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: 1997 To: 1997

This page lists 45 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
The Laconian Confidence [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep 139
1997

Rix J
Transport, Contract
Charterers appealed against the decision of the arbitrator on the meaning of the phrase "any other cause". The performance of the contract had been interrupted by the intervention of the authorities in Chittagong. Held: The appeal failed. The arbitrators were correct to decide that the vessel was not off-hire. Rix J said: " In my judgment it is well established that those words, in the absence of 'whatsoever', should be construed either ejusdem generis or at any rate in some limited way reflecting the general context of the charter and clause . . A consideration of the named causes indicates that they all relate to the physical condition or efficiency of either vessel (including its crew) or, in one instance, cargo. There is, moreover, the general context . . that it is for the owners to provide an efficient ship and crew. In such circumstances it is to my mind natural to conclude that the unamended words 'any other cause' do not cover an entirely extraneous cause, like the boom in Court Line, or the interference of authorities unjustified by the condition (or reasonably suspected condition) of ship or cargo. Prima facie it does not seem to me that it can be intended by a standard off-hire clause that an owner takes the risk of delay due to the interference of authorities, at any rate where that interference is something beyond the natural or reasonably foreseeable consequence of some named cause. Where, however, the clause is amended to include the word 'whatsoever', I do not see why the interference of authorities which prevents the vessel performing its intended service should not be regarded as falling within the clause, and I would be inclined to say that that remains so whether or not that interference can be related to some underlying cause internal to the ship, or is merely capricious. That last thought may be controversial, but it seems to me that if an owner wishes to limit the scope of causes of off-hire under a clause which is deliberately amended to include the word 'whatsoever', then he should be cautious to do so."
In the absence of the word "whatsoever" in the clause, the unexpected and unforeseeable interference by the authorities at the conclusion of a normal discharge was: "a totally extraneous cause . . unconnected with, because too remote from, the merely background circumstance of the cargo residues of 15.75 tonnes. There was no accident to cargo, and there was nothing about the vessel herself, her condition or efficiency, nor even anything about the cargo, which led naturally or in the normal cause of events to any delay. If the authorities had not prevented the vessel from working, she would have been perfectly capable of discharging the residues or of sailing and dumping them without any abnormal delay."
1 Citers


 
Tekem Sea Abyss Ltd v Brandston Ltd; 'The Ocean Enterprise' Unreported, 09 January 1997
9 Jan 1997
AdCt
Geoffrey Brice QC
Transport, Company, Contract
ComC Shipping - registration of ships - - no statutory power to expunge the register - inherent - sale of ship to company in which seller held interest - fiduciary duty - breach - voidable contract - classification as 'goods' - Sale of Goods Act 1979 - goods - passing of voidable title - good faith - knowledge of company Company - power of director to bind company - agency - actual and ostensible authority Company - goods - passing of voidable title - Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 23 - good faith - knowledge of company
Sale of Goods Act 1979 23 - Merchant Shipping Act 1995 10(2)(I)

 
G E Curtis Heavy Haulage Limited and Michael Lesley Blackburn v Vehicle Inspectorate and Heanor Haulage Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate [1997] EWHC Admin 53
23 Jan 1997
Admn

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Carrick District Council ex parte Prankerd [1997] EWHC Admin 65
24 Jan 1997
Admn

Transport
Power of distraint.
Harbours Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847
[ Bailii ]
 
Semco Salvage and Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd Times, 10 February 1997; [1997] UKHL 2; [1997] 1 All ER 502; [1997] 2 WLR 298; [1997] 1 Lloyds Rep 323
10 Feb 1997
HL

Transport
A 'fair rate' for salvage operations includes the overheads of the salvage company and the additional costs of being instantly available.
International Salvage Convention 14.3
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Richard John Hopkins and Alice Elizabeth Hopkins v National Rivers Authority [1997] EWCA Civ 1040
18 Feb 1997
CA

Transport, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Euro Baltic Lines Ltd v The Owners of the Ship 'Kaliningrad' [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 35
19 Feb 1997
AdCt
Rix J
Transport, Contract
ComC Shipping - inducement of breach of contract - justification - moral duty - quantum - cost of substituting alternative vessel


 
 Swan Hill Developments Limited, Lloyd-Thomas etc v British Waterways Board; CA 25-Feb-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 1089
 
Fellowes or Herd v Clyde Helicopters Ltd Gazette, 26 March 1997; Times, 07 March 1997; [1997] 1 All ER 775; [1997] UKHL 6; [1997] AC 534
27 Feb 1997
HL
Lord MacKay, Lord Chancellor Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde
Transport, Police, Damages, Personal Injury
A Police officer being carried in a force helicopter, and operating within his own force's area was not on a matter of international carriage, and was not subject to the restrictions on recovery of damages. The helicopter had crashed into a building and he lost his life.
Lord Hope considered the Convention noting the width of article 1(1) which applies "to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward", and said: "But the starting point is the generality of effect indicated by the use of the word "all". The nationality or place of business of the carrier is irrelevant, as all carriers who undertake international carriage, as defined in article 1(2), of passengers, baggage or cargo by the aircraft are bound by the Convention. There is nothing in the Convention to indicate that the purpose for which the passenger, baggage or cargo was on the aircraft has any bearing on the question whether the Convention applies.
In my opinion the Convention agreed at Warsaw, as amended at the Hague, was intended to be, and is, capable of accommodating changes in the practice of airlines and aircraft operators with regard to the purposes for which aircraft are used to carry people and goods, and in the contractual arrangements in pursuance of which people and goods are carried by air for reward."
Carriage by Air (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 (1967 No 480)
1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Bryan and Others v Barton and Another Times, 20 March 1997
20 Mar 1997
CA

Transport
A decision that a barge in one mooring on a river interfered with angling by that barge was not binding on others where circumstances may be quite different.

 
Deborah Jane Ross v Owners of Ship Bowbelle and Another [1997] EWCA Civ 1343
26 Mar 1997
CA

Transport

[ Bailii ]

 
 Stewart Chartering Ltd v Owners of the ship 'the Peppy'; Stewart Offshore Services (Jersey) Ltd v Silan Maritime Co and Another; AdCt 15-Apr-1997 - [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 722

 
 Chaudhari v British Airways Plc; CA 16-Apr-1997 - Times, 07 May 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1413; CCRTI 96/0229/G
 
Georgian Maritime Corporation v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd [1997] EWHC 374 (Comm)
18 Apr 1997
ComC
Mance J
Contract, Transport
Appeal on proper construction of time charterparty.
[ Bailii ]
 
Georgian Maritime Corporation v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 324
18 Apr 1997
ComC
Mance J
Transport, Contract
ComC Time charterparty - proper construction - cancellation clause - cancellation – non-delivery
1 Citers


 
Thomas Cook Group Ltd and Ors v Air Malta Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep 39
6 May 1997
ComC
Cresswell J
Transport
The court considered the circumstances in which the court would apply the misconduct exceptions under the Convention: "The starting point when considering whether in any given circumstances the acts or omissions of a person entrusted with goods of another amounted to wilful misconduct is an enquiry about the conduct ordinarily to be expected in the particular circumstances.
The next step is to ask whether the acts or omissions of the defendant were so far outside the range of such conduct as to be properly regarded as "misconduct". (An important circumstance would be a deliberate disregard of express instructions clearly given and understood.)
It is next necessary to consider whether the misconduct was wilful.
What does not amount to wilful misconduct? Wilful misconduct is far beyond negligence, even gross or culpable negligence.
What does amount to wilful misconduct? A person wilfully misconducts himself if he knows and appreciates that it is misconduct on his part in the circumstances to do or to fail or omit to do something and yet (a) intentionally does or fails or omits to do it or (b) persists in the act, failure or omission regardless of the consequences or (c) acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of his carelessness may be. (A person acts with reckless carelessness if, aware of a risk that goods in his care may be lost or damaged, he deliberately goes ahead and takes the risk, when it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for him to do so.)
The final step is to consider whether the wilful misconduct (if established) caused the loss of or damage to the goods." and

"Wilful misconduct in such a special condition means misconduct to which the will is a party as contradistinguished from accident and is far beyond any negligence, even gross or culpable negligence, and involves that a person wilfully misconducts himself who knows and appreciates that it is wrong conduct on his part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be) a particular thing and yet intentionally does or fails or omits to do it, or persist in the act, failure or omission regardless of the consequences." Per Johnson J. in Graham v Belfast and Northern Counties Railway [1901] 2.I.R. 13, which was cited with approval by Lord Alverstone in Forder v GWR [1905] 2 KB 532, who added "or acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of his carelessness may be.
Wilful misconduct, to put it most shortly, as it has often been put in the past, is misconduct to which the will is a party, and it is something which is wholly different in kind from mere negligence or carelessness, however gross that negligence or carelessness may be. I think the first thing for you to remember is that the will must be party to the misconduct, and not merely a party to the conduct of which complaint is made. Let us take an example: if the pilot of an aircraft knowingly does something which subsequently a jury find amounted to misconduct, those facts alone do not show that he is guilty of wilful misconduct. To establish wilful misconduct on the part of this imaginary pilot it must be shown not only that he knowingly (and in that sense wilfully) did the wrongful act, but also that when he did it he was aware that it was a wrongful act – that is to say, he was aware that he was committing misconduct."per Barry J. in Horabin v BOAC [1952] 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 450 at page 459.
"If I summarise the principle in my own words, it would be to say that for wilful misconduct to be proved there must be either (one) an intention to do something which the actor knows to be wrong or (two) a reckless act in the sense that the actor is aware that loss may result from his act and yet does not care whether loss will result or not or, to use Mr Justice Barry's words in Horabin's case, 'he took a risk which he knew he ought not to take' per Longmore J. in National Semiconductors v UPS [1996] 2 Lloyd's Reports 212 at 214.
Further, a person could be said to act with reckless carelessness towards goods in his care if, aware of a risk that they may be lost or damaged, he nonetheless deliberately goes ahead and takes the risk when it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for him to do so." per Beldam LJ. in Laceys Footwear (Wholesale) Ltd v Bowler International Freight Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd's Reports 369, at page 374.
Warsaw Convention Article 25(1)
1 Citers


 
Cho Yang Shipping Co Ltd v Coral (UK) Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep 641; [1997] EWCA Civ 1701
15 May 1997
CA
Hobhouse J
Transport
As between the original parties the bill of lading does not itself contain the contract of carriage but is merely evidence of it.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A Meredith Jones and Co Limited v Vangemar Shipping Co Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 1717
16 May 1997
CA

Transport

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration and Anr v Bouyges Offshore SA (No. 3) [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 493; [1997] CLC 1443
26 May 1997
AdCt
Colman J
Transport, Litigation Practice
ComC Third party notices – application to set aside – loss of barge under tow – port authority held not to be a necessary and proper party

 
Klattner v Elliniko Dimosio C-389/95; [1997] EUECJ C-389/95
29 May 1997
ECJ

Transport, Customs and Excise
(Judgment) 1 Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport - Directive 83/182 - Restriction of the number of private vehicles which one person can import free of tax - No such restriction (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
2 Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport - Directive 83/182 - Article 3 - Direct effect (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
3 Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport - National rules penalizing the importation of a second private vehicle free of tax by requiring the immediate payment of the customs duties and charges normally applicable and payment of a surcharge of an amount equal to those duties and charges - Not permissible (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
4 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides may be granted in respect of more than one private vehicle per person.
First, the Directive does not place any express limit on the number of private vehicles for which exemption may be claimed, nor is any such limitation evident from the wording of Article 3.
Second, such a limitation is liable to hinder freedom of movement of persons resident within the Community, whereas the objective pursued by the directive is the elimination of obstacles to the establishment of an internal market resulting from the taxation arrangements applied to the temporary importation of certain means of transport for private or business use.
5 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another has direct effect and confers on individuals rights which they may assert against a Member State that has failed to transpose that directive into domestic law, or has transposed it incorrectly, and which the national courts must safeguard.
That provision - which requires the Member States to grant individuals, subject to the conditions which it specifies, exemption from taxes where they temporarily import certain means of transport for private use - appears, as far as its subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional in so far as it is not qualified by any condition and is not made subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any measure either by the Community institutions or by the Member States, and is unequivocal, that is to say, sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the courts.
6 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as precluding domestic legislation under which the customs duties and other taxes applicable together with additional duty equal to the amount of those duties and taxes are to be payable immediately where a second private vehicle is imported temporarily. National legislation cannot penalize such temporary importation, which is authorized by that provision, without undermining the effect of the Directive.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Lauritzen Reefers v Ocean Reef Transport Ltd SA; ComC 5-Jun-1997 - [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 744;; [1998] CLY 4412
 
National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia v Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912 Aktieselskab and Anr [1997] EWCA Civ 1923
20 Jun 1997
CA

Contract, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Owners of Ship Anangel Horizon v Owners of Ship Forest Duke [1997] EWCA Civ 2010
2 Jul 1997
CA

Transport

[ Bailii ]

 
 Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration and Another v Bouygues Offshore Sa and Others; Ultisol et Cetera v Same (4); AdCt 3-Jul-1997 - Times, 03 July 1997; Gazette, 17 September 1997; [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep 507; [1997] CLC 1463
 
SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf v Bundesrepublik Deutschland C-248/95; [1997] EUECJ C-248/95; [1997] ECR I-4475
17 Jul 1997
ECJ

European, Transport
ECJ Inland waterway transport - Structural improvements - Contributions to Scrapping Fund - Validity of Community legislation
[ Bailii ]
 
Texaco v Middelfart Havn and others and Olieselskabet Danmark v Trafikministeriet and others C-114/95; [1997] EUECJ C-114/95; [1997] ECR I-4263
17 Jul 1997
ECJ

European, Transport
Maritime transport - Goods duty - Import surcharge
[ Bailii ]
 
Louis v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 21 July 1997
21 Jul 1997
QBD

Transport
Doctors certificate re blood sample admissible when service requirements waived by defendant; no signature on certificate.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 16


 
 Blue Nile Shipping Co Ltd; Mohamed Kamal Ali Khalil v Iguana Shipping and Finance Inc Owners of the Ship Happy Fellow; CA 25-Jul-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 2192; [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 13

 
 Williams v Richards; QBD 29-Jul-1997 - Times, 29 July 1997
 
Owners of Cargo Lately Laden Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line Limited Gazette, 03 September 1997; Times, 29 July 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2105
29 Jul 1997
CA

Transport
Liability under the Hague Convention is limited by the number of cargo packets where so listed, and not by the number of containers.
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 - Hague Rules 1922 Art IV r 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
International Marine Sales Incorp Unreported, 29 July 1997
29 Jul 1997
AdCt
Clarke J
Transport
ComC Action in rem. Arrest set aside. Standard of proof. Not arguable that owners liable for bunkers. Bunkers suppliers arrested ship to recover payment for bunkers ordered by time charterers. Owners not liable in personam for bunkers. Plaintiffs had no arguable case that owners liable. It followed that arrest should be set aside.

 
Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship Guiseppe Di Vittorio Bridge Oil Ltd v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship Guiseppe Di Vittorio [1997] EWCA Civ 2328
5 Sep 1997
CA

Transport

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Global Container Lines ltd v State Black Sea Shipping and Ors Unreported, 11 September 1997
11 Sep 1997
ComC
Mance J
Transport
Agreement for exclusive selling rights over vessel - authority of president of parent company to enter into ratification- whether terms (relating to period etc) sufficiently certain to be enforceable. Repudiation - interlocutory instruction restraining sale through other means.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Bridge Oil Limited v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship Giuseppe Di Vittorio [1997] EWCA Civ 2345
16 Sep 1997
CA

Transport

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 El Al Israel Airlines Ltd v Tsui Yuan Tseng; 16-Sep-1997 - (1999) 525 US 155; 919 FSupp 155; 147 ALRFed 783; 65 USLW 2817; 142 L Ed 2d 576; 119 SCt 662; 122 F3d 99
 
Kanematsu (Hong Kong) Ltd v Eurasia Express Line (a Body Corporate) [1997] EWCA Civ 2354
18 Sep 1997
CA

Transport

[ Bailii ]

 
 H5 Air Service Norway v Civil Aviation Authority; CA 16-Oct-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 2502

 
 Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2); HL 23-Oct-1997 - Gazette, 12 November 1997; Times, 23 October 1997; [1997] UKHL 40; [1997] 4 All ER 380; [1997] 3 WLR 818; [1998] AC 878
 
Bridge Oil Limited v Owners And/Or Demise Charterers of Ship 'Giuseppe De Vittorio Times, 10 November 1997; Gazette, 19 November 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2591
29 Oct 1997
CA

Transport
The ownership of a ship by a sovereign state did not make the ship free from the possibility of arrest for non-payment. The State having operated demise charter, and having failed to comply with convention had lost its state immunity of a ship from arrest.
Supreme Court Act 1981 21(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd ('the Eurus'); CA 18-Nov-1997 - Times, 16 December 1997; Gazette, 08 January 1998; [1997] EWCA Civ 2754; [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 351; [1998] CLC 90
 
LPG Shipping Limited v Worldwide Panama Shipping Inc [1997] EWCA Civ 2747
18 Nov 1997
CA

Transport, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Owners of the ships "SANWA" v The Owners of the ship "CHOYANG STAR" Unreported, 20 November 1997
20 Nov 1997
ComC
Clarke J
Transport
Duties of ships in North and Southbound convoys through Suez Canal. Consideration of local regulations ("Scarn"), it collision regulations and good seamanship.

 
Bridge Oil Ltd v The Owners and/or demise charters of the Ship "Guiseppe Di Vittorio" (No. 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 661
21 Nov 1997
AdCt
Clarke J
Transport
Effect of State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 Court ordered sale of vessel pendente lite on 15th July. Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on 29th October and refused a stay. State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 made on 30th October and came into force on 1st November. Republic submitted that the court should not allow vessel to be sold by reason of paragraph 3 of the Order. Held that paragraph 3 should not be construed as applying to vessels which the court had already ordered to be sold, inter alia, because to do so would be to interfere with or impair plaintiffs' earlier rights under an Order of the court.
State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 3
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
T A Shipping Ltd v Comet Shipping Ltd. "The Agamemnon" [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 675; [1998] CLC 106
25 Nov 1997
ComC
Thomas J
Transport
Laytime - Notice of readiness - commencement of laytime - validity of notice served before vessel arrives at destination. Arbitration - Leave to appeal - service of respondents notice

 
Baghlaf Al Safer Factory Co Br for Industry Ltd v Pakistan National Shipping Company and Another Gazette, 14 January 1998; Times, 17 December 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2955
17 Dec 1997
CA

Transport, International
An exclusive jurisdiction clause in contract remained effective though time barred in other country; jurisdiction declined on waiver of bar. A party with choice of jurisdictions suing here is only to be forced to change the forum after the time limit abroad has expired if the other party waives that time limit.
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.