The plaintiffs (respondents) were the holders and indorsees of bills of lading in respect of goods carried on the s.s. ‘Knutsford’ belonging to the appellants. They asked for damages for breach of contract in failure to carry the goods to Vladivostock. The bills of lading contained the following exceptions-‘(2) . . error in judgment, negligence, or default of . . master . . whether in navigating the ship or otherwise . . ; (4) should a port be inaccessible on account of ice, . . or should entry and discharge at a port be deemed by the master unsafe in consequence of war, disturbance, or any other cause, it shall be competent for the masters to discharge goods intended for such port on the ice or at some other safe port or place at the risk and expense of the shippers, consignees, or owners of the goods. . . ‘ The appellants relied upon the portions italicised.
The master of the ‘Knutsford’ tried for three days to enter Vladivostock, but at that time it was impossible because of ice. He considered it unsafe to persist in the attempt owing to the ice and severe weather. He therefore left and discharged the goods at Nagasaki. The day after leaving the approach to Vladivostock the ice dispersed and entry became easy.
Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs was pronounced by Channell, J., and affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Vaughan Williams, Farwell, and Kennedy, L. JJ.). The defendants appealed.
held (1) that ‘error of judgment in navigating the ship or otherwise’ does not cover the master’s erroneous view of the ship’s contractual duties; (2) that ‘inaccessible on account of ice’ means inaccessible without inordinate delay, not merely three days; (3) that ‘unsafe in consequence of war disturbance or any other cause’ does not include danger by perils of the sea.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnagliten, James of Hereford, and Dunedin
Citations:
[1908] UKHL 691, 46 SLR 691
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Transport, Contract
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621519
