Where the terms of a statute are incorporated into a contract by reference, the contract has to be read as if the words of the statute are written out in the contract and construed, as a matter of contract, in that contractual context. The Hague Rules applied to ballast voyages: ‘My Lords, it is, I think permissible in a consideration of this commercial transaction to ask what possible difference it makes to the charterers whether the delay, to which their loss is due, occurs when the ship is in ballast or is loaded with a cargo of oil or of water. It matters not for this purpose whether the charterparty was for a single voyage, as the original document seemed to contemplate, or for a number of consecutive voyages. The contractual subject-matter was the whole period during which the vessel was under charter, and it is, in my opinion, to this whole period that the parties agreed that the statutory standard of obligation and immunity should relate.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds

Citations:

[1959] AC 133

Cited by:

Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’ CA 17-May-2002
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should . .
Cited – Farstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SC 6-Apr-2011
The court was asked by the parties to a charterparty whether one of them is an ‘Affiliate’ of the charterer for the purposes of provisions in a charterparty by which both the owner and the charterer agreed to indemnify and hold each other harmless . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.179852

A trainee paraglider pilot was injured, and claimed against the instructor. He replied that her claim was out of time as a passenger of an air transport undertaking. The court held that his activities did not fall within the concepts of the Convention, and the claim was not time-barred.

Citations:

Unreported, 9 November 2000

Statutes:

Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 No 480, Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929, Civil Aviation Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Disley v Levine (T/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding) CA 11-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from her instructor, after being injured as a passenger trainee pilot of a paraglider. He responded that she was out of time, since the regulations applied. His appeal was refused. The system of regulation did not mention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.135673

Where a foreign crew of a ship, not paid their wages by their employer, had the right to request payment by an agent to nominated accounts in their home country, their right of maritime lien over the ship remained intact to the extent of that right.

Citations:

Times 08-Jul-1999

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89849

Citations:

[1921] 1 KB595

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.554756

Citations:

[1862] EngR 261, (1862) 11 CB NS 787, (1862) 142 ER 1005

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.286427

The Cargo limitation of liability restriction applies to separate items not to the container units as a whole.

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Hague Rules 1922

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Owners of Cargo Lately Laden Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line Limited CA 29-Jul-1997
Liability under the Hague Convention is limited by the number of cargo packets where so listed, and not by the number of containers. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Owners of Cargo Lately Laden Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line Limited CA 29-Jul-1997
Liability under the Hague Convention is limited by the number of cargo packets where so listed, and not by the number of containers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84501

Telex or fax notice of arrival of ship and commencement of lay time given outside working hours took effect at start of next working hours.

Citations:

Times 26-Mar-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80732

Citations:

(1923) 16 Lloyds Rep 198

Cited by:

Appeal from – Thrige v United Shipping Company Ltd CA 1924
The plaintiff sold machinery to a purchaser in England. The terms of sale were cash against documents. Thrige took a straight bill of lading which named the Victoria Company as the consignee without any reference to ‘or order or assigns’. The goods . .
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: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222775

Cummins as consignor had contracted with Davis, another English company, for the carriage of engines from England to Amsterdam. Davis instructed Charterway to undertake the leg from Rotterdam to Amsterdam, and Charterway in turn asked Graaf, who asked Boers to do this. Charterway, Graaf and Boers were all Dutch firms and all successive carriers under CMR. Cummins issued a writ in England against all four, but served only Davis. Davis issued third party proceedings to join and seek recourse from Charterway, Graaf and Boers, who applied to have the third party proceedings set aside on the basis that under article 39.2 any recourse proceedings against them could only be in Holland.
Held: The application Succeeded.
Brandon LJ made the following general statement regarding jurisdiction in the main proceedings: ‘It is clear from the provisions of CMR contained in Chapters V and VI that it contemplates two kinds of legal proceedings arising out of a contract of carriage. The first kind of legal proceedings which it contemplates are actions brought by a sender or consignee of goods against one or more carriers. Where successive carriers are involved, the effect of article 31, paragraph 1, combined with article 34, is that the plaintiff can bring a single action against one, more than one, or all the carriers concerned. Article 31, paragraph 1, further requires him to bring his action in certain courts only. These courts are, first, any court of a contracting state which has been agreed between the parties; secondly, the courts of the country where any of the carriers sued is ordinarily resident, or has his principal place of business, or the branch or agency through which the contract of carriage was made; and, thirdly, the courts of the place where the goods were taken over for the carriage or the place where they were to be delivered.
It is on the basis of these provisions that, in the present case, Cummins issued a writ against four parties, Davis, Charterway, Graaf and Boers, although they have only served such writ on Davis.’
O’Connor LJ described the scheme of the CMR: ‘It will be seen that the scheme of the Convention, starting in article 31, is that normally, unless the parties otherwise agree, any legal proceedings are to be originated in the jurisdiction of ‘the defendant’ (article 31, paragraph 1(a)), and I am content, under the ordinary rules of interpretation, to read ‘defendant’ for ‘defendants’. The only alternative there given is the place where the goods were taken over or the place designated for delivery. The place where the goods were taken over by the carrier, in my judgment, refers to the place where the contract of carriage commenced (see article 1 of the Convention) and cannot be repeated down the line where successive carriers have participated in the carriage at various stages. That in the present case was Scotland and the place of delivery was Holland. Therefore, Cummins were limited to bringing the action, as far as the jurisdiction of the defendant was concerned, either in England (Davis) or in Holland the other three.’

Judges:

Brandon, O’Connor LJJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 1363

Statutes:

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1 56

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – British American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .
Cited – ITT Schaub-Lorenz Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH v Birkart Johann lnternationale Spedition GmbH and Co KG CA 1988
Bingham LJ considered dicta in Cummins Engine, and said: ‘although it could not be regarded as ‘having more than persuasive authority . . I think (with respect) that it is plainly right’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592015

A first carrier’s bill of lading provided for shipment at Nicaragua, discharge and transshipment at Cristobal by a named ‘on carrier’ and a final destination in London. Clause 11, dealt with the circumstances of transshipment, to the effect that the first carrier made arrangements for the transshipment and on-carriage ‘solely as the forwarding agent of the shipper and without any other responsibility whatsoever’ and that the transshipment and on-carriage would be subject to ‘all the provisions of the regular form of bill of lading’ of the second carrier. No further bill of lading was issued, but the second carrier did have a regular form of bill of lading. The plaintiff’s cargo was damaged on the second leg and it sued the second carrier. The issue was whether the regime terms of the first carrier’s bill of lading applied throughout the voyage to London, or whether the terms of the second carrier’s regular bill of lading applied.
Held: The second carrier’s terms applied.

Judges:

Sellers J

Citations:

(1956) Ll L Rep 105

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

Transport

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181883

The ship arrived at port to discharge part of the cargo, but the port was congested. The ship owners went to another port to discharge other cargo, and returned later. The ship could not have been berthed in the interim period. An arbitration awarded to the ship owners for demurrage by the charterers, was appealed. Held the ship owner could not claim demurrage for the time when the ship was engaged on activities for other co-charterers even though she had not lost her turn at the port..

Judges:

Justice Andrew Smith

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-2002

Transport

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.167569

Whether a loss by piracy falls within an ‘In-Transit Loss’ clause in a voyage charterparty.

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 91

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.543031

Tomlinson LJ drew attention to the danger of attempting to draw parallels between an aircraft operating (dry) lease and some other more commonly litigated superficially similar instruments such as time charters of ships, where the legal incidents are, for obvious reasons, hallowed by far longer usage. Not only are ships very different in their nature from passenger aircraft, but that an operating lease is significantly different in character from a time charterparty: ‘Under a time charter the owner retains possession of the ship and is responsible for its maintenance and for its crewing and navigation. The charterer has a right to give instructions as to the vessel’s employment, making therefore essentially commercial decisions as to the commitments which can be achieved during the period for which the vessel is at its disposal. Under an operating lease the position is very different. The lessee takes possession of the aircraft and becomes responsible for its maintenance and insurance. After delivery the aircraft, engines and every part are at the sole risk of the lessee, who therefore bears the risk of loss, theft, damage, destruction and unexpected mechanical problems.’

Judges:

Tomlinson LJ

Citations:

[2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 396

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.509977

The court considered ‘the nature of a shipowner’s right to recover from charterers remuneration for services rendered after a ship has been withdrawn from the charterers’ service under a time charter, pursuant to an express contractual right of withdrawal’.
Held: Apart from any express request which might be found to have been made (to render such services), Rober Goff J thought that ‘their liability (if any) to pay remuneration for the services so rendered can only derive from the principles of the law of restitution’.

Judges:

Robert Goff J

Citations:

[1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Petroleo 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: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.462962

A carrier’s right to an indemnity for damage resulting from the transport of dangerous goods, does not depend on whether the shipper knew of the dangerous nature and character of the goods or was at fault in permitting their shipment or not warning the carrier of their dangerous nature.
Judge Diamond, QC identified what a carrier has to prove in order to recover under the Rules: ‘In my view it is clear as a matter of construction that if the carrier is able to prove the three matters specified in art. IV, r. 6 then he is entitled to recover compensation from the shipper for the loss sustained by him as the result of the shipment of a dangerous cargo. What the carrier has to prove is (a) that the shipper shipped goods of an ‘inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature’; (b) that neither the carrier, the master nor any agent of the carrier consented to the shipment of such goods with knowledge of their nature and character and (c) that the carrier suffered damages or expenses ‘directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment’ (i.e. from the shipment of the goods of the described class).’

Judges:

Judge Diamond, QC

Citations:

[1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 257

Statutes:

Hague Rules Art IV, r 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona) CA 27-Jul-1994
A ship owner is to have made his ship seaworthy in order to claim an indemnity for dangerous fuel set alight by a third party. He was not entitled to claim where the failure to keep the ship seaworthy was his own.
Hirst LJ said: ‘The inclusion . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.462286

(High Court of Australia) Instead of rescuing the vessel, she had been despatched to recover, the Walumba tug herself came into peril, and was salved by a pilot boat.
Held: The pilot boat was to be awarded pounds 10,000 for its services. A clause from the United Kingdom Standard Towage Conditions were held to form part of the contract between the owners of the tug WALUMBA and the owners of a vessel which she went to assist when aground off the coast of Australia. The clause provided: ‘3. The Tugowner shall not, whilst towing, bear or be liable for damages of any description done . . to the tug . . or for loss of the tug . . or for any personal injury or loss of life, arising from any cause, including negligence at any time of the . . tug, its machinery, boilers, towing gear, equipment or hawsers, lack of fuel, stores or speed, or otherwise, and the Hirer shall pay for all loss or damage and personal injury or loss of life, and shall also indemnify the Tugowner against all consequences thereof’.
Kitto J said: ‘The question, therefore, is whether a salvage liability incurred in such circumstances as those of the present case should be considered to have been outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties as consequences of damage to the tug; and that depends on the view a business or seafaring man would take ‘without too microscopic analysis but on a broad view’: per Lord Wright in Yorkshire Dale Steamship Company, Ltd. V. Minister of War Transport , [1942] A.C. 691 at p.706; (1942) 73 Ll. L. Rep. 1, at p.10.’

Judges:

Kitto J

Citations:

[1965] 1 Lloyds Rep 121

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Cited – Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co Ltd v Minister of War Transport HL 1942
Treatment of Merchant as War Vessel
The House considered when a merchant vessel may be treated on the same footing as a war vessel and be deemed to be engaged on a warlike operation.
Held: This depended on the nature of the cargo and the voyage: ‘She was then in the act of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (‘the Eurus’) CA 18-Nov-1997
Arcadia chartered the Eurus, and had succeeded in their application for an award in arbitration proceedings against Total. The award had been reversed, and they now appealed against that order. The parties disputed whether the amount was an award of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.462288

By a local act, 6 Geo. 4, c. Ixxi., the company of proprietors of a public navigation were empowered to make bye-laws for the good government of the company and for the good and orderly using the navigation, and also for the well-governing of the burgemen, watermen, and boatmen, who should carry any goods, wares, or merchandise upon any part of the said navigattion, and to impose and inflict such reasonable fines or forfeitures upon all persons offending against the same, as to the major part of the company should seem meet, not exceeding andpound;5. The company made a bye-law that the navigatiori should be closed on every Sunday throughout the year, and that no business should be transacted thereon during such time, (works of necessity only excepted), nor should any person during such time navigate any boat, andc nor should any boat, andc. pass along any part of the said navigation on any Sunday, except for a reasonable distance for the purpose of mooring the same, and except on some extraordinary necessity, or for the purpose of going to, or returning from, any place of divine worship, under a penalty of andpound;5 :-Held, that the act did not authorize the company to make the above bye-law, and that it was illegal and void.

Citations:

[1845] EngR 685, (1845) 14 M and W 76, (1845) 153 ER 396

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.303827

The cargo owner sought to establish a further contract with the ship-owners arising out of arrangements made to cope with the situation arising from an unauthorised diversion to Malta rather than Ravenna.

Citations:

[1993] 1 LlR 311

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.270351

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2434 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.260302

Cargo was damaged in the course of a voyage by the failure of a fitter employed by ship repairers to secure the inspection cover on a storm valve. The cargo owner sued the shipowner in contract, and recovered.
Held: It was no defence that the repairs had been carried out by a reputable independent contractor. The obligation to make a ship seaworthy under article III, r. 1, is a fundamental obligation which the owner cannot transfer to another. The Rules impose an inescapable personal obligation.

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1961] AC 807

Statutes:

Hague-Visby Rules AIII r1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jindal 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 . .
Cited – Marc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others HL 6-Jul-1995
A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea.
Held: The marine classification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.219887

In Scotland the risk of loss of a consignment might pass before delivery, but the ownership would not pass until delivery was made.

Citations:

(1886) 13 R (HL) 57

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.218899

Citations:

(1873) LR 8 QB 161

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.188842

ComC Shipping – ship – ‘beneficial ownership’ – Supreme Court Act 1981 – section 21(4)(ii) – demise charterers Shipping – ship – charterer under charter by demise – Supreme Court Act 1981 section 21(4)(ii) – section 3(4) Administration of Justice Act 1956 – amendment

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

Unreported, 30 November 1995

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 21(4)(ii), Administration of Justice Act 1956 3(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Owners of Cargo lately laden on Board the ship Nazym Khikmet and Ors CA 1996
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Owners of Cargo lately laden on Board the ship Nazym Khikmet and Ors CA 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185995

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gross, Flaux LJJ

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 782, [2018] EWCA Civ 2760

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.631174

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 217, [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 909, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 586, [2014] 1 CLC 293, [2014] WLR(D) 113, [2014] 1 WLR 3883, 2014 AMC 686, [2014] CP Rep 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.522110

Staughton J said: ‘(2) Orders as to employment.
It is well settled that the orders which a charterer is entitled to give, and an owner bound to obey, are orders as to the employment of the vessel. They do not include orders as to navigation, which remains in the control of the owner through his master – at any rate in the absence of special and unusual terms. It follows that a charterer, again in the absence of such terms, is only bound to indemnify the owner against the consequences of orders as to employment, and not of orders as to navigation . . The question here is whether the order to proceed to Dawes Island anchorage was an order as to employment or as to navigation. Seeing that the manifest intention was for the vessel to lighten there by discharging part of her cargo, I am of opinion that it was plainly an order as to employment. By contrast the advice of the pilot as to precisely where the vessel should anchor, if it had been an order and if (which is not suggested) it had been given on behalf of the charterers, would have been an order as to navigation.’

Judges:

Staughton J

Citations:

[1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 180

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.462941

In assumpsit upon a memorandum for a charter-party, describing the agreement of the defendant, the shipowner, to proceed with all convenient speed to a foreign port, and there load, within 20 running days, a cargo from the plaintiff’s factors, and therewith return home, and in 15 running days deliver the same, on payment of certain freight, concluding with a certain penalty for non-performance : held that the plaintiff might recover damages on the breach of the contract, in the defendant’s not permitting the vessel to proceed on the voyage, beyond the amount of the penalty.

Citations:

[1811] EngR 164, (1811) 13 East 343, (1811) 104 ER 402

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (‘the Eurus’) CA 18-Nov-1997
Arcadia chartered the Eurus, and had succeeded in their application for an award in arbitration proceedings against Total. The award had been reversed, and they now appealed against that order. The parties disputed whether the amount was an award of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.339248

The master of a ship signing a bill of lading for goods which have never been shipped, is not to be considered as the agent of the owner in that behalf, so as to make the latter responsible to one who has made advances upon the faith of bills of lading so signed.

Citations:

[1851] EngR 256 (B), (1851) 10 CB 665

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.296572

Judges:

Lord Justice Tomlinson

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1449, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.518034

Affirmed.

Citations:

[1909] 1 Ch 209, [1909] 78 LJ Ch 17, [1909] 73 JP 19, [1909] 25 TLR 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Liverpool 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.272209

A charter-party provided that the ‘River Ettrick’ should proceed to Bo’ness and there receive a full cargo of coals.
On 17th October the shipowners intimated in writing to the charterers that the vessel had left for Bo’ness, and requested them to have the cargo forward on the 19th. The ‘River Ettrick’ arrived in Bo’ness roads on the 19th, hut was not allowed to enter the dock owing to its crowded state. The fact of her arrival was known to the charterers’ agent, who was also agent for the ship.
On 21st October a berth became unexpectedly vacant in the dock, and would have been given to the ‘River Ettrick’ if her cargo had been forward. As her cargo was not forward the ‘River Ettrick’ failed to obtain this berth, and no other berth became available for her until the 26th, on which date she was docked.
Held ( aff. judgment of the Second Division, but on different grounds) that the charterers were not liable to the shipowners for demurrage, in respect that there was no obligation upon a charterer, apart from special circumstances, to have his cargo forward before the ship would in the ordinary course, and according to the custom of the port, obtain a berth for loading.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Herschell, Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Morris

Citations:

[1896] UKHL 514, 33 SLR 514

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.634012

The term ‘charterer’ in section 21(4) includes ‘time charterer’.

Citations:

[1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 225

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 21(4)

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Span Terza HL 10-Jan-1984
The parties, suppliers of goods and charterers, disputed the ownership of bunkers at the point of sale.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords I agree with Lord Justice Kerr that cl.3 [which set out that Owners were to pay for bunkers on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.422375

This was a suit to recover damagess for a collision beween the ‘Lamb’ and the ‘Rose and Crown’ for which the latter was solely to blame. Sentence for full damages was given against her.

Citations:

[1679] EngR 38, (1679) Burrell 254, (1679) 167 ER 560 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.402682

The claimant company chalenged the methods of claculation of its contribution to security costs at Gatwick airport.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1422 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Easyjet Airline Co Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Civil Aviation Authority CA 15-Dec-2009
The claimant appealed against rejection of its challenge to the respondent’s decision on charging structures for the use by airline of Gatwick airport, and in particular the alleged lack of adequate consultation by the respondent. After its own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.347252

Wilson applied for a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, on two grounds – first, that the verdict was against evldence , and, second, that the survey of the manor was receivable in evldence to prove the plaintiff’s title to wreck.

Judges:

Lord Lyndhurst, C B, Parke, B, Alderson, B, Gurney, B

Citations:

[1834] EngR 993, (1834) 6 Car and P 605, (1834) 172 ER 1384

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.317669

An iron steamer, while riding at anchor in an open roadstead, where she had been driven by distress, encountered some severe gales, in which she pitched and rolled a good deal, and some time afterwards, while still there waiting necessary repairs. A hole in her bottom was discovered which might have been repaired ; and there being also evidence that some of her rivets were wrenched and some of the iron plates on her bottom ‘ started ‘-injuries which might either have arlsen from straining in a storm, or from wear and tear and the assured having abandoned her and claimed as for a total loss, the underwriter paying into court a sum estimated only on a partial loss calculated on the cost of repair :–Held, 1. That the plaintiff could only recover for loss or injury proved to have been caused by perils of the seas. 2 That he could not recover as for a constructive total loss ; unless, under the circumstances, the captain was justified in abandonmg the ship 3. That this would depend, (1), upon whether the ship could and ought to be have been repaired where she was, or, (2), whether she could safely have been taken to some port where she might have been repaired 4. That the plaintiff could not recover for any injury caused by wear and tear, unless in consequence of the ship’s detention at the place in question by previous peril of the seas.

Citations:

[1862] EngR 104, (1862) 2 F and F 696, (1862) 175 ER 1245

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.286270

In an action on a marine poIicy for a constructive total loss arising from a leak. Held that it was for the jury whether the leak arose from the ship being unseaworthy before the voyage, either from any inlury arising before the insurance, or from ordinary wear and tear, or whether it arose from the perils of the seas in the course of the voyage insured, and whether the ship was abandoned in the exercise of an honest and reasonable discretion.

Citations:

[1862] EngR 83 (A), (1862) 3 F and F 80

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.286249

Citations:

[1863] EngR 3, (1863) 14 CB NS 1, (1863) 143 ER 343

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.282658

When the relevant period for the giving of a notice is a month or specified number of months after the giving of a notice, the general rule is that the period ends upon the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month, ie the day of that month that bears the same number as the day of the earlier month on which the notice was given. Cockburn CJ described the rule as ‘in accordance with common usage . . and with the sense of mankind’

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

[1863] EngR 643, (1863) 4 B and S 174, (1863) 122 ER 425

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Dodds v Walker HL 1981
The landlord served his notice to determine the tenancy on the last day of a 30 day month. The tenant served his counternotice on the 31st day of the month four months later.
Held: Dismissing the tenant’s appeal, the House found that the court . .
Cited – O’ Connor Utilities Ltd v HMRC Admn 28-Oct-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.283298

Citations:

[1864] EngR 222, (1864) 16 CB NS 137, (1864) 143 ER 1077

Links:

Commonlii

Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.281936