The case was heard against the background of an armed conflict between Japan and China. The charterparty contract included a clause providing for cancellation ‘if war breaks out involving Japan’.
Held: The court rejected an argument that the meaning of ‘war’, when found in a charterparty, was to depend on either the question whether war had been recognised by the Government, or on international law, or indeed on any technical meaning. The word had to be construed ‘in a common sense way’, in accordance with ‘the common sense of business men’. The case concerned only the construction of the charter party. The phrase ‘if war breaks out’ could not mean ‘if war is recognised to have broken out by His Majesty’s Government’: ‘Nobody would have the temerity to suggest in these days that war cannot exist without a declaration of war. Similarly, the recent events in the world have introduced new methods and a new technique, with regard to which I conceive that writers on international law will dispute for many years to come. I do not propose to be the first to lay down a definition of ‘war’ in a so called technical sense.’
Judges:
Sir Wilfred Greene MR
Citations:
[1939] 2 KB 544
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – If P and C Insurance Limited (Publ.) v Silversea Cruises Limited, Silver Cloud Shipping Company Sa, Silver Wind Shipping Company Sa, Silversea New Build One Limited, Silversea New Build Two Limited&Quot;the Silver Cloud&Quot; CA 5-Jul-2004
The shipping company was insured against loss of business following Acts of war. It sought to claim after the attack on America in September 2001.
Held: The policy had a limitation which applied ‘in the annual aggregate and in all’ which . .
Cited – Spinneys (1948) Ltd v Royal Insurance Co Ltd 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘war’ in the context of an insurance contract: ‘The issue is not whether the events in Lebanon were recognised in the United Kingdom as amounting to a civil war in the sense in which the term is used in Public . .
Cited – Amin v Brown ChD 27-Jul-2005
The defendant raised as a preliminary point the question of whether the claimant, an Iraqi, was an enemy alien, and therefore debarred from bringing proceedings to recover.
Held: Under modern law it could not be a requirement that a state of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Contract
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.200215
