Category: Transport

Concordia Bus Finland: ECJ 17 Sep 2002

Public service contracts in the transport sector – Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC – Contracting municipality which organises bus transport services and an economically independent entity of which participates in the tender procedure as a tenderer – Taking into account of criteria relating to the protection of the environment to determine the economically most advantageous tender – Whether permissible when the municipal entity which is tendering meets those criteria more easily

Citations:

C-513/99, [2002] EUECJ C-513/99, [2002] ECR I-7213, [2004] All ER (EC) 87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.177344

The Hopper No 66: CA 1907

Affirmed

Judges:

Sir J Gorell, Barnes P, Moulton, Kennedy LJJ

Citations:

91907) P 254

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1894 503

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Hopper No 66 1906
. .

Cited by:

At CA – Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of Steamship ‘Blanche’ and Others HL 28-Feb-1908
Charterers by demise are ‘owners’ within the meaning of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and can, therefore, under that section, claim the benefit of limitation of liability, conferred by sections 503 and 504, in respect of loss or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.641419

Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)): CA 1982

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reardon Smith Line Limited v Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City) PC 26-Jan-1956
(Australia) . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) HL 1982
Lord Diplock regarded the nature of the contractual promise by the charterer in what he called the safe port clause as having been well settled for a quarter of a century at the very least: ‘It was correctly and concisely stated by Sellers L.J. in . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.641388

Bruce and Others (Fishermen of Boddam) v Aiton: SCS 16 Dec 1885

The proprietor of a harbour who exacts harbour dues is bound, so far as these dues will go, to light and otherwise maintain the harbour.
The proprietor of a harbour was sued by the fishermen using it for declarator that he was bound to maintain and exhibit at his own expense certain specified lights, and to have him ordained to do so. It was proved that the harbour dues yielded a revenue to the proprietor, but that the revenue was not enough to provide for the lights and also to pay the interest on a sum of money expended by him on improvements on the harbour executed by him under a Provisional Order obtained from the Board of Trade. The Court held that under the local statutes and the relative Provisional Order of the Board of Trade applicable to the harbour, the proprietor was bound to apply the revenue derived from the harbour dues to the maintenance of the harbour (which includes lighting) in the first instance till they were exhausted, if necessary, and that the pursuers were entitled to declarator to that effect, the particular manner in which the obligation was to be carried out being left to be prescribed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses.

Judges:

Lord Trayner, Ordinary

Citations:

[1885] SLR 23 – 222

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Local Government, Transport

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.580394

Reardon Smith Line Limited v Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City): PC 26 Jan 1956

(Australia)

Citations:

[1956] UKPC 1, [1956] 2 WLR 403, [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, [1956] AC 266, [1956] 1 All ER 456

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) CA 1982
. .
Cited – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) HL 1982
Lord Diplock regarded the nature of the contractual promise by the charterer in what he called the safe port clause as having been well settled for a quarter of a century at the very least: ‘It was correctly and concisely stated by Sellers L.J. in . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.445577

First Essex Buses Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: Admn 25 Nov 2009

The claimant sought judicial review of a proposed scheme for re-imbursement for a concessionary travel scheme.

Judges:

Sir Thayne Forbes

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3024 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1985, Transport Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.381472

CNA CGM S A v Classica Shipping Company Ltd: ComC 27 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 641 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’ CA 12-Feb-2004
The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Limitation

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.181954

Vehicle Inspectorate v Southern Coaches Ltd and others: QBD 23 Feb 2000

A coach driver travelled as a passenger in a company coach. He sought to count the time travelling as rest time under his tachograph measurements. The court found however that he would have been available to take over the driving during that period had occasion required. The regulations required the rest to be other than in a moving vehicle, and this interpretation was required properly to give effect to the legislation.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2000

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, European

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.90143

Pearl Carriers Inc v Japan Line Ltd ‘The Chemical Venture’: QBD 1993

Citations:

[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 508

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641394

The Saga Cob: CA 1992

The fact that an event (in this case a guerrilla attack) was theoretically foreseeable did not make it an ‘normal characteristic’ of the port: ‘Be that as it may, there is no evidence whatever that the system introduced after the Omo Wonz had any defects until the attack on Saga Cob itself when at anchor four or five miles outside the port. This cannot in our judgment be regarded as other than an abnormal and unexpected event unless it is to be said that as from the Omo Wonz incident, any vessel proceeding to or from Assab or Massawa was proceeding to an unsafe port. This in our judgment is untenable. The situation in this case was drastically different from that in The Lucille when the Shatt-al-Arab had become the centre of hostilities. All that can be said in this case is that since a guerrilla attack may take place anywhere at any time and by any means, that the guerrillas had two boats and that they had made one seaborne attack 65 miles away, it was foreseeable that there could be a seaborne attack either en route from Assab to Massawa or in the anchorage at Massawa. If this were enough it would seem to follow that, if there were a seaborne guerrilla or terrorist attack in two small boats in the coastal waters of a country in which there had been sporadic guerrilla or terrorist activity on land and which had many ports, it would become a normal characteristic of every port in that country that such an attack in the port or whilst proceeding to it or departing from it was sufficiently likely to render the port unsafe. This we cannot accept. Omo Wonz was itself clearly an isolated abnormal incident and, until the order to proceed to Massawa almost three months later, nothing further had occurred to suggest that the risk of further attack on the Assab/Massawa voyage or in the anchorage at Massawa had not been contained. In such circumstances, to say that such an attack or even the risk of such an attack was a normal characteristic of the port, is in our view impossible.
As to the letter of the master immediately after the Omo Wonz incident we do not consider that it can be regarded as of any importance. The master was no doubt at the time alarmed but thereafter he visited Massawa on several occasions despite the provisions of the charter-party entitling him to refuse. The charterers expressly disclaim any arguments that by entering into the charter-party the owners accepted the risks but it appears to us that the master’s actions indicate clearly that whatever he may have thought immediately after the Omo Wonz incident he, like every one else, considered that Massawa was a safe port.
We further consider that what occurred subsequently is relevant on the question whether Massawa was a safe port.
We accordingly hold that on the Aug. 26. 1988 Massawa was a safe port.’
In the context of political risk: ‘In the latter case [the safe port warranty] one is considering whether the port should be regarded as unsafe by owners, charterers, or masters of vessels. It is accepted that this does not mean that it is unsafe, unless shown to be absolutely safe. It will not in circumstances such as the present be regarded as unsafe unless the ‘political’ risk is sufficient for a reasonable shipowner or master to decline to send or sail his vessel there.’

Judges:

Parker LJ

Citations:

[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 545

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641390

Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City): CA 1958

Non-performance, in the context of the clause, would be the refusal or failure of the ship to enter upon the charterparty’s obligations at all or the refusal or failure of the charterers to take any step to fulfil the contract into which they had entered.
Sellers LJ described a safe port: ‘If it were said that a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship, it would probably meet all circumstances as a broad statement of the law.’
‘The charterers would have been surprised if the Eastern City, having been fully loaded with their barley, had been run on to the rocks and their cargo lost by the negligence of the master and this clause had been invoked by the shipowners to limit their liability to the freight. If the words ‘non-performance’ were to be given so wide a meaning as to cover every breach of contract and the clause to be so construed as to cover every claim, however large and however arising, then it would appear to infringe a reasonable agreement as to amount and take on elements of a penalty clause which the Courts have found repugnant and consistently refused to enforce.’

Judges:

Sellers LJ

Citations:

[1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v Bowater’s Pulp and Paper Mills Limited (The Stork) CA 1954
Where, in breach of charterparty, charterers order a vessel to proceed to an unsafe port, the conduct of the vessel’s master in obeying the order (placed as he well may be, on the horns of a dilemma) will be judged sympathetically, in context and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641386

GW Grace and Co Ltd v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Sussex Oak): QBD 1950

The court considered a time charter in the Baltime form. The charterers entered into a voyage sub-charter with the board of trade. Under the voyage charter the ship loaded a cargo of timber for London from Hamburg. On the voyage to and from Hamburg the steamer was damaged by ice in the River Elbe. The time charter provided that the vessel was to be employed in lawful trades between good and safe ports between the Elbe, the United Kingdom and Brest, and by another clause that the master was to be under the orders of the charterers as regards employment, agency or other arrangements, and the charterers were to indemnify the owners against all consequences or liabilities arising from the master’s signing bills of lading or otherwise complying with such orders.
Held: Hamburg was not a safe port within the meaning of the charter-party because the ship could not reach it and return from it safely. The action of the charterers in ordering the ship to Hamburg as an unsafe port constituted a breach of contract.

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1950] 2 KB 383

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641392

The Hopper No 66: 1906

Judges:

Deane J

Citations:

(1906) P 34

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1894 503

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – The Hopper No 66 CA 1907
Affirmed . .
At First Instance – Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of Steamship ‘Blanche’ and Others HL 28-Feb-1908
Charterers by demise are ‘owners’ within the meaning of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and can, therefore, under that section, claim the benefit of limitation of liability, conferred by sections 503 and 504, in respect of loss or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641420

Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc (The Mary Lou): QBD 1981

Mustill J considered a charterparty which provided that the vessel was to ‘proceed to one or two safe berths one safe port US Gulf (excluding Brownsville) New Orleans/Ama/Reserve/Myrtle Grove/Destrehan counting as one port . . ‘ He said: ‘The charterers also drew attention to the specific reference to New Orleans as a permissible loading port. This does show, I agree, that the making of a passage up the Mississippi River was regarded as a possible element of the voyage. If the river had attributes which made it permanently unsafe, or if it was known to be unsafe at the time of the charter, then the naming of the port might have been enough to nullify the requirement, added to the printed form, that the loading port would be safe. But this was not the case, and it is entirely consistent with the wording of the clause to say that the owners agreed that the ship would visit the named ports if, but only if, they proved to be safe at the material time.’
Mustill J referred to long waves and northerly gale winds as being ‘at least foreseeable’.

Judges:

Mustill J

Citations:

[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641391

D/S A/S Idaho v Clossus Maritime DA (The Concordia Fjord): QBD 1984

The vessel was chartered for 4 months, with a safe port requirement and a limited area of operation subject to payment of additional insurance premiums. The vessel set off to Beirut, then a safe port. The port lost that designation before the vessel arrived, but the captain continued, and the vessel was damaged by a rocket. The arbitrator found the charterer to be in breach. He, Mr MacCrindle QC, said that he was ‘not aware of any principle exempting the Charterers from liability for their breaches of contract merely on the ground that they have directly or indirectly provided the funds whereby the Owners insured themselves against such damages.’ The Charterer replied that they had purchased the extra insurance, and Beirut remained within the allowed area.
Held: on a proper construction of the charter, the charterer was in breach.

Judges:

Bingham J

Citations:

[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Reports 385

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641393

Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of Steamship ‘Blanche’ and Others: HL 28 Feb 1908

Charterers by demise are ‘owners’ within the meaning of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and can, therefore, under that section, claim the benefit of limitation of liability, conferred by sections 503 and 504, in respect of loss or damage caused by the improper navigation of the ship by their servants. [ Cf. section 71 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906].
Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 984, 45 SLR 984

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1894 503

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – The Hopper No 66 1906
. .
At CA – The Hopper No 66 CA 1907
Affirmed . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.621498

Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd: CA 22 Jan 2015

The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather conditions on the casualty date (namely the phenomenon of swell from ‘long waves’, which might have forced the vessel to leave the berth, and a very severe northerly gale which meant that the vessel could not safely exit the port) was not to be characterised as an abnormal occurrence, notwithstanding that the coincidence of the two conditions was ‘rare’, because both conditions were physical characteristics or attributes of the port; and (iii) on the facts as found by, or undisputed before, the judge, did the weather conditions on the casualty date amount to an abnormal occurrence?
Held: The appeal succeeded.
A realistic approach should be adopted to the determination of the essentially factual question whether the event giving rise to the particular casualty is to be characterised as an ‘abnormal occurrence’ or as resulting from some ‘normal’ characteristic of the particular port at the particular time of year. The Court emphasised the word ‘normal’ in the term ‘normal characteristic’.

Judges:

Longmore, Gloster, Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 16, [2015] CN 121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City) CA 1958
Non-performance, in the context of the clause, would be the refusal or failure of the ship to enter upon the charterparty’s obligations at all or the refusal or failure of the charterers to take any step to fulfil the contract into which they had . .
Appeal from – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others ComC 30-Jul-2013
The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in . .
Cited – The Saga Cob CA 1992
The fact that an event (in this case a guerrilla attack) was theoretically foreseeable did not make it an ‘normal characteristic’ of the port: ‘Be that as it may, there is no evidence whatever that the system introduced after the Omo Wonz had any . .
Cited – Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc (The Mary Lou) QBD 1981
Mustill J considered a charterparty which provided that the vessel was to ‘proceed to one or two safe berths one safe port US Gulf (excluding Brownsville) New Orleans/Ama/Reserve/Myrtle Grove/Destrehan counting as one port . . ‘ He said: ‘The . .
Binding – CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’ CA 12-Feb-2004
The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.541711

Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others: ComC 30 Jul 2013

The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in the third-party proceedings, that the charterers were liable to the intermediate charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the sub-charter. The court rejected the charterers’ argument that the cause of the casualty was not the breach of the safe port warranty, but rather the master’s navigational decision to put to sea in extreme conditions, and also the charterers’ contention that the demise charterers, were not, even assuming a breach of the safe port warranty, liable to the owners in respect of the loss of the vessel, and that, in the circumstances, the demise charterers had suffered no loss in respect of the loss of the vessel, and accordingly had no claim to pass on to the intermediate charterers, or, in turn, the charterers. The casualty was caused by the unsafety of the port in breach of the safe port undertaking in the time charters.
The Court awarded Gard substantial damages, namely the agreed value of the vessel (US$88.5m), damages in respect of liability for SCOPIC expenses (US$12m), damages for wreck removal expenses (US$34.5m) and damages for loss of hire (US$2.7m).
The events which led to the grounding and subsequent loss of the vessel were: ‘The danger facing OCEAN VICTORY was one which was related to the prevailing characteristics of Kashima. The danger flowed from two characteristics of the port, the vulnerability of the Raw Materials Quay to long swell and the vulnerability of the Kashima Fairway to northerly gales caused by a local depression. It may well be a rare event for these two events to occur at the same time but nobody at the port could, I consider, be surprised if they did. There is no meteorological reason why they should not occur at the same time. Long waves were clearly a feature of the port (as they must be of any port facing the Pacific) and low pressure systems generating gale force winds cannot, in my judgment, be regarded as abnormal. I do not consider that the juxtaposition of long waves and a low pressure system generating gale force winds from the north amounts to an abnormal occurrence unrelated to the characteristics of Kashima. Long waves may give rise to a need for a vessel to leave the port. It may be a matter of chance whether at that time there is also a low pressure system generating gale force winds from the north but I am unable to accept that such winds are so rare that they cannot be said to be a feature of the port. It is not without significance that the Guide to Port Entry notes that during periods of northerly swell the entry channel is fully exposed and that vessels at low speed generally have difficulty in steering.
It may be that the storm which affected the port on 24 October 2006 was one of the most severe storms to have affected Kashima in terms of severity, speed of deterioration and duration as suggested by Mr Lynagh’s analysis of its characteristics. But the relevant characteristics are those which give rise to the danger, namely the occurrence of long waves and northerly gales. Neither long waves nor northerly gales can be described as rare. Even if the concurrent occurrence of those events is a rare event in the history of the port such an event flows from characteristics or features of the port.’

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm), [2013] 2 CLC 322, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 59, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 1058

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd CA 2-Apr-2008
. .
Binding – CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’ CA 12-Feb-2004
The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
At First Instance – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.513727

Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v Bowater’s Pulp and Paper Mills Limited (The Stork): CA 1954

Where, in breach of charterparty, charterers order a vessel to proceed to an unsafe port, the conduct of the vessel’s master in obeying the order (placed as he well may be, on the horns of a dilemma) will be judged sympathetically, in context and will not lightly be treated as unreasonable.
Devlin J said: ‘There must . . be an obligation to nominate at least one loading place, and there must be implicit in that some condition about safety to prevent the making of a derisory nomination.’ and ‘There is a difference between a contractor who does not discharge his obligation at all and one who does so imperfectly. In the latter case, the contract gives the other party the right to elect to treat the imperfect performance as if it were a fulfilment of the contract (even if he knows that in fact it is not), and to claim damages if any result from the imperfection. This is a right which is, I think, common to every class of contract. The general principle is that the other party is entitled to proceed just as he would have done if the contract had been properly fulfilled, and the risk of any damage that flows from that must be borne by the wrongdoer.’

Judges:

Devlin J, Morris LJ

Citations:

[1955] 2 QB 68, [1954] 2 Lloyds Rep 397, [1955] 2 All ER 241, ; [1955] 2 WLR 998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Geogas Trading Sa ComC 9-Nov-2010
The parties had contracted for sale and purchase of butane for processing. It was said to have been contaminated. The parties now disputed the effect on damages for breach including on causation, remoteness, mitigation and quantum.
Held: The . .
Cited – Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City) CA 1958
Non-performance, in the context of the clause, would be the refusal or failure of the ship to enter upon the charterparty’s obligations at all or the refusal or failure of the charterers to take any step to fulfil the contract into which they had . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Cited – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) HL 1982
Lord Diplock regarded the nature of the contractual promise by the charterer in what he called the safe port clause as having been well settled for a quarter of a century at the very least: ‘It was correctly and concisely stated by Sellers L.J. in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.425890

Prankerd, Regina (On the Application of) v The Carrick District Council: QBD 24 Jul 1998

The court considered the unresolved question as to the statutory power of a harbour authority to distrain for non-payment of mooring charges in respect of a private yacht.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[1998] EWHC 2005 (QB), [1999] QB 1119, [1999] 2 WLR 489, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 675

Links:

Bailii

Local Government, Transport

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375088

Ogden v Graham and Another: 27 Nov 1861

The defendants chartered a ship to proceed from England to a safe port in Chilli, with laave to call at Valparaiso. On her arrival at Valparaiso; the charterers’ agent named the port of Carrisal Bajo as the port of discharge, and directed the master to proceed thither, At the time Carrisal Bajo was named as the port of discharge, that port was closed by order of the Chilian government, and the ship could not proceed thither without confiscation. The ship was consequently detained for some time at Valparaiso, and, on the port being opened, sailed for Carrisal Bajo and there discharged her cargo. Held, that the charterers were liable in damages to the shipowner for the detention of the ship at Valparaiso as they had not named a ‘safe port ” within the meanin of the charter-party.

Citations:

[1861] EngR 1001, (1861) 1 B and S 773, (1861) 121 ER 901

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.284762

The Winkfield: 1902

A bailee in possession has a right to recover for loss or damage to his bailor’s goods even though he would have had a good defence to an action by the bailor.

Citations:

[1902] P 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Transport

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.218911

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 accident in Fenton required adjustment in this context: for Convention purposes the ‘loss or hurt’ cannot itself be the ‘accident’. Article 17 distinguishes between the bodily injury on the one hand and the ‘accident’ which was the cause of the bodily injury on the other. It is the cause of the injury that must constitute the ‘accident’. Second, it is important to bear in mind that the ‘unintended and unexpected’ quality of the happening in question must mean ‘unintended and unexpected’ from the viewpoint of the victim of the accident. It cannot be to the point that the happening was not unintended or unexpected by the perpetrator of it or by the person sought to be made responsible for its consequences. It is the injured passenger who must suffer the ‘accident’ and it is from his perspective that the quality of the happening must be considered. There was now a strong international consensus as to the interpretation of the convention.
Baroness Hale of Richmond: ‘Once it is clear that the accident which causes the injury must be something other than the injury itself, it becomes equally clear that the suffering of an internal reaction to an ordinarily uncomfortable journey by air, during which nothing untoward other than that reaction took place, cannot fall within article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. ‘
Lord Mance: ‘The concepts deployed in the Convention are thus autonomous international concepts. The legislative history and travaux preparatoires may be considered to resolve ambiguities or obscurities, when the material is publicly available and points to a definite consensus among delegates. It is also legitimate to have regard to any subsequent practice among the parties which is capable of establishing their agreement regarding interpretation.’
Lord Mance: ‘there was no unexpected or unusual event on board or during embarkation or disembarkation within the useful paraphrase suggested in Saks, however broadly that may be viewed, and that, viewing the matter in the simple terms of article 17 (which is the ultimate test), the situation does not fall within any ordinary or extended conception of ‘accident’.’

Judges:

Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 72, Times 12-Dec-2005, (2006) 87 BMLR 1, [2006] 1 All ER 786, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 231, [2005] 3 WLR 1320, [2006] 1 AC 495, [2005] 2 CLC 1083, [2006] PIQR P14, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 313

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Carriage of Air Act 1961 Sch 1 Art 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
Cited – Sidhu and Others v British Airways Plc; Abnett (Known as Sykes) v Same HL 13-Dec-1996
The claimants had been air passengers who were unlawfully detained in Kuwait, when their plane was captured whilst on the ground on the invasion of Kuwait. They sought damages for that detention.
Held: There are no exceptions to the Warsaw . .
Cited – Fenton v J Thorley and Co Ltd HL 1903
A workman who ruptured himself by an act of over-exertion in trying to turn a wheel was held to have suffered an injury ‘by accident.’ The act of turning the wheel was not in itself an accident. But the injury which the man sustained while carrying . .
Cited – Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango and Company HL 1931
English statutes which give effect to international conventions need to be interpreted with the international origin of the rules well in mind. The Act only applies to contracts of carriage of goods outwards from ports in the United Kingdom, and the . .
Appeal from – In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation CA 3-Jul-2003
Passengers on air flights who had suffered deep vein thrombosis through inactivity whilst travelling sought damages.
Held: The claim in its nature was for something unrelated to any particular event. The word ‘accident’ necessitated some sort . .
At first instance – In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation QBD 20-Dec-2002
The claimants claimed to have suffered deep vein thrombosis having been sat in cramped conditions for long periods whilst travelling by air. They sought compensation, saying that the failure by the airlines to warn them and take steps to minimise . .
See Also – Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation, Re CA 3-Jul-2002
Group litigation between the appellant passengers and the respondent carriers. Most of the passengers allege that they have suffered deep vein thrombosis leading to serious injury, as a result of travelling in the carriers’ aircraft. In some . .
Cited – Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd HL 10-Jul-1980
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
Cited – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Cited – James Buchanan and Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd HL 1978
A consignment of whisky was stolen whilst on consignemt from a bonded warehouse under CMR terms for Teheran. In bond, it was worth 7,000 pounds, and on export no excise duty was to be paid. Being stolen in the course of transit, excise duty of . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Swiss Bank Corporation v Brink’s MAT Ltd 1986
. .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Barclay v British Airways Plc CA 18-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages for personal injury. The airline said that the injury was not the result of an accident within article 17.1. She was walking down the aisle and slipped.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The meaning of ‘accident’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.236381

Aegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (‘The Aegean Sea’): AdCt 1998

The Aegean Sea was lost at sea causing very extensive damage through the escape of its cargo of crude oil. AST asserted as a preliminary issue, that RP had become liable for that damage. RP’s wholly owned subsidiary ROIL was the charterer, argued that it was entitled to the limitation on claims provided by the 1992 Act. AST said that this was unavailable, the voyage being undertaken in breach of an implied safe port term.
Held: The claim was dismissed. The Convention did not entitle the charterers to limit claims against the owners rather than those having interests in the cargoes, and particularly so when express clause to that effect might have been used.
RP had not ever been a lawful holder of bills of lading, and section 3 of the 1992 Act could not be used. Neither a safe port term nor an indemnity could be created by an implication by necessity.

Judges:

Thomas J

Citations:

[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39

Statutes:

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.194566

CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’: CA 12 Feb 2004

The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was defined by the type of claim brought, not by the capacity in which he acted. The charterers appeal failed save that they could limit their liability to claims from the shipowners for damage to their own cargoes.

Judges:

Waller, Longmore, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 114, Times 27-Feb-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460, [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 865

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995 185, Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – CNA CGM S A v Classica Shipping Company Ltd ComC 27-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

Binding – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others ComC 30-Jul-2013
The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in . .
Binding – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Limitation

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.193492

Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003

The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied.
Held: It was not yet decided that the wharehouse and deviation case law was defunct along with the doctrine of fundamental breach of contract. Whether a clause operates to limit liability or excuse it entirely is a matter of construction of each clause. The carrier in this might still be able to take advantage of the rules limiting his liability.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Judge And Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 451, Times 17-Apr-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hague Rules 1924

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another ChD 2002
. .
Cited – Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale HL 1966
No magic in the words “fundamental breach”
There is no rule of law which prevents parties to a contract agreeing to limit their respective liabilities. It is a question of the construction of the particular clause as to whether it applies to a fundamental breach or not. The court doubted the . .
Cited – The Chanda ChD 1989
Part of an asphalt drying and mixing plant had been shipped on deck in breach of contract. The court asked whether the shipment on deck disentitled the shipowner from relying on Article IV rule 5.
Held: A carrier by sea, who carries cargo on . .
Cited – Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an . .
Cited – Gibaud v Great Eastern Railway Co CA 1921
Scrutton LJ said: ‘If you undertake to do a thing in a certain way, or to keep a thing in a certain place, with certain conditions protecting it, and have broken the contract by not doing the thing contracted for in the way contracted for, or not . .
Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’ CA 17-May-2002
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should . .
Cited – Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd HL 26-Nov-1981
Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable . .
Cited – Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango and Company HL 1931
English statutes which give effect to international conventions need to be interpreted with the international origin of the rules well in mind. The Act only applies to contracts of carriage of goods outwards from ports in the United Kingdom, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.180735

A Meredith Jones and Co Limited v Vangemar Shipping Co Limited: CA 16 May 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1717

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – A Meredith Jones and Co Limited v Vangemar Shipping Co Limited (No 2) CA 12-Jun-1997
Use of tapes of court hearings to verify extent of argument in earlier hearing. . .
See Also – A Meredith Jones and Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd (‘The Apostolis’) CA 11-Jul-2000
The proper construction of a contractual clause must not consider that clause in isolation, but must consider the clause in the context of the contract as a whole. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.142113

ENE Kos v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobas): ComC 23 Jul 2009

The claimant shipowners withdrew the vessel for non payment, but at the time they gave notice, the vessel was already laden. They now claimed for the further two days taken for unloading.
Held: The claim succeeded. The proper cause of the further loss was the issue of the notice of withdrawal, and the indemnity clause given was insufficient to cover this loss.

Judges:

Andrew Smith J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1843 (Comm), [2010] 1 Lloyds Rep 87, [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 669

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Petroleo Brasilieiro SA v ENE Kos 1 Ltd CA 30-Oct-2009
The parties disputed the effective date of a payment into court where the cheque lodged was not in pounds sterling.
Held: The rules were silent on the exact point, but the date was the date of receipt in the court funds office of the cheque in . .
Appeal from – ENE 1 Kos Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa CA 6-Jul-2010
If a shipowner withdraws his vessel from a charterer’s service for non-payment of hire while cargo is on board the vessel and the shipowner requires the charterer to remove the cargo from the vessel, is the shipowner entitled to remuneration outside . .
At First Instance – 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, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.368294

Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH: ECJ 2 Jul 2009

Opinion (Joined cases) – Air transport – Distinction between the notions of ‘delay’ and ‘cancellation’

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

C-402/07, [2009] EUECJ C-402/07 – O, C-432/07, [2009] EUECJ C-432/07

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – Sturgeon and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH ECJ 19-Nov-2009
The claimants’ flights had been cancelled. In one case the passengers had been booked on an alternative flight which had been treated as a substitute for the original flight and the carriage had been performed under the original tickets. In the . .
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, Consumer

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347538

Moore v British Waterways Board: ChD 12 Mar 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC B12 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Moore v British Waterways Board CA 5-Feb-2010
The claimant sought the right to moor his houseboats on the Grand Union Canal, a waterway regulated by the defendant who issued licences. The claimant said that rights granted under the 1793 Act survived the new scheme. The defendant said that a . .
See Also – Moore v British Waterways Board ChD 10-Feb-2012
The claimant said that the defendant did not have the powers it claimed in serving notices requiring him to remove boats from a section of the Grand Union Canal.
Held: The respondent did have the power under section 8 of the 1983 Act. As a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Transport

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347119

The Trade Fortitude: 1986

The purpose of section 19A was to make explicit powers to award interest which had previously rested on implication.

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 209

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1950 19A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa and others CA 31-Jul-2003
The parties went to arbitration to resolve disputes in a construction contract. The award appeared to have been made for payment in currencies different from those set out in the contract. The question was asked as to whether the award of interest . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Arbitration, Damages

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.185181

Aston FFI (Suisse) Sa v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse Sa: ComC 23 Jan 2015

Challenge in respect of two questions of law arising out of the Award:
i) As a matter of law, can an FOB Buyer only reject goods in reliance on a certificate which complies with the documentary requirements set down in the payment terms of the contract?
ii) Was the Board of Appeal wrong in law to ignore the totality of the evidence bearing on the question of whether the cargo was contractually compliant and not to find for [Buyers] on liability?

Judges:

Eder J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 80 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.541922

VIP Car Solutions v Parliament (Law Relating To Undertakings): ECFI 20 May 2009

ECJ Public service contracts – Procedure – Community tendering – Transport – Member of the European Parliament by car or minibus with a driver during part-sessions in Strasbourg – Rejection of a tender obligation motivation – Denial of price proposed by the bidder – Action for damages

Citations:

T-89/07, [2009] EUECJ T-89/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346694

Taylor v Laird: 10 Jun 1856

Pollock CB asked: ‘One cleans another’s shoes; what can the other do but put them on?’

Judges:

Pollock CB

Citations:

[1856] EngR 648, (1856) 1 H and N 266, (1856) 156 ER 1203, (1856) 25 LJ Ex 329

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Equity, Transport

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.291403

Club Cruise Entertainment and Travelling Services Europe Bv v The Department for Transport: ComC 18 Nov 2008

!The Claimant is the disponent owner of a cruise ship, the VAN GOGH. In 2006 the ship was chartered by the Claimant to Travelscope Cruises Limited, a cruise operator. In May 2006, the ship was scheduled to perform a series of short cruises, each of about 6 days duration from Harwich to various Norwegian ports then back to Harwich. The scheduled departure dates from Harwich were 16, 22 and 28 May 2006.
The first two cruises were performed. During those cruises, there were outbreaks on board of a gastrointestinal virus called norovirus, affecting significant numbers of passengers and crew. It is agreed that norovirus has the following characteristics: whilst unpleasant for those suffering from it, it is a relatively mild, well known and very common illness; it typically lasts 24 to 48 hours and has no long term effect and it affects between 600,000 and a million people in the UK each year, being particularly common in ‘semi-closed’ environments like hospitals, schools and cruise ships. The Defendant would wish to qualify that by adding that it is temporarily disabling and can be fatal to the elderly or those in poor health.!

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2794 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.277894

The Merak: 1965

Citations:

[1965] CLY 3608

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Considered – Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Limited (‘The Miramar’) HL 1984
A bill of lading incorporated a charterparty. The question was whether clauses in the charterparty or bill of lading prevailed. The charter clause incorporated a demurrage clause making the charterer’s laible for demurrage, and the owners asserted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.185192

The Annefield: 1971

Citations:

[1971] CLY 10839

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Considered – Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Limited (‘The Miramar’) HL 1984
A bill of lading incorporated a charterparty. The question was whether clauses in the charterparty or bill of lading prevailed. The charter clause incorporated a demurrage clause making the charterer’s laible for demurrage, and the owners asserted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.185193

The Sormovskiy 3068: QBD 1994

It makes commercial sense to have a simple rule that in the absence of an express term of the contract the master must only deliver the cargo to the holder of the bill of lading who presents it to him. In that way both the shipowners and the persons in truth entitled to possession of the cargo are protected by the terms of the contract.

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 266

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Commercial

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.181893

The Carnival: 1994

Citations:

[1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Eastgate Group Ltd v Lindsey Morden Group Inc, and Smith and Williamson (a Firm) CA 10-Oct-2001
The defendant faced a claim for breach of warranties given by vendors in a company share sale agreement. The sought a contribution from the purchasers accountants who had prepared figures upon which the purchase decision was based. The defendants’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.180113

Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Company v Shanghai Dong He Xin Industry Group Co Ltd: ComC 25 Sep 2018

Application by Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Company for an interim anti-suit injunction restraining the Defendant, SDHX, from continuing proceedings against Owners before the Courts of the People’s Republic of China

Judges:

Bryan J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3009 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.631302

Associacao Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviarios de Pesados de Passageiros and Others v Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA, Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA: ECJ 7 May 2009

ECJ Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 Public service obligations Grant of compensation Urban passenger transport sector.

Citations:

C-504/07, [2009] EUECJ C-504/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342053

British Airways Plc v Commission: ECJ 15 Mar 2007

ECJ Opinion – Appeals – Abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 EC) – British Airways – Agreements with travel agents – Commission and other benefits dependent upon turnover in British Airways tickets

Judges:

Kokott AG

Citations:

C-95/04, [2006] EUECJ C-95/04

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – British Airways Plc v Commission ECJ 15-Mar-2007
ECJ Judgment – Appeals – Abuse of dominant position – Airline – Agreements with travel agents – Bonuses linked to growth in sales of that airline’s tickets over a given period in comparison with a reference . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport, Commercial

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341253

Rothesay Tramways (Extension) Draft Provisional Order: HL 4 Feb 1902

Private Legislation Procedure – Failure to Comply with Preliminary General Orders – Consents of Local Road Authorities not Obtained – Application by Memorial to the Chairmen to Dispense with the General Order not Complied with – Report by the Chairmen.

Citations:

[1902] UKHL 869 – 1, 39 SLR 869 – 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.630787

The Owners of The Ship Philippine Admiral (Philippine Flag) v Wellem Shipping (Hong Kong) Limited and Another: PC 5 Nov 1975

(Hong Kong) Sovereign immunity was denied to state trading ships, restricting the extent of state immunity.

Citations:

[1975] UKPC 21, [1977] AC 373, [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 234, [1976] 1 All ER 78, [1976] 2 WLR 214

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
Cited – Holland v Lampen-Wolfe HL 20-Jul-2000
The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
Cited – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the compatibility of provisions in the 1978 Act with the human rights of the appellant. The claimants, Moroccan nationals were employed as domestic staff in embassies in London. They alleged both race discrimination and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Transport

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.444334

Hatzl and Another v XL Insurance Company Ltd: CA 19 Mar 2009

The claimant had taken an assignment of a cause of action from an english lorry driver whose load had been stolen in Italy. The insurer now appealed against a finding that the English court had jurisdiction.
Held: The insurers appeal succeeded. The Convention was not effective to give the court jurisdiction merely because one party was domiciled here.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 223, Times 16-Mar-2009, [2010] 1 WLR 470, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 555, [2010] Bus LR 50, [2009] 3 All ER 617, [2009] 1 CLC 360

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 56, Carriage of Goods By Road Act 1965

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.323704

Liverpool (Owners) v Ousel (Owners), (The Liverpool No 2): CA 1963

The Ousel and the Liverpool collided in the Port at Liverpool and the Ousel sank. The owners of the Liverpool admitted liability. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board took the wreck under statutory powers and claimed the expenses of clearing the wreck against the owners of both vessels. The claim against the owners of the Ousel was statutory, and the claim against the owners of the Liverpool arose from their liability for the collision. The claim was worth about pounds 60,000 (net of recoveries from the sale of salvaged items). As against the owners of the Ousel the Board’s claim was limited to about pounds 10,000 by the limitation of liability provisions available to those owners under the Merchant Shipping Acts. As against the owners of the Liverpool, however, the prospect of recovery was much larger, for her limitation fund was expected to pay out about 30% (6 shillings in the pounds ), ie closer to pounds 20,000. It was perhaps for this reason, but also perhaps because the collision had been the fault of the Liverpool not of the Ousel, that the Board had declined the tender by the owners of the Ousel of the pounds 10,000, which they had deposited with stakeholders.
Held: Credit did not have to be given.
Lord Merriman P. said it was common ground that the classic statement about mitigation of loss in British Westinghouse ‘applies equally, mutatis mutandis, to tort’.
Harman LJ said: ‘Let it be conceded that if the board had recovered the pounds 10,000 from the Ousel under its statutory power that would have been satisfaction pro tanto of the damages; still the fact is that the board has not recovered this sum, and, in our judgment, there is no duty upon it to do so . . even if the board had obtained judgment against the Ousel there would have been no duty upon it to proceed to execution in alleviation of the Liverpool, which is a tortfeasor . . this case, in our judgment, has nothing to do with the duty to mitigate damages. It concerns the board’s legal rights, and no duty rests on it at the demand of a tortfeasor to satisfy part of the damages by resorting to another tortfeasor; still less by resorting to an innocent party made liable merely by statute.’

Judges:

Lord Merriman P, Harman LJ

Citations:

[1963] P 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – BPE Solicitors and Another v Hughes-Holland (In Substitution for Gabriel) SC 22-Mar-2017
The court was asked what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional adviser his client would not have embarked on some course of action, but (ii) part or all of the loss which he suffered by doing so arose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Transport

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.640551

Marine Trade Sa v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd Bvi and Another: ComC 29 Oct 2009

The parties stood to make substantial losses against each other under contracts for differences after the dramatic fall in the freight market in the financial turmoil of late 2008.

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2656 (Comm), [2009] 2 CLC 657, [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 631

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
Cited – Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Cited – Barclays Bank v WJ Simms and Cooke (Southern) Ltd QBD 1979
The customer made out a cheque to pay his builder, but countermanded it. The bank paid the cheque when it was presented by mistake, and now sought repayment from the builder.
Held: The bank succeeded. The court discussed the extent of a . .
Cited – Re Taylor’s Industrial Flooring Ltd; Taylor’s Industrial Flooring Ltd v M and H Plant Hire (Manchester) Ltd CA 1990
Dillon LJ said: ‘if a debt is due and an invoice is sent and the debt is not disputed, then the failure of the debtor company to pay the debt is itself evidence of inability to pay’. The fact of solvency was not itself an answer to a petition based . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.377328

The ‘Hebe’: 31 Jan 1844

Pilots going on board a vessel in a leaky condition. and assisting the crew, and keeping down the water by pumping, entitled to be rewarded as salvors, A tender of pounds 42 overruled, and 33% awarded.

Citations:

[1844] EngR 200, (1844) 2 W Rob 246, (1844) 166 ER 747

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.304792

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane SpA: ECJ 22 Dec 2008

ECJ Carriage by air Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 Article 5 – Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation Cancellation due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Judges:

K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber and Judges T. von Danwitz, E. Juhisz, G. Arestis and J. Malenovski

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2008:771, [2009] Bus LR 1016, [2009] 2 CMLR 9, C-549/07, [2008] EUECJ C-549/07, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 406

Links:

Bailii, Times

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Applied – 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.

Transport, Consumer

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280006

Gatoil International Inc v Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co (the Sandrina): HL 13 Dec 1984

The pursuers sought recall of an arrestment issued against their ships by the defender.

Citations:

[1984] UKHL 8, [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 181, 1985 SC (HL) 1, [1985] 1 All ER 129, 1985 SLT 68, [1985] 2 WLR 74, [1985] AC 255

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1956 47(2)(e)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279752

Government of the Republic of Spain v National Bank of Scotland: SCS 24 Feb 1939

Lord Justice-Clerk Aitchison considered a provision claiming extra territorial effect, and said: ‘such ‘decrees’ of a foreign country as purport to have extra-territorial effect, and to attach property in a subject situated, and at a time when it is situated, within this country or its territorial waters, will not be recognised by our laws and courts.’

Judges:

Lord Justice-Clerk Aitchison

Citations:

[1939] ScotCS CSIH – 1, 1939 SLT 317, 1939 SC 413, (1939) 63 Ll L Rep 330

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Perry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 25-Jul-2012
The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Transport

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279373

GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd v CMM Trust No.1400 (the ‘Newfoundland Explorer’): AdCt 22 Mar 2006

The owner sought to claim under his insurance policy. The yacht was, in the policy warranted to be fully crewed at all times. The owner had left the boat to return a few hours later when it was found on fire.
Held: The insurance claim failed. The phrase implied that at least one crew member would be on board at all times: ‘As a matter of natural and ordinary language, for the vessel to be ‘fully crewed at all times’ while laid up alongside a berth, there must be at least one crew member on board her 24 hour’, though ‘The warranty obliged the defendant to keep at least one crew member on board the vessel 24 hours a day, subject to (i) emergencies rendering his departure necessary or (ii) necessary temporary departures for the purpose of performing his crewing duties or other related activities.’

Judges:

Gross J

Citations:

Times 02-May-2006, [2006] EWHC 429 (Admiralty), [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep IR 704

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Simmonds v Cockell 1920
The insurance policy warranted that the premises would be always occupied. The premises were damaged while the insured and his wife were absent for a few hours.
Held: The warranty did not require a permanent continuous presence, and the . .
Cited – Dodson v Peter H Dodson Insurance Services (A Firm) CA 24-Jan-2001
The driver was insured under a policy in his own name which referred to a particular vehicle, but which also provided him with third party cover when driving another motor vehicle with the owner’s consent. He disposed of his own car, but asked . .
Cited – Brownsville Holdings Ltd v Adamjee Insurance Co Ltd (‘The Milasan’) 2000
A 90 foot motor yacht sank in calm weather in the course of a voyage from Piraeus to Sardinia with a crew of three: a skipper, an engineer and a deckhand.
Held: The owner’s insurance claim failed. There had been a breach of warranty in these . .
Cited – Sharp v Sphere Drake Insurance plc (The Moonacre) 1992
S, a retired businessman, had bought a vessel and insured it in his name, but registered it in the name of company, R. In the winter, the boat was laid up, but occupied by a workman who maintained it and kept it secure. The boat was destroyed by a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pratt v Aigaion Insurance Company SA (‘the Resolute’) CA 27-Nov-2008
The court considered the interpretation of a term in a contract of insurance to the effect that ‘Warranted Owner and/or Owner’s experienced skipper on board and in charge at all times and one experienced crew member.’, asking whether ‘at all times’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.240176

Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Ltd and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport: TCC 31 Jul 2019

The Claimants are train operating and associated companies that have brought four sets of judicial review and Part 7 proceedings arising out of the Defendant’s conduct of procurement exercises for three separate rail franchises.

Judges:

Mr Justice Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2047 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.640386

Ryanair v Commission: ECFI 17 Dec 2008

ECJ State aid Agreements entered into by the Walloon Region and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the airline Ryanair – Existence of an economic advantage – Application of the private investor in a market economy test.

Citations:

T-196/04, [2008] EUECJ T-196/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279138

Association of British Travel Agents Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Civil Aviation Authority and Another: Admn 16 Jan 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 13 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Association of British Travel Agents Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority CA 18-Oct-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.237843

Lasham Gliding Society Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Civil Aviation Authority: Admn 31 Jul 2019

Challenge of a decision by the Civil Aviation Authority, the statutory regulator of UK airspace, to permit the introduction of air traffic controls in airspace around Farnborough Airport, which is presently largely uncontrolled.

Judges:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Thornton

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2118 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.640129

Alitalia v Commission: ECFI 9 Jul 2008

ECJ State aid Recapitalisation of Alitalia by the Italian authorities Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market Decision taken following a judgment of the Court reversing an earlier ruling Admissibility Violation of Article 233 EC Violation of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC authorization conditions using motivational Obligation

Judges:

M. Vilaras, P

Citations:

T-301/01, [2008] EUECJ T-301/01

Links:

Bailii

European, Transport

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270873

Bulk Carriers Ltd v Andre Et Cie Sa: CA 10 Apr 2001

The court was asked whether a clause narrowing laycan in a voyage charterparty is, in the absence of words to the contrary, always a condition precedent to an obligation to nominate a vessel.

Judges:

Potter, Clarke LJJ, Bennet J

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 588, [2001] 2 LLR 65, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.200958

Hugh Mack and Co Ltd v Burns and Laird Lines Ltd: 1944

The shipment was of men’s clothing carried pursuant to a consignment note and receipt stamped ‘Non-negotiable’. The consignment note named consignees in Scotland and stated: ‘Please receive for forwarding per Burns and Laird Lines’ steamers the undernoted goods . .’ These documents were retained by the shipper. The goods were damaged and the shipper claimed against the carrier, which relied on terms incorporated into its receipt. The shipper said that the Hague Rules applied by virtue of the 1924 Act.
Held: The claim failed on two grounds. The consignment note and receipt was not a bill of lading or any similar document of title; and in any event the parties had freedom of contract under article VI as amended in the case of coastal trade within the British Isles and Ireland by section 4 of the 1924 Act. The receipt, even if properly described as a ‘document of title,’ was not ‘similar to’ a bill of lading. It had none of its characteristics, being different in form; given at a different time; bearing no stamp; does not acknowledge the goods to be on board any particular ship; it was retained by the consignor, not sent to the consignee; and above all, it was not a negotiable instrument, the indorsement and delivery of which could affect the property in the goods shipped.

Judges:

Andrews LCJ

Citations:

(1944) Ll L Rep 377

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Commercial, Contract

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.181889

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 allow seizure.
Held: The definition of property in the 1982 Act was wide enough to include leased property. The planes were capable of being seized to create a lien. The exercising of a lien was taking action to enforce a security, and therefore required the court’s consent. The court had correctly exercised its discretion not to allow seizure to allow the orderly conduct of the administration of the company.
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC said: ‘Although a chattel lease is a contract, it does not follow that no property lease is created in the chattel. The basic equitable principle is that if, under a contract, A has certain rights over property as against the legal owner, which rights are specifically enforceable in equity, A has an equitable interest in such property. I have no doubt that a court would order specific performance of a contract to lease an aircraft, since each aircraft has unique features peculiar to itself. Accordingly in my judgment the ‘lessee’ has at least an equitable right of some kind in that aircraft which falls within the statutory definition as being some ‘description of interest … arising out of, or incidental to’ that aircraft.’

Judges:

Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC, Woolf and Staughton L.JJ.

Citations:

[1990] 2 WLR 1362, [1990] Ch 744, [1990] BCLC 585

Links:

lip

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982 88(1), Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Air Ecosse Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority OHCS 1987
. .
Cited – Channel Airways Ltd v Manchester Corporation 1974
There are many species of lien which do not depend on possession, including for example certain equitable liens. The statutory right of detention but conferred by a Private Act was not strictly a lien. . .
Cited – Havelet Leasing Ltd v Cardiff-Wales Airport Ltd 29-Jun-1988
In order to exercise the statutory power of detention of an aircraft, the airport had to do some overt act evidencing the act of detention. Detention by an airport authority must be begun by some overt act. Such act need take no particular form. A . .
Cited – Quazi v Quazi HL 1979
The husband had pronounced a talaq in Pakistan, in accordance with the 1961 Muslim Family Ordinance. The question was whether the English court had jurisdiction on the wife’s petition to dissolve the marriage and make consequential orders relating . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Smith (a bankrupt) v Braintree District Council HL 1989
The House considered the effects of bankruptcy on the imposition of a committal to imprisonment in default of paying rates.
The purpose of section 285 is to preserve the estate of the bankrupt for the benefit of his unsecured creditors.

Cited by:

Applied – AIG Europe S A v QBE International Insurance Ltd ComC 3-May-2001
A re-insurance contract incorporated terms from the main contract. When asked to construe the incorporation of a clause granting exclusive jurisdiction. In doing so, it was held, that under the Brussels Convention the court had to look to the . .
Cited – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v The Wimbledon Football Club Limited, Ellis, Earp CA 28-May-2004
The Commissioners appealed against a refusal of their application for a revocation of the defendant’s voluntary arrangement in that it had failed to comply with section 4. They complained that the arrangement was unfair to them. It had been agreed . .
Cited – ETI Euro Telecom International Nv v Republic of Bolivia and Another CA 28-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in an international investment dispute arbitration. An injunction had been sought to prevent repatriation of assets to Bolivia.
Held: The international system of arbitration was not subject to any national law and did . .
Cited – Akers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC 1-Feb-2017
Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .
Cited – Akers and Others v Samba Financial Group SC 1-Feb-2017
Saad Investments was a Cayman Islands company in liquidation. The liquidator brought an action here, but the defendant sought a stay saying that another forum was clearly more appropriate. Shares in Saudi banks were said to be held in trust for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insolvency, Company

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.174712

Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Mayor of London: Admn 24 Jul 2019

The claimant challenged the removal of exemption from liability to pay the congestion charge from private hire vehicles, save those designated wheelchair accessible.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2019] WLR(D) 429, [2019] EWHC 1997 (Admin)

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Road Traffic, Transport

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.640127

Great Western Railway Co v Wills: HL 13 Mar 1917

Carrier – Railway – Contract – Goods Carried at Owner’s Risk – Short Delivery – Question whether a Consignment has been Delivered when Part of it is Missing.
An owner’s risk contract excluded from the exemption from liability conferred on the railway company ‘the non-delivery of any package or consignment fully and properly addressed.’
Of 750 carcases carried by the appellant company fourteen were lost in transit. The respondent claimed the value of the missing carcases. The appellant claimed to have delivered the consignment, and to be exempt under the contract from damages for short delivery.
Held ( dis. Lord Shaw) that short delivery was not equivalent to failure to deliver the consignment under the contract note.
Decision of the Court of Appeal, [1915] 1 K.B. 199, reversed.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Viscount Haldane, Lords Kinnear, Shaw, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1917] UKHL 638, 54 SLR 638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.630999

Brown, Regina (on The Application of) v Canal River Trust: Admn 16 Nov 2012

The Court was asked whether waterways owned or managed by the Defendant can be used without having to comply with the terms and conditions set by the Defendant and, in particular, without having to purchase a home mooring.

Judges:

Cox DBE J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3133 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Waterways Act 1995 17(3)(c)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.465837

Okoturo, Regina (on The Application of) v London Tramlink: Admn 10 Feb 2012

Challenge the decision of the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Panel dismissing the appeal against a penalty fare issued for failing to have a valid Oyster card. The claimant was travelling on a tram operated by the defendant in this matter, Tramlink London. He was unable to produce a valid Oyster card for his journey when challenged by a revenue officer, having unfortunately left his card at home. As a consequence and despite showing the officer the receipt for his Oyster card which showed that he indeed had paid for an Oyster card, he was issued with a penalty fare.

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2800 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.465712

Federation of Tour Operators and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Treasury: CA 2 Jul 2008

Appeal against refusal of relief on challenge to introduction of Air Passenger Duty.
Held: The system which did not exempt passengers who had prepaid for their journey did not place an excessive burden on operators. The request failed.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Buxton LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 752, Times 28-Aug-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Federation of Tour Operators and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and others Admn 4-Sep-2007
The claimants complained that the sudden doubling of Airport Passenger Duty was unlawful since it had not been possible to recover this from customers, and was in breach of the Convention.
Held: The claim failed. The cost to the applicants as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes – Other, Transport

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270577

Bland v Ross (Ship Julia) (Admiralty): PC 1860

The court considered the care needed in an appellate court in reversing a decision on the facts. Lord Kingsdown said that: ‘They, who require this Board, under such circumstances to reverse a decision of the court below upon a point of this description undertake a task of great and almost insuperable difficulty . . We must, in order to reverse, not merely entertain doubts whether the decision below is right, but be convinced that it is wrong.’

Judges:

Lord Kingsdown

Citations:

(1860) 14 Moo PC 210, [1861] UKPC 8

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Whitehouse v Jordan HL 17-Dec-1980
The plaintiff sued for brain damage suffered at birth by use of forceps at the alleged professional negligence of his doctor. The Court of Appeal had reversed the judge’s finding in his favour.
Held: In this case most of the evidence at issue . .
Cited – SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack HL 1927
The court discussed the weight to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by the court of first instance.
Held: Not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial . .
Cited – The Queen v Crawford PC 11-Nov-2015
From the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands – The crown appealed against the quashing of the respondent’s conviction for possession of an unlicensed firearm. A gun was found where he had been seen to discard a gun whilst being chased. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Transport

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.269666

Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Company Limited: CA 1939

The case was heard against the background of an armed conflict between Japan and China. The charterparty contract included a clause providing for cancellation ‘if war breaks out involving Japan’.
Held: The court rejected an argument that the meaning of ‘war’, when found in a charterparty, was to depend on either the question whether war had been recognised by the Government, or on international law, or indeed on any technical meaning. The word had to be construed ‘in a common sense way’, in accordance with ‘the common sense of business men’. The case concerned only the construction of the charter party. The phrase ‘if war breaks out’ could not mean ‘if war is recognised to have broken out by His Majesty’s Government’: ‘Nobody would have the temerity to suggest in these days that war cannot exist without a declaration of war. Similarly, the recent events in the world have introduced new methods and a new technique, with regard to which I conceive that writers on international law will dispute for many years to come. I do not propose to be the first to lay down a definition of ‘war’ in a so called technical sense.’

Judges:

Sir Wilfred Greene MR

Citations:

[1939] 2 KB 544

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – If P and C Insurance Limited (Publ.) v Silversea Cruises Limited, Silver Cloud Shipping Company Sa, Silver Wind Shipping Company Sa, Silversea New Build One Limited, Silversea New Build Two Limited&Quot;the Silver Cloud&Quot; CA 5-Jul-2004
The shipping company was insured against loss of business following Acts of war. It sought to claim after the attack on America in September 2001.
Held: The policy had a limitation which applied ‘in the annual aggregate and in all’ which . .
Cited – Spinneys (1948) Ltd v Royal Insurance Co Ltd 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘war’ in the context of an insurance contract: ‘The issue is not whether the events in Lebanon were recognised in the United Kingdom as amounting to a civil war in the sense in which the term is used in Public . .
Cited – Amin v Brown ChD 27-Jul-2005
The defendant raised as a preliminary point the question of whether the claimant, an Iraqi, was an enemy alien, and therefore debarred from bringing proceedings to recover.
Held: Under modern law it could not be a requirement that a state of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.200215

The Trustees of The Clyde Navigation v Barclay, Curle, and Co: HL 23 May 1876

Section 388 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 enacts-‘No owner or master of any ship shall be answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge of such ship within any district where the employment of such pilot is compulsory by law.’
Held that in order to entitle the owners of a ship to the benefits of this provision it is not enough for them to shew that the damage arose through the fault of the pilot, if there is reasonable ground for saying that there was contributory fault on the part of the master or crew.
Circumstances in which held (aff. judgment) that the owners had discharged the onus thus laid upon them.

Citations:

[1876] UKHL 753, 13 SLR 753

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.639639