A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an appropriate case involving truly feasible alternative interpretations of a convention, to allow the evidence contained in the travaux preparatoires to be determinative of the question of construction. But that is only possible where the court is satisfied that the travaux preparatoires clearly and indisputably point to a definite legal intention: see Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd., per Lord Wilberforce, at p.278c. Only a bull’s-eye counts. Nothing less will do.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn
Times 29-Jan-1998, Gazette 18-Feb-1998, [1998] UKHL 1, [1998] AC 605, [1998] 2 WLR 206, [1998] 1 All ER 495
House of Lords, Bailii
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, Hague Rules
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk) CA 5-Feb-1996
A shipper’s liability for known dangerous goods is not limited by fault or by negligence. . .
At first instance – Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk) QBD 5-May-1994
A danger to the goods on board a ship made the cargo physically dangerous. The ship’s master was responsible. . .
Cited by:
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 – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
Cited – Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others, In re Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal Macrossan Rev 1 CA 27-Oct-2006
In each case it was said that the requested patent concerned an invention consisting of a computer program, and was not therefore an invention and was unpatentable. In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the . .
Cited – Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd and others CA 14-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed against a finding of copyright infringement in a computer game.
Held: The appeal failed. The court must identify the artistic work relied upon and then decide whether it has been reproduced by copying of the work as a . .
Cited – Higgs v Regina CACD 24-Jun-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the section. He ran a business fitting modifying chips to games consoles allowing them to play non-certificated games CDs.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was not suggested that the use of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Contract
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.158932