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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 39 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Brownsville Holdings Ltd v Adamjee Insurance Co Ltd ("The Milasan") [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 458; [2000] EWHC 223 (Comm)
2000

Aikens J
Transport, Insurance
A 90 foot motor yacht sank in calm weather in the course of a voyage from Piraeus to Sardinia with a crew of three: a skipper, an engineer and a deckhand. Held: The owner's insurance claim failed. There had been a breach of warranty in these terms: "Warranted professional skippers and crew in charge at all times." The claimants accepted that this was a promissory warranty – there was no argument that it was a term simply delimiting or describing the risk. Aikens J: "I accept . . that a practical construction must be given to the words of the warranty. I think it is clear that the insurers were concerned to ensure that the vessel was properly looked after all the time, both winter and summer, and wherever she was – whether cruising or in a marina for the winter months.
The 'skipper' together with the 'crew' has to be 'in charge' of the vessel 'at all times'. In my view the wording 'professional skippers and crew to be in charge' means that the skipper and the crew' together are to take care of and manage the vessel; that is the sense in which they are to be 'in charge' of her. They are also to be 'in charge' of the vessel together 'all the time'. The last phrase is . . quite clear. It means that there must be a professional skipper and a crew that looks after the vessel the whole time, as opposed to intermittently or at intervals." As the claimants had not employed anyone who was a "professional skipper" over a period of time, they were in breach of warranty. In summary "On the proper construction of the 'professional skipper warranty' the claimants were obliged to keep a suitably qualified skipper on board the yacht at all times….."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Chitral [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 529
2000

Steel J
Contract, Transport
The PNSC bill of lading named the consignee of goods carried on the defendant’s vessel. Goods were damaged during the voyage. The bill of lading was otherwise in conventional form, but the box in which the consignee was to be named said "If order state notify party" and no notify party was stated. It was nevertheless endorsed to another party. The defendant carrier said that having endorsed the bill, the claimant had no title to sue. The claimant said that its endorsement was ineffective because, since no notify party had been stated, the bill was not to order but a straight bill of lading. The carrier said that the bill remained an order bill because the general printed language of the bill said that delivery was to be "unto the above-mentioned consignee or to his or their assigns". Held: The argument was rejected. The form was drafted to permit its use either as a straight or order bill, and that therefore the more general language "consignee or…assigns" should be understood as subject to the implicit words "as applicable"
1 Citers


 
The Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel 'Starsin' v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel 'Starsin' [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 85
2000
ComC
Colman J
Transport, Contract

1 Citers


 
Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912 Akleselskab ('the Motis) Times, 26 January 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000; [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 211 (CA; [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 91
20 Jan 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Transport, Contract, Commercial
Shippers were liable under a bill of lading. The goods had been obtained from them fraudulently by means of forged bills of lading. They claimed under an exemption clause in the contract, but the claim failed since the exclusions from liability for loss or damage whilst in their possession before loading or after discharge, did not excuse them for what was a deliberate if mistaken act. Under a bill of lading contract a shipowner is both entitled and bound to deliver the goods against production of an original bill of lading, provided he has no notice of any other claim or better title to the goods.
1 Cites


 
Rank Enterprises Ltd and Others v Gerard Gazette, 10 February 2000; Times, 28 February 2000
10 Feb 2000
CA

Transport, Banking
Contracts for the sale of ships were supported by bonds guaranteeing their freedom for delivery. Events arose which affected the ships but for which the sellers were not themselves responsible. The guarantee was intended to operate to protect the buyer against any claim arising before delivery, and was not restricted to events which lay at the door of the vendor.

 
Vehicle Inspectorate v Southern Coaches Ltd and others Times, 23 February 2000
23 Feb 2000
QBD

Transport, European
A coach driver travelled as a passenger in a company coach. He sought to count the time travelling as rest time under his tachograph measurements. The court found however that he would have been available to take over the driving during that period had occasion required. The regulations required the rest to be other than in a moving vehicle, and this interpretation was required properly to give effect to the legislation.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85

 
Northern Shipping Company v Deutsche Seereederei Gmbh and others ("The Kapitan Sakharov") [2000] EWCA Civ 400; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Law Rep 255
3 Mar 2000
CA
Auld LJ, Brooke LJ, Hale LJ
Transport, Insurance
A carrier: (a) should not be exposed to an infinite liability in time; and (b) is not, without more, liable for latent defects in a vessel before it acquired it. The relevant failure to exercise due diligence must relate to the performance of a function undertaken (by the sub-contractor) as a carrier or on behalf of the carrier rather than in an alternative capacity, namely as a shipper.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tempest (t/a Cesspool Sid) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; ChD 16-Mar-2000 - Times, 16 March 2000
 
The Ruta Times, 21 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000
21 Mar 2000
QBD

Insolvency, Transport, Employment
Where a ship-owner became insolvent, and the only remedy for unpaid employees was against the proceeds of sale of the ship, such claims would be granted a priority over lienors of the ship. No formal system can be created compartmentalising such competing claims, but it was characteristic that the employees on the ship once engaged had had to continue. Where several ships were damaged in what was one incident they should be ranked equally.


 
 Nationwide Access Ltd and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; QBD 22-Mar-2000 - Times, 22 March 2000
 
Scindia Steamship Navigation Company Limited Bombay v Nippon Yusen Kaisha Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 93
28 Mar 2000
CA

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
MacGay Limited v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Harrogate Borough Council v Heather I've Associates; JJ Harrison (Properties) Limited v Swayfields Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 330
14 Apr 2000
Admn

Planning, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Nugent, Killick, Executors of Harding, Dec v Michael Goss Aviation Limited and others [2000] EWCA Civ 130
14 Apr 2000
CA
Auld, Pill LJJ, Dyson J
Transport, Personal Injury
Appeal from strike out of elements of claim.
[ Bailii ]
 
B S and N Limited (BVI) v Micado Shipping Limited (Malta) ('The Seaflower') [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 37
19 Apr 2000

Timothy Walker J
Transport
A time charterparty was dated 20 October 1997 for a period of 11 months, maximum 12 months at charterers' option. It referred to various major oil company approvals, including that of Mobil, all on the point of expiring, and provided that if, during the charter term, the owners lost one of these approvals, they should reinstate the same within 30 days failing which the charterers would be at liberty to cancel the charterparty. The owners also guaranteed to obtain an approval from Exxon within 60 days of the charter date. The vessel was duly delivered but the owners had not obtained an Exxon approval from Exxon and did not do so within 60 days from the charter date. On 30 December 1997 the charterers fixed the vessel to load a cargo of Exxon products. On the same date the charterers asked the owners if they had obtained the Exxon approval and gave notice requiring the owners to obtain it by 5 January 1998. The owners replied that the vessel would be ready for Exxon inspection by late January or early February. The charterers responded by terminating the charter and redelivering the vessel. At a first hearing Aikens J held that the 60-day guarantee was an innominate term, not a condition, and the charterers were not entitled to terminate, and had repudiated the charterparty, which the owners had accepted. In subsequent proceedings the owners sought damages for wrongful termination, claiming the difference between the daily hire rates in the charter and the alternative employment found for the vessel for the rest of the charter period. The charterers contended that the owners would have lost their Mobil approval on 27 January 1998 and would not have been able to regain it within 30 days, namely 26 February: therefore the charterers would be contractually entitled to cancel, and the owners' damages should end then. Held: Timothy Walker J discussed the three judgments in the Mihalis Angelos, discounting Megaw LJ's formulation as that of a minority, but found on the facts, as established at 30 December 1997, that the owners would have lost the Mobil approval on 27 January 1998. This was supported by evidence of what actually happened after 30 December. The charter would have come to an end on 26 February, and the court limited the owners' damages accordingly.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Rolls Royce Ltd and another v Heavylift-Volga Dnepr Ltd and another Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 26 April 2000
26 Apr 2000
QBD

Transport, Damages
There is no effective difference between the words 'aerodrome' and 'airport'. One is merely an old-fashioned version of the other. Where goods were damaged when the carriers storage agents sought to lift them. By that time, the carriage of the goods by air had begun, and the Warsaw convention applied with the effect of limiting the damages to be awarded.
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929


 
 Clarke (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks; MacLeod (Inspector of Taxes) v Same; Guild (Inspector of Taxes) v Newrick and Another; ChD 3-May-2000 - Times, 03 May 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000
 
Trade Green Shipping Inc v Securitas Bremer Allgermeine Versicherungs A G [2000] EWHC Commercial 104
9 May 2000
ComC
Moore-Bick J
Transport

[ Bailii ]

 
 Western Digital Corporation; Western Digital (Singapore) Ltd and Western Digital Netherlands and British Airways Plc; CA 12-May-2000 - Times, 28 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 153

 
 Applied Implants Technology Ltd and Others v Lufthansa Cargo Ag and Others; CA 17-May-2000 - Times, 17 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000
 
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v Customs and Excise Gazette, 31 May 2000
31 May 2000
ChD

VAT, Transport
The appellant operated a passenger ferry which began and finished within EU member states, but passed through international waters. They contended that goods sold otherwise than for immediate consumption were supplied outside the EU, and therefore were exempt supplies. It was held that to achieve that a call at a port outside the EU would be necessary. In the absence of such a call, the supplies were taxable according to the VAT laws of the port of embarkation.

 
Eridania Spa, ; Cia Emiliana De Exportacion Sa; Feruzzi Overseas SA Panama; Samor Spa v Rudolf a Oetker and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 184
8 Jun 2000
CA
Waller, Clarke,LJJ, Sir Stuart-Smith
Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Thyssen Inc v Calypso Shipping Corp Sa [2000] EWHC B20 (Comm)
23 Jun 2000
ComC
David Steel J
Transport, Limitation
Application by the Claimants, who were receivers of a steel cargo, for a declaration that their claim against the Respondents, who were the owners of the carrying ship, is not time-barred. In the alternative, the Claimants seek an extension of time to commence arbitration proceedings pursuant to Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Another Times, 04 July 2000; Gazette, 06 July 2000
4 Jul 2000
ChD

Transport, Local Government
Historically, powers had been granted to the authority, as riparian owners of the port, but powers had also been given to what had since become the Port Authority. The Authority had been given power to regulate traffic in the river, and to charge for moorings. The local authority could not control the grant of such mooring rights by the Port authority, nor levy its own charges. The rights given by statute to the Port Authority over-rode the land owner's rights.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Thyssen inc v Calypso Shipping Corporation SA Gazette, 06 July 2000; Times, 17 August 2000
6 Jul 2000
QBD

Transport, Arbitration
A claim had been brought in the US, in respect of damage to materials being carried on board a ship. The claim was begun within the one year limit, but the respondents had the US action stayed after the one year, by virtue of a breach of the arbitration clause. The claimant sought to renew the application in London, but failed. Held: The time limit had passed, and the action which had been stayed could not count as having begun proceedings because the way in which it came to an end meant it was no longer valid and effective.

 
Regina and Northampton Borough Council ex parte Northampton Rapid Transit System [2000] EWHC Admin 367
10 Jul 2000
Admn

Planning, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
A Meredith Jones and Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd ("The Apostolis") [2000] EWCA Civ 213; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 337; [2000] CLC 1488
11 Jul 2000
CA
Waller LJ,
Transport, Contract
The proper construction of a contractual clause must not consider that clause in isolation, but must consider the clause in the context of the contract as a whole.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
King v Bristow Helicopters Limited [2001] 1 LLR 95; [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 95; 2001 SCLR 393; [2000] ScotCS 195
12 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord President, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Reed
Scotland, Personal Injury, Transport
The pursuer and reclaimer sought damages as reparation for "loss, injury and damage" which he claims to have suffered as the result of his involvement in an incident on 22 December 1993. At the relevant time the pursuer was a passenger on board a helicopter chartered by the defenders.
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Tradigrain SA and Others v King Diamond Marine Limited The Spiros C [2000] EWCA Civ 217
13 Jul 2000
CA
Lord Justice Henry, Lord Justice Brooke And Lord Justice Rix
Transport, Contract
The owner of a ship, the defendant, sought payment direct. The time charterer had become insolvent, but the ship had been sub-chartered to the claimant. The owner sought to exercise his lien over the cargo, but the sub-charterer had discharged his own liabilities. Held: The ship owner was obliged to discharge, and to do so within a reasonable time. A general incorporation of a charter party's terms into a bill of lading only incorporates terms relating to the shipment, carriage and discharge of the cargo, and not other terms. Even if a term that a shipper is responsible for discharging can be implied into a standard bill of lading, a regime is not to be implied in a bill of lading which would excuse a shipper from liability for discharge and place it solely on a receiver or charterer.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Comatra Limited Arabian Bulk Trade Limited v Various Underwriters [2000] EWCA Civ 244
31 Jul 2000
CA

Insurance, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Linster and Others Times, 05 October 2000; [2000] ECR I-6917; [2000] EUECJ C-287/98
19 Sep 2000
ECJ

Environment, Transport
Where a road or other development project would have a substantial impact on the environment, a law passed by a member state authorising the construction to proceed but which was in the absence of an impact assessment, was not in compliance with the Directive. It was not possible to bypass the procedure by use of special statutory powers. The Directive did not apply where its purposes were satisfied by a statutory process, but that implied the need for that process to produce a similar investigation.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Autriche C-205/98 C-205/98; [2000] EUECJ C-205/98
26 Sep 2000
ECJ

European, Transport
(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/89/EEC - Tolls - Brenner motorway - Prohibition of discrimination - Obligation to set toll rates by reference to the costs of the infrastructure network concerned
Directive 93/89/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom Case C-359/97 Times, 10 October 2000
10 Oct 2000
ECJ

VAT, Transport, European
The UK had not complied with its obligations to the commission with regard to VAT in that it had failed to apply VAT to the collection of tolls on the use of roads and bridges where operated privately. The fact that similar operations were carried out by public bodies which would be exempt was insufficient to cause private operators to be exempt. Because the UK had failed to collect these sums, its accounting with the Commission was also in error.

 
Regina v Ayodeji Times, 20 October 2000
20 Oct 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Transport
The offence of being drunk on board an aircraft can include allegations that the behaviour was the cause of fear in other passengers, without the offence being charged as endangering the aircraft. The offence carried a heavy maximum penalty precisely because these consequences of terror and insecurity in the minds of fellow passengers naturally followed from such behaviour. The offence in this case was persistent and flagrant and the sentence of eight months imprisonment was appropriate.
Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970) - Civil Aviation Act 1982 60 61

 
King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd Times, 25 October 2000
25 Oct 2000
IHCS

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport
The definition 'any other bodily harm' contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

 
Norma J Disley v Marc Levine Unreported, 9 November 2000
9 Nov 2000
QBD

Transport
A trainee paraglider pilot was injured, and claimed against the instructor. He replied that her claim was out of time as a passenger of an air transport undertaking. The court held that his activities did not fall within the concepts of the Convention, and the claim was not time-barred.
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 No 480 - Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 - Civil Aviation Act 1982
1 Citers


 
B S and N Limited (BVI) v Micado Shipping Limited (Malta) ('The Seaflower') [2000] EWCA Civ 296
22 Nov 2000
CA

Transport, Damages, Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH Times, 01 December 2000; C-387/98; [2000] ECR I-9337; [2000] EUECJ C-387/98
1 Dec 2000
ECJ

Jurisdiction, Transport, European
When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill of lading to be decided in the country where the carrier had his principal place of business. The requirement under the convention, that the parties should have should of "agreed" the jurisdiction was satisfied where they had agreed a method of establishing it. The Brussels convention applied only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract was domiciled in the contracting state and, second, the parties agreed to submit any dispute before the Court of a contracting state.
"The Court has held that, by making the validity of a jurisdiction clause subject to the existence of an 'agreement' between the parties, article 17 of the Convention imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining first whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and that the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by article 17 is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established . . "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hill Harmony); HL 8-Dec-2000 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 08 December 2000; [2000] UKHL 62; [2001] 1 All ER 403; [2000] 3 WLR 1954; [2001] CLC 502; [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 147; [2001] AC 638; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 76
 
Regina (Holding and Barnes Plc) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Premier Leisure UK Limited) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Alconbury) etc Times, 24 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 432; [2000] EWHC 563 (QB)
13 Dec 2000
Admn
Tuckey LJ, Harrison J
Human Rights, Transport, Land, Planning
The court was asked whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Held: A declaration of incompatibility was granted with regard to the processes by which the Secretary of State made decisions under the Planning Act and orders under the Transport and Works Act, Highways Act and Acquisition of Land Act. They were incompatible with article 6.1 of the Convention on the basis that the processes failed to provide an independent tribunal. In some cases, the decisions being challenged were those in effect of the Secretary, and the decision was made by somebody appointed by the subject to removal by the secretary of state. The restrictions on the scope of the High Court to review the decisions and the freedom of the Secretary of State to make his own decision after a public hearing, meant that applicants were deprived of the an independent tribunal.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - Acquisition of Land Act 1981 - European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) - Highways Act 1980 - Transport and Works Act 1992
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.