Category: Transport

Britain v ABC Cabs (Camberley) Ltd: QBD 1981

A hackney carriage had been booked, in the district where it was licensed, to pick up a fare in another district. The prosecutor said that when and where the fare was picked up the hackney carriage had no relevant private hire licence and no operator’s licence in force since it was not licensed in the area where the pick up occurred. The defendant argued that the licence for the hackney carriage which was in force, albeit in another district, was all that was required and therefore no offence was made out. The prosecutors referred to the definition of ‘licence’ in section 80, saying the taxi did not have a licence issued by the district where the fare was picked up.
Held: The Court relied on the definition of ‘private hire vehicle’ in section 80(1) which expressly excludes a hackney carriage and decided the case in favour of the defendant.
Webster J said: ‘I conclude without hesitation that being a hackney carriage licensed to ply for hire in that district, and not being in breach of that licence at that time and place, it was, for the purpose of section 46(1)(a), to be treated as a hackney carriage in respect of which a vehicle licence was in force, so that no offence under that section would have been made out.’

Judges:

Webster J

Citations:

[1981] RTR 395

Statutes:

Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 46(1)(e) 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Newcastle City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council and others Admn 5-Nov-2008
The applicant council complained that the respondent council was issuing a disproportionately high number of taxi licences, believing that it should only refuse a licence where the driver appeared to be unfit.
Held: The purpose of the . .
Applied – Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Wilson QBD 29-Jun-1995
The grant to an individual of a hackney licence in one local authority, does not stop the grant of a similar licence elsewhere. Though the court applied the ABC case, Buxton J rejected an argument that a vehicle was not a private hire vehicle for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.277887

Bournemouth-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 to do what they were doing for profit at the passing of the Act without anyone having the power of preventing them.
Greer LJ, dissenting said ‘There is a well-known canon of construction applicable to private Acts of Parliament that if the words used by the statute are ambiguous, the meaning that is most favourable to the public should be adopted; but I do not think that this has the effect of preventing the court from sayiong that if, when the whole of the statute in question is considered, it appears by necessary intendment that the privilege claimed was intended to be granted, the court should refuse to draw this inference because the Act does not contain express words creating the provilege claimed.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ, Greer LJ (dissenting)

Citations:

(1929) 94 JP 10, [1929] 1 Ch 686, [1929] 98 LJ Ch 118, [1929] 140 LT 415, [1929] 93 JP 129, [1929] 27 LGR 264

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – 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. . .
Appeal from – Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Co v Harvey and Sons HL 1930
The company had, under a private Act of Parliament, constructed a jetty and a roadway. They objected to the provision of similar services by the respondents
Held: Their appeal failed. An injunction against competition was refused. The Act did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.272210

Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (“The Muncaster Castle”): HL 1961

Persons employed by a carrier in the work of keeping or making a vessel seaworthy are the carrier’s agents whose diligence or lack of it is attributable to the carrier. A shipowner’s or carrier’s duty under Article III, Rule 1 would not start and he would not be responsible for work carried out until the transfer of ownership, or possession of the vessel, or until the vessel came into his ‘orbit’, service or ‘control’.
Considered decisions of foreign courts, in particular appellate decisions, should be treated as persuasive in order to strive for uniformity of interpretation of international conventions.
Lord Radcliffe said: ‘It is plain to me that this conclusion turns on the consideration that the causative carelessness took place at a time before the carrier’s obligation under article III (1) had attached and in circumstances, therefore, when the builders and their men could not be described as agents for the carrier ‘before and at the beginning of the voyage to . . make the ship seaworthy’. This is a tenable position for those who engage themselves upon the work of bringing the ship into existence. The carrier’s responsibility for the work itself does not begin until the ship comes into his orbit, and it begins then as a responsibility to make sure by careful and skilled inspection that what he is taking into his service is in fit condition for the purpose and, if there is anything lacking that is fairly discoverable, to put it right. This is recognised in the judgment. But if the bad work that has been done is ‘concealed’ and so cannot be detected by any reasonable care, then the lack of diligence to which unseaworthiness is due is not to be attributed to the carrier.’
The contemporary background of a treaty, including the legal position preceding its conclusion, can legitimately be taken into account as part of the context relevant to the interpretation of its terms.

Judges:

Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simonds

Citations:

[1961] AC 807

Statutes:

Hague Visby Rules III 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v CV Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Happy Ranger’ ComC 9-Feb-2006
A large cylinder part was damaged as it was being loaded on board the Happy Ranger in Italy. A hook on the crane was brittle and did not meet the approriate specification. It had not been tested as required. . .
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.252503

Larsen v Sylvester: HL 1908

A vessel was delayed by congestion for 9 days whilst waiting to load; she then loaded within the 84 hours allowed as laytime. The charterparty contained an exceptions clause which stated: ‘the parties hereto mutually exempt each other from all liability arising from floods . . and any other unavoidable accidents and hindrances of what kind soever beyond their control preventing or delaying the working, leading or shipping the said cargo occurring on or after the date of this charter until the actual completion of loading’.
Held: The ejusdem generis rule remains sound ‘both in law and as a matter of literary criticism’. However the inclusion of the words ‘of any other description’ at the end of a list precluded its application to this statute.

Citations:

[1908] AC 295, (1908) 96 LT 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – BOC Group Plc v Centeon Llc and Centeon Bio-Services Inc CA 29-Apr-1999
The court was asked whether a clause in a share sale agreement setting out the payment obligation worked to preclude the purchaser from exercising a right of set-off when the time comes to pay a later instalment of the price.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244719

Elpis Maritime Company Limited v Marti Chartering Company Limited (The Maria D): HL 1991

Brokers (Marti) were to guarantee a charter on the Gencon form, which contained, as one of the additional typed clauses a provision (Clause 24) in the following terms: ‘Demurrage guaranteed and payable directly by charterers to owners. However Marti guarantees about outstanding demurrage, if any, and for balance freight’ The brokers stamped and signed the front page ‘For and on behalf of charterers as brokers only’. The intervening pages were, so far as the brokers were concerned, simply stamped with the brokers’ stamp without any indication of capacity. The last page (which was the last page of the typed additional clauses 18-55) bore the brokers stamp and a signature below the words ‘Charterers’. There was an oral contract, made in the course of telephone conversations, by which Marti guaranteed the liabilities of the charterers in respect of demurrage and the balance of the freight.
Held: Lord Brandon indicated that there were two possibilities: a) Marti signed the page containing clause 24 as a contracting party, in which case the prior oral agreement of guarantee was subsumed in the written agreement signed by Marti on its own account so that there was a written agreement of guarantee signed by the person to be charged therewith and enforceable in the first of the two ways prescribed by the Statute; and b) Marti signed the charterparty, including clause 24, solely as agents of the charterers, in which case the signature, although affixed as agent for the charterers, was nevertheless a note or memorandum of the prior oral agreement. It was irrelevant with what intention or in what capacity Marti signed.
Held: The contention failed. It was irrelevant in what capacity or with what intention the document there being considered was signed. What mattered was the signature.

Judges:

Lord Brandon

Citations:

[1991] 3 WLR 330, [1992] 1 AC 21, [1991] 3 All ER 758, [1991] 2 Lloyds Rep 311

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Hoyle CA 1893
ALSmith LJ discussed the 1677 Act: ‘The object of the Statute was to prevent fraud and perjury by taking away the right to sue on certain agreements if only established by verbal evidence . . The object of the statute being merely to exclude parol . .
Cited – Evans v Hoare 1892
A defendant sought to deny liability under a document relying on the 1677 Statute. the relevant document had been drawn up by a duly authorised agent of the Defendants. The document was a letter from the Plaintiff and the words ‘Messrs Hoare, Marr . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA ChD 7-Apr-2006
The parties were in dispute. The now respondent threatened winding up. The appellant had someone in his company send an email requesting an adjournment and apparently giving a personal guarantee to a certain amount. The application was adjourned, . .
Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another ComC 21-Jan-2011
The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241712

Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping “The Angel Bell”: 1979

Creditors of the defendant who was subject to a Mareva injunction applied to the court to authorise the repayment of a loan out of monies otherwise subject to the order.
Held: The purpose of a freezing order is to avoid dissipation of a defendant’s assets in order to avoid a judgment, it is only bona fide debts in the ordinary course of business of a defendant whose assets are frozen that will be permitted to be paid out, including debts which are not themselves enforceable.
Robert Goff J said: ‘Mr. Hobhouse submitted that the purpose of the Mareva jurisdiction was to freeze a foreign defendant’s assets in this country to ensure that there is a fund available in this country from which the plaintiff will be able to satisfy a judgment. In support of this he relied in particular on the form of the order usually made in these cases which restrains the defendant from dealing with his assets within the jurisdiction and from removing his assets from the jurisdiction. I do not, however, see that the usual form of the order as such assists his argument. As was made plain by Mustill J. in the Third Chandris case, the point of the Mareva jurisdiction is to proceed by stealth, to pre-empt any action by the defendant to remove his assets from the jurisdiction. To achieve that result the injunction must be in a wide form because, for example, a transfer by the defendant to a collaborator in the jurisdiction could lead to the transfer of the assets abroad by that collaborator. But it does not follow that, having established the injunction, the court should not thereafter permit a qualification to it to allow a transfer of assets by the defendant if the defendant satisfies the court that he requires the money for a purpose which does not conflict with the policy underlying the Mareva jurisdiction.’
and ‘All the interveners are asking is that the defendants should be free to repay such a loan if they think fit to do so, not that the loan transaction should be enforced. For a defendant to be free to repay a loan in such circumstances is not inconsistent with the policy underlying the Mareva jurisdiction. He is not in such circumstances seeking to avoid his responsibilities to the plaintiff if the latter should ultimately obtain a judgment; on the contrary, he is seeking in good faith to make payments which he considers he should make in the ordinary course of business. I cannot see that the Mareva jurisdiction should be allowed to prevent such a payment. To allow it to do so would be to stretch it beyond its original purpose so that instead of preventing abuse it would rather prevent businessmen conducting their businesses as they are entitled to do.’

Judges:

Donaldson J, Robert Goff J

Citations:

[1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 491, [1981] 1 QB 65

Cited by:

Cited – Anton Durbeck Gmbh v Den Norske Bank Asa ComC 11-Nov-2005
The defendant bank arrested a ship carrying the claimant’s load of bananas. The cargo deteriorated while under arrest and was lost. It was not insured. The consignee sought damages from the arresting bank on the ground that it wrongfully interfered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.234846

Naviera Mogor SA v Societe Metallurgique de Normandie: “The Nogar Marin”: CA 1988

It is the duty of the Master (or his agent) to ensure that the description of the cargo and the condition of the cargo as set out in the bill of lading are accurate before he signs it. It is up to the charterer/shipper how the goods are described in the Mate’s receipts and bill of lading.

Judges:

Mustill LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sea Success Maritime Inc v African Maritime Carriers Ltd ComC 15-Jul-2005
The ship’s master had refused to accept the cargo relying on clause 52 of the standard form charterpraty agreement saying that the cargo had been damaged.
Held: Only if the shippers continued to insist on the description, and the master . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.229993

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

A claused bill of lading is one which qualifies the apparent good order and condition of the cargo as described in the bill of lading.

Judges:

Evans J

Citations:

[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.393

Cited by:

Cited – Sea Success Maritime Inc v African Maritime Carriers Ltd ComC 15-Jul-2005
The ship’s master had refused to accept the cargo relying on clause 52 of the standard form charterpraty agreement saying that the cargo had been damaged.
Held: Only if the shippers continued to insist on the description, and the master . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.229995

The Gudrun Maersk: 1941

In a collision case there had been a reference to assess damages before the Assistant Registrar and a merchant.andpound;97 10s. was claimed for the wages of an employed superintendent. The Assistant Registrar thought that the superintendent only did ‘slight extra work’ in excess of his ordinary duties. He allowed only andpound;5 5s.
Held: On a motion in objection to the report of the Assistant Registrar the court considered that it was impossible to lay down any general principle but the sum allowed was much too small. The superintendent had been put to a very large amount of work outside his normal duties. It was argued that the superintendent was an employee. The court approached the matter by giving the claimants the sum they would have been entitled to if they had put forward a claim properly vouched in respect of extra outside assistance but allowed the wrongdoer some part of the ‘advantage from the fact that the shipowner has a marine superintendent with special expert knowledge.’

Judges:

Langton J

Citations:

(1941) 70 LlL Rep 251

Cited by:

Cited – Carisbrooke Shipping Cv5 v Bird Port Ltd ComC 13-Sep-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230127

The Kumanovo: 1998

The court was requested to apply the standard allowance to a claim by cargo owners arising out of a collision.
Held: The court would not do so. There was no evidence as to what the cargo owners did as a result of the loss of their cargo, and the practice had never been challenged in a collision case and so the Court had never been asked to reject it. However: ‘I would certainly not encourage a party to challenge the approach in the future because it seems to me to be rooted in good sense. Shipowners’ businesses will almost inevitably be disrupted by collision so that there is likely to be an expenditure of management time and cost. It seems to me to be more sensible to adopt the conventional approach of adding 1 per cent. to the damages than to require the shipowners to prove the actual cost.’

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.301

Citing:

Cited – Tate and Lyle Distribution v Greater London Council 1982
The defendants were liable to the claimants for having failed to dredge silt which they had caused to be accumulated when constructing new piers for the Woolwich ferry and which had obstructed the claimants’ use of their barge moorings. The result . .

Cited by:

Cited – Carisbrooke Shipping Cv5 v Bird Port Ltd ComC 13-Sep-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230128

Voss v APL Co Pte Limited: 2002

(Court of Appeal of Singapore) The court asked whether a straight bill had to be produced by the consignee to obtain delivery.
Held: It had. The main characteristics of a bill of lading were its negotiability and its recognition as a document of title, requiring presentation to obtain delivery of the cargo. While a straight bill lacked the first of these characteristics, there was no reason to infer that the parties intended to do away with the other also. This conclusion was supported by considerations of commercial efficacy and convenience.

Citations:

[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 707

Cited by:

Cited – J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.222776

The Holstencruiser: 1992

Judges:

Hobhouse J

Citations:

[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 378

Statutes:

Hague-Visby Rules A2

Citing:

Applied – Pyrene 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:

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

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219883

Tor Line AB v Alltrans Group of Canada (The ‘TFL Prosperity’): HL 1984

A roll-on roll-off liner tendered under a charter party did not conform to the description in the contract and the owners relied on a widely drawn exclusion clause.
Held: The owners’ argument failed. A literal interpretation would have defeated the central objective of the charter contract and would have been commercially absurd. As a result, the exemption was read, not literally, but very restrictively and the owners were held to be liable, notwithstanding the exemption clause, for financial damage resulting from their breach of warranty.
No more should be read into an exemption clause in an insurance policy than is necessary to make sense of it, particularly where to do more would relieve a party from any obligation at all. The repugnancy doctrine (even at its most extreme) only entitles a court to disregard an exception clause if the contract as a whole would otherwise be virtually reduced to a declaration of intent.
Lord Roskill said: ‘Such a literal construction would mean that the owners would be under no liability if they never delivered the vessel at all for service under the charter or delivered a vessel with a totally different description from that stipulated in the preamble. My Lords I cannot think that this can be right.’ and ‘In truth if clause 13 were to be construed so as to allow a breach of the warranties as to description in clause 26 to be committed or a failure to deliver the vessel at all to take place without financial redress to the charterers, the charter virtually ceases to be a contract for the letting of the vessel and the performance of services by the owners, their master, officers and crew in consideration of the payment of time charter hire and becomes no more than a statement of intent by the owners in return for which the charterers are obliged to pay large sums by way of hire, though if the owners fail to carry out their promises as to description or delivery, are entitled to nothing in lieu. I find it difficult to believe that this can accord with the true common intention of the parties and I do not think that this conclusion can accord with the true construction of the charter in which the parties in the present case are supposed to have expressed that true common intention in writing.’ and ‘I doubt whether the fourth sentence of clause 13 imposes greater liabilities than would in any event fall upon the charterers either under the charter or at common law.’

Judges:

Lord Roskill

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 48, [1984] 1 Ll R 123, [1984] 1 All ER 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club Plc v Avon Insurance Plc, Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd, AGF Insurance Ltd IC Insurance Ltd ComC 15-Nov-2004
The claimant football club insured its players through the defendants. A footballer injured himself in training and his career was finished. The insurers rejected the claim, and relied upon exception clauses, saying that the true cause was a . .
Cited – BOC Group Plc v Centeon Llc and Centeon Bio-Services Inc CA 29-Apr-1999
The court was asked whether a clause in a share sale agreement setting out the payment obligation worked to preclude the purchaser from exercising a right of set-off when the time comes to pay a later instalment of the price.
Held: The appeal . .
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, Contract

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219699

The Filikos: 1981

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555

Statutes:

Hague-Visby Rules A2

Citing:

Applied – Pyrene 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:

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

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.219880

The Pelopidas: 1999

The use in court of plots of ship courses was to be only with care.

Citations:

[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 675

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – ‘Bow Spring’, Owners of Ship v ‘Manzanillo Ii’, Owners of Ship CA 28-Jul-2004
There had been a collision at sea.
Held: (Addendum) Where the admiralty court sought advice from assessors, modern good practice required that the advice should be disclosed to the parties advisers and that they have opportunity to comment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200450

The “Rosa S”: 1988

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

Judges:

Hobhouse J

Citations:

[1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 574

Statutes:

Hague Rules

Cited by:

Cited – Dairy Containers Ltd v Tasman Orient Line Cv PC 20-May-2004
PC (New Zealand) The appeal concerned the correct interpretation of a damage limitation clause in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea.
Held: Clause 6(B)(b)(i) must be construed in the context of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199557

Sewell v Burdick: HL 1884

What does the word ‘property’ encompass in the context of the assignment of a bill of lading? Is it limited to the general property in the goods, that is, the legal title to the goods as is transferred by a sale? Or does it include the special property which signifies the right to possession?
Held: It should be limited to the passing of the general property. Bills of lading are often used as security documents facilitating the financing by banks of merchants’ sale transactions. A bank’s interest is to use the possessory right to the document and the goods it represents as security; its interest is not to enter into contractual relations with the carrier, still less, to undertake contractual obligations towards the carrier. a transaction of pledge accompanied by the endorsement of the bill of lading over to the pledgee did not come within the scope of s.1 and did not transfer to the pledgee any contractual rights nor subject the pledgee to any contractual liabilities under the bill of lading. A person who had had the bill of lading endorsed to him while the goods were at sea and who then chose to take advantage of his possession of the bill of lading to ‘take the position of full proprietor upon himself with its corresponding burdens if he thinks fit’ ‘and that he actually does so as between himself and the shipowner if and when he claims and takes delivery of the goods by virtue of that title.’

Judges:

Earl of Selborne LC

Citations:

(1884) 10 AC 74

Statutes:

Bills of Lading Act 1855

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Smurthwaite v Wilkins 1862
The endorser of a bill of lading is not liable after he has endorsed over the bill of lading to another who is liable; the shipper remains liable as an original party to the contract. ‘Looking at the whole statute it seems to me that the obvious . .

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194549

Brandt v Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co Ltd: CA 1924

The plaintiff claimed damages from the shipowner for negligence in the carriage of a consignment of goods. He was not able to bring himself within the terms of the 1855 Act but he succeeded on the contract to be inferred from the presentation of the bill of lading and the delivery of the goods against it.
Held: The Court expanded the inferred contract with the master by acceptance of goods under the bill as fully encompassing the rights and obligations of the carrier on the terms of the bill of lading.

Judges:

Bankes, Scrutton and Atkin LJJ

Citations:

[1924] 1 KB 575

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194559

Sanders, Snow and Cockings v Vanzeller: 2 Feb 1843

Carrier’s lien under bill of lading

Citations:

(1843) 4 QB 260, [1843] EngR 316, (1843) 114 ER 897

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194555

The Aramis: CA 1989

The court considered the circumstances under which a contract might be implied: ‘As the question whether or not any such contract is to be implied is one of fact, its answer must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case – and the different sets of facts which arise for consideration in these cases are legion. However, I also agree that no such contract should be implied on the facts of any given case unless it is necessary to do so; necessary that is to say, in order to give business reality to a transaction and to create enforceable obligations between parties who are dealing with one another in circumstances in which one would expect that business reality and those enforceable obligations to exist.’ and ‘I do not think it is enough for the party seeking the implication of a contract to obtain ‘It might’ as the answer to these questions for it would, in my view, be contrary to principle to countenance the implication of a contract from conduct if the conduct relied on is no more than consistent with an intention to contract than with an intention not to contract. It must surely be necessary to identify conduct referable to the contract contended for or at the very least, conduct inconsistent with there being no contract made between the parties to the effect contended for. Put another way, I think it must be fatal to the implication of a contract if the parties would or might have acted exactly as they did in the absence of a contract.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 Lloyd’s 213

Statutes:

Bills of Lading Act 1855

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Cited – Cable and Wireless Plc v Muscat CA 9-Mar-2006
The worker was employed via an employment agency. The contract the company had was with the agency, and the agency had the contract with the worker. The worker claimed an implied contract of employment with the end-user.
Held: The end-user . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194561

In re Wait: 1927

In the case of a Bill of lading issued for quantities out of undivided consignments and where those quantities had been sold to different buyers and the various bills of lading endorsed over to them, those endorsements were ineffective to pass the legal title in the parts of an undivided whole to a purchaser.

Citations:

[1927] 1 Ch 606

Statutes:

Bills of Lading Act 1855

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194562

Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of the Steamship Susquehanna; The Susquehanna: HL 1926

An Admiralty oiler, the ‘Prestol’, was damaged in a collision with the defendants’ vessel in the Baltic. Her place was taken by another oiler, the ‘Belgol’, which was withdrawn from service on the Clyde. In effect, the Admiralty was able to make do with the resources at its disposal, making it unnecessary to charter in a substitute vessel. The Admiralty claimed general damages at the rate of andpound;225 a day in respect of the period during which the ‘Prestol’ was out of service while undergoing repairs, that being the rate at which she could have been chartered out. The registrar awarded damages at the rate of andpound;200 a day. The House considered the principles to be applied in assessing damages.
Held: The Admiralty was not entitled to recover general damages assessed by reference to the rate at which the vessel could be chartered out and on that point their Lordships were agreed. Viscount Dunedin said: ‘There is no difference in this matter between the position in Admiralty law and that of the common law . .’

Judges:

Viscount Dunedin

Citations:

[1926] AC 655

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – West Midlands Travel Ltd v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd CA 18-Jul-2013
The claimant bus operator sought damages after one of its buses was off the road for several weeks. It made a claim for general damages for loss of use, using for that purpose a formula produced by the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188654

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 defendants who then required an annual fee from the plaintiffs if they were to be allowed to moor. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain this requirement, denying the defendants’ title. An interim agreement was reached on condition of payment. The plaintiff now said these payments had been made under protest and sought repayment.
Held: The injunction was refused. Not having been constructed in accordance with the Order, the pier was a nuisance from which neither party had statutory rights. The sums paid were not repayable since the pier remained private property.
The verb ‘to moor’ has no technical meaning in law. A vessel which simply tied up temporarily to the pier in order to allow passengers to disembark and to embark was not ‘moored’ within the meaning of the order.

Citations:

[1908] 99 LT 863, [1908] 2 Ch 460, [1908] 77 LJ Ch 658, [1908] 72 JP 385, [1908] 24 TLR 712

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority v the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions QBD 26-Jun-2003
Captain Wyatt owned land near the harbour and wanted to moor his boat by it. The Harbour authority said he needed a licence. The Harbour authority requested him to move the boat as a danger to navigation. The Captain sought a judicial review of the . .
Appeal from – Liverpool and North Wales SS Co Ltd v Mersey Trading Co CA 1909
Affirmed. . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188215

China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama (The Mihalios Xilas): HL 1979

A hire clause was in bespoke terms providing for withdrawal ‘in default of payment’. The payment of hire for the final instalment was deficient because, as the umpire held, the charterers’ deductions for the length of the final voyage and bunkers on board at redelivery were unreasonable. There was no dispute that there was a default in payment of hire and the argument was addressed to whether owners had waived the right to withdraw in reliance on the withdrawal clause.
Held: The House considered the doctrines of election between different courses of action, and affirmation of a contract.
Lord Salmon criticised said: ‘My Lords, it would seem that there are some members of the Court of Appeal who do not approve of the Baltime form of charter and other forms of charter such as the New York Produce Exchange and the Shelltime forms which closely resemble it. These forms of charter are undoubtedly very strict in relation to the due payment of hire: their meaning, however, is perfectly clear and it is not permissible to put a construction upon them which would depart from that meaning. Unless the full amount of hire is paid by its due date the owners have the undoubted right to withdraw their vessel providing they do so within a reasonable time of the charterers’ default. The only exception is when the parties by their course of conduct (a) have as in the present case accepted that disbursements made by the charterers in respect of the owners’ liabilities may be deducted from the hire subject to vouchers being produced, or e.g., (b) have accepted as in Tankexpress A/S v. Compagnie Financiere Belge des Petroles S.A. [1949] A.C. 76 that the amount of hire posted two days before it falls due shall be deemed to have been paid in time. Otherwise, unless the full hire is paid by the time it falls due the charterers are in default and the vessel may be withdrawn. On the appeal to your Lordships’ House in The Laconia [1977] A.C. 850 I ventured to point out that the law relating to the owners’ rights under a Baltime form of charter to withdraw their vessel should the charterers fail to pay the hire in time had been clearly stated by your Lordships’ House in the Tankexpress case; but that a great deal of doubt on the subject had since been generated by the Court of Appeal in The Georgios C [1971] 1 Q.B. 488 and had troubled the waters ever since. I expressed the hope that those doubts might finally be dispelled by your Lordships’ reversal of the Court of Appeal’s decision in The Laconia and overruling its decision in The Georgios C. These doubts were, however, temporarily revivified by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the present case but will now, I think, permanently be laid to rest by your Lordships’ decision allowing this appeal; Certainty of meaning is of primary importance in all commercial transactions. Commercial contracts all over the world, having nothing to do with the United Kingdom, have for generations provided that any dispute arising under the contract shall be decided in the English commercial court or by arbitration in London according to English law. This is because of the confidence which exists throughout the commercial world in the administration of English justice. I fear that this confidence will hardly be strengthened should there be any further decisions in the Court of Appeal similar to those in The Georgios C, The Laconia and the instant case.’

Judges:

Scarman L, Lord Salmon

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 1018

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Cited – Peyman v Lanjani CA 1985
Application was made for consent to assign a lease. The court was asked whether or not the purchaser of a leasehold interest in a property, who had elected to affirm the contract despite a repudiatory breach by the vendor, could be held to his . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Contract, Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188151

Les Affreteurs Reunis SA v Leopold Walford (London) Ltd: HL 1919

With regard to Robertson -v- Wait: ‘My Lords, so far as I am aware, that case has not before engaged the attention of this House, and I think it right to say plainly that I agree with that decision and I agree with the reasoning, shortly as it is expressed, upon which the decision was founded. In this connection I would refer to the well-known case of In re Empress Engineering Company. In the judgment of Sir George Jessel MR the principle is examined which, in my view, underlies and is the explanation of the decision in Robertson v. Wait. The Master of the Rolls uses this language: ‘So, again, it is quite possible that one of the parties to the agreement may be the nominee or trustee of the third person. As Lord Justice James suggested to me in the course of the argument, a married woman may nominate somebody to contract on her behalf, but then the person makes the contract really as trustee for somebody else, and it is because he contracts in that character that the cestui que trust can take the benefit of the contract.’ It appears to me plain that for convenience, and under long established practice, the broker in such cases, in effect, nominates the charterer to contract on his behalf, influenced probably by the circumstance that there is always a contract between charterer and owner in which this stipulation, which is to enure to the benefit of the broker, may very conveniently be inserted. In these cases the broker, on ultimate analysis, appoints the charterer to contract on his behalf. I agree therefore with the conclusion arrived at by all the learned judges in Robertson v. Wait, that in such cases charterers can sue as trustees on behalf of the broker.’

Judges:

Lord Birkenhead LC, Viscount Finlay and Lords Atkinson Wrenbury

Citations:

[1919] AC 801

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Robertson v Wait 1853
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves and Company Ltd and others ComC 7-Nov-2003
One party sought a declaration that arbitrators should have no jurisdiction to determine claims for commission said to be due to the Respondent chartering brokers.
Held: Because he has in effect become a statutory assignee of the promisee’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Agency, Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187709

Rex v Betts: 1850

A navigation authority’s powers to build obstructions to navigation were confined to situations where they were aids to navigation.

Citations:

(1850) 16 QB 1022

Cited by:

Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency ChD 19-Dec-2002
Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Utilities

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187536

Maxine Footwear Co v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd: PC 1959

Cargo was ignited as a result of fire in insulation in the hold caused before the cargo was loaded.
Held: the vessel was unseaworthy from the time that the vessel caught fire and that the damage to the cargo was caused by the unseaworthiness.

Citations:

[1959] AC 589

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187653

Simpson v Attorney General: HL 1904

Lord Lindley said: ‘the doctrine once a highway always a highway is, I believe, applicable to rivers as to roads’

Judges:

Lord Lindley

Citations:

[1904] AC 476

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency ChD 19-Dec-2002
Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that . .
Cited – Attorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton HL 5-Dec-1991
The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river.
Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187532

Attorney-General v Mersey Railway Co: HL 1906

The power to make by-laws encompasses not only a company’s principle activity, but also all incidental and ancillary activities. The incidental power cannot be used to expand the company’s activities, in this case by extending its business by operating its own buses from its terminus.

Citations:

[1907] AC 415

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1991
Swap deals outwith Council powers
The authority entered into interest rate swap deals to protect itself against adverse money market movements. They began to lose substantial amounts when interest rates rose, and the district auditor sought a declaration that the contracts were . .
Cited – National Aids Trust v National Health Service Commissioning Board (NHS England) Admn 2-Aug-2016
NHS to make drug available
The claimant charity said that drugs (PrEP) prophylactic for AIDS / HIV should be made available by the defendant and through the NHS. The respndent said that the responsibility for preventative medicine for sexual health lay with local authorities. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187652

Vooght v Winch: 1819

Public rights of Navigation could not be extinguished by physical obstruction.

Citations:

(1819) 2 B and Ald 262, [1819] EngR 166, (1819) 2 B and A 662, (1819) 106 ER 507

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency ChD 19-Dec-2002
Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187533

Rex v Russell: 1827

‘The right of the public on navigable rivers is not confined to the passage: trade and commerce are the chief objects and the right of passage is chiefly subservient to those ends.’

Citations:

[1827] 6 BandC 566

Cited by:

Cited – Rowland v The Environment Agency ChD 19-Dec-2002
Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Land

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187530

Standard Oil Co of New York v Clan Line Steamers: HL 1924

A ship sank with the entire loss of the cargo. The cargo owners sought damages from the owners, saying that the ship was unseaworthy. The ship was of an unusual construction, requiring a certain amount of water ballast to be mainatined for the ship to be stable. The owners knew this but did not tell the ship’s master, who failed to act accordingly.
Held: The owners of the ship were liable to the cargo owners. The ship was not seaworthy in the absence of proper instructions.

Citations:

[1924] AC 100, 40 TLR 148, 68 SJ 234, 29 Com Cas 75, 130 LT 481, [1924] SC (HL) 1, 93 LJPC 49

Cited by:

Cited – Manifest 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

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182838

The Chitral: 2000

The PNSC bill of lading named the consignee of goods carried on the defendant’s vessel. Goods were damaged during the voyage. The bill of lading was otherwise in conventional form, but the box in which the consignee was to be named said ‘If order state notify party’ and no notify party was stated. It was nevertheless endorsed to another party. The defendant carrier said that having endorsed the bill, the claimant had no title to sue. The claimant said that its endorsement was ineffective because, since no notify party had been stated, the bill was not to order but a straight bill of lading. The carrier said that the bill remained an order bill because the general printed language of the bill said that delivery was to be ‘unto the above-mentioned consignee or to his or their assigns’.
Held: The argument was rejected. The form was drafted to permit its use either as a straight or order bill, and that therefore the more general language ‘consignee or . . assigns’ should be understood as subject to the implicit words ‘as applicable’

Judges:

Steel J

Citations:

[2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 529

Cited by:

Distinguished – 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 . .
Distinguished – Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’ CA 17-May-2002
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.181895

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

In order to exercise the statutory power of detention of an aircraft, the airport had to do some overt act evidencing the act of detention. Detention by an airport authority must be begun by some overt act. Such act need take no particular form. A simple declaration that the aircraft was detained, had it been made to [the operator], would have sufficed; so would an administrative act that would de facto have prevented the aircraft from being flown from the airport. In this case the fixing to the aircraft of a ‘lien notice’ was an act of detention.

Judges:

Phillips J.

Citations:

29 June 1988, (unreported)

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bristol 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: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181064

Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Limited (“The Miramar”): HL 1984

A bill of lading incorporated a charterparty. The question was whether clauses in the charterparty or bill of lading prevailed. The charter clause incorporated a demurrage clause making the charterer’s laible for demurrage, and the owners asserted that the included demurrage clause made the cargo’s consignee, as holders of the bill, directly responsible for the demurrage.
Held: On its true construction, the contract the parties to the bill of lading intended that the charterer alone should carry responsibility. There is no general rule of construction that an incorporated clause which related directly to the issue operate in substitution for clauses on the same issue in the bill.

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1984] AC 676, [1984] 3 WLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Considered – Gray v Carr 1871
. .
Considered – Porteua v Watney CA 1878
. .
Considered – The Merak 1965
. .
Considered – The Annefield 1971
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Tradigrain SA and Others v King Diamond Marine Limited The Spiros C CA 13-Jul-2000
The owner of a ship, the defendant, sought payment direct. The time charterer had become insolvent, but the ship had been sub-chartered to the claimant. The owner sought to exercise his lien over the cargo, but the sub-charterer had discharged his . .
Cited – Sigma Finance Corporation, Re; (in administrative receivership) SC 29-Oct-2009
The court considered how the losses of the insolvent company were to be distributed as between secured creditors and preferential creditors, given the terms of the applicable trust deed.
Held: The court considered the interpretations of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180931

Vehicle Inspectorate v Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd: QBD 19 Oct 2001

To rely upon the defence of having broken the seal unavoidably, the defendant had to prove that the breaking or removal of the tachograph seal could not have been avoided in itself. It was not enough to show the breaking of the seal could not have been avoided, and nor did the word ‘avoid’ mean the same as ‘prevent’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Poole

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001

Statutes:

Transport Act 1968 97(4), Community Recording Equipment Regulation (EC Regulation 3821/85) (OJ 1985 L370/8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166811

International Transport Roth GmbH and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 5 Dec 2001

The respondent introduced rules imposing fixed and penalties on HGV drivers coming into the UK who were found to have stowaway illegal entrants. The operators sought judicial review.
Held: The penalty was in the character of a criminal penalty, not a civil one as proposed by the Secretary of State. The opportunities to challenge the penalties allowed at enforcement stage were inadequate to remedy the infringements of his right to a fair trial. It was impossible to reconcile the rules and convention rights and a declaration of incompatibility was made.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-2001, Gazette 10-Jan-2002

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Carriers’ Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sale of Transporters) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 685), Carriers’ Liability (Clandestine Entrants) (Code of Practice) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No 684), Human Rights Act 1998, EC Treaty

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v International Transport Roth Gmbh and others CA 22-Feb-2002
The Appellant had introduced a system of fining lorry drivers returning to the UK with illegal immigrants hiding away in their trucks. The rules had been found to be in breach of European law and an interference with their human rights. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport, Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166974

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 16 Feb 1995

Supply of limousine service with airline ticket not separate taxable supply. It was incidental to the supply of air transport, and accordingly zero-rated.

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 03-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Value added Tax Act 1983 3(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Transport

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.90175

The Antares: CA 1987

The time limit of one year contained in Article III rule 6 applied to a claim for failure to carry under deck; the package limit in Article IV rule 5 was not inherently different. Whatever may be the position with regard to deviation clauses strictly so called, which should be assimilated into the ordinary law of contract, there was no reason for regarding the unauthorised loading of deck cargo as a special case.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ, Glidewell and O’Connor LJJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 24

Statutes:

Hague Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Transport

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181087

Fowler v Knoop: 1878

Citations:

(1878) 4 QBD 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tradigrain SA and Others v King Diamond Marine Limited The Spiros C CA 13-Jul-2000
The owner of a ship, the defendant, sought payment direct. The time charterer had become insolvent, but the ship had been sub-chartered to the claimant. The owner sought to exercise his lien over the cargo, but the sub-charterer had discharged his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180905

Hook v British Airways Plc: QBD 25 Feb 2011

The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his claim for damages, alleging a breach of the 2007 Regulations.

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 379 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Transport

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.430251

Rolls Royce Ltd and another v Heavylift-Volga Dnepr Ltd and another: QBD 26 Apr 2000

There is no effective difference between the words ‘aerodrome’ and ‘airport’. One is merely an old-fashioned version of the other. Where goods were damaged when the carriers storage agents sought to lift them. By that time, the carriage of the goods by air had begun, and the Warsaw convention applied with the effect of limiting the damages to be awarded.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-2000, Times 26-Apr-2000

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Damages

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88850

Sameon Co Sa v Nv Petrofina SA and Another (The World Hitachi Zosen): QBD 8 Apr 1996

An express contractual term will be required to displace the Convention rules on domicile. The standard wording in charterparty contracts is insufficient to do this. The word ‘adjusted’ by itself would normally be taken to refer to the process of assessment of general average contributions; more explicit wording would be needed to create a binding agreement as to the place of payment. Consequently, the wording of the clause was not sufficiently specific to bring the contract within article 5(1) or article 17 of the Brussels Convention, thereby enabling the general rule conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the defendants’ country of domicile to be ousted.

Judges:

Justice Langley

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1996

Statutes:

1968 Brussels Convention 5(1) 17, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88992

Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd: QBD 28 Mar 2003

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground.
Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute excluded such claims, and nor was there any reason why they should be excluded from the statute. The law had changed since the earlier statute. However the normal requirements as to foreseeability and remoteness applied.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982 76(2), Air Navigation Act 1920

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
Cited – White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180853

Bedouin Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Smith and Co: HL 26 Nov 1895

In an action by a shipowner against consignees to recover the balance of freight of a parcel of jute carried from Calcutta to Dundee, the latter claimed that they were entitled to deduct from the freight the amount sued for, being the value of twelve bales of jute acknowledged in the bill of lading to have been shipped on their account at Calcutta, but which were not delivered at Dundee.
The evidence in the case, apart from the bill of lading and the tallies and other documents upon which it was founded, was to the effect that all the jute, including the defenders’ consignment, actually shipped at Calcutta, had been delivered at Dundee, but there was no evidence led by the pursuers to account for the manner in which the alleged difference between the cargo acknowledged to have been received in the bill of lading and that actually received had arisen.
Held (reversing the judgment of the Second Division) that the pursuers had failed to prove a short shipment, and were liable to the defenders for the value of the hales not delivered.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) and Lords Watson, Shand, and Davey

Citations:

[1895] UKHL 96, 33 SLR 96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634060

Highland Railway Co v Great North of Scotland Railway Co: HL 16 Jul 1896

By agreement to refer, the Highland and Great North of Scotland Railway Companies submitted to the decision of an arbiter the following question:-‘whether the proviso of section 82 of the highland railway act 1865 applies to traffic exchanged under the Great North of Scotland Act 1884 between the two companies at Elgin, or whether the receipts of such traffic are to be divided between the two companies respectively, in accordance with their respective mileage, and under the rates of the Clearing House?’

The arbiter in his award found ‘that the proviso of section 82 of the Highland Railway Act 1865 . . does not apply to traffic exchanged under the Great North of Scotland Act 1884 between the two companies at Elgin,’ and further, ‘that the receipts of such traffic are to be divided between the two companies respectively, in accordance with their respective mileage, and under the rates of the Clearing House.’
In an action raised by the Great North of Scotland Railway Company for implement of the award, the defenders moved that they should be allowed a proof of the following averment:-‘The terms ‘traffic exchanged under the Act of 1884 between the two companies at Elgin,’ occurring in the question submitted to’ the arbiter, ‘do not include, and were not intended to include, passenger traffic. This was explained to’ the arbiter, ‘and he and both the parties acted in the whole proceedings before him on the footing that no question as to the division of passenger traffic receipts was submitted to him, and he accordingly decided no question as to the division of passenger traffic receipts.’
The Second Division ( aff. the judgment of Lord Wellwood) refused to allow the proof asked by the defenders, on the ground that the questions put to the arbiter and his award thereon were distinct and unambiguous, and ordained the defenders to implement the decree-arbitral.
On appeal the House of Lords affirmed this judgment, and refused to qualify it by an express reservation in favour of the appellants of a right to sue reduction of the decree-arbitral on grounds other than those pleaded in the present action.
Opinion reserved whether, apart from such reservation, such an action would be competent.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Watson, Lord Herschell, Lord Morris, and Lord Shand

Citations:

[1896] UKHL 812, 33 SLR 812

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634020

The North British Railway Co v The North Eastern Railway Co: HL 17 Dec 1896

By article 8 of an agreement between the North Eastern and North British Railway Companies, scheduled to and incorporated with ‘the North Eastern and Carlisle Amalgamation Act 1862,’ it is provided:-‘For the purpose of maintaining and working in full efficiency in every respect the East Coast route by way of Berwick for all traffic between London and other places in England, and Edinburgh, Leith, Glasgow, and other places in Scotland, the North British Company shall at all times hereafter permit the company ( i.e. the North Eastern Company), with their engines, carriages, waggons, and trucks, to run over and use the North British Company’s railway . . between Berwick and Edinburgh and Leith, all inclusive . . subject to the payment by the company to the North British Company for such user, of such tolls, rates, or dues, or such share or proportion of tolls, rates, or dues as have, or has been, or shall from time to time be agreed upon by and between the said companies, or in default of such agreement, as shall be fixed by arbitration in manner hereinafter provided.’
The passenger trains upon the East Coast route are made up mainly of carriages which are the joint property of the three companies, and prior to 1869 the North British Company supplied those trains with engines and guards upon its own line. From 1869 to 1894 the engines and guards were provided by the North Eastern Company under an agreement between the companies, terminable on three months’ notice, by which a mileage rate for the use of the North Eastern engines was payable by the North British Company.
In 1894 the North British Company raised an action against the North Eastern Company, in which they sought declarator that they were entitled to resume the haulage of the existing service of through trains upon their own line. The defenders maintained that these trains had been run by them as their trains in virtue of their running powers, and that they were not bound to hand them over to the pursuers.
The First Division of the Court of Session assoilzied the defenders.
On appeal the House of Lords reversed this judgment and dismissed the action, holding that neither party had an absolute right to control the through traffic, and that, failing agreement, the regulation of the exercise of the defenders’ running powers was a matter for the decision of the Railway Commissioners.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) and Lord Watson, Macnaghten, Shand, and Davey

Citations:

[1896] UKHL 179, 34 SLR 179

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634028

Gilmour v North British Railway Co: HL 23 Jun 1893

A railway company were taken bound by a clause in their Act in 1855 to ‘erect and maintain a temporary goods and passenger station’ at a point to be agreed on an estate which was to be intersected by their line of railway, on the narrative that the then proprietors of the estate had laid out a portion of it for feuing. The clause proceeded thus-‘At the said station all ordinary trains shall stop for the purpose of traffic;’ then came a proviso that if on the expiry of five years the traffic proved unremunerative the company should no longer be bound to maintain the said station, and that the question of the maintenance or abandonment of the station should be determined by arbitration.
A station was erected in accordance with the above enactment, and no proposal to abandon it was ever made.
In 1858 the same parties arrived at an agreement, which proceeded on a recital of the above clause, and provided that in consideration of certain prestations in favour of the railway company they should complete the station as a permanent station, and should thereafter maintain it in all time coming at their own expense.
Subsequently the estate was sold. In 1892 the then proprietor brought an action against the railway company to have it declared that they were bound to stop all ordinary trains, and in particular certain specified trains, at the said station on his estate.
Held ( rev. judgment of First Division) that all ordinary trains must stop at the station.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Herschell), and Lords Watson, Ashbourne, Morris, and Shand

Citations:

[1893] UKHL 947, 30 SLR 947

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633300

HH Ferries and Others v Commission: ECFI 19 Sep 2018

(Public Financing Granted By The Swedish State and The Danish State To The Fixed Link Infrastructure Project – Judgment (Extracts)) State aid – Aid in favour of the Oresund road-rail fixed link – Public financing granted by the Swedish State and the Danish State to the Fixed Link infrastructure project across the Oresund – State guarantees – Tax aid – Decision not to raise any objection – Decision that there was no State aid – Action for annulment – Challengeable act – Admissibility – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – Serious difficulties – Concept of ‘aid scheme’ – Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest – Assessment of the aid element in a guarantee – Whether the aid contained in a guarantee is limited – Proportionality – Legitimate expectations

Citations:

T-68/15, [2018] EUECJ T-68/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622616

Commission v Poland C-127/17: ECJ 19 Sep 2018

(Opinion) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Directive 96/53 / EC – Articles 3 and 7 – Transport – International road traffic – Vehicles – Maximum authorized axle weights – Limitations on certain roads or engineering structures – Special authorization scheme

Citations:

C-127/17, [2018] EUECJ C-127/17 – O, [2019] EUECJ C-127/17

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622612

Nelson Line, Ltd v James Nelson and Sons, Ltd: HL 21 Nov 1907

The law imposes on shipowners, in a question with those to whom they charter their vessels, a general duty of providing a seaworthy ship, and of using reasonable care in everything which pertains to her. They may, it is true, contract themselves out of those duties, but the contract must be a clear one-‘an ambiguous document is no protection.’ Terms of a document which were held too ambiguous to relieve shipowners of their duty to provide a ship fit to carry her cargo.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 967, 45 SLR 967

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622316

Attorney General v Mersey Railway Co: HL 9 Jul 1907

A railway company started a service of omnibuses from their station to and through a town. The omnibuses ran in connection with trains, but carried ordinary passengers for any distances. They had no special powers in their Act.
Held that the omnibus business as carried on by the company was not incidental to the undertaking of the railway, and accordingly was ultra vires.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten, Lord James of Hereford, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 631, 45 SLR 631

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Company

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622299

Barclay, Curle and Co Ltd v Sir James Laing and Sons Ltd: HL 25 Nov 1907

A contracted to build and sell, and B to purchase, two ships, which were to be paid for by instalments and built under the supervision of B’s inspector. C arrested the ships when approaching completion for an alleged debt of B’s to him. A petitioned for recal of the arrestments.
Held that under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 the property in the ships depended upon the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract, and as there was nothing in the contract to show that the parties intended to transfer the property in the ships while in course of building, the property remained in A, the builder, who was therefore entitled to recal of the arrestments.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord Macnaghten, Lord James Of Hereford, Lord Robertson, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622313

Board of Trade v Baxter and Another, ‘The Scarsdale’: HL 29 Jul 1907

A fireman signed articles of agreement for a ‘voyage not exceeding one year’s duration to any ports or places within the limit of 75 degrees north and 60 degrees south latitude, commencing at Cardiff, proceeding thence to Malta, thereafter trading to ports in any rotation, and to end at such port in the United Kingdom or Continent of Europe, within home trading limits, as may be required by the master.’
The vessel proceeded to Malta, the Black Sea. and thence back to Southampton, where she unloaded her cargo, and where the fireman claimed his discharge. The master refused, and required him to go on with the ship to Cardiff. Held that the master was justified (in view of the agreement, which in no way contravened sec. 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894) in his refusal, it being within his power to determine (with in certain limits, including Cardiff), the port at which the voyage should terminate, and the discharge of the cargo at Southampton not being equivalent to the termination of the voyage.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords James of Hereford, Atkinson, and Collins

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 640, 45 SLR 640

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622300

Kruger and Co v Moel Tryfan Ship Co: HL 4 Jul 1907

The respondents, a firm of shipowners, chartered a vessel to the appellants. By the charter-party the shipowners were exempted from liability for accidents of navigation, even if occasioned by the master’s negligence, and the master was to sign clean bills of lading without prejudice to the charter. The charterers sold the intended cargo to a purchaser, and, the cargo having been loaded, drew and presented bills of lading to the master, who signed them. The clause of exemption was not referred to in the bills, the charterers and the master both believing (erroneously) that it was incorporated by the words ‘all other conditions as per charter-party.’ The bills of lading were thereafter indorsed to the purchaser. The ship was lost owing to the master’s negligence. The indorsee of the bills of lading having in an action recovered the sum of pounds 12,571 from the shipowners on the ground of the master’s negligence, held that the charterers were bound to indemnify the shipowners who had become liable to the indorsee owing to the charterers’ breach of contract in tendering to the master for signature bills of lading disconform to the charter.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords James of Hereford and Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 623, 45 SLR 623

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622308

Larsen v Sylvester and Co: HL 21 May 1908

An action was raised by the plaintiff (appellant) against the respondents for demurrage under a charter-party entered into by them. The defendants pleaded the clause of exemption in rubric. Delay in loading had been caused by the crowded state of the harbour and a block of other vessels in the loading dock. The charter-party contained a clause exempting the parties ‘from all liability arising from frosts, floods, strikes, locks-out of workmen, disputes between master and men, and any other unavoidable accidents or hindrances of what kind soever beyond their control preventing or delaying the . . shipping of the said cargo.’ The loading was delayed by reason of a block of other ships at the loading dock. Held that this was a hindrance within the terms of the exemption, and that the doctrine ejusdem generis did not apply to the form of words used.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, James of Hereford, Robertson, and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 685, 46 SLR 685

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621509

Owners of SS ‘Knutsford’ v E Tillmans and Co: HL 3 Jul 1908

The plaintiffs (respondents) were the holders and indorsees of bills of lading in respect of goods carried on the s.s. ‘Knutsford’ belonging to the appellants. They asked for damages for breach of contract in failure to carry the goods to Vladivostock. The bills of lading contained the following exceptions-‘(2) . . error in judgment, negligence, or default of . . master . . whether in navigating the ship or otherwise . . ; (4) should a port be inaccessible on account of ice, . . or should entry and discharge at a port be deemed by the master unsafe in consequence of war, disturbance, or any other cause, it shall be competent for the masters to discharge goods intended for such port on the ice or at some other safe port or place at the risk and expense of the shippers, consignees, or owners of the goods. . . ‘ The appellants relied upon the portions italicised.
The master of the ‘Knutsford’ tried for three days to enter Vladivostock, but at that time it was impossible because of ice. He considered it unsafe to persist in the attempt owing to the ice and severe weather. He therefore left and discharged the goods at Nagasaki. The day after leaving the approach to Vladivostock the ice dispersed and entry became easy.
Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs was pronounced by Channell, J., and affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Vaughan Williams, Farwell, and Kennedy, L. JJ.). The defendants appealed.
held (1) that ‘error of judgment in navigating the ship or otherwise’ does not cover the master’s erroneous view of the ship’s contractual duties; (2) that ‘inaccessible on account of ice’ means inaccessible without inordinate delay, not merely three days; (3) that ‘unsafe in consequence of war disturbance or any other cause’ does not include danger by perils of the sea.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnagliten, James of Hereford, and Dunedin

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 691, 46 SLR 691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621519

Andersen v Marten: HL 3 Jul 1908

A ship was insured against perils of the sea under a time policy for total loss only, and ‘warranted free from capture, seizure, detention, and the consequences of hostilities.’ She carried contraband of war and was seized by a belligerent cruiser. While under control of the captors she ran aground and became a total loss, partly in consequence of damage which she had sustained by perils of the sea before capture. After the ship’s total loss she was condemned by the belligerent prize-court.
Held that upon the date of the capture there was a total loss by capture which the policy did not cover.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl Of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne and Robertson

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 693, 46 SLR 693

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621515

Greenshields, Cowie, and Co v Thomas Stephens and Sons: HL 31 Jul 1908

The appellants were the owners of the ss ‘Knight of the Garter,’ and the respondents owned a cargo of coal which she carried. Damage both to ship and cargo was caused by fire under circumstances which are fully narrated in the judgment of the Earl of Halsbury. The appellants made a general average claim in respect of damage to the ship. The respondents counterclaimed in respect of the damaged cargo, hut the appellants contested this on the grounds that it was a loss by fire for which they were free under statute from liability, and also that it arose from the inherent vice of the coal cargo itself. Channell, J., allowed the counter-claim, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The shipowners appealed.
Held: In adjustment of general average the damaged portion of the cargo must be taken into account as part of the loss notwithstanding that the damage is due to its ‘inherent vice’ or peculiar liability to damage; section 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which relieves the shipowner from liability for loss of goods by fire, does not apply in a case of general average.

Judges:

Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 697, 46 SLR 697

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621516

X North British Railway Order: HL 27 Jul 1908

Provisional Order – Harbour – Dock – Support – Working of Mines – Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, secs. 70 to 78, Applied to Dock.

Judges:

Earl of Strathmore, Viscount Falkland, Chairman, Mr J.D. Hope, M.P., and Mr J. M’Callum, M.P.

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 1007, 45 SLR 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport, Land

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621522

Great Western Railway Co v Phillips and Co Ltd: HL 4 Feb 1908

A Railway Act, after providing that when merchandise is conveyed in trucks not belonging to the company the trader shall be entitled to recover from the company a reasonable sum by way of demurrage for any detention of his trucks beyond a reasonable time, enacted that ‘any difference arising under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade at the instance of either party.’
A claim by a trader for damages sustained by him in hiring a truck in the place of one delayed by the railway company held to be in respect of a ‘difference arising under this section,’ and to be accordingly a question for an arbitrator and not for a court of law.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, Atkinson, and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 974, 45 SLR 974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621493

James Nelson and Sons Ltd v Nelson Line Ltd: HL 6 Feb 1908

A charter-party provided ‘seven weather working days (Sundays and holidays excepted) to be allowed by owners to charterers for loading.’
Loading took place on two holidays, but there was no evidence of any express agreement under which the work was carried on, or at whose instigation it took place.
Held (rev. judgment of Court of Appeal) that the two days in question were not to be counted as lay days.
A more or less obscure agreement of the nature of a charter-party entered into between the owners of a line of steamships and charterers was made with respect to a fortnightly service of steamers between A and B. The agreement provided that on the arrival of each steamer at her loading berth at A the charterers were to receive notice that she was ready to load, and that the lay days were to commence twelve hours after the receipt of such notice.
Held that the clause which regulated the commencement of the lay days must be read with due regard to the fact that the agreement was for fortnightly sailings, and that accordingly the charterers were under no obligation to begin loading a vessel until a date which would suit an interval of fourteen days between the sailings.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), The Earl of Halsbury, Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 976

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621494

Macbeth and Co v Maritime Insurance Co: HL 6 Mar 1908

In deciding the question whether or not there has been a constructive total loss of a vessel which has been wrecked, the selling value of the wreck falls to be added to the cost of repairing the vessel.
A vessel’s value was pounds 12,000. She was wrecked. The cost of repairing her was pounds 11,000; the wreck was worth pounds 1000. Held that she was a constructive total loss.
Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Robertson and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 988, 45 SLR 988

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621500

Ardan Steamship Co Ltd v Weir and Co: HL 4 Aug 1905

Held: (rev. the judgment of the First Division) that the obligation of the charterers of a ship to have the cargo ready as soon as the vessel is in ordinary course ready to load, being apart from special stipulation express or implied an absolute obligation, distinct from the obligation to load, it was no defence to an action of damages for detention, brought by the owners of a ship which had been chartered to go to a certain port and there ship a cargo of coals that the vessel by the custom of the port had not been given a loading berth, inasmuch as the reason why she had not been given a loading berth was that she had not a loading order, her cargo being not yet available because the colliery was under obligation to load vessels in their turn and there were two other vessels to be loaded first.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Davey, James of Hereford, and Robertson

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 851, 42 SLR 851

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621186

Elderslie Steamship Co v Borthwick: HL 16 Feb 1905

The bill of lading of a cargo contained two clauses of exceptions inconsistent with each other, the first, printed in large type, conferring on the owners of the vessel an absolute exemption from liability for damage to cargo, the second, printed in smaller type, an exemption qualified by a proviso that reasonable means must have been taken to provide against defects and unseaworthiness.
The cargo was damaged by the unseaworthiness of the vessel, which might have been provided against by the owners.
Held, on the principle that effect must be given if possible to every part of a document or contract, that the first clause was qualified by the second, and that the owners of the vessel were liable in damages to the owners of the cargo. (Decision of Court of Appeal affirmed.)
Observed by Lord Macnaghten ‘that a shipowner who wishes to escape from the liability which would attach to him for sending an unseaworthy vessel to sea must say so in very plain words.’ The indorsee of a bill of lading brought an action against the shipowners for damage to frozen meat shipped under the bill of lading for carriage from Melbourne to London.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Lindley

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 854, 42 SLR 854

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621170

Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Glencore Agriculture Bv: CA 21 Aug 2018

The court was asked as to certain letters o indemnity given in a voyage charterparty were subject to the limitation provisions contained within the charterparty itself.

Judges:

Sir Geoffrey Vos Ch, Simon, Asplin LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ComC – Songa Chemicals As v Navig8 Chemicals Pool Ltd ComC 2-Mar-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621169

Thomas and Sons v Harrowing Steamship Co: HL 26 Jun 1914

Where by the charter-party a lump sum was due for freight upon delivery of the cargo at its destination, and the ship was wrecked just outside the port of delivery, held that floating off the cargo to the beach was equivalent to delivery by transhipment, and that loss of one quarter of it by ‘perils of the sea,’ as provided for in the charter-party, did not affect the shipowners’ right to the full freight.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Lords Shaw, Moulton, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 649, 52 SLR 649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620720

Stott (Baltic) Steamers Line v Marten and Others: HL 5 Nov 1915

A marine insurance policy covered ‘perils of the seas,’ ‘in port and at sea, in docks and graving docks, and on ways, gridirons, and pontoons, at all times, in all places, and on all occasions.’ Clause 7 provided – ‘This insurance also specially to cover . . loss of or damage to hull or machinery through the negligence of the master, mariners, engineers, or pilots, or through explosions, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or through any defect in the machinery or hull.’
The pin of a shackle broke whilst a boiler was being lifted into the hold and damaged the hull. The owners claimed under the policy.
Held that the damage was not caused by a peril of the seas or ejusdem generis, and that the Institute time clauses were not intended to extend the scope of the risks insured against.

Judges:

Viscount Haldane, Lords Dunedin and Atkinson

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 784,
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620704

United States Steel Products Co v Great Western Railway Co: HL 13 Jul 1915

Competition arose between the unpaid vendors’ right of stopping in transit certain goods and a general lien created by a condition of the bill of lading against ‘the owners of such goods upon any account.’
Held, in construction of the contract, that the general lien was not preferred to the vendors’ right of stoppage in transitu. Opinions that ‘the owners’ meant the persons entitled to demand and demanding the goods.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Lords Atkinson, Parker, Parmoor, and Wrenbury

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 504, 53 SLR 504

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620694

Barnsley British Co-Operative Society Ltd v Worsborough Urban District Council: HL 14 Oct 1915

The appellants were a firm using traction engines for the transport of their wares to neighbouring branches. Owing to a certain part of the main road being rendered unsafe for this traffic, the appellants used, and thereby destroyed, a country road unsuited for the support of such heavy traffic. The respondents claimed damages under section 23 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878.
Held that the question whether traffic was extraordinary was one of fact. Further, that constant use of the road by the appellants’ traction engine from 1909 to 1911 was not in itself sufficient to render by the end of that period such traffic ordinary.

Judges:

The Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 530, 53 SLR 530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620696

Thomas Wilson Sons and Co Ltd v Owners of Cargo Ex ‘Galileo’: HL 26 Jun 1915

Under a bill of lading goods were to be delivered at Hull, and thence transhipped ‘at ship’s expense and shipper’s risk to the port of N.’ There was a further provision that the shipowner should have the right to convey the goods ‘in craft and (or) lighters to and from the steamer at the risk of the owner of the goods.’ At Hull the goods were put into a lighter to be taken to a ship sailing for N., and were left unattended. The lighter was unseaworthy and sank. The goods were damaged.
Held that the clause in the bill of lading did not exempt the shipowner from liability for negligence.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (110 L.T.R. 614) affirmed.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Lords Shaw and Moulton

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 858, 52 SLR 858

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620689

Kerr v Screw Collier Co Ltd: HL 14 Dec 1909

Ship – Collision at Sea – Narrow Channel – Firth of Forth – Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1897, Art. 25

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 99, 47 SLR 99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620599

Abram Lyle and Sons v Owners of Steamship ‘Schwan’: HL 19 Jul 1909

The pumping apparatus of a ship was fitted with a cock of an unusual and dangerous character, as a result of which sea water entered the hold and did damage. By the bills of lading the ship-owners were protected from liability provided they had exercised ‘reasonable care and diligence in connection with the ship.’ The evidence shewed that the chief engineer (who had also inspected the vessel in the course of building) had failed to inform himself of the defective construction of the cock, and that he was unaware during the voyage in question of the danger arising therefrom.
Held that the ship was not seaworthy, that reasonable care and diligence had not been exercised, and that the owners were accordingly liable in damages.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, Atkinson, Collins, Gorell, and Shaw, with Nautical Assessors

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 558, 47 SLR 558

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620583

Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd: ECJ 4 Jul 2018

Transport – Definition of ‘Operating Air Carrier’ – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(b) – Scope – Definition of ‘operating air carrier’ – Lease of aircraft including crew ‘Wet lease’

Citations:

C-532/17, [2018] EUECJ C-532/17, [2018] WLR(D) 412

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620055

CX v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Scharding: ECJ 11 Jul 2018

International Road Transport – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – International road transport – Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey – Article 9 – Additional Protocol – Articles 41 and 42 – Freedom to provide services – Standstill clause – Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council – Articles 5 and 7 – Free movement of goods – National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned – Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest

Citations:

C-629/16, [2018] EUECJ C-629/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620014

Buonotourist v Commission: ECFI 11 Jul 2018

Judgment
State aid – Enterprise operating bus routes in the Regione Campania – Advantage – Service of general economic interest – Tariff compensation for public service obligations paid following a decision of a court ruling on last resort – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market – Existing aid and new aid – Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 – Conditions for exemption from the obligation to notify – Article 4 (5) and Article 7 paragraph 6,of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 – Jurisdiction of the Commission and national courts in the field of State aid control – Res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court – Application in time of substantive law – legitimate expectations – legal certainty

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:430, [2018] EUECJ T-185/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620002

M’Dermott v Owners of The ‘Tintoretto’: HL 13 Dec 1910

A seaman while on a foreign voyage was totally incapacitated by accidental injury. Under the Merchant Shipping Acts his employers became liable to pay wages up to the date of discharge, hospital and surgical expenses, and his maintenance until his arrival back in England. The County Court Judge held that compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act commenced only upon the date of arrival, and that the previous payments by the employers under the Merchant Shipping Acts should not be taken into account. The award was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
Held: Where employers become liable in respect of a seaman employed by them, both under the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 to pay, relieve, and maintain him while disabled abroad, and also, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, to pay compensation to him, the right to compensation commences at the expiry of the duties of maintenance, and the cost of maintenance does not fall to be taken into account.

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 728, 48 SLR 728

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Employment, Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619807

Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v Monjasa A/S: ComC 15 Jun 2018

‘ two important issues in relation to the law of carriage of goods by sea.
i) The first is whether the time bar created by Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules applies to claims for wrongful misdelivery, where the shipowner has delivered the cargo to a third party without production of the bill of lading.
ii) The second is whether the requirement in Article III Rule 6 that ‘suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered’ can ever be satisfied if proceedings are commenced in the courts of one country, when the bill of lading incorporates a clause from a charterparty giving exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of another country.’

Judges:

David Foxton QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1495 (Comm), [2018] WLR(D) 369

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619819

Grant v Owners of SS ‘Egyptian’: HL 21 Apr 1910

The ‘Egyptian’ was negligently navigated by her temporary master B., whereby the ‘Nelson’ was damaged while at anchor in harbour. B. was also the watchman in charge of the ‘Nelson’ but he negligently failed to discover her injuries and stop a leak, owing to which the ‘Nelson’ sank. Held that the owners of the ‘Egyptian’ were not liable for the whole loss of the ‘Nelson,’ but only for the injuries originally caused.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords James of Hereford, Atkinson, Shaw, and Mersey

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 905, 47 SLR 905

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619789

Kish and Another v Taylor Sons and Co: HL 26 Jul 1912

The terms of a charter-party provided that the shipowners should have a lien for dead freight upon the cargo, which was to be of a specified amount and to be delivered to the charterers’ order, ‘all other conditions as per charter.’ As the charterers failed to load a complete cargo, the shipowners took so much deck cargo that the ship was rendered unseaworthy, and encountering storms was obliged to deviate for repairs. The shipowners claimed against the holders of the bill of lading for loss caused by the charterers’ failure to load sufficient cargo. Held that the right to dead freight arose before the ship sailed and was not lost by the ship’s unseaworthiness or deviation, and that dead freight is damages for breach of contract.

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 1046, 49 SLR 1046

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619249

Alexander Stephen and Sons Ltd v Allan Line Steamship Co Lltd: HL 11 Mar 1912

Circumstances in which, approving the judgment of the Lord President in which he deals with the presumption of fault when a collision occurs between a moving and a stationary vessel, and the necessity of averring and proving specific fault on the part of a compulsory pilot in order to obtain the benefit of section 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, the defenders were assoilzied in an action of damages arising out of a collision between their vessel, a moving vessel under a compulsory pilot, and the pursuers’ vessel, a stationary vessel moored to a wharf.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Robson, with Nautical Assessors

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 473, 49 SLR 473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619233

Owners of ‘Frances’ v Owners of ‘Highland Loch’: HL 29 Jan 1912

The s.s. ‘Highland Loch,’ of 4675 tons register, was built and about to be launched at a shipbuilding yard upon the river Mersey. The ketch ‘Frances,’ of 71 tons, was anchored in the river opposite and near the line of the intended launch. She had dragged anchor and got foul of some moorings in the river. All the usual notices of the intended launch were given by the shipbuilders, who also sent warnings to the master of the ‘Frances’ more than two hours before the launch. They requested him to move the ‘Frances’ from her position and offered to tow her to a safe position. They continued to give warning and make the offer until immediately before the launch, which was delayed for a quarter of an hour; the master of the ‘Frances,’ however, could not heave his anchor, and refused to slip his cable unless the shipbuilders would undertake liability for a new anchor. At the launching the ‘Highland Loch’ collided with the ‘Frances’ and caused injury, in respect of which the owners of the ‘Frances’ sued the shipbuilders. The building supports of the ‘Highland Loch’ had been in course of removal for hours before the launch, and it was proved to the satisfaction of the Court that further postponement of the launch would have involved considerable danger to the ship and to the workmen engaged in the building yard.
Held that the master of the ‘Frances’ acted unreasonably in refusing to slip his cable and move her; that the owners of the ‘Highland Loch’ were thereby placed in a position in which they had to take one of two risks; that in deciding to proceed with the launch they took the lesser risk and acted properly; and that the ‘Frances’ was accordingly alone to blame.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson, with Nautical Assessors

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 691, 49 SLR 691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619228

Klein and Others (Owners of The ‘Tatjana’) v Lindsay and Others (Cargo Owners): HL 20 Feb 1911

‘The onus of proving unseaworthiness is upon those who allege it. This is, of course, a sound doctrine; and it is none the less sound although the vessel break down or sink shortly after putting to sea. That is the principle of law. But the enunciation of that proposition does not impair or alter certain presumptions of fact, such presumptions, for instance, as those which arise from the age, the low classing or non-classing, the non-survey of ship or machinery, the refusal to insure, the laying-up, the admitted defects, and generally the poor and worsening record of the vessel, together with finally the break-down, say, of the machinery immediately, or almost immediately, on the ship putting to sea.’
Circumstances in which held ( rev. judgment of the First Division) that it lay with the owner to establish the seaworthiness of his vessel, the onus on the cargo owners who alleged unseaworthiness being displaced by the presumptions of fact.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord James of Hereford, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 326, 48 SLR 326

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619185

Owners of SS ‘Raphael’ v Brandy: HL 1 Jun 1911

A stoker was injured by accident while in the appellants’ employment. At the same time he was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve and in receipt of an annual retainer of pounds 6. In consequence of the accident he was discharged from that service and lost the retainer. In assessing the amount of compensation the County Court Judge took into account the amount of the stoker’s retainer paid to him by the Royal Naval Reserve. This finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., and Fletcher Moulton, L.J., diss. Farwell, L.J.). The employers appealed.
Held: In assessing the amount of the weekly compensation payable by the appellants, the amount of the stoker’s earnings from the Royal Naval Reserve must be taken into account, and that section 9 of the Act only operated to prevent liability upon the Crown in respect of persons in its naval or military service.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Robson

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 625, 49 SLR 625

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619204

Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Wurttemberg v Germanwings GmbH: ECJ 28 Jun 2018

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 – Common rules for the operation of air services in the Union – Article 2 (18) and Article 23 (1) – Information – Need to indicate fares passengers ‘in euro or in national currency’ – Obligation to mention these fares in a specific national currency – Relevant criteria, if any, for the purpose of identifying this currency

Citations:

C-330/17, [2018] EUECJ C-330/17 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2018:516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.619033