Staughton J said: ‘(2) Orders as to employment.
It is well settled that the orders which a charterer is entitled to give, and an owner bound to obey, are orders as to the employment of the vessel. They do not include orders as to navigation, which remains in the control of the owner through his master – at any rate in the absence of special and unusual terms. It follows that a charterer, again in the absence of such terms, is only bound to indemnify the owner against the consequences of orders as to employment, and not of orders as to navigation . . The question here is whether the order to proceed to Dawes Island anchorage was an order as to employment or as to navigation. Seeing that the manifest intention was for the vessel to lighten there by discharging part of her cargo, I am of opinion that it was plainly an order as to employment. By contrast the advice of the pilot as to precisely where the vessel should anchor, if it had been an order and if (which is not suggested) it had been given on behalf of the charterers, would have been an order as to navigation.’
Judges:
Staughton J
Citations:
[1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 180
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Transport
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.462941
