Cargo had been negligently stowed on a ship so that condensation caused damage during the subsequent voyage. The claimant only acquired a title to the cargo after the voyage had commenced. The defendants contended that no duty of care could be owed to one who was not the owner of the cargo at the time of the negligent act. It was not submitted that the negligent act of stowage constituted a continuing breach only that the fresh damage occurring after the claimants had acquired title to the cargo created new causes of action on which they could sue to recover that damage.
Held: The cause of action was completed once and for all when, following the negligent stowage, more than insignificant consequential damage was caused to the cargo.
Judges:
Rix LJ
Citations:
[2001] 1 Ll Rep 437, [2001] CLC 696, [2001] 1 LLR 437, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 455
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morris v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation HL 1956
The ship had followed a practice of leaving the between deck hatch covers off in the absence of a guard rail around the hatchway. The plaintiff seaman fell into the hold. There was evidence that on this ship it was quite usual for men to be sent . .
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 . .
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Cited – Iqbal v Legal Services Commission CA 10-May-2005
The claimant had been a partner in a firm of solicitors. They came to be suspected by the respondent of overclaiming legal aid payments and sums were withheld. For this and other reasons the practice folded, and the claimant became insolvent. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214270
