Category: Transport

Owners of Cargo Lately Laden Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line Limited: CA 29 Jul 1997

Liability under the Hague Convention is limited by the number of cargo packets where so listed, and not by the number of containers.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Sep-1997, Times 29-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2105, [1998] QB 610, [1997] 4 All ER 498, [1997] 3 WLR 1128, [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 225, [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 530

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924, Hague Rules 1922 Art IV r 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Owners of Cargo Lately Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line QBD 6-Mar-1996
The Cargo limitation of liability restriction applies to separate items not to the container units as a whole. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Owners of Cargo Lately Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line QBD 6-Mar-1996
The Cargo limitation of liability restriction applies to separate items not to the container units as a whole. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.84503

Breffka and Hehnke Gmbh and Co Kg and Others v Navire Shipping Co Ltd and Others: ComC 7 Nov 2012

‘This claim arises from the carriage of a consignment of steel pipes on the M/V ‘Saga Explorer’ from Ulsan in Korea to ports on the West Coast of North America (Los Angeles, San Francisco and Vancouver, WA) between September and October 2008; and which it is claimed were found damaged on arrival.’

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3124 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Transport

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465683

Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority: ECJ 23 Oct 2012

ECJ Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5 to 7 – Montreal Convention – Articles 19 and 29 – Right to compensation in the event of delay of flights – Compatibility

Judges:

V. Skouris, P

Citations:

C-581/10, [2012] EUECJ C-581/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

Citing:

Order – Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority ECJ 30-Nov-2011
Order – joinder of cases . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd CA 19-Jun-2014
The claimant’s flight had been delayed for six hours. The airline said that the claim having been made outside the two year period applicable under the Montreal convention, no compensation was payable.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘We . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465396

Chaudhari v British Airways Plc: CA 16 Apr 1997

The passenger injured himself as he fell from an aeroplane chair because of pre-existing injury.
Held: He had no claim under the Convention. The falling of a semi-paralysed person whilst he was trying to get to his feet to go to the lavatory did not constitute an accident. It had not been an ‘accident causing injury’ within the Convention. Leggatt LJ said: ”accident’ is not to be construed as including any injuries caused by the passenger’s particular, personal and peculiar reaction to the normal operation of the aircraft’ and ‘what befell Mr Chaudhari was not caused by any unexpected or unusual event external to him but, but by his own personal, particular and peculiar reaction to the normal operation of the aircraft. As the judge said, he fell as the result of his pre-existing medical condition’.

Judges:

Leggatt LJ

Citations:

Times 07-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1413, CCRTI 96/0229/G

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 Art 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Air France v Saks 1985
(United States Supreme Court) The claimant suffered damage to and become permanently deaf in one ear as a result of pressurisation changes while the aircraft descended to land. The pressure system had worked normally. The airline said that the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation HL 8-Dec-2005
The appellants had suffered deep vein thrombosis whilst travelling on long haul air flights. The defendants said that their liability was limited because the injuries were not accidents.
Held: The claimants’ appeal failed. The definition of . .
Cited – Barclay v British Airways plc CC 27-Feb-2008
(Oxford County Court) The claimant slipped as she boarded an aircraft and sought damages for injuries to her knee. Her claim was brought under the Convention. The defendant denied that the injury occurred as the result of an accident, saying that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.78998

Cachafeiro, Varela-Villamor v Iberia, Lineas Aereas De Espana Sa: ECJ 4 Oct 2012

ECJ Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding – Concept of ‘denied boarding’ – Cancellation of a passenger’s boarding card by an air carrier because of the anticipated delay to an earlier flight also operated by it which included check-in for the flight concerned

Judges:

K. Lenaerts, P

Citations:

C-321/11, [2012] EUECJ C-321/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

European, Transport

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464809

Finnair Oyj v Lassooy: ECJ 4 Oct 2012

ECJ Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding – Concept of ‘denied boarding’ – Exclusion from characterisation as ‘denied boarding’ – Cancellation of a flight caused by a strike at the airport of departure – Rescheduling of flights after the cancelled flight – Right to compensation of the passengers on those flights

Judges:

K. Lenaerts, P

Citations:

C-22/11, [2012] EUECJ C-22/11, [2013] 1 CMLR 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

Cited by:

Cited – Jet2Com Ltd v Huzar CA 11-Jun-2014
The claimant passenger complained that he had not been compensated as required when his flight was delayed. The airline now appealed against a decision that a mechanical fault in the aircraft did not amount to exceptional circumstances so as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464803

Britannia Bulk Plc v Pioneer Navigation Ltd and Another: ComC 25 Mar 2011

‘This judgment relates to a dispute as to the correct construction of the 1992 Master Agreement of the International Swap Dealers Association, now the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (‘ISDA’) which concerns the financial consequences of Automatic Early Termination of a series of forward freight agreements (‘FFAs’) between the parties following the insolvency of the claimant Britannia Bulk.’

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 692 (Comm), [2011] 2 Lloyds Rep 84, [2011] 1 CLC 864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Insolvency

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.430857

Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras, Braspetro Oil Services Company, Societa Armamento Navi Appoggio Spa, Den Norske Bank Asa: CA 17 Feb 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke

Citations:

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 156, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Petromec Inc and Petroleo Brasileiro S A Petrobras, Braspetro Oil Services Company v Petromec Inc, Petro-Deep Inc, Maritima Petroleo E Engenharia Ltda QBD 2-Feb-2004
The parties entered into a complex group of inter-related contracts for the purpose of purchasing and upgrading an oil production platform for use by Petrobras in the South Marlim oilfield. At a very early stage it was agreed that the upgrade . .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro S A Petrobras and others ComC 18-Feb-2003
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobrasbraspetro Oil Services etc ComC 20-May-2004
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc Petro-Deep Inc and others v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa and others CA 15-Jul-2005
. .
See Also – Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Another v Petromec Inc and others ComC 3-Nov-2005
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasiliero Sa Petrobras and Another ComC 16-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras CA 19-Jul-2006
A Mr Efremovich, a third party to the action was ordered to pay the costs of Petrobras and Brasoil which on the failure of its claim against them had been ordered to be paid by Petromec. The judge found that Mr Efromovich controlled the proceedings . .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others ComC 7-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petrobras ComC 11-May-2007
Defendant’s application for security for costs. . .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Etroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others ComC 6-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras and others CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others CA 23-Jan-2008
Short order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.193583

Swan Hill Developments Limited, Lloyd-Thomas etc v British Waterways Board: CA 25 Feb 1997

The issue was whether the rights given under the section could only be exercised by owners of land on either side of the canal.
Held: The Act took rights over land and was to be construed in the case of any ambiguity against its proposers. Section 79 was a proviso intended to protect the rights of the land owners. The requirement that the canal cut through land could not be read to require ownership of land on both sides.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1089, [1997] NPC 29, [1998] JPL 153, [1997] EG 33 (CS)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Proprietors of the Stourbridge Canal v Wheeley 1831
The court explained the Act: ‘The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and . .
Cited – Campbell Discount Company Ltd v Bridge HL 1962
The parties disputed the validity of a clause in a car hire contract relating to the consequences of a breach.
Held: (Majority) The agreement had been terminated by breach rather than by the exercise of an option, so that the stipulated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Land

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141485

Intertanko and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 30 Jun 2006

The applicants challenged the right of the European Union to make rules against the discharge of pollutant materials from ships in international waters. The Directive departed from standards set in an international harmonised convention.

Judges:

Hodge J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1577 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Community Directive 2005/35/EC, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Transport, European

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.242952

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions v Snowdon: Admn 4 Nov 2002

The Secretary of State appealed a finding that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence to drive a passenger carrying vehicle, despite his conviction for two offences of indecent assault on a girl under 15, and his name being entered on the sex offenders’ register.
Held: There was no provision which would automatically disqualify the applicant from holding a licence. The magistrate had to make a decision in the light of the particular circumstances both private and commercial, and here, it would have been wrong to deny him the opportunity to have heard in his support, his employer who had continued to employ him.

Judges:

Pleming QC

Citations:

Times 04-Dec-2002, Gazette 06-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2394 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 121(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.178324

Gibraltar v Council: ECJ 29 Jun 1993

(Judgment) European Community jurisdiction on Gibraltar Airport dispute must await UK-Spain agreement.
ECJ Article 2(2) of Directive 89/463 concerning the authorization of scheduled inter-regional air services for the transport of passengers, mail and cargo between Member States, which suspends the application of that directive to Gibraltar airport until the cooperation arrangements for that airport agreed between the Governments of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom come into operation, cannot be regarded as constituting a decision within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so that an action for its annulment brought by a natural or legal person is inadmissible.
Where an instrument contains limitations or derogations which are temporary or territorial in nature, they form an integral part of the provisions as a whole within which they are found and, in the absence of any misuse of powers, are of the same general nature as those provisions. The suspension by the said article of the application of the directive, which is itself of general application, affects equally all air carriers wishing to operate a direct inter-regional air service between another Community airport and Gibraltar airport and, more generally, all those using the latter airport. Furthermore, apart from the fact that Gibraltar airport is not the only airport to have been temporarily excluded from the scheme of the directive, the said suspension merely reflects the consequences of the existence of an objective obstacle, arising from differences between two Member States, to the immediate application of the directive to Gibraltar airport.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-1993, C-298/89, [1993] EUECJ C-298/89, [1993] ECR I-3605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Constitutional, Transport

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.160346

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 right of action against the promisor and because, by reason of the underlying policy of section 1(4), he is confined to the means of enforcement provided by the contract to the promisee, namely arbitration. He is to be treated as standing in the shoes of that promisee for the purpose only of the enforcement of the substantive term. In this case, the scope of the disputes covered by the arbitration agreements was wide enough to embrace a dispute between owners and charterers about payment of the brokers’ commission, and they fell to be resolved by arbitration.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Colman

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm), [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 481, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 38

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 1(4), Arbitration Act 1996 67

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Robertson v Wait 1853
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – The Jordan Nicholev 1990
The court was asked as to the position resulting from the assignment of a contract including an arbitration clause: ‘Where the assignment is the assignment of the cause of action, it will, in the absence of some agreement to the contrary include as . .
Cited – The Padre Island 1984
The 1930 Act creates a statutory assignment of any rights of action in a case where the assured has become bankrupt or been wound up, the party to whom the benefit of a right of action under the liability insurance contract has been transferred may . .
Cited – T W Thomas and Co Ltd v Portsea Steamship Co Ltd PC 1912
The board discussed the approach to the incorporation of arbitration clauses and jurisdiction clauses from one contract into another such as a bill of lading. . .
Cited – The Mahkutai PC 24-Apr-1996
(Hong Kong) The question was whether shipowners, who were not parties to the bill of lading contract between the charterers and carriers on the one part, and the cargo-owners, the bill of lading being a charterer’s bill, could enforce against the . .
Cited – Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlev von Appen GmbH v Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH (‘The Jay Bola’) CA 1997
The insurance company claimant had insured a cargo under a voyage charter made by the defendant as charterer with the claimant as time charterer and disponent owner of the vessel. The charter had an arbitration clause. The cargo was damaged in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.187699

BP Oil International Ltd v Target Shipping Ltd: ComC 14 Jun 2012

Difference about how much was payable by the charterers under a charterparty by which BP Oil International Limited (‘BP’) hired the oil tanker ‘Target’ from her owners, Target Shipping Limited (the ‘Owners’), and in particular about whether BP are entitled to recover some $1 million that the Owners charged them by way of overage freight and that, as BP claim, they paid by mistake.

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1590 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Transport

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460508

Carboex Sa v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse Sa: CA 19 Jun 2012

This appeal concerns liability for delay to four vessels waiting to discharge cargoes of coal at Ferrol, North-west Spain in June and July 2008.
Held: The berth charter strike clause operated to transfer any liability for delay in the discharge of the cargo arising from strikes at the port from the charterer to the owner. This applied irrespective of whether it arose at the quayside or while the vessel had arrived but was unable to berth.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Moore-Bick, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] WLR(D) 179, [2012] 2 CLC 416, [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 1039, [2013] Ch 789, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 379, [2012] EWCA Civ 838, [2013] 2 WLR 754, [2013] 1 QB 789

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460503

ABS Company Ltd v Pantaenius UK Ltd and Others: ComC 1 Oct 2020

Trial of a claim by the owner of the Motor yacht Queen B Speed for the reasonable costs of repairing the Yacht pursuant to an insurance policy underwritten by the second to fourth defendants following a grounding incident in the Bosporus Strait.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3720 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.660102

Milor SRL and Others v British Airways Plc: CA 15 Feb 1996

The Warsaw Convention allows ‘forum shopping’, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. Article 28(1) specifies the jurisdictions in which claims under the Convention may be brought. If the English Court is one of those jurisdictions, then our procedural rules which permit an action to be stayed in favour of another jurisdiction on grounds of convenience should not be applied in favour of another competent jurisdiction.
Phillips LJ said: ‘by way of example, if the procedural law of the chosen forum imposed a 12 month limitation period, it does not seem to me that this could displace the two year period of limitation laid down by article 29 of the Convention’.

Judges:

Phillips LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1996, [1996] QB 702

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and Another v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd; Press Tech Controls Ltd v Same ComC 19-May-2003
The sum accepted as a payment in, in an air carriage case was capable of being the ‘amount of damages’ awarded under the convention. That it exceeded the amount offered in settlement negotiations meant that the rights to costs under article 22.4 . .
Cited – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction, Transport

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83735

Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos): CA 4 Jun 1993

The ship was returned by the charterer after the expiry of the time charter. The court was asked as to when the validity of the last order was to be tested.
Held: The legitimacy of the charterer’s final order was to be tested at the date it had been given. Counsel had respectively argued: ‘Furthermore, and central to Mr Rix’s argument, the owners would be compensated in damages in accordance with the normal common law measure of damages under the rule in Hadley v Baxendale for any period of overrun which would normally be based on market rates of hire under the first rule; but also, if the facts warranted, by additional damages (e.g. for the loss of a fixture) under the second rule’ and on the other side: ‘Mr Gross asserts that damages may be an inadequate remedy, since the owners are unlikely to be able to recover compensation for the loss of a subsequent fixture and are likely to be confined to recovering hire at the market rate (i.e. within the first rule in Hadley v Baxendale). But this is essentially a complaint against the well established common law rules on the measure of damages and indeed on the facts of individual cases the owners might well be able to bring themselves within the second rule in Hadley v Baxendale (e.g. if the owners explicitly warned the charterers at the time of the last voyage order then (sic) an overrun might imperil a subsequent fixture). ‘

Judges:

Hirst, Russell and Simon Brown, L.JJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Jul-1993, Times 04-Jun-1993, [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 335

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos) ChD 1991
The ship was returned late from a charter. The court was asked whether or not the legitimacy of the last voyage fell to be established at the date when the order was given or at the time when the last voyage began.
Held: It was the second: . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos) HL 28-Oct-1994
In a continuing charter when it was clear that the time of the charter will be exceeded, the contract allows an action for an anticipatory breach. Any new redelivery order was to be obtained after after it first became impossible to meet the charter . .
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC 1-Dec-2006
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) HL 9-Jul-2008
The parties contracted to charter the Achileas. The charterer gave notice to terminate the hire, and the owner found a new charterer. Until the termination the charterers sub-chartered. That charter was not completed, delaying the ship for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89922

Triad Shipping Co v Stellar Chartering and Brokerage Inc (‘The Island Archon’): CA 8 Jul 1994

A ship owner had an implied right of indemnity against the acts of charterers, even under their own orders where they lead to false claims. The more foreseeable the owners’ loss, the more likely it is to be an ordinary incident of the chartered service and therefore outside the scope of the indemnity.
The court will restrict the application of indemnities and comparable clauses in two ways: it requires a sufficient causative link between the order and the consequence giving rise to the claim, and a provision of this kind will not usually be held to cover ordinary expenses and losses of trading, the risk of which rests upon the owner.

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls V-C, Evans, Mann LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Jul-1994, Independent 20-Jul-1994, [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 227

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Transport

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89987

Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona): CA 27 Jul 1994

A ship owner is to have made his ship seaworthy in order to claim an indemnity for dangerous fuel set alight by a third party. He was not entitled to claim where the failure to keep the ship seaworthy was his own.
Hirst LJ said: ‘The inclusion of the words ‘directly or indirectly’ in art. IV, r. 6 does not in any view alter the position, even assuming (as I am inclined to do) that Mr Boyd is right in his submission that those words relate to causation not foreseability, despite the contrast with the York-Antwerp Rules. These two adverbs are of nothing like sufficient strength to fall within Lord Morton’s first exception in Canada Steamships .’
Hoffmann LJ said of the words ‘directly or indirectly’: ‘It seems to me, however, that in their natural meaning they do refer to causation. If so, their effect may be to make the shipper liable not only in cases like the present, where (if the explosive gases had been wholly derived from the fuel oil) one would say that the shipment of dangerous cargo caused the damages, notwithstanding that ignition was provided by the static electricity and the act of the surveyor (compare Philco Radio v. Spurling , [1949] All E.R. 882) but also in cases in which one would ordinarily say that the shipment had merely provided an occasion for something else to cause the damage, e.g. if the gas had been deliberately ignited by an arsonist or the explosion caused by some highly abnormal accident. If this is the effect of the words, they obviously also exclude the Hadley v. Baxendale limitation as well. But even construed in this sense, they do not in my judgment assist the owners.’

Judges:

Hirst, Hoffmann LJJ

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 01-Aug-1994, [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 506

Statutes:

Hague-Visby Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona) 1993
A carrier’s right to an indemnity for damage resulting from the transport of dangerous goods, does not depend on whether the shipper knew of the dangerous nature and character of the goods or was at fault in permitting their shipment or not warning . .

Cited by:

Cited – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Cited – Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (‘the Eurus’) CA 18-Nov-1997
Arcadia chartered the Eurus, and had succeeded in their application for an award in arbitration proceedings against Total. The award had been reversed, and they now appealed against that order. The parties disputed whether the amount was an award of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83601

Aectra Refining and Marketing Inc v Exmar NN: CA 15 Aug 1994

A time loss claim can found a legal set-off claim against ship owners, provided that the loss claim can be made in the same court. The court referred to a ‘transaction set-off and independent set-off’. Cross-claims must both be due and payable, and either liquidated or capable of being quantified by reference to ascertainable facts that do not, in their nature, require estimation or valuation.
Hoffman LJ reaffirmed the procedural character of legal set-off, saying: ‘Independent set-off, as its name suggests, does not require any relationship between the transactions out of which the cross claims arise. In English law it is based on section 13 of the Insolvent Debtors Relief Act 1729 . . The procedural basis of independent set-off is reflected in the rule that the mere existence of liquidated cross-claims does not automatically extinguish the smaller debt . . It operates only by express or implied agreement or through the judicial process by which the account is taken. As Sir George Jessel MR said in Talbot v Frere (1878) 9 ChD, 568, 573 ‘there could not be a set-off until action brought and set-off pleaded.’ The Act of 1729 is expressed in procedural terms’

Judges:

Hoffman LJ, Hirst LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 22-Aug-1994, Times 15-Aug-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 641, [1994] 1 WLR 1634

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Talbot v Frere CA 1878
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘there could not be a set-off until action brought and set-off pleaded.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Benford Ltd and Another v Lopecan Sl QBD 30-Jul-2004
The parties disputed the coverage agreed under a distribution agreement.
Held: ‘The counterclaim operated as a defence by way of set off. In order to establish that defence the defendant will have to prove the losses pleaded . . . Until the . .
Cited – Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and Another ChD 6-Mar-2001
A tenant complained to the landlord about his failure to repair. He ceased paying rent, and the landlord eventually distrained for rent by direct action.
Held: The tenant was unable to claim a legal set-off because there was no context of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Transport

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.77660

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Balbo B and C Auto Transporti Internazionali: Admn 22 Mar 2001

Where a notice of liability was served on a transport operator with regard to his responsibility for transporting illegal immigrants into the country, and he wished to challenge it, the proper approach was to allow the notice to expire, and then to defend any proceedings brought. Given that way of dealing with it, it was not appropriate to challenge the notice itself by way of judicial review. The form of notice issued after review did not refer to the Secretary of State’s need to pursue his remedy through the courts. This was unfortunate, but if it were true, it would make him judge and jury in his own cause.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-2001, Times 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 195, [2001] 1 WLR 1556

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration, Transport

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88650

Regina v Whitehouse: CACD 10 Dec 1999

The offence of endangering the flight of an aircraft required proof that there followed from the act of the defendant a real risk of danger, a danger that should not be ignored. A passenger refused to turn off his mobile phone. The prosecution brought evidence that the phone would emit signals searching for a base, and that such signals might interfere with the flight systems. The risk was of disastrous consequences for life, and the judge correctly identified the risk to be shown.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1999, Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970) Art 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85610

British American Tobacco Switzerland Sa and Others v Exel Europe Ltd and Others: ComC 23 Mar 2012

Defendants (companies registered in Holland) denied that the UK court had jurisdiction to try the claim against them.
Held: The consignors could not succeed, and the court set aside the proceedings against the sub-contractors. The ‘defendant’ who is the subject-matter of article 31.1 is any successive carrier who can be sued pursuant to article 36, i.e. first, last or performing carrier. Therefore, it was that defendant’s branch or agency and that defendant’s contract or sub-contract of carriage which were in issue. Where a successive carrier comes into being on what has been called the ‘statutory contract’ made by reason of acceptance of the goods and the consignment note, the judge observed that there can be no branch or agency in question. Therefore, ‘The only contract which can . . be concluded through a branch or agency is the contract between carriers’, i.e. the sub-contract.

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 694 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [2013] 1 WLR 397, [2012] WLR(D) 98, [2012] 1 CLC 549

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – British American Tobacco Switzerland SA and Others v Exel Europe Ltd CA 30-Oct-2013
Large quantities of tobacco had been stolen from containers whilst in transit across Euurope. The consignors, now the appellants sought recovery from the sub-contractors who had custody of them at the time.
Held: The consignors appeal . .
At first instance – 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.

Jurisdiction, Transport

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.452390

Pacific Steam Navigation Co v Thomson, Aikman, and Co Ltd: HL 21 Jun 1920

A bill of lading provided-‘Freight . . to be paid as per margin, and to be collected on the gross weights, measurements, or number taken at the port of discharge, and according to the conditions stated in the company’s tariff, it being expressly agreed that freight is to be considered as earned, and must be paid ship and/or cargo lost or not lost.’
Owing to a collision sea-water entered the hold and dissolved a portion of the cargo, which was nitrate. The shipowners sued for the freight on the amount, agreed between parties, of the cargo so lost. Held (rev. decision of the Second Division) that such freight was due.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Birkenhead), Viscount Finlay, Viscount Cave, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 488, 57 SLR 488

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.631535

Plan B Earth v Secretary of State for Transport: CA 27 Feb 2020

The claimants appealed from rejection of their objection to the grant of permission for a third runway at Heathrow airport.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The government had set a statutory target for carbon emissions, but the policy decision had paid inadequate attention to that statutory duty, and the decision must be set aside.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lindblom, Lord Justice Singh, and Lord Justice Haddon-Cave

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Environment, Administrative

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.648518

P and O Nedlloyd B v Dampskibsselskabet Af, 1912, Aktieselskab, Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg v Utaniko Limited, East West Corporation: CA 12 Feb 2003

The claimants shipped goods to Chile through the defendant shipping line. The goods were lost. The shippers rights of suit under the contract of carriage had been transferred to a third party.
Held: The shippers as the bank’s principals couldn’t be the holders of the bills endorsed to the banks, and the rights of suit were transferred with them. Nevertheless, the bailment to the shipping line continued, and the shippers rights as bailor continued. The defendants were in breach of their duties as bailees.
Mance LJ said: ‘The duties of a bailee arise out of the voluntary assumption of possession of another’s goods’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

Times 13-Feb-2003, [2003] QB 1509, [2003] EWCA Civ 83, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239, [2003] 1 CLC 797, [2003] 2 All ER 700, [2003] 3 WLR 916, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 524

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Carriage of Goods at Sea Act 1992 5(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 and Another ComC 7-Feb-2002
. .
Appeal from – East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 and Another ComC 27-Feb-2002
‘The purpose of the award of an enhanced rate of interest or indemnity costs is to encourage parties to make offers of settlement in the ordinary sense of that word. It is to compensate the claimant who has made an offer that should have been . .
Cited – Obestain Inc v National Mineral Development Corporation (‘The Sanix Ace’) 1987
Hobhouse J affirmed an owner’s right to recover damages (in full) in respect of loss or damage to goods, subject to the one qualification that ‘his claim may be defeated if his right is a bare proprietary one and did not include any right to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
Held: There was a bailment . .
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 – Kamidian v Holt (on Behalf of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s) and others ComC 27-Jun-2008
The claimant claimed to have bought what he believed to be a genuine Faberge Egg Clock, but which his insurers said was a copy. It was loaned to an exhibition, and insured, and damaged twice. The parties disagreed as to the disappreciation value, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Agency, Banking

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.179116

The United Road Transport Union, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 13 Jul 2012

The claimant Union sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to introduce secondary legislation to provide for a similar right which, it is submitted, is required to give effective enforcement rights, particularly a statutory right to apply to an employment tribunal for a declaration and/or compensation if he is required to work in contravention of the regulations that regulate breaks and rest periods during working hours to members employed in the road transport industry, mostly as drivers of commercial road vehicles.

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1909 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Transport

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.462910

Glencore International Ag v Msc Mediterranean Shipping Company Sa and Another: ComC 10 Jul 2015

Glencore claimed against MSC damages for breach of contract, bailment and conversion in relation to a cargo of three containers of cobalt briquettes. The cargo had been been shipped from Fremantle to Antwerp on the ‘MSC Eugenia’ under a bill of lading (the ‘B/L’) issued by MSC. Glencore complained that only one of the containers was delivered and the other two were misappropriated. The evidence does not show quite what happened to the missing containers, but it is common ground (and recorded as such in the list of issues) that they were ‘delivered to unauthorised persons’.

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1989 (Comm), [2015] CN 1274

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.550071

Commission v Bulgaria (Railway Investigation Body): ECJ 28 May 2020

(Judgment) Failure of State to fulfill obligations – Safety of railways – Directive 2004/49 / EC – Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 2 – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure the organizational independence of the investigative body as well as that its independent access to sufficient resources

Citations:

C-33/19, [2020] EUECJ C-33/19, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.660186

Woolley Trading As Dolphin Travel: UTAA 26 May 2020

Loss of good repute; revocation; disqualification; proportionality; whether the requirement for an audit from the FTA or RHA was anti-competitive; inconsistency in approach in disqualifying transport manager with immediate effect but delaying revocation for eight weeks to allow the Appellant time to continue operating and apply for a new licence without a period of grace

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 261 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.659504

Borjesson and Mandatory v Carlberg and Others: HL 9 Jul 1878

Arrestments were used upon a vessel lying in Glasgow harbour for the purpose of founding jurisdiction. A messenger-at-arms who was employed to execute a second warrant of arrestment upon the dependence of the action, when he found that the vessel had in the meantime sailed from harbour, pursued her on board a tug-steamer with thirty men, overtook, seized, and brought her back to port when she was some way down the Clyde and fairly started on her voyage. Held [aff. judgment of Court of Session] that as the mode of executing the second warrant of arrestment was clearly illegal, the arrestments fell to be recalled, and without caution.
Where arrestments had been used against a ship which had been pursued on her voyage and illegally brought back to port at the instance of certain parties and their mandatory, to the latter of whom the illegality was directly due, and where these arrestments were recalled without’ caution- held [ aff. judgment of the Court of Session] that the ship could not then be arrested at the hands either [1] of the granter of the mandate, or [2] of the mandatory in his private capacity, or [3] of parties who had granted authority to the mandant to act for them, and who had a common end to serve with him in executing the diligence.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, Lords Hatherley, O’Hagan, Blackburn, and Gordon

Citations:

[1878] UKHL 779, 15 SLR 779

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.646309

GS Couriers (Nottingham) Limited; Gethings-Smith; Gethings-Smith: UTAA 6 Jul 2020

Courier Co required OL to obtain a franchise. Employed a ‘fraudster’ who purported to be a transport manager who committed acts of forgery (including his own certificate of competence) and made false representations. The directors failed to acquire any knowledge of operator licensing and made no attempt to supervise the ‘fraudster’. The MD did not even read the OL application form but merely signed the last page. The company operated vehicles without an OL (although one eventually granted) and then operated more vehicles than permitted on the OL and from an operating centre which was based in a different traffic area to that which had granted the licence. Matters came to light when the forged CPC certificate was submitted with a TM1 form.
Issues: full and frank admissions and heavy reliance upon the credibility of the ‘fraudster’. New transport manager who had put everything right as soon as she took over. Whilst the company and the directors may have lost their good repute as a result of the ‘fiasco’, whether it had been regained as at the date of the PI, including the MD obtaining his own CPC qualification. Lack of reasoning set out to justify a negative conclusion.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 234 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.659507

Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv: SC 1 Apr 2020

The insurers had settled a claim after the insured vessel was lost. It then concluded that the ship owners were responsible and sought recovery of the sums paid.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 11, [2020] ILPr 25, [2021] AC 493, [2020] 3 All ER 907, [2020] 2 WLR 919, [2020] 1 CLC 887, [2020] Lloyd’s Rep IR 274, [2020] Ch 193, [2020] WLR(D) 206, [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 520, UKSC 2018/0230

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary video, SC 2019 Niov 04 am video, , SC 2019 Nov 5 am Video, SC 2019 Nov 5 pm Video

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first Instance – Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv ComC 1-Dec-2017
. .
Appeal from – Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv CA 21-Nov-2018
. .
At First Instance – Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Kairos Shipping Ltd and Others ComC 27-Jul-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.649483

Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Kairos Shipping Ltd and Others: ComC 27 Jul 2017

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1904 (Comm), [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 228, [2017] 2 CLC 364, [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 295, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 635

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv SC 1-Apr-2020
The insurers had settled a claim after the insured vessel was lost. It then concluded that the ship owners were responsible and sought recovery of the sums paid. . .
See Also – Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv ComC 1-Dec-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.594591