Category: Transport

The Empire Jamaica: 1957

A collision was caused by a ‘blunder in seamanship of . . a somewhat serious and startling character’ by an uncertified second mate. The owners knew that the mate was not certificated and the collision would not have happened if he had not been employed.
Held: In limitation proceedings the damage was found to have taken place without the employers’ ‘actual fault or privity’.

Judges:

Sir Raymond Evershed MR

Citations:

[1957] AC 386

Cited by:

Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.235784

Rowtor Steamship Co, Ltd v Love and Stewart, Ltd: SCS 7 Dec 1915

A printed charter-party for the carriage of timber, with written additions. contained the following clause, a marginal note being given in small type and the writing in italics:-‘ Memo.-Owners may arrange for a fixed average number of standards per day for loading and/or discharging. 3. The cargo is to be loaded at the rate of 125 fathoms daily and discharged at the rate of 125 fathoms daily, reversible, with customary steamship dispatch, as fast as the steamer can receive and deliver, during the ordinary working hours of the respective ports, but according to the custom of the respective ports, Sundays, general or local holidays (unless used) in both loading and discharging excepted. Should the steamer be detained beyond the time stipulated as above for loading or discharging, demurrage shall be paid at 5 d. p. n.r. ton per day, and pro rata for any part thereof. The cargo to be brought and taken from alongside the steamer at charterer’s risk and expense, as customary. The master has liberty to bring iron or other deadweight as ballast from the loading or any other port.’

Held that, it being conceded that the words ‘with customary steamship dispatch as fast as the steamer can receive and deliver during the ordinary working hours of the respective ports’ must be deleted as being inconsistent with the written portion of the clause, the words ‘but according to the custom of the respective ports,’ even if they also were not to be held pro non scripto, only applied to the means or method of loading or discharging, and did not include the local custom of a port whereby wet days and Saturday afternoons were excepted.

A charter-party contained a clause whereby the charterers had the right of slumping together the total lay-days, and were not liable for demurrage if in the processes of loading and discharging they did not exceed the total number of lay-days. The charterers purchased the cargo from the shipper. At the port of delivery they presented bills of lading on which were written the words ‘thirteen days used for loading.’ Only nine days had actually been used for loading, the master having made an allowance to the shipper in respect of four days saved by expeditious loading. The charterers Knew of this. In an action for demurrage by the owners of the vessel against the charterers, held that the defenders were bound by the terms of the bills of lading and were not absolved from the pursuers’ claim for demurrage in respect of the four days not actually used for loading.

Opinion per Lord Salvesen and Lord Guthrie that the agent of the charterers had authority as such to bargain with the master of the vessel that if less time was actually taken for loading than the stipulated number of days fixed by the charter-party, the master should pay for such dispatch on the footing that the days saved and paid for should not be added to the lay-days fixed for discharge.

Citations:

[1915] SLR 280

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618251

Caledonian Railway Co v North British Railway Co: SCS 11 Jan 1916

For the purpose of fixing the tolls to be paid by one company to another, the Caledonian Railway (Grangemouth Harbour) Act 1876, section 25, enacted-‘ . . the cost of the lines of rails and sidings which may be hereafter formed by the company shall only include the expense of the rails, chairs, and other permanent-way material, and of laying down the same on the surface, together with the purchase-money of any land which may have been or may be acquired by the company for the purposes hereof and compensation for any damage to adjoining lands. . . ‘ A subsequent Act, 1897, in section 12, for the same purpose, referred to ‘interest upon the cost of such works (including the cost of land) calculated at the rate and in the manner provided by’ section 25 of the 1876 Act.
Held that ‘cost of land’ in the 1897 Act meant the ‘purchase-money’ of the 1876 Act, and that that term did not include the expenses of acquisition; that ‘permanent-way material’ did not include ballast.

Citations:

[1916] SLR 275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618259

Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA: ECJ 31 May 2018

Consumer Protection – Definition of ‘Connecting Flight’ – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 3(1) – Scope – Definition of ‘connecting flight’ – Flight departing from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, including a transfer at an airport situated in the territory of a third State and destined for another airport of that third State

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, [2018] EUECJ C-537/17, [2018] WLR(D) 327

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Consumer, Transport

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616991

Agile Holdings Corporation v Essar Shipping Ltd: ComC 11 May 2018

Whether jurisdiction to hear appeal from arbitration award where argued that did not refer to a question of law capable of determination.

Judges:

Judge Waksman QC sitting as a High Court judge

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm), [2018] WLR(D) 294

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617005

Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission: ECFI 16 May 2018

Concentrations – Air Transport Market – Judgment – Competition — Concentrations – Air transport market – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market subject to certain commitments – Request for a waiver of part of the obligations forming the subject matter of the commitments – Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Misuse of powers

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:269, [2018] EUECJ T-712/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.615554

Ryanair Ltd v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 24 Apr 2018

The airline complained of the imposition on it of liability carrying passengers without an entry visa. He had produced a residence card for Austria. The appeal failed. Under the Directive, a valid card must bear the words ‘Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen’ or a translated version. A card of the sort produced might go toward establishing the necessary right, but was not itself sufficient.

Judges:

King, Newey LJJ, Macdonald J

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 899, [2018] WLR(D) 250

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Directive 2004/38/EC 5(2), Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Transport

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.614908

Park and Others (Owners of ‘Progress’) v Duncan and Sons: SCS 19 Jan 1898

Court of Session Inner House Second Division – By a time charter-party of a steamer at a certain rate of hire per mouth, which did not amount to a demise of the vessel, it was stipulated that the owners should maintain the vessel in a thoroughly efficient state in hull and machinery for the service, and that the charterers should provide and pay for all the coals required. The charter-party contained an indemnity clause providing ‘that the captain, although appointed by the owner, shall be under the orders and directions of the charterers as regards employment, agency, or other arrangement. Bills of lading are to be signed at any rate of freight the charterers or their agents may direct if without prejudice to this charter . . the charterers hereby indemnify the owners from all consequence or liabilities that may arise from the captain doing so.’ It also contained an exceptions clause, excepting accidents of navigation although occasioned by the negligence of the master.
While under the charter-party the vessel, owing to the negligence of the master, sailed from a foreign port with an insufficient supply of coal, and had in consequence to accept salvage services for which the shipowners were found liable. The vessel at the time of her disablement had on board goods belonging to sub-charterers, for which the master had signed bills of lading containing a similar exception of liability for negligence of the master in navigating his vessel. The sub-charterers having refused to pay any part of the loss, the shipowners brought an action of relief for the part of the salvage expenses, effeiring to cargo, against the time charterers, founding (1) upon the indemnity clause, in respect that their liability arose from the captain having signed bills of lading in obedience to the instructions of the time charterers; and also (2) upon the exceptions clause in the time charter. Held ( diss. Lord Young) that as regards the duty of sailing upon the voyage in a seaworthy condition the master was the servant of the shipowners and not of the charterers, and that the former were consequently liable for the whole loss caused by his neglect of this duty, and were not entitled to relief.
Question- Whether an indemnity clause in such terms imports anything more than a right to relief in the event of bills of lading being signed for a freight or freights which would amount to less than the stipulated hire.

Judges:

Lord Low, Ordinary

Citations:

[1898] SLR 35 – 378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.612160

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v Customs and Excise: ChD 31 May 2000

The appellant operated a passenger ferry which began and finished within EU member states, but passed through international waters. They contended that goods sold otherwise than for immediate consumption were supplied outside the EU, and therefore were exempt supplies. It was held that to achieve that a call at a port outside the EU would be necessary. In the absence of such a call, the supplies were taxable according to the VAT laws of the port of embarkation.

Citations:

Gazette 31-May-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Transport

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.84650

Krusemann and Others: ECJ 17 Apr 2018

Judgment Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5 , paragraph 3 – Article 7, paragraph 1 – Right to compensation – Exemption – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – ‘Wildcat strike’

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:258, [2018] EUECJ C-195/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609060

Schenker Ltd v Negocios Europa Ltd 2921: QBD 6 Oct 2017

The claimant seeks to recover monies which it says is due under an invoice pursuant to a contract entered into with the defendant, for the carriage of goods by air in the sum of some $58,000. This is the judgment on the preliminary issue of whether there is a common law rule which provides that there can be no set-off against air freight.

Judges:

Moulder J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2921 (QB), [2018] 1 WLR 718, [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 271

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Damages

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.601094

Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage: CA 1977

A carrier who contracts with the sender is the first carrier, even if he does not undertake any stage of the carriage himself.
The court noted the sometimes great difficulty in finding consistent interpretations of European Law

Citations:

[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 346, [1997] 1 WLR 625

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage 1975
The carrier who contracts with the sender is the first carrier, even if he does not undertake any stage of the carriage himself. . .

Cited by:

Cited – British American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, European

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.592014

Berger and Co Inc v Gill and Duffus SA (No 2): HL 1984

The sellers had agreed to sell 500 tonnes of bolita beans cif Le Havre. In the event only 445 tonnes were discharged at Le Havre and the remaining 55 tonnes were on-carried to Rotterdam. The documents in respect the 500 tonnes were presented but rejected on the ground that they did not contain a quality certificate. The documents were re-presented with a quality certificate in respect of the 445 tonnes. They were again rejected. The sellers accepted this as a repudiation of the contract and claimed damages. The 445 tonnes discharged at Le Havre were found not to correspond with their contractual description.
Held: A buyer under a cif contract could not justify a refusal to accept conforming documents on the grounds that the goods in fact shipped did not conform with their contractual description. Thus the buyers’ rejection of the documents was a repudiatory breach which the sellers had accepted as terminating the contract. Where, at the time of the buyers’ repudiation the sellers had committed a breach by shipping non-conforming goods, the buyers could counterclaim for damages caused by that breach.
Lord Diplock, said of s.13: ‘while ‘description’ itself is an ordinary English word, the Act contains no definition of what it means when it speaks in that section of a contract for the sale of goods being a sale ‘by description’. One must look to the contract as a whole to identify the kind of goods that the seller was agreeing to sell and the buyer to buy. . . where, as in the instant case, the sale (to use the words of section 13) is ‘by sample as well as by description’, characteristics of the goods which would be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample are unlikely to have been intended by the parties to form part of the ‘description’ by which the goods were sold, even though such characteristics are mentioned in references in the contract to the goods that are its subject matter.’
and ‘[The termination of the contract] had the consequence in law that all primary obligations of the parties under the contract which had not yet been performed were terminated. This termination did not prejudice the right of the party so electing to claim damages from the party in repudiatory breach for any loss sustained in consequence of the non-performance by the latter of his primary obligations under the contract, future as well as past. Nor did the termination deprive the party in repudiatory breach of the right to claim or to set off, damages for any past non-performance by the other party of that other party’s own primary obligations, due to be performed before the contract was rescinded’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1984] AC 382

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act 1893 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd CA 15-Dec-1989
The defendant auctioneer sold a painting to the plaintiff which turned out to be a forgery. The plaintiff appealed against a finding that it had not relied upon the attribution, saying that there had been a breach of the requirement that the paintig . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.561152

Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias and Others v Ipourgos Emporikis Naftilias, Ipourgos Aigaiou: ECJ 22 Apr 2010

ECJ Maritime transport – Maritime cabotage – Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 – Temporary exemption from the implementation of that regulation – Obligation on Member States to refrain from adopting, before expiry of the period of exemption, provisions liable seriously to compromise the application of that regulation.

Judges:

J.-C. Bonichot, President of the Chamber, C Toader, Timmermans (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann and P Kluris

Citations:

C-122/09, [2010] EUECJ C-122/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.408759

Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another: CA 29 Jun 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1084

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another ChD 4-Jul-2000
Historically, powers had been granted to the authority, as riparian owners of the port, but powers had also been given to what had since become the Port Authority. The Authority had been given power to regulate traffic in the river, and to charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Land

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.201147

CMA CGM S A v Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft ‘Northern Pioneer’ Schiffahrtgesellschaft Mbh and Co and others: CA 18 Dec 2002

The Charterers appealed a refusal to allow an appeal from a decision in an arbitration.
Held: The 1979 Act changed the situation fundamentally. The test was not just whether the decision was probably wrong, but the wider test allowed an appeal on a point of general public importance, provided only that the decision allowed of some doubt. Applications for leave should be written, and concise. The statutory criteria were not to be amplified by changing practice. The question here related to the need to exercise within a reasonable time, any right to withdraw from a charterparty in the event of war. A charterparty is a joint enterprise, and one party should not be left with a prolonged right to withdraw. There was no sufficient doubt in this case to allow leave to appeal to be given.

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Rix, Lord Phillips MR

Citations:

Times 31-Dec-2002

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1979 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (‘The Nema’) HL 1982
There is no fetter on the judicial discretion to refuse leave under Section 1(3)(b) to appeal against an arbitration award.
Frustration of a contract is ‘not likely to be invoked to relieve contracting parties of the normal consequences of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.178558

Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer “The Queen of the South”: 1968

Among the peope who might intervene on a ship’s arrest are the harbour authority itself claiming statutory rights of detention and sale.

Citations:

[1968] 1 All ER 1163, [1968] 2 WLR 973, [1968] P 449, [1968] 1 Lloyds Rep 182

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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.181066

Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another: CA 25 Jul 2001

A statute in 1950 granted to the port authority powers, inter alia, to grant licences for moorings on the foreshore. These powers overrode the ancient Royal Charter which vested the foreshore in the local authority. Accordingly licences issued by the port authority were effective and binding as against the local authority.
The court considered whether the Council, as owner of the foreshore was able to control licensing for the deep water moorings adjacent.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Kay

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA (Civ) 1273, [2001] EWCA Civ 1273

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Ipswich Docks Act 1950 12, Charter of Henry VIII of 1518/19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another ChD 4-Jul-2000
Historically, powers had been granted to the authority, as riparian owners of the port, but powers had also been given to what had since become the Port Authority. The Authority had been given power to regulate traffic in the river, and to charge . .

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

Local Government, Land, Transport

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.166709

Fritz Schumalla: ECJ 28 Nov 1978

Europa In giving the Council the task of adopting a common transport policy within the meaning of article 74, the Treaty confers wide legislative powers upon it as regards the adoption of appropriate common rules. Regulation no 543/69 of the Council, adopted under article 75 of the treaty and referring mainly to the social sphere, is merely a partial implementation of such a policy. The Council did not exceed its powers by regulating, by this measure, matters which concern the social protection of the driver and road safety in so far as they are not interlinked.

Citations:

C-97/78

European, Transport

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132690

Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council v Khan (Trading as Top Cabs): QBD 7 May 1993

A cabbie was not operating outside the district of the local authority in which he was licensed to operate, just by advertising outside that district.

Citations:

Times 07-May-1993

Statutes:

Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Licensing, Transport

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90565

Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd: QBD 5 Mar 1998

The decision as to the route to be taken by a ship between points on a journey, was in the master’s discretion, as exercised on behalf of owners, not the charterers.

Citations:

Gazette 18-Mar-1998, Times 05-Mar-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Transport

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90446

Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Tokai Shipping Co Ltd of Tokyo: CA 25 May 1999

In a time charterparty, the charterer was free to determine the orders, but not the orders as to navigation. The ship’s master was solely responsible for its safety, and so retained entire discretion as to the navigation route.

Citations:

Times 25-May-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hill Harmony) HL 8-Dec-2000
A master, engaged to fulfill a charterparty, was not free to choose a longer and slower route, when the shorter route was recommended and safe. His own perception of the safety of the route was not determinative. His rights to control navigation did . .
Appeal from – Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd QBD 5-Mar-1998
The decision as to the route to be taken by a ship between points on a journey, was in the master’s discretion, as exercised on behalf of owners, not the charterers. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hill Harmony) HL 8-Dec-2000
A master, engaged to fulfill a charterparty, was not free to choose a longer and slower route, when the shorter route was recommended and safe. His own perception of the safety of the route was not determinative. His rights to control navigation did . .
Appealed to – Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd QBD 5-Mar-1998
The decision as to the route to be taken by a ship between points on a journey, was in the master’s discretion, as exercised on behalf of owners, not the charterers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90447

Regina v Ayodeji: CACD 20 Oct 2000

The offence of being drunk on board an aircraft can include allegations that the behaviour was the cause of fear in other passengers, without the offence being charged as endangering the aircraft. The offence carried a heavy maximum penalty precisely because these consequences of terror and insecurity in the minds of fellow passengers naturally followed from such behaviour. The offence in this case was persistent and flagrant and the sentence of eight months imprisonment was appropriate.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970), Civil Aviation Act 1982 60 61

Criminal Sentencing, Transport

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85120

Owners of Cargo On K H Enterprise v Owners of Pioneer Container: PC 29 Mar 1994

Owners who were claiming under a bailment must accept the terms of a sub-bailment to which it had agreed. This result is both principled and just. A sub-bailee can only be said for these purposes to have voluntarily taken into his possession the goods of another if he has sufficient notice that a person other than a bailee is interested in the goods so that it can properly be said that (in addition to his duties to the bailee) he has, by taking the goods into his custody, assumed towards that other person the responsibility for the goods which is characteristic of a bailee. This they believe to be the underlying principle.
Where an exclusive jurisdiction clause exists, a party who seeks a stay brought in breach of that agreement to refer disputes to a named forum, will have to show strong cause
Lord Goff asked whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading issued by a sub-bailee was binding on the cargo owner, and said: ‘Here is a ship, upon which the goods are loaded in a large number of containers; indeed, one container may contain goods belonging to a number of cargo owners. One incident may affect goods owned by several cargo owners, or even (as here) all the cargo owners with goods on board. Common sense and practical convenience combine to demand that all of these claims should be dealt with in one jurisdiction, in accordance with one system of law. If this cannot be achieved, there may be chaos. Much expense may be wasted on litigation in a number of different jurisdictions, as indeed happened in the present case, where there was litigation in eight other countries as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan. There is however no international regime designed to produce a uniformity of jurisdiction and governing law in the case of a multiplicity of claims of this kind. It is scarcely surprising therefore that shipowners seek to achieve uniformity of treatment in respect of all such claims, by clauses designed to impose an exclusive jurisdiction and an agreed governing law . . Within reason, such an attempt must be regarded with a considerable degree of sympathy and understanding . . Their Lordships do not consider that it can possibly be said that the incorporation of such a clause in a bill of lading is per se unreasonable.’

Judges:

Lord Goff

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1994, Gazette 11-May-1994, [1994] 2 AC 324

Cited by:

Cited – Scottish and Newcastle International Limited v Othon Ghalanos Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The defendant challenged a decision that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a claim in contract saying that the appropriate court was in Cyprus. The cargo was taken by ship from Liverpool to Limassol. An English court would only have . .
Cited – Angara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and Another QBD 29-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the application of Section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 when an unpaid supplier of bunkers to a time charterer claims against the owner of the vessel.
Held: The issue was whether as a matter of fact there was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Commonwealth, Contract, Agency

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84505

Nationwide Access Ltd and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 22 Mar 2000

An hydraulic platform could be a mobile crane. There was no purpose to try to restrict the meaning of a crane under the Act to a purely conventional arrangement for lifting. This particular vehicle was being worked in direct competition to arrangements using rope and pulley, and should be treated as a crane for fuel duty exemption.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2000

Transport

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84224

Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912, Aktieselskab and Another: ComC 1 Mar 1999

Where goods were supposed only to be handed over by a shipper on receipt of a valid bill of lading, but were instead handed over for fraudulent bill, the shipper remained liable to the owners.
ComC Defendant shipowners issued delivery orders in respect of goods stored on land after discharge from the ship, against presentation of forged bills of lading.
Held: That the shipowners were liable to the time owners of the cargo even on the assumption that they were not negligent in being deceived by the forgeries, and despite a bill of lading clause which exempted them from any ‘liability whatsoever for any loss or damage to the goods which links actual or constructive possession ….. after discharge’. Held also, that there would be no defence in contract or conversion based on the non-negligent acceptance of forged bills of lading as being genuine.

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1999, [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 837, [1999] CLC 914, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 571

Cited by:

Appeal from – Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912 Akleselskab (‘the Motis) CA 20-Jan-2000
Shippers were liable under a bill of lading. The goods had been obtained from them fraudulently by means of forged bills of lading. They claimed under an exemption clause in the contract, but the claim failed since the exclusions from liability for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Transport

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83877

Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another: ChD 4 Jul 2000

Historically, powers had been granted to the authority, as riparian owners of the port, but powers had also been given to what had since become the Port Authority. The Authority had been given power to regulate traffic in the river, and to charge for moorings. The local authority could not control the grant of such mooring rights by the Port authority, nor levy its own charges. The rights given by statute to the Port Authority over-rode the land owner’s rights.

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2000, Gazette 06-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another CA 25-Jul-2001
A statute in 1950 granted to the port authority powers, inter alia, to grant licences for moorings on the foreshore. These powers overrode the ancient Royal Charter which vested the foreshore in the local authority. Accordingly licences issued by . .
Appeal from – Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another CA 29-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Local Government

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82422

In Re M/V Derbyshire: QBD 28 Oct 1999

The hearing which is to take place after an order for a re-hearing made under the Act, is a complete re-hearing of the whole case, including all matters defined under the Acts, and is not to be restricted to dealing only with the issues surrounding the casualties.

Citations:

Times 28-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1970, Merchant Shipping Act 1995

Transport

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82042

Gefco (UK) Ltd v Mason: CA 24 Aug 1998

The Convention was intended to achieve harmony between the laws of different countries, not uniformity. There was no need to impose an implied term which would impose uniformity beyond the scope of the actual words and requirements of the convention.

Citations:

Times 24-Aug-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1181

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80782

Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk): CA 5 Feb 1996

A shipper’s liability for known dangerous goods is not limited by fault or by negligence.

Citations:

Independent 06-Feb-1996, Times 05-Feb-1996

Statutes:

Hague-Visby Rules Article IV R 6, 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk) QBD 5-May-1994
A danger to the goods on board a ship made the cargo physically dangerous. The ship’s master was responsible. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk) HL 22-Jan-1998
A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80270

Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk): QBD 5 May 1994

A danger to the goods on board a ship made the cargo physically dangerous. The ship’s master was responsible.

Citations:

Times 05-May-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk) CA 5-Feb-1996
A shipper’s liability for known dangerous goods is not limited by fault or by negligence. . .
At first instance – Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk) HL 22-Jan-1998
A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80271

Uber France v Bensalem: ECJ 10 Apr 2018

Approximation of Laws – Transport – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Services in the field of transport – Directive 2006/123/EC – Services in the internal market – Directive 98/34/EC – Information society services – Rule on information society services – Definition – Intermediation service making it possible, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, to put non-professional drivers using their own vehicle in contact with persons who wish to make urban journeys – Criminal penalties

Judges:

K. Lenaerts, P

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:221, [2018] EUECJ C-320/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608652

Krusemann and Others v TUIfly GmbH: ECJ 12 Apr 2018

Air Transport – Compensation To Passengers In The Event of Denied Boarding – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights -Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Massive absence of flight staff due to so-called ‘wildcat strike’ under the guise of sick leave – Causation – Avoidability

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:243, [2018] EUECJ C-195/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608640

Finnair Oyj v Keskinainen Vakuutusyhtio Fennia: ECJ 12 Apr 2018

Air Transport – Liability of Air Carriers for Checked Baggage – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Montreal Convention – Article 31 – Liability of air carriers for checked baggage – Requirements as to the form and content of the written complaint sent to the air carrier – Complaint made electronically and recorded in the air carrier’s information system – Complaint made on behalf of the person entitled to delivery of checked baggage or cargo by an agent of the air carrier

Citations:

C-258/16, [2018] EUECJ C-258/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Consumer

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608637

Glasgow Corporation: HL 10 Apr 1923

This Order was promoted to provide for the acquisition by the Corporation of the undertakings of the Glasgow Subway Railway Company and of the Paisley District Tramways Company for tramway extensions and for other purposes.
The Minister of Transport objected to the Corporation’s proposal to include the Subway in their general tramway undertaking on the ground that the Subway was a railway and not a tramway. The Minister also proposed that the existing provisions in regard to tramway fares be altered. The Corporation had complete freedom in regard to tramway fares subject to statutory maxima, but the Minister now proposed that all intended alterations in fares be submitted to him for approval. In regard to both points the Committee approved of the proposals of the Corporation.
The Royal Burgh of Renfrew, through which part of the existing tramway lines of the Corporation and of the Paisley Company ran, appeared as objectors to the part of the Order relating to the Paisley Tramways in order to secure an undertaking that the Corporation would make a contribution to the expense of widening the High Street of Renfrew, through which the existing Glasgow Tramway lines ran. This assurance was given.
The preamble was proved and clauses were adjusted.

Citations:

[1923] UKHL 648, 60 SLR 648

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Transport

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.633257

Sevylor Shipping and Trading Corp v Altfadul Company for Foods, Fruits and Livestock and Another: ComC 23 Mar 2018

This case raises three questions of law concerning claims made by the lawful holder of bills of lading to whom and in whom rights of suit under the contract of carriage contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading have been transferred and vested as if he had been a party to that contract, under s.2(1) of the

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 629 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606870

Songa Chemicals As v Navig8 Chemicals Pool Ltd: ComC 2 Mar 2018

Judges:

Andrew Baker J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 397 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Transport

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606426

Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another: SC 12 Jun 2019

The Court was asked as to the construction of the phrase ‘constructive total loss’, and in particular the calculation the expenditure to be taken into account in computing the cost of recovery and or repair, where notice of loss had been served before some of the losses were incurred. Questions were asked as to the costs of environmental repair liabilities (SCOPIC).
Held: The ‘cost of repairing the damage’ for the purpose of determining whether the vessel was a constructive total loss included all the reasonable costs of salving and safeguarding the ‘RENOS’ from the time of the casualty onwards, together with the prospective cost of repairing her. The cost of repairing the damage was in no way ‘adeemed’ because part of it had already been incurred at the time when notice of abandonment was given and action brought on the policy. These costs are therefore to be taken into account for the purposes of section 60(2)(ii) of the Act.
As to SCOPIC costs, especially where a casualty involves an oil or chemical tanker, SCOPIC charges may be many times the remuneration attributable to the ‘classic’ salvage services directed at saving the property.
However: ‘ it is necessary to identify the purpose of the expenditure which it is proposed to take into account, and to apply the prudent uninsured owner test only to expenditure for the purpose of repairing the ship in the larger sense which I indicated above. The fact that a prudent uninsured owner might have contracted with the same contractors for both the protection of the property and the prevention of environmental pollution does not show that both are part of the cost of repairing the damage. Neither does the fact that the charges under both heads are secured on the ship. The two heads of expenditure have quite different purposes, only one of which is related to the reinstatement of the vessel. If they were truly indivisible, this might not matter. But the whole scheme of the SCOPIC clause depends on their being separately identifiable, and the very fact that one is for the hull underwriter’s account and the other for the P and I insurers shows that they cannot be indivisible. In my opinion, SCOPIC charges are not part of the ‘cost of repairing the damage’ for the purpose of section 60(2)(ii) of the Act or the ‘cost of recovery and/or repair’ for the purpose of clause 19.2 of the Institute Clauses, because their purpose is unconnected with the damage to the hull or its hypothetical reinstatement. ‘

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sumption

Citations:

UKSC 2018/0054, [2019] UKSC 29

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Apr 10 am Video, SC 2019 Aor 10 pm Video, SC 2019 Apr 11 am Video

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 60(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another, Re Renos CA 19-Feb-2018
The court considered what expenses were to be taken into account in assessing whether there had been a total loss of a ship. . .
Cited – Holdsworth and Another v Wise And Others 1828
. .
Cited – Rosetto And Others v Gurney, Chairman Of The Alliance Marine Assurance Company 30-May-1851
. .
Cited – Kemp v Halliday (2) 1-Feb-1866
. .
Cited – Helmville Ltd v Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd (The ‘MEDINA PRINCESS’) 1965
Roskill J accepted without discussion a submission in relation to one of a large number of disputed items of expenditure that it was ‘inadmissible for the purposes of the constructive total loss claim because the work was done before the date of . .
Cited – National Grid Co Plc v Mayes and Others; International Power Plc (Formerly National Power Plc) v Healy and Others HL 7-Jun-2001
The release by the trustees of a sum due to the pension scheme from the employers, did not make funds payable to the employer, so as to trigger the clause within the scheme trust deed which would restrain such a payment. Where an actuarial surplus . .
Cited – Chandris v Argo Insurance Ltd 1963
Terms of an insurance policy for the very nature of the loss may require a particular method of computation or process of quantification of loss before payment is due. Ordinarily, the right to the indemnity accrues as soon as the loss has been . .
Cited – Firma C-Trade SA v Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association (‘The FANTI’) HL 1991
. .
Cited – Knight v Faith 1850
. .
Cited – Hamilton v Mendes 8-Jun-1761
The ‘SELBY’ was captured by a French privateer in the Atlantic during the Seven Years War, and then recaptured from her French prize crew a few weeks later by a British man-of-war. News of the capture and recapture reached the assured . .
Cited – Bainbridge And Another v Neilson 27-Feb-1808
during the Napoleonic wars, a ship was taken and then retaken. News of the recapture arrived between the tender of notice of abandonment and the commencement of the action.
Held: Lord Ellenborough said: ‘The effect of an offer to abandon is . .
Cited – Robertson v Nomikos HL 1939
The ship suffered a constructive total loss under the terms of their freight insurance policy, which stipulated that the value when repaired was to be taken as the insured value. The cost of repairs was greater than the insured value, but less than . .
Cited – Polurrian Steamship Co Ltd v Young CA 1915
The Marine Insurance Act 1906 did not alter the position on notice of abandonment . .
Cited – Roura and Forgas v Townend 1919
The plaintiffs were the voyage charterers of the ‘IGOTZ MENDI’. They insured their anticipated profit on the voyage against the actual or constructive total loss of the vessel. The vessel was captured by a German cruiser in the Indian Ocean, as a . .
Cited – Sailing Ship ‘ Blairmore ‘ Company v Macredie HL 11-Jul-1898
The ‘BLAIRMORE’ was sunk by a storm while moored in San Francisco Bay and abandoned to the insurers by her owner. The assured pleaded that the cost of raising and repairing the ship was such as to make her a constructive total loss at the time of . .
Cited – Roux v Salvador 15-Nov-1836
The court set down the prudent uninsured owner test for determining whether the subject-matter insured is a constructive total loss in circumstances where the relevant facts are hypothetical or cannot be known. As applied to a damaged ship, the test . .
Cited – Irving v Manning HL 1847
. .
Cited – Angel v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co CA 9-Apr-1903
. .
Cited – Macbeth and Co, Ld v Maritime Insurance Company HL 6-Mar-1908
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.638235

Weaver v Delta Airlines Inc: 30 Jun 1999

(United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division.)

Citations:

56 F Supp 2d 1190 (1999)

Links:

Justia

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

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

Transport, Damages

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.180854

Commission v Spain – C-181/17: ECJ 8 Feb 2018

Transport – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Transport policy – Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 – Road transport operator – Authorization of public transport – Conditions for granting – Article 3 (1) and (2) – Article 5 (b) – Number of vehicles required – National regulations – More stringent licensing conditions – Higher minimum number of vehicles

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:75, [2018] EUECJ C-181/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604717

Deutsche Bahn and Schenker and Others v Commission: ECJ 1 Feb 2018

Competition – Price Fixing – Judgment – Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 101 TFEU – Price fixing – International air freight forwarding services – Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:60, [2018] EUECJ C-264/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Transport

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604718

Aher-Waggon v Bundesrepublik Deutschland: ECJ 14 Jul 1998

ECJ (Judgment) Measures having equivalent effect – Directives on noise emissions from aircraft – Stricter domestic limits – Barrier to the importation of an aircraft – Environmental protection

Citations:

C-389/96, [1998] EUECJ C-389/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Environment

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.161998

Kaefer Aislamientos Sa De Cv v AMS Drilling Mexico Sa De Cv and Others: CA 17 Jan 2019

Judges:

Davis, Asplin, Green LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 10, [2019] WLR(D) 23

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.632656

Carswell v Collard: HL 15 Jun 1893

By charter-party dated 3rd July 1891 the owner of a steamer then being fitted out in the Clyde for the summer traffic, agreed to let her to a charterer till 30th September. The charter-party provided that the charterer should ‘pay for the use and hire of the said vessel at the rate of pounds 425 per month, commencing the day of delivery . . . whereof notice shall be given to the charterer . . payment of the hire to be made in cash monthly, in advance, . . first month’s hire to be paid before the steamer leaves the Clyde.
Charterer agrees to give a banker’s guarantee for the due payment of the hire money.’
As soon as the charter-party was signed the owner began, through his broker, to press the charterer for the bank guarantee. The charterer replied that he was not bound to give the guarantee until the vessel was ready to be handed over. The broker assented to this, but continued from 6th to 10th July to press the charterer daily to give the guarantee. The charterer made no answer to any of these communications until the 10th, when he replied that he was prepared to give the guarantee on delivery of the vessel. On 13th July the broker telegraphed that the vessel would be delivered in Glasgow on the 15th. The charterer replied that he would leave Hastings for Glasgow on the night of the 15th to take delivery, but without notifying the owner he postponed his departure for a day, and did not reach Glasgow until the morning of the 17th, when he found that the owner had chartered the vessel to someone else.
Held ( aff. the judgment of the First Division) (1) that the charterer had not committed a breach of contract by failing to take delivery on the day fixed; (2) that the charterer’s conduct had not been such as to justify the owner in believing that he did not intend to fulfil his contract; and therefore found the charterer entitled to damages.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1893] UKHL 939, 30 SLR 939

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.633299

The Environment Agency v Gibbs and Another: Admn 15 Apr 2016

The Court was asked to consider whether each of two ‘houseboats’, both moored in the Hartford Marina on the River Great Ouse in Huntingdon, was properly found by the Crown Court not to a be ‘vessel’ within the definition provided by article 2 of the 2010 Order.

Judges:

Lindblom LJ, Teare, Holroyde JJ

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 843 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601148

CTL Logistics (Rail Transport – Infrastructure Charges – Pricing): ECJ 9 Nov 2017

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rail transport – Directive 2001/14/EC – Infrastructure charges – Pricing – National regulatory body monitoring the conformity of those infrastructure charges with that directive – Contract for use of infrastructure concluded between a railway infrastructure manager and a railway undertaking – Principle of non-discrimination – Reimbursement of the charges without intervention by that body and outside the claims procedures involving it – National legislation enabling the civil courts to set a fair amount in the case of unfair charges

Citations:

C-489/15, [2017] EUECJ C-489/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:834

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599673