought damages saying that his personal property had been damaged whilst in the care of the defendant.
Held: The claims succeeded in part. Some damage was deliberate. There was a . .
Cited – Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Agency, Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.214666

King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd: IHCS 25 Oct 2000

The definition ‘any other bodily harm’ contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.82783

Marida Ltd and Others v Oswal Steel and Others (The Bijela): HL 2 May 1994

Ship owners may claim for the cost of interim repairs in average, but still subject to the overall limits imposed by the rules.

Citations:

Times 02-May-1994, Gazette 08-Jun-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 615

Statutes:

York-Antwerp Rules 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another SC 25-Oct-2017
This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.83407

Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd: SC 19 Feb 2021

Judges:

Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Hamblen,
Lord Burrows
Lord Lloyd-Jones

Lord Briggs

Lady Arden

Lord Hamblen

Lord Burrows

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 6, [2021] 1 WLR 1436

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, Baili Issues and Facts

Statutes:

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At AdCt – Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd AdCt 13-Mar-2017
. .
Appeal from – Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd CA 5-Oct-2018
Liability after collision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.658677

El 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’ – 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’.

Judges:

Black, Beaumont, Allsop JJ

Citations:

[2004] FCAFC 202, [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.222770

John Alston, Alexander Elliot, William Colquhoun, and Others v Messrs Colin Campbell and Co, Merchants In Greenock, and John M’Allister: HL 3 Mar 1779

A party sold a vessel to his creditor, under a vendition ex facie absolute, but, as shewn by the correspondence, was intended as a security for his debt. He thereafter insured the vessel. Held, on her loss, that he had still an insurable interest,-the sale being merely in security.

Citations:

[1779] UKHL 2 – Paton – 492

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.562033

National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v BP Oil Supply Company: CA 12 Oct 2011

‘claim for damages for a period of detention which at the time the Owners did not think counted as either laytime or demurrage, but which in fact did. Two questions arise on the appeal. The first is whether by agreeing to a demurrage calculation in respect of time which they did recognise counted towards laytime and demurrage, Owners precluded themselves from recovering demurrage in respect of the period which they had mischaracterised. The second is whether as a result of misdescribing or mislabelling their claim Owners failed to comply with the Claims Time Bar clause in the BPVOY4 form of charterparty so that their claim, if not otherwise precluded, is in any event time-barred.’

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1127

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.445403

Navalmar UK Ltd v Ergo Versicherung Ag and Another (BSLE Sunrise): ComC 4 Nov 2019

Trial of a preliminary issue as to whether, on a true construction of General Average Guarantees (‘GA guarantees’) issued by the defendants and in the events that for the purposes of this trial it is to be assumed have happened, the defendants are entitled to raise a defence under Rule D of the York-Antwerp Rules 1974 (‘YAR’) as a defence to their liability under the GA guarantees.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2860 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643818

European Night Services v Commission T-384/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

(Competition) Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities’ – Statement of reasons – Admissibility

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-384/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Transport

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433443

European Night Services v Commission T-388/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities – Statement of reasons – Admissibility.

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-388/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433444

The Broadmayne: CA 1916

Pickford LJ rationalised the relation between a state and the crew of a requisitioned vessel as being one of forced hiring.
Bankes LJ said: ‘The position is, I think, quite clearly indicated in the passage from Clerke [Praxis Curiae Admiralitatis], cited with approval by Jeune J (sic). in The Dictator … where the writer says that after appearance the case proceeds ‘ut in actione instituta contra personam debitoris’ – that is to say, that the action is to proceed as if, but only as if, it was an action in personam. The advantage of the action being an action in rem still remains in the sense that, should the exceptional occasion arise, the Court in a proper case would no doubt still have jurisdiction to order the arrest of the vessel.’

Judges:

Pickford LJ, Bankes LJ

Citations:

[1916] P 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Compania Naviera Vascongado v Steamship ‘Cristina’ HL 1938
A state-owned ship that was used for public purposes could not be made the subject of proceedings in rem. Lord Atkin described the absolute immunity of a sovereign of a foreign state within this jurisdiction: ‘The foundation for the application to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Employment, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.644060

Naftiliaki Etaireia Thasou: ECJ 17 Mar 2011

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Maritime cabotage – Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 – Articles 1 and 4 – Prior administrative authorisation for cabotage services – Review of conditions relating to the safety of ships – Maintenance of order in ports – Public service obligations – Absence of precise criteria known in advance.

Citations:

C-129/10, [2011] EUECJ C-129/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430718

Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional S.A, The Playa Larga: CA 1983

There had been a theft by Cuban sellers of one cargo of sugar, property in which had already passed to the buyers, and non-delivery of a second combined with trickery whereby the intended buyers were nonetheless induced to pay its price. The first cargo was on a vessel which was discharging at its Chilean discharge port, when the vessel was withdrawn by the sellers. The second cargo was on the high seas en route to Chile when withdrawn.
Held: The effect of disregarding a provision of foreign law as manifestly contrary to public policy may be to render enforceable in England a contract which is not enforceable by its proper law. The court considered the measure of damages in relation to the non-delivery of goods sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the damages recoverable should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and the date of the arbitration award. This contention was rejected.
Ackner LJ said: ‘Mr. Rix, in his cross-appeal, argued that the damages recoverable by Iansa in contract should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and date of the award. Mr. Justice Mustill rejected this submission and has set out his reasons most fully, which we are happy to adopt. We would, however, venture to suggest that the matter can be put more simply. Iansa, as complainants, must establish what damage they have suffered. Mr. Rix had to accept: (a) That after the date when Iansa could have bought in to cover their loss there was no evidence at all that the fluctuations in the sugar market made the slightest financial difference to them. There was no evidence that they could have sold at the highest price. On the contrary, the reasonable inference was that the goods would have been resold for domestic or other consumption in Chile, (b) Although theoretically Cubazucar was capable of selling the sugar at the highest price, there is no evidence that it did so.
Accordingly, to the plaintiffs’ contention that Cubazucar should not profit from its own wrong comes the simple reply: they have not shown that Cubazucar have done so. We cannot, therefore, see any basis upon which Iansa can seek to achieve a windfall in the form of an extra $1,200 per tonne over and above the price which was prevailing when they should have bought in the market.’
The Court rejected any defence of foreign act of state, primarily because there was no such plea and no proof that the acts were acts of the Chilean government, but secondarily also because, if they were, there ‘seems no compelling reason for judicial restraint or abstention’ in a case ‘where it is clear that the acts relied on were carried out outside the sovereign’s own territory’.

Judges:

Ackner LJ, Stephenson LJ, Sir Segab Shaw

Citations:

[1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 171

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Playa Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congreso del Partido (Owners) QBD 1978
The trading or commercial activities of states are not protected by state immunity. The basic principle of international law is that all states are equal, the rule is ‘par in parem non habet imperium’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Followed – Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA The Angelic Grace QBD 1994
The court considered whether a claim for a collision between two ships was governed by an arbitration clause which read ‘all disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall . . be referred to the arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying . .
Followed – The Ermoupolis 1990
A claim for the tort of conversion fell within the phrase ‘any dispute arising in any way whatsoever out of this bill of lading’. . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Appeal from – Playa Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Jurisdiction, Contract, Damages

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.248210

SACBO v Commissionand Inea: ECJ 21 Jan 2016

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – European Transport Network – financial aid – Closure – Decision declaring ineligible certain costs and establishing the final tally – Article 263, fourth paragraph TFEU – Action for annulment – Challengeable act – Standing – No one other than the recipient of the Contest

Citations:

C-281/14, [2016] EUECJ C-281/14, ECLI: EU: C: 2016: 44

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.559485

Petromec Inc Petro-Deep Inc and others v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa and others: CA 15 Jul 2005

Judges:

Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 891, [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro S A Petrobras and others ComC 18-Feb-2003
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc and Petroleo Brasileiro S A Petrobras, Braspetro Oil Services Company v Petromec Inc, Petro-Deep Inc, Maritima Petroleo E Engenharia Ltda QBD 2-Feb-2004
The parties entered into a complex group of inter-related contracts for the purpose of purchasing and upgrading an oil production platform for use by Petrobras in the South Marlim oilfield. At a very early stage it was agreed that the upgrade . .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras, Braspetro Oil Services Company, Societa Armamento Navi Appoggio Spa, Den Norske Bank Asa CA 17-Feb-2004
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobrasbraspetro Oil Services etc ComC 20-May-2004
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Another v Petromec Inc and others ComC 3-Nov-2005
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasiliero Sa Petrobras and Another ComC 16-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras CA 19-Jul-2006
A Mr Efremovich, a third party to the action was ordered to pay the costs of Petrobras and Brasoil which on the failure of its claim against them had been ordered to be paid by Petromec. The judge found that Mr Efromovich controlled the proceedings . .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others ComC 7-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petrobras ComC 11-May-2007
Defendant’s application for security for costs. . .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Etroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others ComC 6-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras and others CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others CA 23-Jan-2008
Short order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.228589

Northern Shipping Company v Deutsche Seereederei Gmbh and others (“The Kapitan Sakharov”): CA 3 Mar 2000

A carrier: (a) should not be exposed to an infinite liability in time; and (b) is not, without more, liable for latent defects in a vessel before it acquired it. The relevant failure to exercise due diligence must relate to the performance of a function undertaken (by the sub-contractor) as a carrier or on behalf of the carrier rather than in an alternative capacity, namely as a shipper.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Brooke LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 400, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep 255

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .
Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v CV Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Happy Ranger’ ComC 9-Feb-2006
A large cylinder part was damaged as it was being loaded on board the Happy Ranger in Italy. A hook on the crane was brittle and did not meet the approriate specification. It had not been tested as required. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.200709