swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Estoppel - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 2 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
ÂRepublic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd; The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep 124
1992
CA
Leggatt LJ
Litigation Practice, Estoppel
Munitions were consigned to Cochin on board the defendants' vessel. A fire occurred, and part was jettisoned, the remainder being damaged. The cargo owners first claimed damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading for the jettisoned cargo. The Indian judge held that the defendants were liable for the value of the undelivered cargo, about £6,000. The plaintiffs then sued in rem in London for £2.6 million for the total loss of the cargo. The Indian claim pleaded short delivery of the cargo delivered at Cochin, viz. 51 shells (and a small item described as "charge green bag"). The claim was advanced under one of the two bills of lading under which the consignment was shipped. In the plaint, it was alleged that the ship-owners had been guilty of negligence while the cargo was in transit in the vessel, which was taken to refer to a breach of their duty as bailees (carriers for reward). It was either common ground (or found by the Indian judge) that the contract incorporated the Hague Rules. The claim in the English action was in the ordinary form for a damage to cargo claim, alleging against the ship-owners (1) breach of contract and/or duty as carrier by sea for reward to deliver the goods in like good order and condition as when shipped; (2) negligence, in breach of duty as carriers and/or as bailees for reward; and (3) breach of their obligations under article III(1) and (2) of the Hague-Visby Rules, which apply to the contracts contained in or evidenced by the two bills of lading under which the goods were shipped. One issue in the Court of Appeal was the relevance of Indian law to the question of cause of action estoppel. Leggatt LJ: "For my part, I see nothing in the suggestion that evidence of Indian law is required in order to establish that the cause of action sued on in India was the same as that relied on here. I accept Mr. Gruder's submission that it is a matter for English law to determine whether the causes of action were the same; there is no evidence or argument that they were not and, until the contrary is proved, Indian law must be presumed to be the same as English law. With the effect of the Indian judgment in India we are not concerned."
1 Citers
Â
Lim Teng Huan v Ang Swee Chuan Gazette, 08 January 1992
8 Jan 1992
PC
Estoppel, Contract, Commonwealth
A deed evidencing an agreement could be used in evidence in court even though it might itself be void for uncertainty. A party to the deed was estopped from denying its contents. Having built a house upon one half of jointly owned land, and thus, having acknowledged the joint title, he was not free subsequently to deny that title.
Â
