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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 53 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Welex Ag v Rosa Maritime Ltd [2002] EWHC 2035 (Comm);; [2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 701
2002
ComC
Steel J
Transport, Jurisdiction
The court granted the respondent an anti-suit injunction to restrain them issuing proceedings in Poland on closely related issues.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Voss v APL Co Pte Limited; 2002 - [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 707
 
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm)
2002
ChD
Langley J
Transport

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sweet v Owners of Blyth Lifeboat; The Edward Duke of Windsor Times, 22 February 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002
22 Jan 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Tomlinson
Limitation, Personal Injury, Transport
A claim which was covered by the Act for damages for psychiatric injury arose not at the date of the accident, but from when the claimant first developed a recognised psychiatric injury. The two year period of limitation under the Act ran accordingly from the later date. Had parliament wished another result, it could easily have been provided for. Instead it made a clear distinction between the date of the accident, and the date of the injury resulting from it.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 190(3)(b)

 
Bayview Motors Ltd v Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd and others [2002] EWHC 21 (Commercial)
23 Jan 2002
ComC

Transport, Insurance
Two consignments of motor vehicles had been misappropriated by customs officers at Santo Domingo. The insurers under a marine insurance policy resisted payment on the basis that the cover was concluded. Held: The occurrences giving rise to the claim occurred before the cover expired.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc [2002] EWHC 27 (Commercial)
25 Jan 2002
ComC

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Seahawk Marine Foods Ltd) v Southampton Port Health Authority Times, 05 February 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 54
31 Jan 2002
CA
Mummery, Buxton and Longmore LLJ
Transport, Consumer
The company sought to import shrimps. The Port Authority had refused entry on the basis that they did not comply with standards of the Directive. The 'aerobic colony counts' in the condemned product exceeded the standards. The regulation did not require there to be shown actual danger, but only potential danger to public health. This accorded with public policy. The appeal succeeded.
Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 3124) 25 - Fishery Products Directive (Council Directive 91/493/EEC)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Voaden v Champion ( 'Baltic Surveyor' ) [2002] EWCA Civ 89; [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 623
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann Lady Justice Hale And Lord Justice Rix
Transport, Evidence, Damages
The 'Baltic Surveyor' was lost at its moorings in a storm. A neighbouring ship had been negligently secured, and freed itself and sank the Baltic Surveyor. The owner appealed findings as to the value of the boat, and securing pontoon. She asserted that the boat chosen for comparison had in fact been sold for more and had been in a lesser condition. The boat was of a unique and historical character. Held: There had been an error as to the sale price of the boat chosen as a comparable. It was argued that the evidence sought to be admitted had been available at trial, and should not now be admitted. Following Ladd, the court applied three tests, that it had not reasonably have been available, that it would have been influential, and that it was credible. Those conditions applied, and a new value was assessed by the court. The appellants argued that the loss of the pontoon should have been treated as the loss of a building rather than a machine. The damages was the cost of replacing the pontoon, not the value of what was lost. The court found the judge's assessment correct, and the damages were assessed on the basis of the remaining life of the pontoon as a chattel. It was not proper to award damages for loss of personal use in top of the award of the full value of the boat.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fortune Hong Kong Trading Ltd v Cosco-Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd "Freja Scandic" [2002] EWHC 79 (Commercial)
6 Feb 2002
ComC

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Fortune Hong Kong Trading Ltd v Cosco-Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd "Freja Scandic" [2002] EWHC 253 (Comm)
6 Feb 2002
ComC

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm)
7 Feb 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cresswell
Transport, Negligence
A fire destroyed the 'Eurasian Dream' while in port. It was carrying cars, a fire in which got out of control. It was claimed that the ship managers had been negligent. The bill of lading contracts in the present case incorporated either the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules. Held: The vessel was unseaworthy because of deficiencies in the crew, and the damage flowed from that deficiency.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 and Another [2002] EWHC 83 (Commercial)
7 Feb 2002
ComC

Transport, Contract, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department v International Transport Roth Gmbh and others; CA 22-Feb-2002 - Times, 26 February 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 158; [2002] 3 WLR 344; [2003] QB 728
 
East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 and Another [2002] EWHC 253 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 239
27 Feb 2002
ComC

Transport, Damages

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Compagnie Generale maritime and others v Commission T-86/95; [2002] EUECJ T-86/95
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European, Transport
ECJ Competition - Liner conferences - Intermodal transport - Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 - Scope - Block exemption - Regulation No 1017/68 - Individual exemption - Fine.
Regulation No 1017/68
[ Bailii ]
 
Atlantic Container Line and others v Commission T-395/94; [2002] EUECJ T-395/94
28 Feb 2002
ECFI
K. Lenaerts, P
European, Transport
ECFI 1. In the case of an agreement between shipping lines on the scheduled transport of containers across the Atlantic between Northern Europe and the United States and on the inland carriage of the containers, the relevant markets directly affected are those in transport services and not that in the export of goods to the United States. The restrictions of competition occur within the common market because it is there that the members of the agreement, including several shipping companies established in the Community, are in competition to sell their services to clients, namely shippers, established in the Community. The fact that certain members of the agreement are not established in the Community does not cast doubt on that conclusion.
2. For an agreement between undertakings to be capable of affecting trade between Member States, it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability and on the basis of objective factors of law or fact that it may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between Member States, such as might prejudice the realisation of the aim of a single market between States. In particular, it is not necessary that the conduct in question should in fact have substantially affected trade between Member States. It is sufficient to establish that the conduct is capable of having such an effect.
3. An agreement between shipping companies, including a number established in the Community, which related to the conditions for the sale of maritime and inland transport services to shippers established in various Member States of the Community is capable of affecting trade between Member States for the purposes of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC).
Furthermore, such an agreement is capable of modifying the pattern of trade in goods transiting through the ports served by the shipping companies which are members of an agreement. As a result, that agreement must be regarded as having affected trade between Member States, over and above the trade consisting of only maritime transport services, since port and auxiliary services linked to the carriage of goods were also affected.
Finally, although more indirectly, the relevant agreement has, or at the very least is capable of having, an effect on the trade in goods between Member States, in so far as the transport prices fixed by the agreement represent a proportion of the end selling price of the goods transported.
4. An agreement can qualify for the exemption provided for in Article 3 of Regulation No 4056/86 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport only if it is a liner conference agreement.
The existence of a liner conference within the meaning of Regulation No 4056/86 depends on the charging of uniform or common freight rates by its members.
5. Having regard to the general principle of the prohibition of agreements restricting competition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC), provisions derogating therefrom in an exempting regulation must, by their nature, be strictly interpreted. This conclusion applies, a fortiori, to the provisions of Regulation No 4056/86 relating to maritime transport by virtue of its unlimited duration and the exceptional nature of the restrictions on competition authorised (horizontal agreement having as its object the fixing of prices). It follows that the block exemption provided for by Article 3 of Regulation No 4056/86 cannot be interpreted broadly and progressively so as to cover all the agreements which shipping companies deem it useful, or even necessary, to adopt in order to adapt to market conditions. The exemption can relate only to the types of agreement which the Council, when Regulation No 4056/86 was adopted, regarded, in the light of experience, as satisfying the conditions of Article 85(3) of the Treaty. Apart from the power enjoyed by the Council, if the need arose, to amend Regulation No 4056/86, the undertakings concerned also always have the option to apply for an individual exemption to offset any disadvantages of the limitations inherent in the block exemption.
6. The definition of liner conference in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation No 4056/86 was taken word for word from the United Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences. That code thus constitutes an important point of reference for the interpretation of the concept of liner conference referred to in Regulation No 4056/86.
7. By its very nature and in the light of its objectives, a liner conference, as defined by the Council for the purposes of qualification for block exemption under Regulation No 4056/86, can be characterised as a collective entity which presents itself as such on the market vis-à-vis both users and competitors.
The conference puts itself forward as an entity on the market since it fixes uniform freight rates for all its members, in the sense that the same price will be charged for the carriage of the same cargo from point A to point B, regardless of which shipowning member of the conference is responsible for carriage.
By contrast, an agreement between carriers providing for a scheme of tariffs which vary according to the members cannot be regarded as a liner conference under Regulation No 4056/86.
8. Liner conferences qualify for a block exemption because of their stabilising effect. That stability is best ensured if all the members of the conference adopt uniform freight rates rather than if there are several rates according to the members concerned. A uniform level of freight rates within the conference also allows users, account of whose interests is also a requirement for the exemption, to be assured of being able to obtain the transport service at the same price, whichever conference member it approaches. That interest of the shippers in having access to a reference rate in respect of a particular commodity is appreciably reduced if the members of the conference do not charge one rate, but two or more, in respect of the same product.
That interpretation of the concept of liner conference is not inconsistent with the possibility for a conference member to take independent action. That action is fundamentally different from the system of differentiated prices. The taking of independent action, which enables a conference member, subject to notice, to offer, for a specific product, a lower freight rate than that in the conference tariff, does not create another level of prices which may be generally charged, since that action concerns only a single ad hoc transaction. The stabilising effect of the existence of uniform or common freight rates for all conference members therefore continues in the event of independent action, whereas it is undermined where the conference tariff, which lists all the freight rates applicable, is replaced by a system of rates which vary according to the members.
Furthermore, the possibility of fixing different levels of prices makes it possible to attract into the group shipping lines which, without that flexibility, would remain independent and this situation is likely to lead to the elimination of external competition; by contrast, the obligation to fix uniform freight rates for all conference members is not such as to encourage all operators to join the conference, which guarantees the existence of external competition.
9. In the context of an action for annulment pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), the review undertaken by the Court of the complex economic appraisals made by the Commission when it exercises the discretion conferred on it by Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), with regard to each of the four conditions laid down in that provision, is necessarily limited to verifying whether the rules on procedure and on the giving of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.
10. Although stability in the maritime transport sector, to the extent that it contributes to assuring shippers of reliable services, may be an advantage for the purposes of the first condition of Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), the Commission cannot be obliged to grant individual exemption to every agreement between shipping lines which, in the opinion of the parties, may contribute to such stability. Within the limits imposed by Regulation No 4056/86, the Commission retains its discretion in applying Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
11. The four conditions for granting an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC) are cumulative and therefore non-fulfilment of only one of those conditions will render it necessary to refuse the exemption.
12. In assessing an agreement with a view to granting an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), the market to be taken into consideration comprises the totality of the products which, with respect to their characteristics, are particularly suitable for satisfying constant needs and are only to a limited extent interchangeable with other products.
In the case of an agreement between shipping lines for the scheduled transport of containers across the Atlantic between Northern Europe and the United States the relevant market is that for containerised liner shipping. The fact that other modes of transport, whether maritime or air, may engage in marginal competition on the market in containerised liner shipping services in respect of a limited number of products, does not mean that, for that reason, they can be regarded as forming part of the same market.
13. The possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the services in question within the meaning of Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), must be assessed as a whole, taking into account in particular the specific characteristics of the relevant market, the restrictions of competition brought about by the agreement, the market shares of the parties to that agreement and the extent and intensity of external competition, both actual and potential. In the context of this comprehensive approach, those different elements are closely interlinked or may balance each other out. Thus, the greater the restrictions of internal competition between the parties, the more necessary it is for external competition to be keen and substantial if the agreement is to qualify for exemption. Similarly, the larger the market shares of the parties to the agreement, the stronger the potential competition must be.
14. In order to determine whether an agreement affords its signatory parties the possibility, in respect of a substantial part of the products in question, of eliminating competition within the meaning of Article 85(3)(b) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3)(b) EC), the Commission cannot, in principle, rely merely on the fact that the agreement in question eliminates competition between those parties and that they account for a substantial part of the relevant market. First, the prohibition on eliminating competition is a narrower concept than that of the existence or acquisition of a dominant position, so that an agreement could be regarded as not eliminating competition within the meaning of Article 85(3)(b) of the Treaty, and therefore qualify for exemption, even if it established a dominant position for the benefit of its members. Second, potential competition must be taken into consideration before concluding that an agreement eliminates competition for the purposes of Article 85(3) of the Treaty. Taking into account and analysing external competition, both actual and potential, is all the more necessary where it is a question of examining whether an agreement between shipping companies fixing maritime transport rates qualifies for individual exemption under Article 12 of Regulation No 4056/86.
15. Interveners must, under Article 116(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, accept the case as they find it at the time of their intervention and their submissions in an application to intervene are, under the fourth paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, limited to supporting the submissions of one of the main parties, an intervener is not entitled to raise a plea in law that was not raised by the applicant.
16. In a decision finding that the provisions of an agreement between shipping lines fixing the rates and conditions of maritime transport infringe the Treaty's competition rules, an order compelling the undertakings concerned to inform customers with whom they have concluded service contracts and other contractual relations in the context of that agreement that such customers are entitled, if they so wish, to renegotiate the terms of those contracts or to terminate them forthwith, which was not obviously necessary and does not correspond to an established line of Commission decisions, requires that institution expressly to set out its reasoning.
Even if that order may be regarded as necessary for re-establishing compliance with the law and as coming within the limits of the Commission's power to order the undertakings concerned, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulations No 1017/68 and No 4056/86, to bring such infringement to an end, the statement of objections should in any event have set out, even briefly, but in sufficiently clear terms, the measures which the Commission intended to take in order to bring an end to the infringements and should have given the applicants all the information necessary in order to enable them properly to defend themselves before the Commission adopted a final decision on that point. That conclusion is all the more necessary where the individual service contracts account for a substantial part of the turnover of the undertakings concerned and the obligation to renegotiate with customers could thus have significant consequences for those undertakings, and could even amount to a penalty more serious than a fine.
[ Bailii ]
 
Siboeva v Mv Vitastar, the Owners of the [2002] EWHC 370 (Admlty)
12 Mar 2002
Adct

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Strive Shipping Corporation and Another v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association "Grecia Express" [2002] EWHC 203 (Comm); [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 669; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 213; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 88
25 Mar 2002
ComC

Transport, Insurance

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Quantum Corporation Inc and Others v Plane Trucking Ltd and Another Times, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 350; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 25
27 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Latham
Damages, Transport
A valuable cargo was stolen whilst being transported. Part of the journey was by road, and part by air. The carriers sought to limit their liability, because of the provisions of the Act and Convention. It was argued that that did not apply, because part of the journey had been by air, and part only by road. Did liability depend upon the carrier having explicitly contracted to transport part way by road, and could a convention contract include a part transport by means other than road? Held: The Convention applied to a "contract for the carriage of goods by road". Authority established that the Convention applied where the carrier either promised unconditionally to carry by road, and on a trailer, possibly reserving an option to transport by different means for all or part of the way and left the means open, so that carriage by road was a possibility. It applied here, and remained open to the claimants to argue under article 29 that the limitation should not apply because of the way it had happened.
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road Art 1, 17, 29 - Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co Sa [2002] EWHC 593 (Commercial); [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403
17 Apr 2002
ComC
Langley J
Transport
A straight bill of lading did not fall within section 1(4) of the 1971 Act and article I (b) of the Rules.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC - Proposed agreement between the European Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area C-1/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European, Transport
International agreements - Agreement between the Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area - Rules in the agreement identical to the corresponding Community rules - Court to ascertain whether there are adequate measures for the purpose of preserving the autonomy of the Community legal order - Scope - International agreements - Agreement between the Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area - Agreement not affecting the essential character of the powers of the Community and its institutions - Compatibility of the provisions of the agreement with the EC Treaty. International agreements - Agreement between the Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area - Mechanisms relating to the uniform interpretation of the rules of the agreement and to the resolution of disputes - Mechanisms not having the effect of binding the Community and its institutions, in the exercise of their internal powers, to a particular interpretation of the rules of Community law replicated by the agreement - Compatibility with the EC Treaty

 
Todd and Others v Adams and Another Times, 03 May 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 293; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1
18 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Neuberger
Transport, Health and Safety, Damages, Litigation Practice
The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen's families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that limitation. Held: A breach of the safety rules did not give rise to a separate cause of action for damages against the ship owners. The system for certifying vessels would sit uneasily with any other interpretation, and a criminal remedy was also provided for. The court distinguished between challenges to conclusions of primary fact or inferences from those facts and an evaluation of those facts.
Mance LJ said: "With regard to an appeal to this court (which would never have involved a complete rehearing in that sense), the language of 'review' may be said to fit most easily into the context of an appeal against the exercise of a discretion, or an appeal where the court of appeal is essentially concerned with the correctness of an exercise of evaluation or judgment—such as a decision by a lower court whether, weighing all relevant factors, a contract of service existed. However, the references in rule 52.11(3)(4) to the power of an appellate court to allow an appeal where the decision below was 'wrong' and to 'draw any inference of fact which it considers justified on the evidence' indicate that there are other contexts in which the court of appeal must, as previously, make up its own mind as to the correctness or otherwise of a decision, even on matters of fact, by a lower court. Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue, it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellant court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission to appeal) that a finding or inference is wrong, the role of an appellate court is to determine whether or not this is so, giving full weight of course to the advantages enjoyed by any judge of first instance who has heard oral evidence. . In the present case, therefore, I consider that (a) it is for us if necessary to make up our own mind about the correctness or otherwise of any findings of primary fact or inferences from primary fact that the judge made or drew and the claimants challenge, while (b) reminding ourselves that, so far as the appeal raises issues of judgment on unchallenged primary findings and inferences, this court ought not to interfere unless it is satisfied that the judge's conclusion lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement is possible. In relation to (a) we must, as stated, bear in mind the important and well-recognised reluctance of this court to interfere with a trial judge on any finding of primary fact based on the credibility or reliability of oral evidence. In the present case, however, while there was oral evidence, its content was largely uncontentious."
Neuberger J stressed that the question whether there was a contract of service on the facts involved the weighing up of a series of factors.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 185(1) - Fishing (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (SI 1975 No 330) 16
1 Citers


 
Welex Ag v Rosa Maritime Ltd [2002] EWHC 762 (Commercial); [2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 81
25 Apr 2002
ComC
David Steel J
Transport, Arbitration

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
G Bosman (Transport) Ltd v LKW Walter International Transport Organisation Ag [2002] EWCA Civ 850
1 May 2002
CA

Transport
Loss of cargoes.
[ Bailii ]
 
Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming 'The Happy Ranger' [2002] EWCA Civ 694; [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 357
17 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Tuckey And Lord Justice Rix
Transport, Damages
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules. Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should be read so as to reflect the clearly expressed intention of the parties. The bill of lading is the bedrock on which the mandatory code is founded. Did it contain the terms required. This was a contract for carriage, and not a charterparty. The rules did therefore apply obligatorily, the limitation of liability applied, and the appeal succeeded.
Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1971
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Winsor v Bloom and Others; In re Railtrack plc (in railway administration) [2002] EWHC 1027 (Ch)
21 May 2002
ChD

Transport, Insolvency

Railways Act 1993 59
[ Bailii ]
 
Alegrete Shipping Co Inc (Owners of the Ship "Sea Empress") and Another v The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1971 and others [2002] EWHC 1095 (Admlty)
29 May 2002
AdCt
David Steel J
Transport, Insurance
The claimants sought recovery of their loss profits under an insurance policy, after the loss of the Sea Empress. Held: Their claim for loss of profits did not constitute "damage caused …. by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape" of oil from the Sea Empress within the meaning of the section.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 Sch4 153
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
'David Agmashenebeli', Owners of the Cargo v Owners of the Ship [2002] EWHC 104 (Admlty)
31 May 2002
AdCt

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Internaut Shipping Gmbh v Fercometal Sarl [2002] EWHC 1230 (Comm)
21 Jun 2002
ComC
David Steel J
Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd v TCI Trans Commodities Ag [2002] EWHC 1268 (Comm)
25 Jun 2002
ComC

Transport
Claim for alleged damage to cargo on board ship.
[ Bailii ]
 
Flightline v Secretario de Estado dos Transportes e Communicacoes C-181/00; [2002] EUECJ C-181/00
9 Jul 2002
ECJ
F. Macken R P
European, Transport
ECJ Articles 3(2) and 4(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Imposition of public service obligations on scheduled air services serving a peripheral region - Compatibility with Member States' power to restrict cabotage until 1 April 1997 - Interpretation of Article 1(e) of Decision 94/698/EC
Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm)
11 Jul 2002
ComC

Transport, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Flacker Shipping Ltd v Glencore Grain Ltd (Happy Day) [2002] EWCA Civ 1068; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 487; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 896
15 Jul 2002
CA
Potter, Arden LJJ, Sir Denis Henry
Transport, Arbitration

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dover Harbour Board v Owners of the Star Maria [2002] EWHC 1423 (Admlty)
16 Jul 2002
AdCt

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Thames Trains Ltd v The Health and Safety Executive [2002] EWHC 1415 (QB)
23 Jul 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morland
Health and Safety, Transport

[ Bailii ]

 
 Nima SARL v The Deves Insurance Public Company Ltd; The Prestrioka; CA 30-Jul-2002 - Gazette, 03 October 2002; Times, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1132; [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 327
 
HDS Viscaya As v Bryggen Shipping and Trading As [2002] EWHC 1678 (Comm)
7 Aug 2002
ComC
Nigel Teare QC J
Transport
Claim under charterparty.
[ Bailii ]
 
Welburn v Evert-M Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 2034 (Admlty)
10 Oct 2002
AdCt

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Withers v Delaney and Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland C-158/01; [2002] EUECJ C-158/01
14 Oct 2002
ECJ

Transport, Personal Injury, Insurance
Order - reference for a preliminary ruling: Circuit Court, County of Cork - Ireland.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Judgment) C-327/01; [2002] EUECJ C-327/01
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Transport
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement Directive 98/20/EC.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Confederation of Passenger Transport UK v Humber Bridge Board; Admn 1-Nov-2002 - [2002] EWHC 2261 (Admin)
 
Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions v Snowdon Times, 04 December 2002; Gazette, 06 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2394 (Admin)
4 Nov 2002
QBD
Pleming QC
Transport, Licensing
The Secretary of State appealed a finding that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence to drive a passenger carrying vehicle, despite his conviction for two offences of indecent assault on a girl under 15, and his name being entered on the sex offenders' register. Held: There was no provision which would automatically disqualify the applicant from holding a licence. The magistrate had to make a decision in the light of the particular circumstances both private and commercial, and here, it would have been wrong to deny him the opportunity to have heard in his support, his employer who had continued to employ him.
Road Traffic Act 1988 121(1)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland, supported by the Kingdom of The Netherlands, Intervener Times, 08 November 2002; C-466/98; [2002] EUECJ C-466/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

Transport, European, Commercial
The defendant state had entered into agreements with the USA before entering the EU, which agreements regulated the rights of airplanes flying between the UK and America to land at British airports. The agreements were challenged by the Commission. Held: The EC Treaty provided that any such arrangement had to be abolished, insofar as it discriminated in favour of national airlines, and against those based in other member states. Such an arrangement could not be justified on public policy grounds.
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral agreement with the United States of America - Agreement authorising the United States of America to revoke, suspend or limit the traffic rights of air carriers designated by the United Kingdom which are not owned by the latter or its nationals - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC).
[ Bailii ]
 
Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd v Boneset Shipping Company Ltd 'Mv Pamphilos' [2002] EWHC 2292 (Comm)
7 Nov 2002
ComC

Transport, Arbitration
Appeal against charterer's contract arbitration award: "Although applications for leave to appeal under Section 69 are normally on paper without an oral hearing, the course adopted in the present case of hearing oral argument on the application for leave at the same hearing as for the Section 68 application, is a sensible and more cost efficient approach, particularly having regard to the fact that the underlying facts and legal submissions relevant to both applications are so closely related."
Arbitration Act 1986 69
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bayview Motors Ltd v Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Company Ltd and others Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003
7 Nov 2002
CA
Tuckey, Hale, LJJ, Sir Denis Henry
Insurance, Transport
Two consignments of motor vehicles were protected in transit by a marine insurance. They were misappropriated at the port of landing. The insurers appealed a finding that the cars were still insured. Held: The theft by an officer of the state did not amount to a seizure. The transit clause had to be looked at as a whole. It referred to movement to a named destination. Where the consignment was to go to one place and then another, cover only ended under the clause when collected by the consignee.
Institute Cargo Clauses
1 Cites


 
Medway Council and Kent County Council, Essex County Council, Mead; Fossett v Secretary of State for Transport [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admn); [2003] JPL 583; [2002] 49 EG 123
26 Nov 2002
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay <
Administrative, Planning, Transport

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Margolle and Another v Delta Maritime Company Ltd and others [2002] EWHC 2452 (Admlty)
28 Nov 2002
AdCt

Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
P&O Nedlloyd Ltd and Another v M and M Militzer and Munch Internation Holding AG [2002] EWHC 2622 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 503
6 Dec 2002
ComC
Cresswell J
Contract, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
CMA CGM S A v Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft 'Northern Pioneer' Schiffahrtgesellschaft Mbh and Co and others Times, 31 December 2002
18 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Rix, Lord Phillips MR
Arbitration, Transport
The Charterers appealed a refusal to allow an appeal from a decision in an arbitration. Held: The 1979 Act changed the situation fundamentally. The test was not just whether the decision was probably wrong, but the wider test allowed an appeal on a point of general public importance, provided only that the decision allowed of some doubt. Applications for leave should be written, and concise. The statutory criteria were not to be amplified by changing practice. The question here related to the need to exercise within a reasonable time, any right to withdraw from a charterparty in the event of war. A charterparty is a joint enterprise, and one party should not be left with a prolonged right to withdraw. There was no sufficient doubt in this case to allow leave to appeal to be given.
Arbitration Act 1979 81
1 Cites


 
CMA Cgm S A v Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft 'Northern Pioneer' and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1878
18 Dec 2002
CA

Transport, Arbitration
Cancllation of charterparty - war cancellation clause
[ Bailii ]
 
Rowland v The Environment Agency Times, 28 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2785 (Ch)
19 Dec 2002
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
Transport, Land
Public rights of Navigation have since time immemorial at common law existed over the Thames including (unless and until extinguished or ceasing to be exercisable) Hedsor Water. The claimant sought a declaration that rights of navigation over that part of the Thames had been extinguished. Held: The various statutory provisions had not granted to the respondent any power to remove rights of navigation. The 1885 Act did not apply and gave the claimant no assistance. The agreement restricting access had not been in place for twenty years, and had only been of a temporary nature. No legitimate expectation that public rights had been extinguished could be established, because the respondent had no statutory power to extinguish rights.
Thames Preservation Act 1885 2 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Icon Navigation Corp v Sinochem International Petroleum (Bahamas) Co Ltd [2002] EWHC 2812 (Comm)
19 Dec 2002
ComC

Transport
Shipping - ASBATANKVOY clause
[ Bailii ]
 
In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation Times, 17 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2825 (QB)
20 Dec 2002
QBD
Nelson J
Personal Injury, Transport, European, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
The claimants claimed to have suffered deep vein thrombosis having been sat in cramped conditions for long periods whilst travelling by air. They sought compensation, saying that the failure by the airlines to warn them and take steps to minimise the dangers was culpable. Under the Convention they had to establish that the injuries constituted accidents. Held: The injuries were not accidents. The test was set out in Morris, namely 'a simple criterion of causation by an accident'. An accident is 'an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger' (Saks). There was nothing in the respective flights which satisfied these tests. Article 17 was not fault based, nor was any theory of risk allocation to be applied, and the Convention was the exclusive remedy. Neither Human Rights law nor European regulations provided alternative remedies.
Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929 17 - Carriage by Air Act 1961 - EC Regulation 2027/97/EC on air carrier liability in the event of accidents - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

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