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: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 16 February 1995; Ind Summary, 03 April 1995
16 Feb 1995
QBD

VAT, Transport
Supply of limousine service with airline ticket not separate taxable supply. It was incidental to the supply of air transport, and accordingly zero-rated.
Value added Tax Act 1983 3(2)

 
Niobe Maritime Corporation v Tradax Ocean Transportation Sa Times, 03 April 1995
3 Apr 1995
HL

Transport
Ship sellers to disclose information received after as well as before contract.

 
Hydro Agri (UK) Ltd v The Owners of the ship "Sava Star" Lloyd's List 13 April 1995
12 Apr 1995
AdCt
Clarke J
Transport
cw Shipping - salvage - entitlement to claim salvage - claim by cargo-owners against ship-owners


 
 Ullapool Harbours Trustees v Secretary of Sates for Transport (Scotland); OHCS 13-Apr-1995 - Times, 13 April 1995

 
 Abnett v British Airways Plc (Scotland); IHCS 28-Apr-1995 - Times, 22 June 1995; 1996 SLT 529
 
OK Petroleum AB v Vitol Energy SA Unreported, 05 May 1995
5 May 1995
ComC
Colman J
Transport, Contract
cw Shipping - demurrage - notification of claim - incorporation of time bar from charterparty into sale contract - construction of incorporation provisions

 
SNCF and British Railways v Commission T-79/95; [1995] EUECJ T-79/95R
12 May 1995
ECFI

European, Transport
ECFI Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of a competition decision - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Concept - Uncertain and speculative risk - Exclusion - Balance of convenience - (EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of a decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.
Only the existence, at least foreseeable or probable, of third-party undertakings interested in using the Channel Tunnel' s capacity would be capable of substantiating the risk of serious and irreparable damage alleged by railway undertakings seeking the suspension of operation of the conditions attached to the Commission' s decision granting exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty in so far as those conditions require the applicants to surrender to third parties up to one-quarter of their rights under the usage contract exempted by the Commission. In those circumstances, suspension could be ordered only if the applicants could demonstrate before the judge hearing the application that the surrenders of capacity at issue would immediately make it impossible for them to fulfil their obligations relating to the operation of the tunnel or that they could no longer, if their applications in the main proceedings were to succeed, recover from the third parties the capacity surrendered to them in the meantime. Since they have not adduced evidence of those conditions, the damage to them is too uncertain and speculative to be able to prevail in the assessment of the balance of convenience over the preservation of effective competition and the principle of the freedom to provide services in the rail transport sector which the Commission sought to protect by attaching the abovementioned condition to the exemption.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Antwerp United Diamonds; BVBA and Another v Air Europe (A Firm) Ind Summary, 15 May 1995
15 May 1995
CA

Transport
The limit for an air carrier's liability does not apply where there had ben extreme misconduct by the airline.
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 Art 2292)(a)

 
M B Pyramid Sound NV v Briese-Shiffarts GMBH and Co KG; M S "Sina" and Another [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 144
15 May 1995
ComC
Clarke J
Transport
cw Shipping - misdelivery of goods - delivery without presentation of original bill of lading - exclusion clause -mitigation of loss - quantum - parties to contract of carriage - charterers not parties - owners parties

 
Interatlantic (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd v Okeanski Ribolov Ltd (Scotland) Times, 02 June 1995
2 Jun 1995
OHCS

Transport
Brussels Convention incorporated into law and only one ship arrestable.
Brussels Convention 1968

 
Marc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others Gazette, 06 September 1995; Independent, 18 August 1995; Times, 07 July 1995; [1995] 3 All ER 307; [1995] UKHL 4; [1996] 1 AC 211; [1995] CLC 934; [1995] 2 LLR 299; [1996] ECC 120; [1995] 3 WLR 227; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 299
6 Jul 1995
HL
Lord Steyn, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Transport, Professional Negligence, Negligence
A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea. Held: The marine classification society was not liable in negligence to the owner of a cargo, where it was alleged that damage flowed from a negligent ship survey. A duty of care is imposed only where it was just and reasonable to do so. It was indirect damage, and economic loss. There was no contact between the cargo owners and the classification society. It was not even suggested that the cargo owners knew of the survey, they simply relied on the owners to keep the vessel seaworthy and to look after the cargo.
In relation to a novel category of negligence, the imposition of liability must satisfy a three stage test of foreseeability, proximity and fairness. Lord Steyn said that in the field of negligence, the common law: "develops incrementally on the basis of a consideration of analogous cases where a duty has been recognised or desired."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd (The Glacier Bay) Times, 26 October 1995; Independent, 01 November 1995; [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 370; [1996] CLC 240
26 Oct 1995
CA
Neill LJ
Transport, Arbitration, Contract
An agreement giving to a 'sole judge' the power to make a final decision was effective, and there was no appeal from his decision. The defendant's decision in his capacity as Convention administrator was as a final arbiter and was unreviewable. Held: The appeal was allowed. The agreement was unusual, but the deceisions was final and binding " . . .subject . . . to any question of unfairness, bad faith or perversity". Neill LJ "It remains the general rule of common law that an agreement wholly to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is against public policy and void. . . . It is clear, however, that in applying the rule questions of fact are treated differently from questions of law . . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sills v Tilbury Cargo Handling Ltd and Others Unreported, 02 November 1995
2 Nov 1995
AdCt
Clarke J
Transport, Litigation Practice
Procedure - RSC Order 20 r.5(3) - amendment with leave - discretion - RSC Order 6 r.8(1) - validity of writ - 4 months - RSC Order 11 r.1(1) - leave to serve outside jurisdiction - validity of writ - 6 months - admiralty action in personam RSC Order 75 r.4(4) - exclusion of RSC Order 11 r.1(2) – meaning. Privilege - deployment of court material otherwise privileged - principles - application at interlocutory stage - Fairness - disclosure of part of privileged document - waiver of privilege with respect to other parts

 
Criminal proceedings against Bird C-235/94; [1995] EUECJ C-235/94
9 Nov 1995
ECJ

Transport, Road Traffic
ECJ (Judgment) Article 12 of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, in the light of its wording and context, does not authorize a driver to derogate from the provisions relating to driving and rest periods in Articles 6, 7 or 8 of the regulation for reasons known before the journey commenced.
It is clear from Article 12 that a decision, taken in order to ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle and of its load, to extend a driving period beyond that normally authorized under the regulation must be for the driver alone, must be taken when it unexpectedly becomes impossible for him to comply with the driving and rest periods laid down and must take into account the immediate requirements of road safety. Article 15(1), moreover, by requiring transport undertakings to organize work in such a way that drivers are able to comply with the regulation, precludes an undertaking from planning a derogation before the driver leaves.
[ Bailii ]
 
Owners of Cargo lately laden on Board the ship Nazym Khikmet and Others Unreported, 30 November 1995
30 Nov 1995
AdCt
Clarke J
Transport
ComC Shipping - ship - 'beneficial ownership' - Supreme Court Act 1981 - section 21(4)(ii) - demise charterers Shipping - ship - charterer under charter by demise - Supreme Court Act 1981 section 21(4)(ii) - section 3(4) Administration of Justice Act 1956 - amendment
Supreme Court Act 1981 21(4)(ii) - Administration of Justice Act 1956 3(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, Ex Parte Save Our Railways and Others Etc Times, 18 December 1995
18 Dec 1995
CA

Administrative, Transport
A requirement that new services should be 'based upon' the present timetables did not mean that the services had to be at same level. It was possible that they may be a lesser service.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.