The applicants had a business processing whelks. After the loss of the Sea Empress, an order was made prohibiting the sale of seafood from the area. They appealed a refusal of compensation for their losses. The respondents would be liable to make recompense if the loss could be said to be ‘damage caused by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape’ of oil.
Held: The liability imposed by the Act is limited to the area surrounding the accident. The claim for damage was too remote.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Mance
Citations:
Times 27-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 65, Gazette 03-Apr-2003, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 327, [2003] 1 CLC 325, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 1
Links:
Statutes:
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 Sch4 153, Hague Rules
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Alegrete Shipping Co Inc (Owners of the Ship ‘Sea Empress’) and Another v The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1971 and others AdCt 29-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – Landcatch Limited v The Braer Corporation and Williams and Jones and Hudner and Assurance Foreningen Skuld and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund IHCS 19-May-1999
The pursuers raised freshwater salmon (smolt) to the age of two before selling them on. An oil spill prevented them trading. They appealed a refusal of damages on the baiss that this was pure relational economic loss.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Alegrete Shipping Co Inc (Owners of the Ship ‘Sea Empress’) and Another v The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1971 and others AdCt 29-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Damages
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.179012