Munitions were being carried to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. Some was jettisoned in a fire and the remainder was damaged. The cargo owners sought damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading, as to the jettisoned cargo only. The defendants were held liable for the value of the undelivered cargo. The plaintiffs then sued in rem in London for the total loss. The claim in the Indian action was for short delivery and was advanced under one of the two bills of lading under which the consignment was shipped, pleading negligence in the shipowners. This was taken to refer to a breach of their duty as bailees (carriers for reward). It was either common ground (or found by the Indian judge) that the contract incorporated the Hague Rules. The claim in the English action was in the ordinary form for a damage to cargo claim, alleging against the shipowners (1) breach of contract and/or duty as carrier by sea for reward to deliver the goods in like good order and condition as when shipped; (2) negligence, in breach of duty as carriers and/or as bailees for reward; and (3) breach of their obligations under article III(1) and (2) of the Hague-Visby Rules, which apply to the contracts contained in or evidenced by the two bills of lading under which the goods were shipped. The House considered whether the causes of action alleged in the two actions were the same.
Held: Because the Act operated to bar the commencement of proceedings, rather than to exclude the jurisdiction of the court per se, the parties were entitled to contract explicitly, or by waiver or otherwise to exclude the operation of the Act, and to give jurisdiction to the UK court. The operation of the res judicata doctrine is subject to exception for plea of waiver or estoppel.
Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘the goods in question were shipped under a contract of carriage the terms of which (as set out in the Hague Rules or the Hague-Visby Rules) regulate the respective rights and obligations of the parties. In these circumstances, the mere fact that the pleader can, so to speak, get the case on its feet by alleging short delivery or delivery of the goods not in the like good order and condition as when shipped, does not in my opinion assist. For it is wholly unrealistic to regard the cause of action as being other than a cause of action arising under the contract, which provides for the relevant duties of the shipowners regarding the seaworthiness of the ship and the care of the goods. Even if attention is concentrated on the liability of the shipowner as bailee, the fact remains that he is a bailee for reward, and that accordingly his liability will be governed by the terms of the contract of carriage . . Here . . it is necessary to identify the relevant breach of contract; and if it transpires that the cause of action in the first action is a breach of contract which is the same breach of contract which constitutes the cause of action in the second, then the principle of res judicata applies, and the plaintiff cannot escape from the conclusion by pleading in the second action particulars of damage which were not pleaded in the first.’ and ‘[The present case] is rather concerned with a single incident, i.e., the fire during transit which broke out in the cargo over which the plaintiffs’ consignment of munitions was stowed, which resulted in the damage to that consignment and to loss (by jettison) of a small part of it. Furthermore, as appears from the pleadings, that loss or damage might have resulted from breach of more than one term of the contract, for example breach of the obligation to make the vessel seaworthy under article III, rule 1, of the Hague-Visby Rules, or breach of the obligation to load and stow, etc., the vessel carefully under article III, rule 2. However, for present purposes, there is no need to distinguish between the two breaches; because the factual basis relied upon by the plaintiffs as giving rise to the two breaches is the same, and indeed was referred to compendiously by the plaintiffs in the Cochin action as ‘negligence’. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is identity between the causes of action in the two sets of proceedings.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Gazette 07-Apr-1993, Ind Summary 29-Mar-1993, [1993] 2 WLR 461, [1993] AC 410, [1993] 1 All ER 998
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 34
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Republic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd; The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace CA 1992
Munitions were consigned to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. A fire occurred, and part was jettisoned, the remainder being damaged. The cargo owners first claimed damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading for the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) ChD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of . .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
See Also – Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Grace (No 2) CA 1-May-1996
An action against ship in rem prevents a personal action against the owner; there would be a risk of double jeopardy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.88741