The Secretary of State appealed an order declaring the wreck of a merchant ship lost through enemy action in 1943 when part of a convoy. He said it was wrong in law to make the declaration, having not been in military service as such when sunk even though in a convoy.
Held: The Secretary of State argued for a narrow meaning of the phrase ‘in service’. Under the 1866 Act a officer on board a convoy ship was subject to military discipline. The British Steamship case was directly appicable. The judge’s order was correct; the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the 1986 Act was too narrow.
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke, Rix LJ, Longmore LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1270, Times 10-Oct-2006, [2007] QB 96, [2006] 3 WLR 931
Links:
Statutes:
Military Remains Act 1986, Naval Discipline Act 1866 31
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’) HL 1921
The House considered the relationship between a merchant vessel in convoy and a convoying naval vessel.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Atkinson: ‘With all respect, I am quite unable to concur in the learned judge’s view that the merchant . .
Approved – Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’) CA 1919
The court was asked wheter a merchant vessel was acting a a military ship when in convoy.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Warrington LJ said: ‘Of course the sailing with convoy may easily assume the character of a warlike operation; if the convoy . .
Appeal from – Fogg and Ledgard v The Secretary of State for Defence, Short Admn 13-Dec-2005
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent not to name the wreck of the merchant ship SS STORAA as a protected site under the 1986 Act. It had been a merchant ship forming part of a convoy, and was sunk by enemy action in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Transport
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.245188
