Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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.  














Transport - From: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 28 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Air France v Saks [1985] 470 US 392
1985

O'Connor J
Personal Injury, Transport
(United States Supreme Court) The claimant suffered damage to and become permanently deaf in one ear as a result of pressurisation changes while the aircraft descended to land. The pressure system had worked normally. The airline said that the normal operation of a normal pressurisation system could not qualify as an article 17 accident. Held: The text of the Convention implies that, however the word "accident" is defined, it is the cause of the injury that must satisfy that definition rather than the occurrence of the injury alone. "We conclude that liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention arises only if a passenger's injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger. This definition should be flexibly applied after assessment of all the circumstances surrounding a passenger's injuries." and "But when the injury indisputably results from the passenger's own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft, it has not been caused by an accident, and Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention cannot apply." and "Any injury is the product of a chain of causes, and we require only that the passenger be able to prove that some link in the chain was an unusual or unexpected event external to the passenger."
Warsaw Convention 17
1 Citers


 
Pera Shipping Corporation v Petroship SA [1985] 2 Lloyd's Law Rep 103
1985


Transport

1 Citers


 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Sidney Hackett Limited And Weston ; Tetlow v Dovey R-91/84; [1985] EUECJ R-91/84
28 Mar 1985
ECJ

European, Transport, Agriculture
Europa Article 14a(2)(c) of Regulation No 543/69 of the council of 25 March 1969 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, as amended by regulations nos 515/72 and 2827/77, must be interpreted to the effect that 'local market' must be understood as meaning the market which, having regard to geographical circumstances, is the nearest to a particular farm and at which it is possible to buy or sell, as the case may be, according to the needs of normal, average-sized farms which may be considered typical of the area in question.
The exception in paragraph (2)(c) of article 14a cannot be extended to transport operations which, either because of the unusual size of the farm concerned or because the production of several farms is pooled, necessitate the use of markets further away than the nearest market normally serving farms in the area.
Regulation No 543/69 of the council of 25 March 1969 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport
[ Bailii ]
 
Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) [1986] AC 785; [1985] UKHL 10; [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1; [1986] 2 WLR 902
24 Apr 1985
HL
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Transport, Contract, Negligence
The plaintiff contracted to buy a cargo to be shipped on the defendant's vessel. Because of poor stowage, the cargo was damaged. At the time of the damage the claimant was neither the owner nor possessor of the cargo, but under the terms of the purchase contract he had assumed the risk of damage to the cargo. Held: For a person to claim in negligence for loss caused to him by reason of loss of or damage to property, he must have had either the legal ownership of or a possessory title to the property concerned at the time when the loss or damage occurred. It is not enough for him to have only had contractual rights in relation to such property which have been adversely affected by the loss of or damage to it. The House (obiter) rejected the argument that the duty of care owed by a party could be excluded by a contract between claimant and a third party.
Lord Brandon said: "In order to enable a person to claim in negligence for loss caused to him by reason of loss of or damage to property, he must have had either the legal ownership of or a possessory title to the property concerned at the time when the loss or damage occurred."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Trade Fortitude [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 209
1986

Dillon LJ
Transport, Arbitration, Damages
The purpose of section 19A was to make explicit powers to award interest which had previously rested on implication.
Arbitration Act 1950 19A
1 Citers


 
The Panaghia Tinnou [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 586
1986

Steyn J
Transport

Hague-Visby Rules A2
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
The Anders Maersk [1986] Lloyds Rep 483
1986

Mayo J
Transport
(Hong Kong High Court) A bill of lading stated that the port of shipment was Baltimore and the port of discharge was Shanghai. The bill gave a right of transshipment, which was exercised at Hong Kong. It was described as a through bill of lading. It made no express reference to Hong Kong at all. The plaintiffs’ cargo was damaged between Hong Kong and Shanghai. The issue was whether Hong Kong was the "port of shipment" for the purposes of the Hong Kong equivalent of the 1971 Act. Held: Transshipment was not the same as shipment, and that there had been only one port of shipment, Baltimore. Under the bill of lading terms, USCOGSA’s limitation applied. Unless reference is made to the contract between the parties, there would always be a likelihood that there would be an element of uncertainty. The shipper of goods may have no knowledge of the arrangements being made by the carrier, and it would put the shipper in an invidious position if he could only establish his rights by a subsequent re-construction of events which took place without his knowledge. The court rejected the argument that shipment includes transshipment. All the references to shipment in the rules are consistent with shipment being confined to the initial shipment referred to in the bill of lading.
1 Citers


 
Criminal Proceedings against Asjes and Others, Gray And Others, Maillot and Others And Ludwig And Others. R-213/84; [1986] EUECJ R-213/84; [1986] ECR 1425
30 Apr 1986
ECJ

Commercial, Transport
The tribunal de police de Paris sought a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against the executives of airlines and travel agencies, who were charged with infringing the French Civil Aviation Code when selling air tickets by applying tariffs that were different from the approved tariffs. According to the French Code, all airlines had to submit their tariffs to the Government for approval. The Ministry's decision approving the tariff proposed by an airline rendered that tariff binding on all traders. The tribunal de police asked whether such a system was incompatible with the competition provisions of the Treaty. Held: The question was understood to ask whether it is contrary to the Member States' obligations under the Treaty to enforce approved tariffs if those tariffs are the result of an agreement, a decision or a concerted practice between the airlines contrary to Article 85. The Court referred to international agreements concerning civil aviation and the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation that re-affirms the principle of each State's sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. The Court noted that, based on that principle of sovereignty, a network of bilateral agreements has been set up whereby States have authorised the establishment of one or more air routes between their respective territories. Those bilateral agreements follow a standard model which provides, amongst other things, that the tariffs for air services will be fixed by the companies that are authorized to operate the routes envisaged by each agreement. Those tariffs, which are often negotiated under the auspices of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), are then subject to the approval of the authorities of the signatory States. However, the French Government accepted that the bilateral agreements to which they were a signatory did not require them to ignore EU competition rules when approving tariffs.
In light of the structure created by Articles 88 and 89, the fact that an agreement may fall within the ambit of Article 85 does not, the Court held, suffice for it to be immediately prohibited by Article 85(1) and so automatically void under Article 85(2). Such a conclusion would be contrary to the general principle of legal certainty which is a rule of law that must be upheld in the application of the Treaty. It would have the effect of prohibiting and rendering automatically void certain agreements, even before it is possible to ascertain whether Article 85 as a whole is applicable to those agreements. Thus, the Court held, until the entry into force of implementing measures under Article 87, agreements are prohibited under Article 85(1) and are automatically void under Article 85(2) only in so far as they have been held by the authorities of the Member States, pursuant to Article 88, to fall under Article 85(1) and not to qualify for exemption from the prohibition under Article 85(3)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Newa Line v Erechthion Shipping Co SA; 1987 - [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 180
 
The Oinoussian Friendship [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 258
1987


Transport, Damages
A claim was made for physical damage to a vessel. Held: Where the owners take advantage of the fact that repairs are being done by having owners' work done at the same time, and (1) the owners' work does not extend the cost of or period of repairs, and (2) the owners' work was not immediately necessary so that the vessel would have been out of commission irrespective of the wrongful damage, in which case the owner cannot recover at all save insofar as the wrongful damage repairs add to the period of detention, there is no principle of law that requires apportionment by way of owners' contribution to the outlay.
1 Citers


 
The Anemone [1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 546
1987

Staughton J
Transport, Contract
Owners wished to let their vessel on time charter to Afram Line Limited but were unwilling to do so without a guarantee. The negotiations were conducted by Centre Shipping on behalf of owners and Dipgrove Holdings on behalf of charterers. It was agreed at an early stage of the negotiations that there would be a guarantee. Main terms but not the details were agreed by noon on 23 December 1983. The terms of a proposed guarantee were sent by telex to Shirlstar, the proposed guarantor, by Centre, soon after 12 noon on 23 December. Later in the afternoon in the course of a telephone conversation Mr Bott of Dipgrove confirmed to Mr Sorensen of Centre that Shirlstar was willing to give a guarantee in the terms proposed. Held: The effect of the conversation was that Mr Bott on behalf of Shirlstar offered to guarantee the obligations of charterers if the owners entered into a charterparty with the main terms that had by then been agreed by Mr Bott and Mr Sorensen. That offer was one which could be accepted by the conclusion of such a charterparty. Before that happened, it might of course have been revoked. Thereafter negotiations continued on the details, with agreement being reached shortly after midnight on 23/24 December.
The typing of an alleged guarantor’s signature on a telex was "in writing and signed by the parties to be charged" for the purposes of section 4: "I reached a provisional view in the course of the argument that the answerback of the sender of a telex would constitute a signature, whilst that of the receiver would not since it only authenticates the document and does not convey approval of the contents. But in the event the point does not arise."
Statute of Frauds 1677 4
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
The Antares [1987] 1 Lloyds Rep 24
1987
CA
Lloyd LJ, Glidewell and O'Connor LJJ
Contract, Transport
The time limit of one year contained in Article III rule 6 applied to a claim for failure to carry under deck; the package limit in Article IV rule 5 was not inherently different. Whatever may be the position with regard to deviation clauses strictly so called, which should be assimilated into the ordinary law of contract, there was no reason for regarding the unauthorised loading of deck cargo as a special case.
Hague Rules


 
 Bovo Tours Bv And Van Nood Touringcars Bv v Minister For Transport, Water Control And Construction And Others; ECJ 17-Dec-1987 - C-88/86; R-517/72; [1987] EUECJ R-517/72
 
ITT Schaub-Lorenz Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH v Birkart Johann lnternationale Spedition GmbH and Co KG [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 487
1988
CA
Bingham LJ
Transport
Bingham LJ considered dicta in Cummins Engine, and said: "although it could not be regarded as "having more than persuasive authority . . I think (with respect) that it is plainly right".
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
The "Rosa S" [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 574
1988

Hobhouse J
Transport
THe effect of article IX is to make plain that what article IV rule 5 refers to is the gold value of the pound sterling not its nominal or paper value. "Fortunately for carriers this result is not disastrous, as most nations where Hague Rules are still mandatorily applicable have converted the package limitation into local currency instead of using the gold limitation. However, great care is needed in drafting bill of lading contracts (which usually contractually apply Hague Rules to shipments from those nations that have no mandatorily applicable law) to write in only Articles I to VIII of the Hague Rules and then provide separately for a package limitation of £100 (or whatever), thereby avoiding the 'Gold Clause' trap."
Hague Rules
1 Citers


 
Naviera Mogor SA v Societe Metallurgique de Normandie: "The Nogar Marin" [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 412
1988
CA
Mustill LJ
Transport
It is the duty of the Master (or his agent) to ensure that the description of the cargo and the condition of the cargo as set out in the bill of lading are accurate before he signs it. It is up to the charterer/shipper how the goods are described in the Mate's receipts and bill of lading.
1 Citers


 
Didymi Corporation v Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc 'The Didymi' [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 108
1988
CA
Bingham LJ
Contract, Transport
A contract contained a clause covering the rate of hire of a 5 year time charter: "30(1) The ... speed and fuel consumption of the vessel as stipulated in this charter-party are representations by the owners. Should the actual performance of the vessel taken on an average basis throughout the duration of this charter-party show any failure to satisfy one or more of such representations, the hire shall be equitably decreased by an amount to be mutually agreed between owners and charterers ..." The Court asked whether this provided sufficient certainty to give rise to a binding obligation, a substantive obligation of the parties, rather than a procedural question of how the substantive right might be determined. It was argued that the clause was not enforceable, because it was an agreement to agree. Held: The substantive obligation was sufficiently spelt out by the reference to "equitably" and that the provision for mutual agreement was no more than procedural mechanics.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte de Rothschild [1989] 1 All ER 933; (1988) 57 P & CR 330
1988
CA
Slade LJ, Croom-Johnson LJ and Ralph Gibson LJ
Transport, Land
The court considered the use of powers of compulsory purchase of land under the Acts. Held: "In answer to counsel's submissions as to 'special rules', I summarise my conclusions thus. First, I do not accept that any special rules beyond the ordinary Wednesbury/Ashbridge rules fall to be applied when the court is considering a challenge to the Secretary of State's confirmation of the compulsory purchase order. Second, however, the Secretary of State, as counsel on his behalf accepted and submitted, must be satisfied that the compulsory purchase order is justified on its merits before he can properly confirm it. He must not exercise his powers capriciously. Given the obvious importance and value to land owners of their property rights, the abrogation of those rights in the exercise of his discretionary power to confirm a compulsory purchase order would, in the absence of what he perceived to be a sufficient justification on the merits, be a course which surely no reasonable Secretary of State would take."
Highways Act 1980 - Highways Act 1981
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Havelet Leasing Ltd v Cardiff-Wales Airport Ltd; 29-Jun-1988 - 29 June 1988, (unreported)
 
The Chanda [1989] 2 Lloyds Rep 494
1989
ChD
Hirst J
Transport, Contract
Part of an asphalt drying and mixing plant had been shipped on deck in breach of contract. The court asked whether the shipment on deck disentitled the shipowner from relying on Article IV rule 5. Held: A carrier by sea, who carries cargo on deck in breach of a contract of carriage which is governed by the Rules, can not take advantage of Article IV rule 5 to limit his liability for loss or damage to that cargo.
Hague-Visby Rules
1 Citers



 
 The Aramis; CA 1989 - [1989] 1 Lloyd's 213

 
 Boukadoura Maritime Corporation v Societe Anonyme Marocaine de L'Industrie et due Raffinage: "The BOUKADOURA"; 1989 - [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep.393

 
 SIB International SRL v Metallgesellschaft Corporation ("The Noel Bay"); CA 1989 - [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep 361
 
Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corporation [1989] AC 1112; [1989] 1 All ER 852; [1989] 2 WLR 481
1989
HL
Lord Bridge, Lord Griffiths
Transport, Damages, Jurisdiction
Mr Holmes was killed when the defendant's aircraft in which he was a passenger crashed on a domestic flight in Bangladesh. As a domestic flight, it was not international carriage. The proper law of the contract was undoubtedly Bangladeshi law. Under Bangladeshi law the plaintiff's damages would have been limited to £913. But Mr Holmes's widow sued in the United Kingdom, relying on the 1967 Order and its application to "all carriage of persons . . performed by aircraft for reward." She argued these words included foreign domestic flights. Held: The airline's appeal succeeded. Lord Bridge asked what modes of transport were regulated by the Hague Rules and said: "In authorising the application of such rules, based on or adapted from the Hague Rules, to non-Convention carriage by air, what categories of such carriage may Parliament have reasonably had in contemplation as the proper subject matter of United Kingdom legislation?"
Lord Griffiths said: "I can see no reason why our Parliament should wish to legislate to provide for domestic air law in Bangladesh any more than it would wish to legislate on road traffic or railway safety in Bangladesh and I do not believe that it intended it to do so."
1 Citers



 
 The Suwalki; 1989 - [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep 511
 
Stephen v Scottish Boatowners Mutual Insurance Association 1989 SC (HL) 24
1989
HL
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Insurance, Negligence, Transport
The House was asked whether the skipper of a fishing boat had used all reasonable endeavours to save his vessel, Lord Keith of Kinkel said that the test was an objective one directed to ascertaining "what an ordinarily competent fishing boat skipper might reasonably be expected to do in the same circumstances."
1 Citers


 
Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen And Silver Line Reisebuero Gmbh v Zentrale Zur Bekampfung Unlauteren Wettbewerbs EV R-66/86; [1989] EUECJ R-66/86
11 Apr 1989
ECJ

Commercial, Transport
The Court was asked as to the enforcement of government approved airline tariffs which were being evaded by travel agents who bought air tickets between two airports both outside Germany with the passenger boarding the plane during its stopover at a German airport. It was also said that their conduct constituted unfair competition because the prices of the airline tickets they sold undercut the approved tariffs applied by their competitors. The Bundesgerichtshof referred questions to the Court raising the compatibility of the agreement on tariffs not only under Article 85 but also under Article 86. It recognised that the tariff agreements at issue in the proceedings might have a serious anti-competitive effect: they may even have the effect of completely eliminating price competition on the routes to which they relate. Held: The principles established in Asjes continued to apply to domestic air transport and air transport between the EEC and third countries since those sectors were still not covered by implementing regulations made under Article 87. The Court drew a distinction between these flights and intra-Community flights because the Council and Commission had by this time enacted implementing measures for the latter.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bristol Airport Plc and Another v Powdrill and Others; CA 21-Dec-1989 - [1990] 2 WLR 1362; [1990] Ch 744; [1990] BCLC 585
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.