Category: Transport

Voaden v Champion ( ‘Baltic Surveyor’ ): CA 31 Jan 2002

The ‘Baltic Surveyor’ was lost at its moorings in a storm. A neighbouring ship had been negligently secured, and freed itself and sank the Baltic Surveyor. The owner appealed findings as to the value of the boat, and securing pontoon. She asserted that the boat chosen for comparison had in fact been sold for more and had been in a lesser condition. The boat was of a unique and historical character.
Held: There had been an error as to the sale price of the boat chosen as a comparable. It was argued that the evidence sought to be admitted had been available at trial, and should not now be admitted. Following Ladd, the court applied three tests, that it had not reasonably have been available, that it would have been influential, and that it was credible. Those conditions applied, and a new value was assessed by the court. The appellants argued that the loss of the pontoon should have been treated as the loss of a building rather than a machine. The damages was the cost of replacing the pontoon, not the value of what was lost. The court found the judge’s assessment correct, and the damages were assessed on the basis of the remaining life of the pontoon as a chattel. It was not proper to award damages for loss of personal use in top of the award of the full value of the boat.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann Lady Justice Hale And Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 89, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Voaden v Champion, ‘The Baltic Surveyor’ 2001
. .
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Robot Arenas Ltd and Another v Waterfield and Another QBD 8-Feb-2010
The tenant company had defaulted under the lease, and the landlord had retaken possession. The landlord discarded the tenant’s possessions, and the tenant now sued, saying that the landlords as involuntary bailees owed duties to the proper owner. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Evidence, Damages

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167537

Robertson v The Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd: PC 10 Dec 1909

High Court of Australia – The Plaintiff paid a penny on entering the wharf to stay there till the boat should start and then be taken by the boat to the other side. The Defendants were admittedly always ready and willing to carry out their part of this contract. Then the Plaintiff changed his mind, and wished to go back. The rules as to the exit from the wharf by the turnstile required a penny for any person who went though. This the Plaintiff refused to pay, and he was by force prevented from going through the turnstile. He then claimed damages for assault and false imprisonment.
Held: This was not imprisonment as there was an exit route and he had agreed to the terms.
Otherwise: Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd

Citations:

[1909] UKPC 1, [1909] UKPC 58, [1910] AC 295, [1909] UKLawRpAC 62

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.245719

Cantabrica Coach Holdings Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division): HL 22 Nov 2001

A transport examiner investigating compliance with the drivers hours regulations was allowed to remove records from an office for examination, and a company refusing him to be allowed to do that committed an offence. Where removal was necessary, whether because of the number of documents or the absence of adequate copying facilities, an examiner must be allowed to remove papers. The provision allowing the inspector to give ten days notice did not exclude the possibility of allowing less notice.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2001, Gazette 24-Jan-2002, [2001] UKHL 60, [2002] RTR 8, [2001] 1 WLR 2288, [2002] 1 All ER 595, (2002) 166 JPN 550, (2002) 166 JP 423

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1968 99 (1)(bb), Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1979 (SI 1979 No 1746), Community Drivers’ Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No 1457)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn 31-Mar-2000
Even though no underlying offence was suspected, the owner of tachograph records was required to hand them over to the inspector for inspection off the premises if necessary. An offer to allow inspection, but only at the record keeper’s offices was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166875

Bowden and Others v Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd: ECJ 4 Oct 2001

The provisions of the Directive, which excluded from regulation the employment of transport workers, applied to office workers as well as to actual drivers. The phrases used by the Directive in disapplying the Directive to certain employment sectors, made a distinction between those employed in certain industries, and, in other cases, those with certain jobs. This was confirmed by the travaux preparatoires, responsible for drafting the exemption. The effect was to exempt the industries concerned whether or not the employee worked directly doing the tasks which defined that industry.

Judges:

M Wathelet, President of Chamber and Judges P. Jann and L. Sevon Advocate General A. Tizzano

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-2001, C-133/00, [2001] EUECJ C-133/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 93/104/EC of November 23, 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L307 p18) Art 1(3), Working Time Regulations 1998 (1998 No 1833)

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment, Transport

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166573

Hatton and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Oct 2001

The appellants claimed that the licence of over-flying from Heathrow at night, by making sleep difficult, infringed their rights to a family life. The times restricting over-flying had been restricted. The applicants’ complaints fell within a positive duty on the state to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicants’ rights under article 8.1. The authorities had to find a balance within their margin of discretion. There had been no critical examination of the benefits of night flying to the economy. Judicial review would not be wide enough to allow a proper remedy, since it could not consider the Human rights of the appellants. There had therefore been a breach of article 13. ‘At the same time, the Court reiterates the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention. The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation and are, as the Court has held on many occasions, in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions. In matters of general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy maker should be given special weight.’

Judges:

J-P Costa, President and Judges L. Loucaides, P. Kuris, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, H. S. Greve and Sir Brian Kerr, ad hoc judge Section Registrar S. Dolle

Citations:

36022/97, Times 08-Oct-2001, [2001] ECHR 561, [2003] ECHR 338, (2003) 37 EHRR 611, [2001] ECHR 565, [2000] ECHR 709

Links:

Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 8.1, Civil Aviation Act 1982 78(3)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Powell and Rayner v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1990
The applicants complained of the noise generated by Heathrow Airport saying that it affected their human rights to enjoy their private life and possessions.
Held: Whether the case was analysed in terms of a positive duty on the state to take . .
Cited – Guerra and Others v Italy ECHR 19-Feb-1998
(Grand Chamber) The applicants lived about 1km from a chemical factory which produced fertilizers and other chemicals and was classified as ‘high risk’ in criteria set out by Presidential Decree.
Held: Failure by a government to release to an . .
Referred to – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
Appeal from – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Environment, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166529

Commission v Autriche C-205/98: ECJ 26 Sep 2000

(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 93/89/EEC – Tolls – Brenner motorway – Prohibition of discrimination – Obligation to set toll rates by reference to the costs of the infrastructure network concerned

Citations:

C-205/98, [2000] EUECJ C-205/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/89/EEC

European, Transport

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162407

Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others: ECJ 22 Jan 1998

Opinion – ‘the Court has once again been asked to assess the compatibility with the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods and services and on competition of the Italian legislation governing ports. The reference concerns companies having exclusive rights at two of Italy’s leading Mediterranean ports, where shipping companies are obliged to avail of their mooring services. It is in particular alleged that the fees charged are not compatible with Community law.’

Citations:

C-266/96, [1998] EUECJ C-266/96 – 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others 18-Jun-1998
Judgment – Freedom to provide services – Maritime transport – Undertakings holding exclusive rights – Mooring services for vessels in ports – Compliance with the competition rules – Tariffs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161926

Mackill and Others v Wright Brothers and Co: HL 18 Dec 1889

By charter-party between Wright Brothers and Company and Mackill and others it was agreed that Mackill’s vessel should proceed to Glasgow and there ‘load all such goods and merchandise as the charterers should tender alongside for shipment not exceeding what she could reasonably stow and carry,’ andc. The freight was fixed at a lump sum of pounds 2200, and it was provided-‘Owners guarantee that the vessel shall carry not less than 2000tons dead weight;’ and further-‘Should the vessel not carry the guaranteed dead weight as above, any expenses incurred from this cause to be borne by the owners, and a pro rata reduction per ton to be made from the first payment of freight.’ The ship was intended for a general cargo, partly of railway locomotive machinery, and the parties agreed upon and endorsed on the margin of the charter-party a note specifying the ‘largest pieces’ of machinery, and their number, weight, and measurement, which the cargo was to contain. Wright Brothers and Company tendered a cargo not exceeding 2000 tons dead weight, including locomotives and tenders, two lots of coal, and general goods. The large pieces of machinery exceeded the number stated in the marginal note. The vessel sailed with dead weight of 1691 tons. It was admitted that her capacity equalled the guarantee, and also that 2000 tons dead weight of the cargo tendered could not have been carried without packing the coal along with the machinery, which was not done. Wright Brothers and Company claimed a deduction in the freight, and Mackill and others raised this action for the balance unpaid.
Held (rev. the judgment of the Court of Session) that the marginal note was information afforded to the shipowners for the purposes of the contract; the cargo tendered was not such as was expected, as the bulk exceeded the proportion of dead weight indicated by the marginal note, and as it was owing to this that the vessel carried less than the guaranteed dead weight, Wright Brothers and Company were not entitled to the reduction claimed, and were liable in the whole freight as stipulated.
Held further (aff. the judgment of the Court of Session), that it was not proper stowage to stow coal among machinery unless with the consent of the shippers of the coal and of the machinery, and that the onus of obtaining such consent was on the charterers.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor ( Halsbury), and Lords Watson and Macnaghten

Citations:

[1889] UKHL 782, 26 SLR 782

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.635178

Klattner v Elliniko Dimosio: ECJ 29 May 1997

(Judgment) 1 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – Directive 83/182 – Restriction of the number of private vehicles which one person can import free of tax – No such restriction (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
2 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – Directive 83/182 – Article 3 – Direct effect (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
3 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – National rules penalizing the importation of a second private vehicle free of tax by requiring the immediate payment of the customs duties and charges normally applicable and payment of a surcharge of an amount equal to those duties and charges – Not permissible (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
4 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides may be granted in respect of more than one private vehicle per person.
First, the Directive does not place any express limit on the number of private vehicles for which exemption may be claimed, nor is any such limitation evident from the wording of Article 3.
Second, such a limitation is liable to hinder freedom of movement of persons resident within the Community, whereas the objective pursued by the directive is the elimination of obstacles to the establishment of an internal market resulting from the taxation arrangements applied to the temporary importation of certain means of transport for private or business use.
5 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another has direct effect and confers on individuals rights which they may assert against a Member State that has failed to transpose that directive into domestic law, or has transposed it incorrectly, and which the national courts must safeguard.
That provision – which requires the Member States to grant individuals, subject to the conditions which it specifies, exemption from taxes where they temporarily import certain means of transport for private use – appears, as far as its subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional in so far as it is not qualified by any condition and is not made subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any measure either by the Community institutions or by the Member States, and is unequivocal, that is to say, sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the courts.
6 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as precluding domestic legislation under which the customs duties and other taxes applicable together with additional duty equal to the amount of those duties and taxes are to be payable immediately where a second private vehicle is imported temporarily. National legislation cannot penalize such temporary importation, which is authorized by that provision, without undermining the effect of the Directive.

Citations:

C-389/95, [1997] EUECJ C-389/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161742

Commission v Greece C-331/94: ECJ 23 May 1996

(Judgment) The specific connection rule for transport services laid down in Article 9(2)(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is intended to ensure that each Member State taxes transport services as regards the parts of the journey carried out in its territory. Accordingly, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under that provision and Article 2 of the directive where it exempts from value added tax sea voyages in vessels flying the national flag which do not put in at a foreign port as regards the part of the journey within its territorial waters. The defaulting Member State cannot justify its failure in that respect by relying on the practical difficulties confronting it, on the fact that the taxable amounts in question would be negligible, on the absence of the definitive rules for charging VAT on passenger transport provided for in Article 28(5) of the Sixth Directive or on the exemption applying to international maritime transport and trips organized by undertakings from non-member count

Citations:

[1996] EUECJ C-331/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT, Transport

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161481

Criminal proceedings against Bird: ECJ 9 Nov 1995

ECJ (Judgment) Article 12 of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, in the light of its wording and context, does not authorize a driver to derogate from the provisions relating to driving and rest periods in Articles 6, 7 or 8 of the regulation for reasons known before the journey commenced.
It is clear from Article 12 that a decision, taken in order to ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle and of its load, to extend a driving period beyond that normally authorized under the regulation must be for the driver alone, must be taken when it unexpectedly becomes impossible for him to comply with the driving and rest periods laid down and must take into account the immediate requirements of road safety. Article 15(1), moreover, by requiring transport undertakings to organize work in such a way that drivers are able to comply with the regulation, precludes an undertaking from planning a derogation before the driver leaves.

Citations:

C-235/94, [1995] EUECJ C-235/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Road Traffic

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161415

Oorburg and van Messem v Wasser- und Schiffahrtsdirektion: ECJ 31 Mar 1993

ECJ Article 76 of the Treaty, which is intended by means of a standstill clause to prevent the introduction by the Council of a common transport policy from being rendered more difficult, or from being obstructed, by the adoption, without the Council’ s agreement, of national measures the direct or indirect effect of which is to alter unfavourably the situation in a Member State of carriers from other Member States in relation to national carriers, does not preclude a Member State from making navigation on its national inland waterways conditional upon the possession of a master’ s certificate for inland navigation issued in accordance with national law.
It does however preclude the national legislative provisions or administrative practices governing masters’ certificates for inland navigation when the Treaty entered into force from being amended or changed in a manner unfavourable to carriers of other Member States. It is for the national court to decide whether any such change has taken place.

Judges:

CN Kakouris, P

Citations:

C-184/91, [1993] EUECJ C-184/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Transport

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160741

Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Bromley London Borough Council: CA 11 Jul 2001

A lease of an airport included a restriction to limit use to ‘business aviation’. The landlord argued that this had a special meaning in the industry so as to exclude use by chartered and scheduled services. The judge had been correct to say that no such special meaning existed, but had been wrong to interpret that phrase without looking to the factual background. Applying those facts, the use was to be interpreted so as to allow use of aircraft, including chartered aircraft, for business purposes, as within the context of the business of the aircraft owner or charterer for business purposes, but so as to exclude offering transport to members of the public for reward save in an incidental way. The phrase ‘other uses related to an airport or related to aviation’ did not permit other flying activities.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Arden J, Dyson LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-2001, Gazette 31-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1089

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Transport, Contract

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159480

Fellowes or Herd v Clyde Helicopters Ltd: HL 27 Feb 1997

A Police officer being carried in a force helicopter, and operating within his own force’s area was not on a matter of international carriage, and was not subject to the restrictions on recovery of damages. The helicopter had crashed into a building and he lost his life.
Lord Hope considered the Convention noting the width of article 1(1) which applies ‘to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward’, and said: ‘But the starting point is the generality of effect indicated by the use of the word ‘all’. The nationality or place of business of the carrier is irrelevant, as all carriers who undertake international carriage, as defined in article 1(2), of passengers, baggage or cargo by the aircraft are bound by the Convention. There is nothing in the Convention to indicate that the purpose for which the passenger, baggage or cargo was on the aircraft has any bearing on the question whether the Convention applies.
In my opinion the Convention agreed at Warsaw, as amended at the Hague, was intended to be, and is, capable of accommodating changes in the practice of airlines and aircraft operators with regard to the purposes for which aircraft are used to carry people and goods, and in the contractual arrangements in pursuance of which people and goods are carried by air for reward.’

Judges:

Lord MacKay, Lord Chancellor Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 26-Mar-1997, Times 07-Mar-1997, [1997] 1 All ER 775, [1997] UKHL 6, [1997] AC 534

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Carriage by Air (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 (1967 No 480)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Police, Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158881

Owners and/or Demise Charterers of Mineral Dampier v Owners and/or Demise Charterers of Hanjin Madras: CA 31 Jul 2001

Two ships had collided and one had sunk. Upon approaching each other the ships had agreed a course which would put them in breach of the regulations. One ship even then failed to do what it had agreed to do. The judge’s apportionment of responsibility at 80%/20% was correct.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1278

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Collision Regulations 15 16 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147655

Disley v Levine (T/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding): CA 11 Jul 2001

The claimant sought damages from her instructor, after being injured as a passenger trainee pilot of a paraglider. He responded that she was out of time, since the regulations applied. His appeal was refused. The system of regulation did not mention or encompass paragliders. No certificate of air-worthiness or air operator’s certificate was required. The objective of the flight was instruction, not passage.

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Aug-2001, Gazette 31-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1087, [2002] 1 WLR 785

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Norma J Disley v Marc Levine QBD 9-Nov-2000
A trainee paraglider pilot was injured, and claimed against the instructor. He replied that her claim was out of time as a passenger of an air transport undertaking. The court held that his activities did not fall within the concepts of the . .
Cited – Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corporation HL 1989
Mr Holmes was killed when the defendant’s aircraft in which he was a passenger crashed on a domestic flight in Bangladesh. As a domestic flight, it was not international carriage. The proper law of the contract was undoubtedly Bangladeshi law. Under . .

Cited by:

Cited – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147614

Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines: CA 17 May 2001

An unaccompanied female passenger aboard an aircraft was indecently assaulted. She suffered mental, but no physical, injury. She claimed damages against the airline under the Convention.
Held: The assault was a special risk inherent in air travel, and damages would be recoverable for any ‘lesion corporelle/bodily injury.’ That phrase required some physical injury before damages could be awarded, and the claimant had suffered only mental injury.
courtcommentary.com Clinical depression, though an accident, does not constitute bodily injury under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention

Judges:

The Master of The Rolls, Lord Justice Peter Gibson Andlord Justice Latham

Citations:

Times 15-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 790, [2001] 3 WLR 351, [2001] 3 All ER 126, [2002] QB 100, [2001] CLC 1460, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 – Barclay v British Airways plc CC 27-Feb-2008
(Oxford County Court) The claimant slipped as she boarded an aircraft and sought damages for injuries to her knee. Her claim was brought under the Convention. The defendant denied that the injury occurred as the result of an accident, saying that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147551

Interlink Express Parcels Ltd v Night Trunkers Ltd and Another: CA 14 Mar 2001

Where the issue was whether a temporary worker was to be deemed to be an employee (in this case for licensing purposes) of the main contractor, the proper test was the degree of control exercised by the deemed employer. The purpose of the section was to ensure that responsibility for the operation of a vehicle was known. This was a context of tort, rather than of contract.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 360

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Transport, Employment

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147469

B S and N Limited (BVI) v Micado Shipping Limited (Malta) (‘The Seaflower’): CA 22 Nov 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 296

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha; ‘the Golden Victory’ TCC 15-Feb-2005
The parties had agreed a charterparty. The defendant repudiated the charter, but the Gulf War in 2003 meant that the the contract would have been frustrated in any event shortly afterwards.
Held: The assessment of damages for repudiation of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages, Contract

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147329

Tradigrain SA and Others v King Diamond Marine Limited The Spiros C: CA 13 Jul 2000

The owner of a ship, the defendant, sought payment direct. The time charterer had become insolvent, but the ship had been sub-chartered to the claimant. The owner sought to exercise his lien over the cargo, but the sub-charterer had discharged his own liabilities.
Held: The ship owner was obliged to discharge, and to do so within a reasonable time. A general incorporation of a charter party’s terms into a bill of lading only incorporates terms relating to the shipment, carriage and discharge of the cargo, and not other terms. Even if a term that a shipper is responsible for discharging can be implied into a standard bill of lading, a regime is not to be implied in a bill of lading which would excuse a shipper from liability for discharge and place it solely on a receiver or charterer.

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Brooke And Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Leduc v Ward 1888
A transferee of a bill of lading is subject only to the obligations which appear in the bill of lading itself but not to any merely collateral terms. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Fowler v Knoop 1878
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147250

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.

Judges:

Waller LJ,

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 213, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 337, [2000] CLC 1488

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – A Meredith Jones and Co Limited v Vangemar Shipping Co Limited CA 16-May-1997
. .
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. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Persimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd v Hall Aggregates (South Coast) Ltd and Another TCC 10-Oct-2008
The parties had agreed for the sale of land under an option agreement. The builder purchasers now sought to exercise rights to adjust the price downwards.
Held: The provisions had been intended and had achieved a prompt and binding settlement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147246

Western Digital Corporation; Western Digital (Singapore) Ltd and Western Digital Netherlands and British Airways Plc: CA 12 May 2000

The rights to claim for damage to cargo under the Warsaw Convention were not now to be limited to those named as consignor or consignee. A cargo owner might claim even if not strictly a party.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 153

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Damages

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147186

Regina v Civil Aviation Authority ex parte Jonathan Andrew Edwards: CA 20 Jul 1999

Renewed application for judicial review of a decision of the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke the applicant’s medical certificate, the claimant contending that the CAA ‘have breached its duty to act fairly when considering whether to reinstate his medical certificate as an airline pilot’.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1898

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995, Civil Aviation Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146813

Overseas Medical Supplies Limited v Orient Transport Services Limited: CA 20 May 1999

The appellant challenged a finding that it was responsible for the loss of medical equipment being transported from Tehran to the UK, and of failing to insure it as required, the contractual term exempting it from responsibility being an unreasonable one under the Act, since the obligations imposed on the respectve parties were imbalanced.
Held: The insurance requested was not practically available other than through the defendants. The claimants requested the insurance, and the defendants did not sufficiently clearly set out that the limitation of liability applied also if they did not insure. Given the values the limitation to andpound;600 was derisory. The limitation clause was unreasonable.
Potter LJ said: ‘First, so far as this Court is concerned, while the hearing of this appeal is in the form of a re-hearing and the Court is entitled to reach its own view of the evidence, its approach is constrained by a natural reluctance to disturb a first instance decision as to what is reasonable in all the circumstances of a particular case, bearing in mind that views on reasonableness may properly differ and that, in any matter where the decision depends not merely on argument but also on the effect of oral evidence, the first instance Judge has the advantage of hearing such evidence at first hand.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Mantell

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1449, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 273

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd HL 1983
A seedsman sought to rely upon an exclusion clause preventing any claim by a purchaser by way of set off against its sales invoices. The House was asked whether a contractual term was ‘fair and reasonable’ within the meaning of section 55 of the . .
Cited – Singer Co (UK) Ltd v Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority 1988
The court upheld under the 1977 Act a clause which limited a port authority’s liability to andpound;800 per ton of consignment. Other factors were relevant but ‘The way in which the port authority’s general conditions came into being seems to me to . .
Cited – Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer and Co Ltd CA 1992
The ‘guidelines’ in Schedule 2 are usually regarded as of general application to the question of reasonableness under the 1977 Act. The effect of s13 which deals with exemption clauses, is to apply s3 inter alia to ‘no set off’ clauses. The . .
Cited – Schenkers Limited v Overland Shoes Limited and Schenkers International Deutschland Gmbh v Overland Shoes Limited CA 12-Feb-1998
A clause in a shipping freight contract using the standard British International Freight Association terms disallowing a set-off was not unreasonable. The clause read ‘The customer shall pay to the company in cash or as otherwise agreed all sums . .
Cited – St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-1994
A liability limitation in a computer contract was an unfair contract term since it was a standard term, and it restricted liability when there had been no attempt to justify the amount chosen for the limit by reference, for example, to a . .
Cited – AEG (UK) Limited v Logic Resource Limited CA 20-Oct-1995
The question of the reasonableness of a clause must be assessed having regard to the relevant clause viewed as a whole: it is not right to take any particular part of the clause in isolation, although it must also be viewed against a breach of . .
Cited – Sonicare International Limited v East Anglia Freight Terminal Limited 1997
When looking at the reasonableness of a clause limiting rather than excluding of liability, the size of the limit compared with other limits in widely used standard terms may be relevant. . .
Cited – Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland CA 1987
To decide whether a clause is an exclusion clause it is necessary to look at the effect of the clause and not its form. ‘There is no mystique about `exclusion’ or `restriction’ clauses. To decide whether a person `excludes’ liability by reference to . .
Cited – The Flamar Pride 1990
When looking at the reasonableness of a clause limiting liability, the availability of insurance to the supplier is relevant but need not be decisive. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cleaver and Others v Schyde Investments Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The parties had contracted for the sale of land. The purchaser secured the rescinding of the contract for innocent misrepresentation. A notice of a relevant planning application had not been passed on by the seller’s solicitors. The seller appealed . .
Cited – Avrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd ChD 27-Jul-2012
The claimants had bought a painting (Odalisque) through the defendant auctioneers. They now claimed that it had been misattributed to Kustodiev, and claimed in negligence and misrepresentation.
Held: Based on the connoisseurship evidence, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract, Consumer, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146364

Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd: ComC 25 Jul 2018

The court was asked two questions: ‘ An FOB buyer of goods, who has sold on CIF terms and chartered a vessel, loses its on sale during the course of the voyage, and finds a new buyer at a different discharge port. It therefore needs the existing bills of lading to be replaced with new ‘switch’ bills providing for the new discharge port. Its bank holds the original bills as security for the money advanced to its customer for the purchase of the cargo. The owner of the goods agrees with the shipowners to issue new bills of lading and the bank facilitates the transaction by allowing the bills to be switched at its counters, so that the bank retains possession of effective bills at all times to protect its security interest. The new switch bills of lading are consigned to the order of the bank. Does the bank thereby become an original party to the bill of lading so as to come under liability to the shipowners on the terms of the contract of carriage contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading, including, for example, liability for shipment of dangerous cargo or demurrage?
And ‘whether the lawful holder of a bill of lading who has rights of suit under section 2 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 (‘COGSA’) in respect of the contract of carriage contained in or evidenced by a bill of lading which contains an arbitration clause is bound by that arbitration clause and so bound to submit to arbitration the issue whether it has assumed liabilities under the contract.’

Judges:

Popplewelll J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1902 (Comm), [2018] Bus LR 1798, [2018] WLR(D) 493

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625920

City of Westminster, Regina (on The Application of) v Transport for London (TFL) and Others: Admn 13 Sep 2018

Challenge by way of judicial review to a decision of Transport for London (‘TfL’) of to begin construction of a cycle route, cycle superhighway 11, at Swiss Cottage, where the current roundabout system is a barrier, indeed a danger to cyclists.

Judges:

Sir Ross Cranston

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2402 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Transport

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625897

Fehn Schiffahrts Gmbh and Co Kg v Romani Spa (1870 ): ComC 27 Jun 2018

Remission of parts of claim to tribunal.

Judges:

Moulder DBE J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1870 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Fehn Schiffahrts Gmbh and Co Kg v Romani Spa (1606) ComC 27-Jun-2018
Appeal against arbitration award after loss of cargo of sunflower seeds. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.625916

Todd and Others v Adams and Another: QBD 5 Jun 2001

The claimants were the relatives of fishermen who had died at sea when their vessel capsized. They alleged that the ship filed to meet the statutory criteria for stability, and that the defendants were negligent and in breach of statutory duty to them. The court held that the statute and regulations provided clear remedies by way of fines and registration and certification. There was no provision for creating any civil liability toward the claimants, and the claim failed.

Judges:

Aikens J

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-2001

Statutes:

Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (1975 No 333), Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970, Merchant Shipping Act 1995 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.160183

Georgian Maritime Corporation Plc v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd: CA 20 May 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 861, [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 21, [1998] CLC 1395

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Georgian Maritime Corporation v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd ComC 18-Apr-1997
ComC Time charterparty – proper construction – cancellation clause – cancellation – non-delivery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.144340

Hydro Agri Espana SA (Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Vessel Fairway, ex Celtic Commander) v Charles M Willie and Co (Shipping) Limited: CA 18 Feb 1998

A valid writ which had not been served because of pending foreign litigation, could not be extended in validity beyond the limitation period appropriate for that action.

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 273

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Transport

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.143751

Glyn Mills Currie and Co v The East and West India Dock Company: CA 1880

Citations:

(1880) 6 QBD 475

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Glyn Mills Currie and Co v The East and West India Dock Company HL 1882
It was the ‘undoubted practice’ to deliver ‘without inquiry’ to the holder of an order bill of lading . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Glyn Mills Currie and Co v The East and West India Dock Company HL 1882
It was the ‘undoubted practice’ to deliver ‘without inquiry’ to the holder of an order bill of lading . .
Cited – J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.222771

Volkert Hendricks, Late Master of The Ship Katherine of Amsterdam, and Peter Willem Van Lankern of Amsterdam, Merchant, and The Owners of The Said Ship Katherine and Her Cargo v Wm Cunningham, Merchant, Glasgow: HL 2 Jul 1783

Paton Capture – Jurisdiction.- Circumstances in which held that a Dutch vessel, while coming from a French colony, with the produce of that island to Amsterdam, was held to have been illegally captured as a neutral, neither the vessel nor the cargo, nor her papers, shewing that she was an adopted French vessel. Opinion indicated, though the objection to the competency was waived, that the Admiralty Court of Scotland had no jurisdiction to try such a question, but that it belonged to the High Admiralty Court of England.

Citations:

[1783] UKHL 2 – Paton – 609, (1783) 2 Paton 609

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.562106

Seahawk Marine Foods Limited v Southampton Port Health Authority: Admn 5 Apr 2001

The authority refused to allow disembarkment of a cargo of shrimp. It’s risk assessment was based on failures by the cargo processor, but which failures did not create any risk to public health. The court held that the rejection could be challenged as unreasonable. In this case the rejection followed a risk assessment which disclosed no threat to public health, and the rejection of the cargo was unreasonable.

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 246

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina (Seahawk Marine Foods Ltd) v Southampton Port Health Authority CA 31-Jan-2002
The company sought to import shrimps. The Port Authority had refused entry on the basis that they did not comply with standards of the Directive. The ‘aerobic colony counts’ in the condemned product exceeded the standards. The regulation did not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Seahawk Marine Foods Ltd) v Southampton Port Health Authority CA 31-Jan-2002
The company sought to import shrimps. The Port Authority had refused entry on the basis that they did not comply with standards of the Directive. The ‘aerobic colony counts’ in the condemned product exceeded the standards. The regulation did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Consumer

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140313

Regina (Holding and Barnes Plc) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Premier Leisure UK Limited) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Alconbury) etc: Admn 13 Dec 2000

The court was asked whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held: A declaration of incompatibility was granted with regard to the processes by which the Secretary of State made decisions under the Planning Act and orders under the Transport and Works Act, Highways Act and Acquisition of Land Act. They were incompatible with article 6.1 of the Convention on the basis that the processes failed to provide an independent tribunal. In some cases, the decisions being challenged were those in effect of the Secretary, and the decision was made by somebody appointed by the subject to removal by the secretary of state. The restrictions on the scope of the High Court to review the decisions and the freedom of the Secretary of State to make his own decision after a public hearing, meant that applicants were deprived of the an independent tribunal.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Harrison J

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-2001, [2000] EWHC Admin 432, [2000] EWHC 563 (QB)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Acquisition of Land Act 1981, European Convention on Human Rights 6(1), Highways Act 1980, Transport and Works Act 1992

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Transport, Land, Planning

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140249

Air France v Saks: 1985

(United States Supreme Court) The claimant suffered damage to and become permanently deaf in one ear as a result of pressurisation changes while the aircraft descended to land. The pressure system had worked normally. The airline said that the normal operation of a normal pressurisation system could not qualify as an article 17 accident.
Held: The text of the Convention implies that, however the word ‘accident’ is defined, it is the cause of the injury that must satisfy that definition rather than the occurrence of the injury alone. ‘We conclude that liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger. This definition should be flexibly applied after assessment of all the circumstances surrounding a passenger’s injuries.’ and ‘But when the injury indisputably results from the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft, it has not been caused by an accident, and Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention cannot apply.’ and ‘Any injury is the product of a chain of causes, and we require only that the passenger be able to prove that some link in the chain was an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger.’

Judges:

O’Connor J

Citations:

[1985] 470 US 392

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
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 – Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines CA 17-May-2001
An unaccompanied female passenger aboard an aircraft was indecently assaulted. She suffered mental, but no physical, injury. She claimed damages against the airline under the Convention.
Held: The assault was a special risk inherent in air . .
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, Transport

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.182183

Regina v Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, Ex Parte Save Our Railways and Others Etc: CA 18 Dec 1995

A requirement that new services should be ‘based upon’ the present timetables did not mean that the services had to be at same level. It was possible that they may be a lesser service, though there should be no significant departures from such timetables.

Citations:

Independent 20-Dec-1995, Times 12-Dec-1995, Times 18-Dec-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, Regina (on the Application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd Admn 14-Nov-2002
The Ombudsman had found that the applicant had unfairly failed to notify its customers of the availability of better accounts, once it discontinued accounts of one type. The Society appealed saying that the finding of unfairness arose from matters . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Transport

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.178431

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and Heathrow Airport Limited ex parte Brian Scott and others: Admn 30 Mar 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 280

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and Heathrow Airport Limited ex parte Brian Scott and others Admn 30-Mar-1999
The appellants were taxi drivers who said that the byelaw under which they were convicted was invalid, saying that they had not been properly advertised.
Held: ‘the degree of availability of the byelaws is not a reason for impugning the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Costs

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139544

Regina v Airport Co-Ordination Limited ex parte Aravco Limited; Dravidian Air Services Limited; Falcon Jet Centre Limited; Gama Aviation Limited; Heathrow Jet Charter Limited; Metro Business Aviation Limited and Siebe Plc: Admn 14 Jul 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 750

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Airport Co-Ordination Limited ex parte Aravco Limited; Dravidian Air Services Limited; Falcon Jet Centre Limited; Gama Aviation Limited; Heathrow Jet Charter Limited; Metro Business Aviation Limited and Siebe Plc Admn 14-Jul-1998
. .
Appeal from – Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd CA 23-Jun-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138871

Burns v First Capital Connect: Admn 1 May 2012

The defendant appealed aganst his conviction under the byelaws, regulation 8, for not having handed over his ticket for inspection etc. He had not been requested to do so, but his Oyster card had had insufficient credit for the journey.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘Whatever may have been the appellant’s fate, had he been prosecuted under Byelaws 17(1) or 18(1), which focus on valid tickets, those were not the Byelaws under which he was prosecuted. A prosecution under Byelaw 18(2) was, whatever the underlying merits, doomed to fail.’

Judges:

Gross LJ, Supperstone J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Railway Byelaws

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Transport

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.460342

Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 18 Jul 2014

Appeals by the Claimant against refusals of planning permission by the second and third defendants to construct a hard runway to replace the existing grass runways and associated works at Redhill Aerodrome.

Judges:

Patterson J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2476 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others v Redhill Aerodrome Ltd CA 24-Oct-2014
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.535236

Reney v Magistrates of Kirkcudbright: HL 31 Mar 1892

A vessel in entering a harbour grounded, and the owner sued the harbour trustees for the injuries she received. The master of the ship was in command, and had the helm, being assisted by two local fishermen. The accident occurred within the jurisdiction of the harbour-master, who gave directions from the shore in answer to inquiries from those on board. The harbour-master was ignorant that the tide had begun to ebb, and a wrong course was steered. Held (rev. judgment of First Division) that the defenders were liable in damages as the harbour-master was in fault in the directions he gave.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) and Lords Watson, Herschell, Morris, and Field

Citations:

[1892] UKHL 8, 30 SLR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.634552

Boston Fruit Co v British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co: HL 21 May 1906

The owners of a vessel effected a obey of insurance on her, the policy being in common form and purporting to be made on the proposal of certain insurance brokers ‘as well in their own name as for and in the name and names of all and every other person or persons to whom the subject-matter of this policy does, may, or shall appertain in part or in all.’ The policy contained a collision clause. The vessel was chartered under a charter-party amounting to a demise of the ship during the currency of the charter to the charterers. Owing to her fault a collision took place with another vessel, the damages for which were paid by the charterers, who afterwards brought this action to recover them from the insurance company under the policy effected by the owners. There was no evidence of intention on the part of the owners to protect the charterers by insurance unless such intention could be inferred from the mere fact of the existence of the policy taken in connection with the language of the charter of which only the following clauses bore on the question, viz., clause 3, which declared that the charterers should pay for certain specified charges ‘and all other charges whatsoever’ except repairs to hull and machinery and anything appertaining to keep the ship in working order; clause 17-‘It is understood in event of steamer from above causes (stress of weather, etc.) putting into any port or ports other than those to which she is bound that the charterers are covered as to expenses as the owners are by their insurance’; clause 22-‘That the owners shall pay for the insurance of the vessel.’
Held that the charterers could not recover from the insurance company, there being no evidence that their interest was covered by the policy.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1906] UKHL 892, 43 SLR 892

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.625459

Konkurrensverket v SJ: ECJ 19 Sep 2018

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public contracts in the rail transport sector – Network provision or operation activities – Concept of network – Award of a contract for the cleaning of trains by a wholly owned State railway undertaking – No prior call for competition

Citations:

C-388/17, [2018] EUECJ C-388/17 – O, [2019] EUECJ C-388/17

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.622618

Novorossisk Shipping Co v Neopetro Co Ltd: ChD 1990

Judges:

Steyn J

Citations:

[1990] 1 Ll R 425

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1979 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.462281

Horrocks v The Metropolitan Railway Company: 4 Jul 1863

A jury summoned under The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 and 9 Vict. e. 18, S. 68, to assess the compensation due to a claimant for lands, and co, injuriously affected by the works of a public Company, have no jurisdiction to determine whether the lands have been injuriously affected; their jurisdiction is limited to assessing the amount of compensation.

Citations:

[1863] EngR 779, (1863) 4 B and S 315, (1863) 122 ER 477

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Land

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.283434

Grein v Imperial Airways Ltd: CA 1937

A passenger met his death whilst travelling on a return air ticket between London and Antwerp. Belgium was not a state contracting under the Convention.
Held: Belgium was engaged on ‘international carriage’ within the meaning of the Convention. The Convention limiting damages to be awarded for any accident occurring on an airplane is to be construed purposively.

Judges:

Green LJ

Citations:

[1937] 1 KB 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Transport, Damages

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.237239

Commission v Germany C-477/03: ECJ 21 Oct 2004

Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Directives 2001/12 / EC, 2001/13 / EC and 2001/14 / EC – Community railways – Development – Licenses of railway undertakings – Distribution of capacity, pricing of security infrastructure and certification – Failure to transpose within the prescribed timeframe

Citations:

C-477/03, [2004] EUECJ C-477/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.219061

Bayview Motors Ltd v Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Company Ltd and others: CA 7 Nov 2002

Two consignments of motor vehicles were protected in transit by a marine insurance. They were misappropriated at the port of landing. The insurers appealed a finding that the cars were still insured.
Held: The theft by an officer of the state did not amount to a seizure. The transit clause had to be looked at as a whole. It referred to movement to a named destination. Where the consignment was to go to one place and then another, cover only ended under the clause when collected by the consignee.

Judges:

Tuckey, Hale, LJJ, Sir Denis Henry

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003

Statutes:

Institute Cargo Clauses

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Upheld – Bayview Motors Ltd v Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd and others ComC 23-Jan-2002
Two consignments of motor vehicles had been misappropriated by customs officers at Santo Domingo. The insurers under a marine insurance policy resisted payment on the basis that the cover was concluded.
Held: The occurrences giving rise to the . .
Cited – John Martin v Russell 1961
‘The third argument, however, was that that was not a final warehouse within the meaning of the clause. On that point I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are right; that it was not a final warehouse. The first and elementary . .
Appeal from – Bayview Motors Ltd v Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd and others ComC 23-Jan-2002
Two consignments of motor vehicles had been misappropriated by customs officers at Santo Domingo. The insurers under a marine insurance policy resisted payment on the basis that the cover was concluded.
Held: The occurrences giving rise to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.178296

LD Commodities Rice Merchandising Llc and Another v Styliani Z, Owners/Charterers of The Vessel: AdCt 28 Oct 2015

The claimant appealed from a decision of the registrar that he had no jurisdiction to hear their claim in rem having been commenced on the form appropriate to a claim in personam.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3060 (Admlty)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.553924

Harms Bergung Transport and Heavylift Gmbh and Co Kg v Harms Offshore Aht ‘Uranus’ Gmbh and Co Kg and Others: AdCt 7 May 2015

Defendants’ applications seeking declarations that the Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the Claimant’s claims, or alternatively that any in personam claims be stayed under s.9

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1269 (Admlty)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.546458

Re The Bumbesti: AdCt 22 Jun 1999

Application was made for the setting aside of the instant proceedings and for the immediate release of the ship ‘Bumbesti’. The owners said that the arrest was an abuse of process because first provision had already been made for adequate security for the sums claimed, and now also that jurisdiction in rem was denied.

Judges:

Aikens j

Citations:

[1999] CLC 1413, [1999] EWHC B6 (Admlty), [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 187, [2000] QB 559, [2000] 2 WLR 533, [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 481, [2000] 2 All ER 692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.568025

Stewart Chartering Ltd v Owners of the ship ‘the Peppy’; Stewart Offshore Services (Jersey) Ltd v Silan Maritime Co and Another: AdCt 15 Apr 1997

ComC Admiralty action in rem – dishonest withholding of freight paid – meaning of dishonesty – objective and subjective considerations – reimbursement of commission – Admiralty action in rem – entitlement to commission – collateral secret profit – secret profit – distinction.
David Steel QC said of the Hippisley case: ‘this decision of the Court of Appeal admirably demonstrates the difference between a collateral secret profit which preserves the right to commission and a secret profit (albeit honest) directly impacting on the moneys payable to the principal which may destroy the entitlement.’

Judges:

David Steel QC

Citations:

[1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 722

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hippisley v Knee Bros CA 1903
The defendant auctioneers were employed by the plaintiff to sell some goods. The payment was to be percentage commission with a minimum of andpound;20, certain fixed amounts and ‘all out of pocket’ expenses, particularly advertising. The sale . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Agency

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.186620

Ribble Motor Services Ltd v Traffic Commission For The North Western Travel Area: CA 23 Feb 2001

When looking at whether the bus operator had delivered the bus timetable standards as required, the Commission need not consider every occasion of excuse, but could consider that the general margin of 12 minutes on timetables included everyday occurrences. If no expert evidence was put before it to say otherwise, the Commission could also consider that it was appropriate to look for 95% achievement of the targets.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 267

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1985 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Licensing, Road Traffic

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135557

The Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’: CA 23 Jan 2001

Citations:

[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437, [2001] EWCA Civ 56

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ ComC 2000
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135610

Crawford and Law v Allan Line Steamship Co Ltd: HL 19 Dec 1911

Where a through bill of lading has been signed, inter alios, on behalf of the last carriers, the shipowners, providing that each carrier is only to be liable for damage occurring on his portion of the route, and acknowledging that the goods have been received in good order at the beginning of the transit, and the last carriers have taken no exception to the condition of the goods when handed over to them, they are liable for any damage discovered unless they prove it occurred previously.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 117, 49 SLR 117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract, Transport

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619221

Caledonian Railway Co v Symington: HL 16 Nov 1911

It is a question of fact, to be decided on the circumstances of the particular case, whether ‘freestone’ is a mineral falling within the exception contained in section 70 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 49

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619214

Partenreederei Ms Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven- and Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout: ECJ 19 Jun 1984

Europa Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments – jurisdiction agreement – jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading – validity – conditions (convention of 27 September 1968, art. 17)
a jurisdiction clause contained in the printed conditions on a bill of lading satisfies the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention : if the agreement of both parties to the conditions containing that clause has been expressed in writing; or if the jurisdiction clause has been the subject-matter of a prior oral agreement between the parties expressly relating to that clause, in which case the bill of lading, signed by the carrier, must be regarded as confirmation in writing of the oral agreement; or if the bill of lading comes within the framework of a continuing business relationship between the parties, in so far as it is thereby established that the relationship is governed by general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause. As regards the relationship between the carrier and a third party holding the bill of lading, the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention are satisfied if the jurisdiction clause has been adjudged valid as between the carrier and the shipper and if, by virtue of the relevant national law, the third party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the shipper ‘ s rights and obligations.

Citations:

C-71/83, R-71/83, [1984] EUECJ R-71/83, [1984] ECR 2417

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Bols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133626

Broads Authority v Fry: Admn 5 Nov 2015

The boat owner had charged tolls against the respondent boat owner. He failed to pay saying that his vessel being moored at a private mooring on ‘adjacent water’ he was not liable. His appeal against his conviction had succeeded at the Crown Court, and the Authority now appealed by case stated.
Held: The Authority’s appeal succeeded. The bye-law was not void for uncertainty, and the extension of the licensing requirement beyond the waters controlled by the Authority was well established and clear.

Judges:

Beatson LJ, Mitting J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 4139 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Broads Authority Act 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Forth Conservancy Board v IRC HL 1931
The House was asked whether the conservators of the Firth of Forth were liable to income tax on revenue raised from dues levied on vessels, which revenue had to be applied to preserve and improve the appropriate part of the Firth of Forth.
Cited – Kruse v Johnson QBD 16-May-1898
The validity of a by-law prohibiting the playing of music in a public place within fifty yards of any dwelling after being requested by a constable or resident of that dwelling to desist was upheld. A private citizen taxed with a criminal charge . .
Cited – Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
Cited – Staden v Tarjanyi 1980
The court considered the validity of a byelaw. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘to be valid, a byelaw, carrying as this one does penalties for infringement, must be certain and clear in the sense that anyone engaged upon the otherwise lawful pursuit . . must . .
Cited – Percy and Another v Hall and Others CA 10-May-1996
The claimants, demonstrators at Menwith Hill Station, asserted that repeated arrests for trespass were made under unlawful byelaws. Iparticular they said that the restrictions on trespass were unlawful, since the area was not clearly defined. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.569394

Black King Shipping Corpn and Wayang (Panama) SA v Massie (The “Litsion Pride”): 1985

The LITSION PRIDE was insured against war risks. The terms required of her owners, notice as soon as practicable of her entry into specified war zones and then to pay an additional premium. The owners traded her into a war zone without giving notice, dishonestly intending to avoid the payment of the additional premium if the vessel got out unscathed. When she was hit by a missile and sunk, they gave the required notice by a letter which they dishonestly backdated to a date before the vessel entered the war zone. The fraud was irrelevant to the merits of the claim, because the vessel was held to be insured under a held covered clause with or without prior notice.
Held: The claim was forfeit on the ground that it was a breach of the insured’s duty of good faith. His decision has not fared well in subsequent decisions.

Judges:

Hirst J

Citations:

[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Versloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Cited – Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623434

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co Of Chicago And Xenofon Maritime SA v Alliance Assurance Co Ltd: 1986

(‘The Captain Panagos DP’) The ship ran aground in the red sea. While aground it suffered a major fire. The owners submitted a claim on the basis that it was a total loss, or in the alternative, that they could recover a partial claim arising from each event. The underwriters said that each loss had been connived at or procured by the owners.
Held: The claim was rejected. The vessel had been deliberately run aground and then set on fire.
Evans J defined a fraudulent claim as ‘one which is made on the basis that facts exist which constitute a loss by an insured peril, when to the knowledge of the assured those alleged facts are untrue’.

Judges:

Evans J

Citations:

[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Versloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623436

Chapman v Pole: 1870

In the context of exaggerated value Cockburn, CJ spoke of one who ‘knowingly preferred a claim he knew to be false or unjust’

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

(1870) 22 LT 306

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Versloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623435

Cameron and others v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Foster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Human Rights, Personal Injury, Transport, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210

The Kate: 1899

The Kate was totally lost in a collision with the defendants’ ship, whilst on the ballast leg of a charterparty. The issue was whether in a case of total loss as opposed to partial loss of a ship without a cargo, the plaintiffs could recover only the market value of the ship at the time of the loss (as the defendants contended) or the profit lost under the charterparty as well (as the plaintiffs contended).
Sir Francis Jeune P laid it down that the general principle which governs the assessment of damage is ‘restitutio in integrum qualified by the condition that the damage sought to be recovered must not be too remote.’ and also said: ‘Sir Robert Phillimore states that the value should be taken as at the end of the voyage, and therefore lets in freight or interest as an additional compensation . . The present case, which is that of a vessel without cargo, but under charter, being totally lost, is not exactly that contemplated by Sir Robert Phillimore; but it appears to me to follow from his judgment that the value of the vessel may in such case be taken as at the end of her voyage, and something allowed in respect of the period between the time of collision and the end of the voyage . . the profits under the charterparty should take the place of interest, as more accurately representing the loss to the owner, and may fairly be considered to be the equivalent of freight when a cargo is on board. Indeed I can see no distinction in principle between the case of freight when a cargo is on board and . . a charterparty under which cargo is to be taken.’

Citations:

[1899] P 165

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – The ‘Columbus’ 9-Mar-1849
Where a vessel is sunk in a collision, and compensation is awarded by the Court of Admiralty to the full value of the vessel as for a total loss, the plaintiff will not be able to recover anything in the nature of a demurrage for loss of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Another v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime ComC 12-Sep-2013
In the lead case, Sony’s warehouse at Enfield had been severely damaged in what were said to be riots in August 2011. The court considered preliminary issues as to whether the events constituted a riot within the 1886 Act, and the extent of damages . .
Cited – Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime CA 20-May-2014
The appellant had suffered damage in a riot, and, under the 1886 Act, the respondent was liable to pay compensation.
Held: The MOPC was liable to pay compensation by way of indemnity. Analysis of section 2(1) suggested compensation for loss . .
Cited – The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.608294

Zenziper Grains and Feed Stuffs v Bulk Trading Corporation Ltd: CA 23 Jan 2001

Where a standard form free-on-truck (FOT) delivery contract provided for several possible destinations for delivery, the responsibility for specifying the place of delivery fell on the seller. There was no proper analogy with an FOB contract. The vessel would be chartered by the seller, and delivered to a port agreed between the seller and the ship-owner, and the characteristics of the ship itself could restrict and control the port of delivery. There would be likely to be other goods consigned also, and it would not make commercial sense for the buyer to specify the port of delivery.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Commercial, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90687

Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hill Harmony): HL 8 Dec 2000

A master, engaged to fulfill a charterparty, was not free to choose a longer and slower route, when the shorter route was recommended and safe. His own perception of the safety of the route was not determinative. His rights to control navigation did not extend to a power to ignore the charterers instructions in fulfillment of the contractual obligation to proceed with all dispatch. Such an order regarded the employment of the vessel, and it was not within the master’s range of proper choices to go against that order.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 08-Dec-2000, [2000] UKHL 62, [2001] 1 All ER 403, [2000] 3 WLR 1954, [2001] CLC 502, [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 147, [2001] AC 638, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 76

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Appealed to – Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Tokai Shipping Co Ltd of Tokyo CA 25-May-1999
In a time charterparty, the charterer was free to determine the orders, but not the orders as to navigation. The ship’s master was solely responsible for its safety, and so retained entire discretion as to the navigation route. . .
Cited – Petroleo Brasileiro Sa v Ene Kos 1 Ltd (‘The MT Kos’) SC 2-May-2012
The MT Kos had been chartered by the appellants. The respondents failed to make payments, and notice was given to withdraw the vessel. The contract said that such a notice was without prejudice to any claim. At the time, the vessel was laden. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90444

Steadman v Scholfield and Another: QBD 6 May 1992

A jet ski is neither a boat nor a vessel. The maritime limitation rules did not therefore apply to an accident involving a jet ski. The applicant could therefore claim full damages.

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992

Statutes:

Marine Conventions Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89518

Semco Salvage and Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd: HL 10 Feb 1997

A ‘fair rate’ for salvage operations includes the overheads of the salvage company and the additional costs of being instantly available.

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-1997, [1997] UKHL 2; [1997] 1 All ER 502; [1997] 2 WLR 298; [1997] 1 Lloyds Rep 323

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

International Salvage Convention 14.3

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89168