The vessel, discharging at St. Nazaire, was ordered by charterers to return to Cardiff. Despite severely deteriorating weather conditions a Sea Transport Officer instructed the vessel to sail on completion of discharge to Quiberon Bay to join a convoy bound for the Bristol Channel. The master protested but complied. The vessel grounded and suffered damage. The owners claimed against the Crown as charterers, contending that the damage had resulted from the charterers’ order to return to Cardiff.
Held: A ship owner’s underwriters would be entitled to be subrogated to his claim for indemnity against a charterer in respect of losses caused by the master’s compliance with the charterer’s orders as to the employment of the ship, under a standard term of a charterparty.
Lord Wright said: ‘The view of the judge was that what he described as the ‘sailing orders to Quiberon Bay to be obeyed forthwith . .’ were orders as to employment within cl. 9. With the greatest respect, I cannot agree with that view. These sailing orders which the judge found were given were, in my opinion, merely dealing with matters of navigation, in regard to carrying out the orders to proceed to Cardiff’.
Lord Porter said: ‘Three answers to this argument have been made by the respondent. (1) That though an order specifying the voyage to be performed is an order as to employment, yet an order as to the time of sailing is not. That order, it is contended, is one as to navigation, or, at any rate, not as to employment. My Lords, this distinction seems to me to be justified: an order to sail from port A to port B is in common parlance an order as to employment, but an order that a ship shall sail at a particular time is not an order as to employment because its object is not to direct how the ship shall be employed, but how she shall act in the course of that employment. If the word were held to include every order which affected not the employment itself but any incident arising in the course of it almost every other liability undertaken by the charterer would be otiose, since the owners would be indemnified against almost all losses which the ship would incur in prosecuting her voyages.’
and ‘(2) The second answer of the respondents was that even if it were conceded that orders to sail in a storm were orders in respect of which an indemnity is due, they must still be orders of the charterers as charterers and such as under this charterparty they are entitled to give. The mere instruction to sail may be such an order, but such an instruction leaves it to the discretion of the master who is responsible for the safety of his ship to choose the time and opportunity for starting on his voyage. I know of no right on the part of a charterer to insist that the safety of the ship should be endangered by sailing at a time when seamanship requires her to stay in port.’
Lord Findlay, LC suggested that, although the parties in Krell v Henry may have contracted in the expectation that the procession would take place, it was difficult to see why the happening of the procession was the basis of the contract.
References: [1944] KB 124, [1945] AC 246
Judges: Lord Findlay LC, Mackinnon LJ and Lords Wright and Porter
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Criticised – Krell v Henry CA 1903
A contract to rent rooms for two days and from which the coronation processions of King Edward VII were to be viewed was frustrated when the processions were cancelled on the days the rooms were taken for because the contract was ‘a licence to use . .
([1903] 2 KB 740, [1900-3] All ER 20)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
(, Times 13-Feb-02, , [2002] UKHL 4, [2002] 1 LLR 553, [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 261, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 321, 2002 SLT 278, [2002] CLC 741, 2002 SC (HL) 117, [2002] BLR 139, 2002 SCLR 346, 2002 GWD 6-178) - 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 . .
(, [2012] UKSC 17, [2012] 2 WLR 976, , UKSC 2010/0157, , )
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191167 br>