Persons employed by a carrier in the work of keeping or making a vessel seaworthy are the carrier’s agents whose diligence or lack of it is attributable to the carrier. A shipowner’s or carrier’s duty under Article III, Rule 1 would not start and he would not be responsible for work carried out until the transfer of ownership, or possession of the vessel, or until the vessel came into his ‘orbit’, service or ‘control’.
Considered decisions of foreign courts, in particular appellate decisions, should be treated as persuasive in order to strive for uniformity of interpretation of international conventions.
Lord Radcliffe said: ‘It is plain to me that this conclusion turns on the consideration that the causative carelessness took place at a time before the carrier’s obligation under article III (1) had attached and in circumstances, therefore, when the builders and their men could not be described as agents for the carrier ‘before and at the beginning of the voyage to . . make the ship seaworthy’. This is a tenable position for those who engage themselves upon the work of bringing the ship into existence. The carrier’s responsibility for the work itself does not begin until the ship comes into his orbit, and it begins then as a responsibility to make sure by careful and skilled inspection that what he is taking into his service is in fit condition for the purpose and, if there is anything lacking that is fairly discoverable, to put it right. This is recognised in the judgment. But if the bad work that has been done is ‘concealed’ and so cannot be detected by any reasonable care, then the lack of diligence to which unseaworthiness is due is not to be attributed to the carrier.’
The contemporary background of a treaty, including the legal position preceding its conclusion, can legitimately be taken into account as part of the context relevant to the interpretation of its terms.
Judges:
Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simonds
Citations:
[1961] AC 807
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v CV Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Happy Ranger’ ComC 9-Feb-2006
A large cylinder part was damaged as it was being loaded on board the Happy Ranger in Italy. A hook on the crane was brittle and did not meet the approriate specification. It had not been tested as required. . .
Cited – Anson v Revenue and Customs SC 1-Jul-2015
Interpretation of Double Taxation Agreements
This appeal is concerned with the interpretation and application of a double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A had been a member of an LLP in Delaware, and he was resident within the UK, but not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.252503
