LD Commodities Rice Merchandising Llc and Another v Styliani Z, Owners/Charterers of The Vessel: AdCt 28 Oct 2015

The claimant appealed from a decision of the registrar that he had no jurisdiction to hear their claim in rem having been commenced on the form appropriate to a claim in personam.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3060 (Admlty)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.553924

Re The Bumbesti: AdCt 22 Jun 1999

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

Judges:

Aikens j

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.568025

Harms Bergung Transport and Heavylift Gmbh and Co Kg v Harms Offshore Aht ‘Uranus’ Gmbh and Co Kg and Others: AdCt 7 May 2015

Defendants’ applications seeking declarations that the Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the Claimant’s claims, or alternatively that any in personam claims be stayed under s.9

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1269 (Admlty)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.546458

Stewart Chartering Ltd v Owners of the ship ‘the Peppy’; Stewart Offshore Services (Jersey) Ltd v Silan Maritime Co and Another: AdCt 15 Apr 1997

ComC Admiralty action in rem – dishonest withholding of freight paid – meaning of dishonesty – objective and subjective considerations – reimbursement of commission – Admiralty action in rem – entitlement to commission – collateral secret profit – secret profit – distinction.
David Steel QC said of the Hippisley case: ‘this decision of the Court of Appeal admirably demonstrates the difference between a collateral secret profit which preserves the right to commission and a secret profit (albeit honest) directly impacting on the moneys payable to the principal which may destroy the entitlement.’

Judges:

David Steel QC

Citations:

[1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 722

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHippisley v Knee Bros CA 1903
The defendant auctioneers were employed by the plaintiff to sell some goods. The payment was to be percentage commission with a minimum of andpound;20, certain fixed amounts and ‘all out of pocket’ expenses, particularly advertising. The sale . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Agency

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.186620

Ribble Motor Services Ltd v Traffic Commission For The North Western Travel Area: CA 23 Feb 2001

When looking at whether the bus operator had delivered the bus timetable standards as required, the Commission need not consider every occasion of excuse, but could consider that the general margin of 12 minutes on timetables included everyday occurrences. If no expert evidence was put before it to say otherwise, the Commission could also consider that it was appropriate to look for 95% achievement of the targets.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 267

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1985 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Licensing, Road Traffic

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135557

The Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’: CA 23 Jan 2001

Citations:

[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437, [2001] EWCA Civ 56

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromThe Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ ComC 2000
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromHomburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135610

Crawford and Law v Allan Line Steamship Co Ltd: HL 19 Dec 1911

Where a through bill of lading has been signed, inter alios, on behalf of the last carriers, the shipowners, providing that each carrier is only to be liable for damage occurring on his portion of the route, and acknowledging that the goods have been received in good order at the beginning of the transit, and the last carriers have taken no exception to the condition of the goods when handed over to them, they are liable for any damage discovered unless they prove it occurred previously.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 117, 49 SLR 117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract, Transport

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619221

Caledonian Railway Co v Symington: HL 16 Nov 1911

It is a question of fact, to be decided on the circumstances of the particular case, whether ‘freestone’ is a mineral falling within the exception contained in section 70 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 49

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619214

Partenreederei Ms Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven- and Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout: ECJ 19 Jun 1984

Europa Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments – jurisdiction agreement – jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading – validity – conditions (convention of 27 September 1968, art. 17)
a jurisdiction clause contained in the printed conditions on a bill of lading satisfies the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention : if the agreement of both parties to the conditions containing that clause has been expressed in writing; or if the jurisdiction clause has been the subject-matter of a prior oral agreement between the parties expressly relating to that clause, in which case the bill of lading, signed by the carrier, must be regarded as confirmation in writing of the oral agreement; or if the bill of lading comes within the framework of a continuing business relationship between the parties, in so far as it is thereby established that the relationship is governed by general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause. As regards the relationship between the carrier and a third party holding the bill of lading, the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention are satisfied if the jurisdiction clause has been adjudged valid as between the carrier and the shipper and if, by virtue of the relevant national law, the third party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the shipper ‘ s rights and obligations.

Citations:

C-71/83, R-71/83, [1984] EUECJ R-71/83, [1984] ECR 2417

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133626

Broads Authority v Fry: Admn 5 Nov 2015

The boat owner had charged tolls against the respondent boat owner. He failed to pay saying that his vessel being moored at a private mooring on ‘adjacent water’ he was not liable. His appeal against his conviction had succeeded at the Crown Court, and the Authority now appealed by case stated.
Held: The Authority’s appeal succeeded. The bye-law was not void for uncertainty, and the extension of the licensing requirement beyond the waters controlled by the Authority was well established and clear.

Judges:

Beatson LJ, Mitting J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 4139 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Broads Authority Act 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedForth Conservancy Board v IRC HL 1931
The House was asked whether the conservators of the Firth of Forth were liable to income tax on revenue raised from dues levied on vessels, which revenue had to be applied to preserve and improve the appropriate part of the Firth of Forth.
CitedKruse v Johnson QBD 16-May-1898
The validity of a by-law prohibiting the playing of music in a public place within fifty yards of any dwelling after being requested by a constable or resident of that dwelling to desist was upheld. A private citizen taxed with a criminal charge . .
CitedFawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
CitedStaden v Tarjanyi 1980
The court considered the validity of a byelaw. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘to be valid, a byelaw, carrying as this one does penalties for infringement, must be certain and clear in the sense that anyone engaged upon the otherwise lawful pursuit . . must . .
CitedPercy and Another v Hall and Others CA 10-May-1996
The claimants, demonstrators at Menwith Hill Station, asserted that repeated arrests for trespass were made under unlawful byelaws. Iparticular they said that the restrictions on trespass were unlawful, since the area was not clearly defined. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.569394

Black King Shipping Corpn and Wayang (Panama) SA v Massie (The “Litsion Pride”): 1985

The LITSION PRIDE was insured against war risks. The terms required of her owners, notice as soon as practicable of her entry into specified war zones and then to pay an additional premium. The owners traded her into a war zone without giving notice, dishonestly intending to avoid the payment of the additional premium if the vessel got out unscathed. When she was hit by a missile and sunk, they gave the required notice by a letter which they dishonestly backdated to a date before the vessel entered the war zone. The fraud was irrelevant to the merits of the claim, because the vessel was held to be insured under a held covered clause with or without prior notice.
Held: The claim was forfeit on the ground that it was a breach of the insured’s duty of good faith. His decision has not fared well in subsequent decisions.

Judges:

Hirst J

Citations:

[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
CitedManifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623434

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co Of Chicago And Xenofon Maritime SA v Alliance Assurance Co Ltd: 1986

(‘The Captain Panagos DP’) The ship ran aground in the red sea. While aground it suffered a major fire. The owners submitted a claim on the basis that it was a total loss, or in the alternative, that they could recover a partial claim arising from each event. The underwriters said that each loss had been connived at or procured by the owners.
Held: The claim was rejected. The vessel had been deliberately run aground and then set on fire.
Evans J defined a fraudulent claim as ‘one which is made on the basis that facts exist which constitute a loss by an insured peril, when to the knowledge of the assured those alleged facts are untrue’.

Judges:

Evans J

Citations:

[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623436

Chapman v Pole: 1870

In the context of exaggerated value Cockburn, CJ spoke of one who ‘knowingly preferred a claim he knew to be false or unjust’

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

(1870) 22 LT 306

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623435

Cameron and others v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedFoster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Human Rights, Personal Injury, Transport, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210

The Kate: 1899

The Kate was totally lost in a collision with the defendants’ ship, whilst on the ballast leg of a charterparty. The issue was whether in a case of total loss as opposed to partial loss of a ship without a cargo, the plaintiffs could recover only the market value of the ship at the time of the loss (as the defendants contended) or the profit lost under the charterparty as well (as the plaintiffs contended).
Sir Francis Jeune P laid it down that the general principle which governs the assessment of damage is ‘restitutio in integrum qualified by the condition that the damage sought to be recovered must not be too remote.’ and also said: ‘Sir Robert Phillimore states that the value should be taken as at the end of the voyage, and therefore lets in freight or interest as an additional compensation . . The present case, which is that of a vessel without cargo, but under charter, being totally lost, is not exactly that contemplated by Sir Robert Phillimore; but it appears to me to follow from his judgment that the value of the vessel may in such case be taken as at the end of her voyage, and something allowed in respect of the period between the time of collision and the end of the voyage . . the profits under the charterparty should take the place of interest, as more accurately representing the loss to the owner, and may fairly be considered to be the equivalent of freight when a cargo is on board. Indeed I can see no distinction in principle between the case of freight when a cargo is on board and . . a charterparty under which cargo is to be taken.’

Citations:

[1899] P 165

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe ‘Columbus’ 9-Mar-1849
Where a vessel is sunk in a collision, and compensation is awarded by the Court of Admiralty to the full value of the vessel as for a total loss, the plaintiff will not be able to recover anything in the nature of a demurrage for loss of the . .

Cited by:

CitedMitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Another v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime ComC 12-Sep-2013
In the lead case, Sony’s warehouse at Enfield had been severely damaged in what were said to be riots in August 2011. The court considered preliminary issues as to whether the events constituted a riot within the 1886 Act, and the extent of damages . .
CitedMitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime CA 20-May-2014
The appellant had suffered damage in a riot, and, under the 1886 Act, the respondent was liable to pay compensation.
Held: The MOPC was liable to pay compensation by way of indemnity. Analysis of section 2(1) suggested compensation for loss . .
CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.608294

Zenziper Grains and Feed Stuffs v Bulk Trading Corporation Ltd: CA 23 Jan 2001

Where a standard form free-on-truck (FOT) delivery contract provided for several possible destinations for delivery, the responsibility for specifying the place of delivery fell on the seller. There was no proper analogy with an FOB contract. The vessel would be chartered by the seller, and delivered to a port agreed between the seller and the ship-owner, and the characteristics of the ship itself could restrict and control the port of delivery. There would be likely to be other goods consigned also, and it would not make commercial sense for the buyer to specify the port of delivery.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Commercial, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90687

Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hill Harmony): HL 8 Dec 2000

A master, engaged to fulfill a charterparty, was not free to choose a longer and slower route, when the shorter route was recommended and safe. His own perception of the safety of the route was not determinative. His rights to control navigation did not extend to a power to ignore the charterers instructions in fulfillment of the contractual obligation to proceed with all dispatch. Such an order regarded the employment of the vessel, and it was not within the master’s range of proper choices to go against that order.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 08-Dec-2000, [2000] UKHL 62, [2001] 1 All ER 403, [2000] 3 WLR 1954, [2001] CLC 502, [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 147, [2001] AC 638, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 76

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromWhistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Tokai Shipping Co Ltd of Tokyo CA 25-May-1999
In a time charterparty, the charterer was free to determine the orders, but not the orders as to navigation. The ship’s master was solely responsible for its safety, and so retained entire discretion as to the navigation route. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toWhistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Tokai Shipping Co Ltd of Tokyo CA 25-May-1999
In a time charterparty, the charterer was free to determine the orders, but not the orders as to navigation. The ship’s master was solely responsible for its safety, and so retained entire discretion as to the navigation route. . .
CitedPetroleo Brasileiro Sa v Ene Kos 1 Ltd (‘The MT Kos’) SC 2-May-2012
The MT Kos had been chartered by the appellants. The respondents failed to make payments, and notice was given to withdraw the vessel. The contract said that such a notice was without prejudice to any claim. At the time, the vessel was laden. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90444

Steadman v Scholfield and Another: QBD 6 May 1992

A jet ski is neither a boat nor a vessel. The maritime limitation rules did not therefore apply to an accident involving a jet ski. The applicant could therefore claim full damages.

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992

Statutes:

Marine Conventions Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89518

Semco Salvage and Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd: HL 10 Feb 1997

A ‘fair rate’ for salvage operations includes the overheads of the salvage company and the additional costs of being instantly available.

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-1997, [1997] UKHL 2; [1997] 1 All ER 502; [1997] 2 WLR 298; [1997] 1 Lloyds Rep 323

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

International Salvage Convention 14.3

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89168

The Athanasia Comninos: 1990

Two ships carrying coal to Birkenhead suffered explosions. The parties disputed the respective roles of the time charterer, the shipper, as to responsibility for an indemnity on damages.
Held: The shipper was a named party to and liable on the contract. That was unaffected by the contractual position of the charterers.
Mustill J said: ‘There still remains the problem of identifying the boundary between those risks which the shipowner contracts to bear and those which he does not. One possibility is to draw the line by reference to the proper method of carriage. According to this view, a shipowner who consents to carry goods of a particular description contracts to perform the carriage in a manner appropriate to goods of that description, and thereby assumes all risks of accidents attributable to a failure to carry in that manner.
This is an attractive proposition, for it neatly solves the question of degree to which I have referred, and enables attention to be concentrated on the means adopted to carry the goods. If the carrier proves that he has used the appropriate means, the claim succeeds, without his having to engage in the often difficult tasks of establishing the precise character of the goods, and the precise respects and degree in which they deviated from the norm. Conversely, if his performance has fallen short of what is appropriate, in a manner which is causative of the loss, his claim must fail. This approach also has the theoretical merit of keeping attention focused on the carriage of the goods, which is the subject-matter of the contract from which the liability of both parties mainly, if not exclusively, arises.
This approach will be sufficient to deal with most problems relating to dangerous cargoes, for in respect of the great majority of goods, the normal precautions will suffice to eliminate the risk of carrying normal goods of the description stated in the contract. Leaving outside casualties from wholly extraneous causes, one can say that proper carriage and dangerous nature are opposite sides of the same coin.
There are, however, cases to which this simple analysis cannot be applied: i.e. those where the nature of the goods is such that even a strict compliance with the accepted methods of carriage will not suffice to eliminate the possibility of an accident. Whether consciously or not, seafarers and those who advise them have chosen to adopt methods of carriage which involve an element of risk. No doubt the risk could be eliminated, if those concerned were to provide complex equipment, and enforce rigorous standards of performance. But for practical reasons, they do not. The existence of this gap between acceptable carriage and safe carriage means that there may be cases where an accident is due, neither to the unusual cargo, nor to any short-comings in the carrier, but to simple bad luck.
Who is to bear the risk of accidents falling into this category? In my judgment, the risk must fall on the carrier. By contracting to carry goods of a specified description, he assents to the presence on his ship of goods possessing the attributes of the goods so described; and in the case under discussion, those attributes include the capacity to create dangers which the accepted methods are not always sufficient to overcome.’

Judges:

Mustill J

Citations:

[1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 277

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPetroleo Brasileiro Sa v Ene Kos 1 Ltd (‘The MT Kos’) SC 2-May-2012
The MT Kos had been chartered by the appellants. The respondents failed to make payments, and notice was given to withdraw the vessel. The contract said that such a notice was without prejudice to any claim. At the time, the vessel was laden. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.462942

Odfjfell Seachem A/S v Continentale Des Petroles Et D’Investissements and Another: ComC 15 Dec 2004

Application by the Claimants for summary judgment pursuant to CPR Part 24 upon the grounds that the Defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

Judges:

Nigel Teare QC

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2929 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.331184

Johnson And Another v Chapman: 10 Jul 1865

Deck-cargo {timber) lawfully laden pursuant to charterparty, having broken adrift in consequence of stormy weather, and impending the navigation and endangering the safety of the vessel, was necessarily thrown overboard.
Held: that the shipper was entitled to claim general average in respect thereof, as against the ship-owner.

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

[1865] EngR 665, (1865) 19 CB NS 563, (1865) 141 ER 907

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.281577

Channel Airways Ltd v Manchester Corporation: 1974

There are many species of lien which do not depend on possession, including for example certain equitable liens. The statutory right of detention but conferred by a Private Act was not strictly a lien.

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 456

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBristol Airport Plc and Another v Powdrill and Others CA 21-Dec-1989
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.181063

Regina (Jet Services Ltd) v Civil Aviation Authority: CA 1 May 2001

An operator who negotiated deals between bonded agents, but did not itself conclude a contract, did not require an Air Travel Operator’s Licence. It transmitted the purchase price through a separate account used only for this purpose. The regulations however only caught those who made accommodation available, and no extent of purposive construction could extend that phrase to catch the operator’s service. At its highest, the company could be described as assisting the principal, or facilitating the acquisition of flight accommodation. The fact that the company’s intervention led to a break in the chain of security protecting the consumer was not enough.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR, Peter Gibson and Latham LJJ

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 610, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 769, [2001] All ER (D) 08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 1995 (1995 No 1054)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85980

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, Ex Parte International Air Transport Association: QBD 3 Jun 1999

The Association sought judicial review to challenge the 1998 Order.
Held: Where an EC regulation was properly completed, it was valid even though different member states had, before joining the EC, had subscribed to International Treaties inconsistent with the Regulation, but were not bound by it because of such subscription.

Judges:

Jowitt J

Citations:

Times 03-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 333, [1999] COD 315, [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 242, [1999] Eu LR 811, [1999] 2 CMLR 1385

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation 2027/97, EC Treaty 234, Warsaw Convention 1929, Air Carrier Liability Order 1998, Council Regulation (EC) Number 2027/97

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 6-Nov-1998
. .
LeaveRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 21-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85507

Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH: ECJ 1 Dec 2000

When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill of lading to be decided in the country where the carrier had his principal place of business. The requirement under the convention, that the parties should have should of ‘agreed’ the jurisdiction was satisfied where they had agreed a method of establishing it. The Brussels convention applied only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract was domiciled in the contracting state and, second, the parties agreed to submit any dispute before the Court of a contracting state.
‘The Court has held that, by making the validity of a jurisdiction clause subject to the existence of an ‘agreement’ between the parties, article 17 of the Convention imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining first whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and that the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by article 17 is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established . . ‘

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-2000, C-387/98, [2000] ECR I-9337, [2000] EUECJ C-387/98

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Transport, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81216

Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd: QBD 25 Jan 2001

A ship’s captain was, under standard Syncomex contract terms, to arrive in port and then to give notice that the cargo was available for collection. He gave the notice before arriving. The owners’ claim for demurrage failed because it depended upon such notice having been given, as a condition precedent. The notice was invalid. Lay-time could not commence to run until a notice had been given. The carrier who was to collect the cargo was not empowered to waive the requirement or vary the charter agreement.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC 503 (Comm), [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 754

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromFlacker Shipping Ltd v Glencore Grain Ltd (Happy Day) CA 15-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80867

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Linster and Others: ECJ 19 Sep 2000

Where a road or other development project would have a substantial impact on the environment, a law passed by a member state authorising the construction to proceed but which was in the absence of an impact assessment, was not in compliance with the Directive. It was not possible to bypass the procedure by use of special statutory powers. The Directive did not apply where its purposes were satisfied by a statutory process, but that implied the need for that process to produce a similar investigation.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-2000, [2000] ECR I-6917, [2000] EUECJ C-287/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedHS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80973

Clarke (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks; MacLeod (Inspector of Taxes) v Same; Guild (Inspector of Taxes) v Newrick and Another: ChD 3 May 2000

The relief of foreign earnings given to those working as seafarers, did not apply to those working on a jack-up drilling rig with floating hull, and retractable legs., since this was not a ship. Being a seafarer involved the performance of duties on a ship. Definition in other acts suggested a vessel used in navigation. These rigs were without propulsion. Other decisions indicated the need for it to be used for navigation.

Citations:

Times 03-May-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 193 Sch 12

Cited by:

Appeal fromPerks and Others v Clark and Others CA 27-Jul-2001
Workers on North Sea drilling rigs which were capable of being moved, claimed relief as seafarers, since they were employed on a ship. The first instance court said the rigs were not ships. They appealed.
Held: The word ‘ship’ is an ordinary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79200

Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration and Another v Bouygues Offshore Sa and Others; Ultisol et Cetera v Same (4): AdCt 3 Jul 1997

Liability under a claim can be limited by the court under the Act even before liability has itself been decided. Shipping – declaration limiting liability – prior to admission of liability -permissible – article 2.1 – scope – misrepresentation – monetary claims – declaration of limitation – no admission of liability – stay – prejudice to proceedings in foreign jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-1997, Gazette 17-Sep-1997, [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 507, [1997] CLC 1463

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Merchant Shipping Act 1979, Convention on Limitation of liability for Maritime Claims 1976 A2.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78938

Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Bromley London Borough Council: ChD 9 Jan 2001

Applicants sought the right to fly from the airport. Local residents sought to intervene on the basis that if the lease controlling such rights was construed in such a way as to allow such an extension, this would interfere with their human rights. The lease had to be construed against the factual background as at the time it was entered into, and the Act could not affect that interpretation, and there was no basis for implying any such term into the lease. The local authority was not acting unlawfully in granting a declaration in the terms it proposed.

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-2001, Times 09-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78394

The Mozart: 1985

C took a charter of the Mozart from O, to carry coal from Port Arthur to Rotterdam. A conveyor belt failed in loading causing delay. O claimed demurrage. C had not given notice of the breakdown or claimed a deduction of time. C now appealed against the arbitral award to O.
Held: The stoppage was not the fault of C even though it occurred on its side of the arrangement. The requirement for due notice did refer to a notice under the charterparty, it did not import an element that it was to be relied upon for demurrage. O was well aware of the circumstances, and therefore C was not obliged to inform C.

Judges:

Mustill J

Citations:

[1985] 1 Lloyds Rep 239

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616912

Mediolanum Shipping Co v Japan Lines Ltd (“The Mediolanum”): CA 1984

The charterers had contracted to provide and pay for fuel. They ordered her to a safe port but she was directed to an unsafe place in that port by the refinery with whom the charterer had contracted for the supply of bunkers. The court was asked to construe the safe port warranty.
Held: The charterer was not in breach of the safe port warranty because even on the assumption that the refinery’s authority as agent extended to designating a bunkering place, it was not at fault in designating this particular bunkering place.
However, Kerr LJ said: ‘Although, in relation to the charterers, the refinery was in the position of an independent contractor, we naturally accept that for the purposes of the charterers’ obligation, under clause 2 of the charter-party, to provide the fuel, the refinery was the agent of the charterers as between the charterers and the owners. The reason is that, in that respect, the refinery was used by the charterers in order to perform one of the charterers’ obligations under the contract.’

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC 1-Feb-2013
The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA CA 8-Apr-2014
The court was asked as to ‘the true construction and application of a proviso to an off hire clause in a time charterparty, dealing with the capture, seizure, detention or arrest of the vessel. The issue thus raises the familiar question as to the . .
CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa SC 11-May-2016
The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616909

Richmond Shipping v D/S and A/S Vestland (“The Vestland”): 1980

The court was asked whether the charterer was in breach of a positive obligation imposed on him by the charter.

Citations:

[1980] 2 Lllyds Rep 171

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa SC 11-May-2016
The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616910

Adelfamar SA v Silos e Mangimi Martini Spa (“the Adelfa”): 1988

Judges:

Evans J

Citations:

[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 466

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC 1-Feb-2013
The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC 1-Feb-2013
The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616913

The “Goodpal”: 2000

The court dealt with the apportionment of claims under the Interclub NYPE Agreement

Citations:

[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA CA 8-Apr-2014
The court was asked as to ‘the true construction and application of a proviso to an off hire clause in a time charterparty, dealing with the capture, seizure, detention or arrest of the vessel. The issue thus raises the familiar question as to the . .
CitedNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa SC 11-May-2016
The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.617003

The Walter D Wallet: 1893

The vessel was arrested by a defendant who had been, but no longer was, a part owner of the vessel, having forgotten or forgotten the importance of that fact.
Held: Procuring the wrongful arrest of a ship can found a cause of action similar to malicious prosecution.
Sir Francis H. Jeune P said ‘In the present case, I think that actual damage there was none. I doubt if, as was urged before me, the ship could have been arrested, when she was, by any proper process, though perhaps an injunction to prevent leaving port until the stipulated policies were given, and the stipulated sums paid, could have been obtained. But she was not detained in port by the arrest, nor was her loading interfered with. Still, the action of the defendants was, I think, clearly, in common law phrase, without reasonable or probable cause; in common law phrase, without reasonable or probable cause; or, in equivalent Admiralty language, the result of crassa negligentia, and in a sufficient sense mala fides, and the plaintiffs’ ship was in fact seized. Therefore, I think the plaintiffs must be supposed to have suffered some damage, and I fix that damage at 11.’

Judges:

Sir Francis H. Jeune P

Citations:

[1893] P 202

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCrawford Adjusters and Others v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd and Another PC 13-Jun-2013
(Cayman Islands) A hurricane had damaged property insured by the respondent company. The company employed the appellant as loss adjustor, but came to suspect advance payments recommended by him, and eventually claimed damages for deceit and . .
CitedCrawford v Jenkins CA 24-Jul-2014
The parties had divorced but acrimony continued. H now complained of his arrests after allegations from his former wife that he had breached two orders. He had been released and no charges followed. The court had ruled that W’s complaints were . .
CitedWillers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.536419

Astro Vencedor Compania Naviera SA v Mabanaft GmbH: CA 1971

For an arbitration clause in a contract between parties to be used to enforce arbitration of a tortious claim, the tortious claim must arise out of the contractual matters. In this case damages were sought for the wrongful arrest of a ship in consequence of an alleged breach of the contract.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The arrest of the ship was the direct consequence of the charterers’ claim for damages against the shipowners. . The arrest was simply the follow-up to that claim. It was so closely connected with it that the rightness or wrongness of the arrest is also within the scope of the arbitration. This is borne out by the practice of the Admiralty Court. There have not been many claims for wrongful arrest recently. But the practice of the Court of Admiralty is to deal with a claim for wrongful arrest at the same time as the claim for which the arrest was made. In The Evangelismos . . the Privy Council said that such procedure is very ‘convenient’.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1971] Lloyd’s R 502, [1971] 2 QB 588

Cited by:

CitedS Ltd v C Ltd ComC 27-Feb-2009
Defamation allegation not subject to arbitration
The parties had an agreement referring disputes between them to arbitration. One party raised an allegation of defamation, but the arbitrator refused jurisdiction. The parties had chosen the London Metal Exchange for its expertise in metals trading, . .
CitedAspect 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.375637

Knight v Cambridge: 1795

If the master of a sbip, intending to avoid the payment of port duties, attempt to run her out of port, and is stopped, and the ship thereby forfeited, this is barratry in the master, and renders the underwriter of the ship liable, within the terms of a policy insuring against the barratry of the master.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 2308, (1795) 8 Mod 229, (1795) 88 ER 165 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.354653

The Sea Insurance Company Of Scotland v Gavin, And Others: SCS 1829

Under a policy insuring a brigantine ” at and from L. to S., and thence to ‘Barcelona, and at and from thence and two other ports in Spain, to a ‘port in Great Britain : ‘–held, that Saloe, a place lying in a bay, having warehouses and a jetty, with a depth of water sufficient for feluccas, but not for large ships, and a good roadsted anchorage where ships lie and are loaded by means of small craft ; having also a custom-house and officers is a ”port’ within the meaning of the policy.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 244, (1829) 4 Bligh NS PC 578, (1829) 5 ER 206

Links:

Commonlii

Scotland, Transport, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.322112

Regina, and Francis Hart Dyke, Her Majesty’s Procurator-General v Johann Peter Hildebrandt;The Aline and Fanny: PC 9 Jul 1856

Rule as to the admission of further proof by the Captors [IO Moo. P.C. 197]. By the law of Prize, the evidence, whether to acquit or condemn the ship, must, iri the first instance, come from the ship’s papers and the primary depositions of the master and crew : aud the captors are not, except under circumstances of suspicion arising from the primary evidence, entitled to adduce any intrinsic evidence in opposition.
In a case where no suspicion of an intention to break a blockade appeared from the ship’s papers, or the primary depositions, the Judicial Committee (affirming the interlocutory decree of the Admiralty Court) refused the admission of further proof by the captors to contradict the depositions with respect to the place of capture.
The principle laid down in the Ostee (9 Moore’s P.C. Cases, l57), that a clairnant upon restitution of the ship is entitled to costs and damages from the Captors, only in circumstances where the ship was in no fault, and was not by any act of her own, voluntarily or involuntarily, open to any fair ground of suspicion, approved.

Citations:

[1856] EngR 764, (1856) 10 Moo PC 491, (1856) 14 ER 577

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.291519

Corbyn v Saunders: 1978

The defendant appealed a conviction for fare evasion, saying that it had been his intention to pay at the end of his journey.
Held: The section references to ‘dishonestly’ and the specific intention ‘to avoid payment’ were not two separate elements in the mens rea of the offence. Woolf LJ said: ‘It is clear from the first clause of section 5(3)(a) that the traveller is not to travel on the railway without paying the fare for the intended journey before he begins that journey. The intention that has to be proved is intention to avoid that obligation, ie, payment of the proper fare before he begins his journey.’

Judges:

Cummin-Bruce J, Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1978] 1 WLR 400

Statutes:

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 5(3)

Crime, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276465

Vehicle Inspectorate v Bruce Cook Road Planing Ltd and Another: HL 8 Jul 1999

The transport of motorway maintenance vehicles and plant to and from sites on the back of a low loader is not sufficiently closely connected with the use of such machines on the motorways, to attract exemption as for such use from the general regulation of transport, including in particular, the need for the use of tachograph recording of drivers hours.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999, [1999] UKHL 34, [1999] 4 All ER 761, [1999] 1 1907

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Regulation 3821/85 15(2), Transport Act 1968 97(1)(a)(iii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLicensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area v British Gas plc ECJ 25-Jun-1992
Europa The derogation from the requirement to install and use a tachograph in vehicles registered in a Member State which are used for the carriage of passengers or goods by road, laid down for vehicles used in . .
CitedSwain v McCaul and Others QBD 11-Jul-1996
A lorry used for delivering skips was not used for refuse collection and was subject to the tachograph regime. The providing of skips for rubbish was a purely commercial enterprise not carried out for a public authority. . .
Appeal fromVehicle Inspectorate v Bruce Cook Road Planing Ltd and Another Admn 18-Feb-1998
The transport of road maintenance vehicles from one site to another was not itself part of highway maintenance and a tachograph was required. . .
CitedFirma Stadtereinigung K. Nehlsen KG v Freie Hansestadt Bremen ECJ 6-Dec-1979
Transport – common policy – social provisions – regulation no 543/69 of the council – material scope – vehicles of public authorities – exclusion – vehicles of a private undertaking used to perform a public service – inclusion (regulation no 543/69 . .
CitedRegina v Thomas Scott and Sons Bakers Ltd 1984
In the field of road transport, Community social legislation ‘aims at the harmonisation of conditions of competition between methods of inland transport, especially with regard to the road sector and the improvement of working conditions and road . .
CitedAmtsgericht Reckinghausen (Germany) v Mrozek and Jager ECJ 21-Mar-1996
Europa Transport – Road transport – Social legislation – Derogations – Vehicles used in refuse collection and disposal – Definition (Council Regulation No 3820/85, Art. 4(6)) 2. Transport – Road transport – . .

Cited by:

Appealed toVehicle Inspectorate v Bruce Cook Road Planing Ltd and Another Admn 18-Feb-1998
The transport of road maintenance vehicles from one site to another was not itself part of highway maintenance and a tachograph was required. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.159017

Atkins v Wrekin District Council and Another: ECJ 11 Jul 1996

A concessionary fares scheme did not fall within the scope of sex discrimination laws. Equal treatment of men and women – Concessionary fares on public passenger transport services – Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC – Link with retirement age.
ECJ On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, a scheme under which concessionary fares on public passenger transport services are granted to certain classes of persons, including certain elderly persons, does not fall within the scope of the Directive.
First, a benefit consisting of concessionary fares on public passenger transport services does not afford direct and effective protection against one of the risks listed in Article 3(1) and the fact that the recipient of a benefit is, as a matter of fact, because of his age, in one of the situations envisaged by that article does not suffice to bring that benefit as such within the scope of the Directive.
Secondly, it cannot be concluded from the fact that, besides referring to the field of social security, Article 1 of Directive 79/7 refers to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 and that Article 3(1)(a) refers to statutory schemes which provide protection against the risks listed, without specifying that those schemes must fall under social security, that the scope of the Directive extends to social protection as a whole, and consequently to measures such as the said concessionary fares. In view of the unequivocal terms of the title of Directive 79/7, the various recitals in its preamble and Article 1 thereof, which all state that the Directive is intended to ensure the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, the reference to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 cannot be interpreted otherwise than as referring to provisions concerning social assistance, which generally fall outside the area of social security but fall within the scope of the Directive pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) where they are intended to supplement or replace the schemes referred to in Article 3(1)(a).

Judges:

G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-1996, C-228/94, [1996] EUECJ C-228/94

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1985 93(7), Directive 79/7/EEC

Discrimination, European, Transport

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77938

W. Angliss v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co: 1927

Wright J held: ‘The Carriage of Goods by Sea Acts have introduced a new and obligatory code of responsibilities and immunities as affecting carriers under bills of lading in place of the former rule that carriers by sea, while generally under the liability of common carriers, were free by contract to vary and limit their liabilities. In particular, the Acts have expressly abolished the previous absolute obligation to provide a seaworthy ship and have substituted an obligation to use due diligence to that effect. The carrier may not be the owner of the ship, but merely the charterer; he may not have contracted for the building of the ship, but merely have purchased her, possibly years after she has been built. In the two latter cases the builders and their men cannot possibly be deemed to have been the agents or servants of the carrier and it is illogical that there should be such difference in the carrier’s obligations merely because he has bought the ship by the method of contracting with the builders to build it for him. In addition, if the carrier were held liable for the bad workmanship of the builders’ men, he might equally be held liable for bad workmanship by the men employed by the various sub-contractors who supply material for the builders, such as steel-workers in furnaces and rolling mills, or who supply special articles such as castings, pumps or proprietary machines, which would involve an almost unlimited retrogression.’

Judges:

Wright J

Citations:

[1927] 1 KB 456

Cited by:

CitedParsons 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, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.252502

The Coral: CA 1993

Judges:

Beldam LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 1

Statutes:

Hague-Visby Rules A2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedPyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954
The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules was not to override freedom of contract to . .

Cited by:

CitedJindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (‘The Jordan II’) HL 25-Nov-2004
Cargo was damaged by rough handling during loading and/or discharging, and/or inadequate stowage due to failure to provide dunnage, failure to secure the coils and/or stacking them so that the bottom layers were excessively compressed. The House was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.219884

Anderson v Martin: 1907

Takings at sea had been covered and the subjects of marine insurance–ships and cargoes–are properly treated as objects of war to be taken in prize or by way of reprisal: this was the meaning of the word ‘capture’ in marine insurance policies.

Citations:

[1907] 2 KB 253

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKuwait Airways Corporation and Another v Kuwait Insurance Company SAK and others HL 11-Mar-1999
The airline’s airplanes were taken in the invasion of Kuwait. The company sought to claim on its insurance.
Held: This was a matter of construing the particular terms of the insurance contracts. As regards the claims under the insurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190117

The Ot Sonja: CA 1993

The time limit under the Rules applied where goods had not been loaded and that time would start to run from the date when the goods ought to have been delivered.

Citations:

[1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 435

Statutes:

Hague Visby Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTrafigura Beheer Bv v Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc CA 15-May-2003
The owners of cargo claimed damages from the carriers for a cargo of jet oil rejected at the port of destination because of contamination suffered on board.
Held: In interpreting the rules, the court must adopt a process of construction which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182896

Kum and Another v Wah Tat Bank Ltd: HL 1971

‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a better title than the transferor has got, but it can by endorsement and delivery give as good a title. The bill of lading obtains its symbolic quality from the commercial custom which makes bills of lading ‘negotiable and transferable’ by endorsement and delivery or transmission.
Lord Devlin said:
‘It is well settled that ‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a better title than the transferor has got, but it can by endorsement and delivery give as good a title. But it has never been settled whether delivery of a non-negotiable bill of lading transfers title or possession at all. The bill of lading obtains its symbolic quality from the custom found in Lickbarrow v. Mason and that is a custom which makes bills of lading ‘negotiable and transferable’ by endorsement and delivery or transmission. To the same effect the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, recites that a bill of lading is by the custom of merchants ‘transferable by endorsement’. There appears to be no authority on the effect of a non-negotiable bill of lading. This is not surprising. When consignor and consignee are also seller and buyer, as they most frequently are, the shipment ordinarily serves as delivery (Sale of Goods Act, 1893, sect. 32(1) and also as an unconditional appropriation of the goods (sect. 18, rule 5(2)) which passes the property. So as between seller and buyer it does not usually matter whether the bill of lading is a document of title or not.’

Judges:

Lord Devlin

Citations:

[1971] AC 439, [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Transport, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181891

The Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’: ComC 2000

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 85

Cited by:

Appeal fromThe Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ CA 23-Jan-2001
. .
At First InstanceHomburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.180512

The Okehampton: CA 1913

The plaintiff, sub-charterer of the Okehampton had issued bills of lading under their own name. They sought to recover their loss of freight from the defendants who were owners of a third party vessel which, by negligence, had sunk the Okehampton.
Held: they had a sufficient possessory interest in the Okehampton to do this: ‘I think that it may be inferred as a matter of fact that the goods were in the possession of the [plaintiffs], the contracting carriers, performing their contract by means of a hired ship, so long as they were discharging their obligation with regard to the payment of hire; but the passage cited from Pollock and Wright on Possession in the Common Law, at p.166 par.4 is, I think quite sufficient authority for saying that even if the shipowners had possession so as to make them sub-bailees to [the plaintiffs], such bailment was revocable at pleasure, and there was no adverse right in the shipowners, so long as the time-hire was paid by [the head charterers]. Accordingly, there was interest enough in the plaintiffs to entitle them to bring this action.’ The court must construe the whole instrument before it in its factual context, and cannot ignore the terms of the contract. But it must seek to give effect to the contract as intended, so as not to frustrate the reasonable expectations of businessmen. If an obviously inappropriate form is used, its language must be adapted to apply to the particular case.

Judges:

Hamilton LJ

Citations:

[1913] P 173

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.180646

Gilroy Sons and Co v W R Price and Co: HL 21 Nov 1892

A bill of lading exempted the shipowner from liability for ‘any act, neglect, or default whatsoever of pilots, master, or crew in the navigation of the ship in the ordinary course of the voyage.’ A cargo shipped thereunder was damaged by the absence of casing on the pipe of a water-closet, which was broken by the pressure of the cargo in rough weather. The master and crew had before the commencement of the voyage removed the casing, and considered it unnecessary to replace it, trusting to other means for the protection of the pipe. According to usual practice in jute-carrying vessels, such a pipe is cased before the cargo is loaded and the ship starts on her voyage. After the vessel was loaded the pipe in question was not visible or accessible without the removal of part of the cargo.
In an action at the instance of the onerous indorsee of the bill of lading against the owners- held ( rev. the decision of the Second Division) that without casing on the pipe, the vessel was not in a condition to carry her cargo with reasonable safety, and as this defect ought to have been remedied before the voyage began, it was a breach of the implied warranty of seaworthiness on the part of the shipowner, who was accordingly not protected by the terms of the bill of lading.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Herschell), and Lords Watson, Halsbury, Morris, and Field

Citations:

[1892] UKHL 169, 30 SLR 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.634562

Boson v Sandford and Others: 1629

A shipper of goods sued the ship owner for damage caused by the negligence of the master. Eyre J held that there was no difference between a land carrier and a water carrier, and therefore the owners were under a special liability as carriers for the acts of their servants; but Holt CJ rested his judgment on the broad principle that ‘whoever employs another is answerable for him, and undertakes for his care to all that make use of him’.
Both master and part owners of a ship are liable; but part-owners must be joined. Trespass on the case on a special verdict, the case was, A. loaded goods in good plight on board a ship, which commonly carried goods in safety from Topsham to London, and from London to Topsham, for reasonable freight (the danger of the seas only excepted) ; and ’tis found that these goods were damnify’d otherwise than by the sea ; that the goods were delivered to the master of the ship, that the plaintiff did not know the part-owners ; that the owners had the money agreed for the freight;
and farther, that there were more owners than the now
defendant.
Upon this case three points do arise.
1. Whether the action lay against the owners or against the master.
2. Whether the action be well brought against some of the part-owners only.
3. Admitting it is not, whether it be good nom, it being waved, arid not pleaded in abatement’?

Judges:

Eyre J, Holt CJ

Citations:

(1691) 2 Salk 440

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
See AlsoBoson v Sandford and others 1724
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606512

Regina v Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Others: QBD 21 Mar 1996

An order restricting the number of night flights but without apportioning those numbers between different categories was valid.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Apr-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Environment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87961

The Oinoussian Friendship: 1987

A claim was made for physical damage to a vessel.
Held: Where the owners take advantage of the fact that repairs are being done by having owners’ work done at the same time, and (1) the owners’ work does not extend the cost of or period of repairs, and (2) the owners’ work was not immediately necessary so that the vessel would have been out of commission irrespective of the wrongful damage, in which case the owner cannot recover at all save insofar as the wrongful damage repairs add to the period of detention, there is no principle of law that requires apportionment by way of owners’ contribution to the outlay.

Citations:

[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 258

Cited by:

CitedBorealis Ab v Geogas Trading Sa ComC 9-Nov-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.425901

Pavia and Co SPA v Thurmann-Nielsen: CA 1952

In cif contracts the credit must be opened at the latest at the beginning of the shipment period. The seller is entitled, before he ships the goods to be assured that when he does so, he will get paid.

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 84

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

BindingIan Stach v Baker Bosley Ltd 1958
The parties contracted for the sale of ship plates fob Benelux port for shipment to Canada in August-September 1956 with payment to be by confirmed irrevocable credit. The buyers failed to open the credit either by August 1st or by August 8th when . .
CitedKolmar Group Ag v Traxpo Enterprises Pvt Ltd ComC 1-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages in contract alleging economic duress. They said that at a late stage, when the defendant knew of the urgent needs of the caimant, he imposed an exorbitant change of price.
Held: The claim succeeded. The pressure . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.396480

Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH, The Puerto Buitrago: CA 1976

The parties entered into a charterparty by demise of a bulk carrier. It was in a state of disrepair. The owners required the charterers to repair it before redelivery, and claimed hire losses until it was returned repaired. The extensive repairs required would have cost far more than the repaired value of the vessel. Mocatta J had accepted this proposition.
Held: The appeal succeeded. If the vessel was out of repair when redelivered, the charterers were liable in damages, but the redelivery without first repairing the vessel was nevertheless valid.
Lord Denning MR considered whether, if the redelivery had been a repudiation of the contract, the owners would have been entitled to refuse to accept it and sue for hire thereafter. The decision in White and Carter had no application ‘in a case in which the plaintiff ought, in all reason, to accept the repudiation and sue for damages, provided that damages would provide an adequate remedy for any loss suffered by him’.
Orr LJ discussed the White and Carter point, saying that in this case, first, the owners could not perform the contract without the co-operation of the charterers and, secondly, the charterers had set out to prove that the owners had no legitimate interest in claiming the hire rather than damages.
Browne LJ agreed with Lord Denning on the principal point and with Orr LJ on the White and Carter point.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Orr LJ

Citations:

[1976] 1 Lloyds Reports 250

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedReichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .
CitedClea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International, The Alaskan Trader (No 2) 1984
The 24 month charterparty vessel suffered a major engine breakdown after nearly a year. The repairs would take several months. The charterers said they had no further use for the vessel but the owner did the repairs and sought to hold the charterers . .
DistinguishedSalaried Staff London Loan Company Ltd v Swears and Wells Ltd SCS 15-Feb-1985
. .
CitedMSC Mediterranean Shipping Co Sa v Polish Ocean Lines (The Tychy) CA 31-Mar-1999
A slot charterer had a right in a ship, even if only of a part of the ship, and so a claim under the agreement to arrest a sister ship of the chartering company could be heard within the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction. . .
CitedOcean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (‘The Dynamic’) ComC 31-Jul-2003
The arbitrator had held in favour of the charterers that the owners were limited to damages and could not claim hire. The owners appealed.
Held: The arbitrator had not applied the law correctly in rejecting the owners’ claim to hire, and he . .
CitedIsabella Shipowner Sa v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd ComC 26-Apr-2012
The claimant ship owners challenged an award on two grounds. First, with permission, the owners appealed under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the following question of law: ‘Whether, as a matter of law, owners were entitled to refuse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.396612

Willoughby And Others v Horridge: 19 Nov 1852

The lessees of a ferry provided steam-boats for the conveyance of passengers, goods, and cattle from A. to B., and also slips for landing and embark ing, which were (generally) sufficient for the purpose :—Held, that they were liable for an injury sustained by the horse of a passenger, in consequence of the side-rail of the landing slip (of the dangerous state of which they had been forewarned) giving way, although the horse was at the time under the control and management of its owner.

Citations:

[1852] EngR 1026, (1852) 12 CB 742, (1852) 138 ER 1096

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Animals

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.296149

Regina v The Caledonian Railway Company: 20 Nov 1850

A railway company, before applying for a Deviation Act, deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county, plans and sections of the proposed line, and cross sections shewing the manner in which roads were to be carried over the line. On one of those cross sections, No. 3, were delineated the manner in which it was proposed to carry a road at I. over the line by a bridge, and the proposed inclination of the altered line of road. The Deviation Act, when obtained, incorporated the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and enacted (sect. 9) that it should be lawful to the company to construct the bridges, for carrying the railway thereby authorized over any roads, or for carrying any roads over the said railway, of the heights and spans and in the manner shewn on the sections deposited. The company made the line, and at I. deviated two feet vertically from the level marked on the plans. They carried the road over the line on a bridge of the proposed height and span, but with a different inclination of the altered road. A mandamus having issued, commanding the company to make the bridge and carry the road over it in conformity with crass section, No. 3, and at the rates of inclination delineated thereon as the rates of inclination of the road when altered. 1, That the exhibition of the plans and sections imposed no obligation on the company, except in so far as the plans, andc., were incorporated in the Act. 2. That nothing in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, rendered the cross sections obligatory on the company. 3. That, if sect. 9 in the special Act was obligatory (which, semble, it was so far as regarded the height and spans of the bridges), the obligation did not extend to the rates of inclination of the altered road, and that, Held, on demurrer to a plea to the return, 1, That
the exhibition of the plans and sections imposed no obligation on the company, except in so far as the plans, andc., were incorporated in the Act. 2. That nothing in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, rendered the cross sections obligatory on the company. 3. That, if sect. 9 in the special Act was obligatory (which, semble, it was so far as regarded the height and spans of the bridges), the obligation did not extend to the rates of inclination of the altered road, and that, the mandatory part of the writ going in this respect beyond the obligation
imposed by law, the writ was bad altogether.
Distinguished,

Citations:

[1850] EngR 868, (1850) 16 QB 19, (1850) 117 ER 782

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.298215

The ‘Columbus’: 9 Mar 1849

Where a vessel is sunk in a collision, and compensation is awarded by the Court of Admiralty to the full value of the vessel as for a total loss, the plaintiff will not be able to recover anything in the nature of a demurrage for loss of the employment of his vessel or his own earnings in consequence of the collision.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 380, (1849) 3 W Rob 158, (1849) 166 ER 922

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Kate 1899
The Kate was totally lost in a collision with the defendants’ ship, whilst on the ballast leg of a charterparty. The issue was whether in a case of total loss as opposed to partial loss of a ship without a cargo, the plaintiffs could recover only . .
CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.298685

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Co v Harvey and Sons (No 2): CA 2 Jan 1929

The Company had constructed a jetty under powers granted by a private Act of Parliament. It asserted a claim to own the subsoil.
Held: It did so own the sub-soil and had the right under the statute to control who used the jetty.

Citations:

[1929] 144 LT 132, 95 JP 9, 47 TLR 16, 29 LGR 22

Citing:

CitedLiverpool and North Wales SS Co Ltd v Mersey Trading Co 1908
A company was authorised by Order to construct a pier and to charge vessels for mooring. It did so but went into liquidation. The assignee from the liquidator discovered that the pier had not been constructed as ordered. It leased the pier to the . .
See AlsoBournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Co v Harvey and Sons CA 1929
In construing a private statute, it should be viewed so as not to prevent persons carryong out otherwise lawful acts unless expressly so stated.
Scrutton LJ said that clear and unequivocal words were necessary to deprive persons of the power . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.272211

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association: Admn 21 Apr 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 332

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 6-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

LeaveRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, Ex Parte International Air Transport Association QBD 3-Jun-1999
The Association sought judicial review to challenge the 1998 Order.
Held: Where an EC regulation was properly completed, it was valid even though different member states had, before joining the EC, had subscribed to International Treaties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.139596

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association: Admn 6 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 1052

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 21-Apr-1999
. .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, Ex Parte International Air Transport Association QBD 3-Jun-1999
The Association sought judicial review to challenge the 1998 Order.
Held: Where an EC regulation was properly completed, it was valid even though different member states had, before joining the EC, had subscribed to International Treaties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.139173

Smit Tak Offshore Services and Others v Youell and Others: CA 15 Jan 1992

A marine insurance policy did not cover the cost of compliance with an unlawful threat from the state of Dubai to revoke a licence if a wreck was not removed. The threat did not create a legal responsibility covered by the insurance. An umbrella policy designed to cover risks not otherwise insured against, could not thereby be expected to cover all other risks.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jan-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89310

K A and S B M Feakins Ltd v Dover Harbour Board: QBD 9 Sep 1998

A wrongful decision by a harbour authority not to allow exports of live animals through the port, did not give a right to a private claim for damages, even though it was in breach of a statutory duty.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Sep-1998, Times 09-Sep-1998

Statutes:

Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.82654

Hussain v Bradford City Council: QBD 15 Feb 1993

If a complaint was made that a private hire vehicle was acting in contravention of the regulation, requiring it to display the licence plate issued by the local authority, indicating the maximum number of passengers, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the vehicle was plying for hire at the time of the alleged offence.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 48 (6)(b)

Local Government, Licensing, Transport, Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.81565

Stanton v Richardson: 1874

The shipowner contracted to carry wet sugar but the ship was not fit to carry it. The jury found also that it could not be made fit in time to avoid frustrating the purpose of the voyage. The molasses had drained from the wet sugar into the hold in large quantities and the ship’s pumps were unable to deal with it. The cargo was unloaded.
Held: The charterers were entitled to refuse to reload it or to provide any other cargo. If the defect had been or could have been remedied within a reasonable time so as not to frustrate the adventure the charterer’s right would not have been to terminate the charter-party but to have claimed damages for any loss occasioned by the delay.

Citations:

[1874] 9 Common Pleas 390

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd CA 20-Dec-1961
The plaintiffs had recently acquired the ship the ‘Hong Kong Fir’ and contracted to charter it to the defendants, but being late in delivering it, the defendants cancelled the charterparty contract. The plaintiffs said the repudiation was wrongful, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.266193

Freeman v Taylor: 1846

The charterer claimed a deviation by the owner. The jury found the deviation of such a nature and description as to deprive the freighter of the benefit of the contract.
Held: The verdict was upheld.

Judges:

Tindal CJ

Citations:

[1846] 8 Bingham 124

Cited by:

CitedHong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd CA 20-Dec-1961
The plaintiffs had recently acquired the ship the ‘Hong Kong Fir’ and contracted to charter it to the defendants, but being late in delivering it, the defendants cancelled the charterparty contract. The plaintiffs said the repudiation was wrongful, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.266197