Tag: Transport

Antwerp United Diamonds; BVBA and Another v Air Europe (A Firm): CA 15 May 1995

The limit for an air carrier’s liability does not apply where there had ben extreme misconduct by the airline.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-May-1995

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 Art 2292)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.77824

Vaditrans v Belgische Staat: ECJ 20 Dec 2017

Transport Transport Social Policy Fundamental Rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Road transport – Driver’s rest periods – Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Article 8(6) and (8) – Whether it is possible to take daily rest periods and reduced weekly rest periods away from base and in a vehicle – Exclusion of regular weekly rest periods

Citations:

C-102/16, [2017] EUECJ C-102/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights, Transport

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.602118

Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Company, and others: CA 24 Jun 1998

A court need not first decide liability before applying grant of limitation of liability decree under the Act. That different Conventions were applied by UK and South Africa did not stop the establishment of a limitation fund for payment of damages allowing a ship release.

Citations:

Times 07-Aug-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1077, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 46, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 461

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Georgian Maritime Corporation v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd ComC 18-Apr-1997
ComC Time charterparty – proper construction – cancellation clause – cancellation – non-delivery . .
Appeal from – Bouygues Offshore S.A. v Caspian Shipping Company and Others; Ultisol Transport Contractors Ltd [v[ Bouygues Offshore S.A. (No. 5) ComC 23-May-1997
Conflict of laws – English exclusive jurisdiction clause in Towcon contract – Proceedings in South Africa in breach of clause – whether anti-suit injunction previously granted by Clarke J (see [1996] 2 LI Rep 140) should be discharged . .

Cited by:

Cited – Donohue v Armco Inc and others HL 13-Dec-2001
The appellant had sought injunctions against the respondent US companies to restrain their commencing proceedings in the US against him. The parties had negotiated for the purchase of the run-off liabilities of a defunct insurance company. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144556

Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd: HL 26 Nov 1981

Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable to exclusion and indemnity clauses. The words of exclusion must be clear and unambiguous, and should, failing this, be construed strictly against the proponent (contra preferentem) and is seeking to rely on them.
Lord Fraser said: ‘these principles [i.e., those applicable to exclusion and indemnity clauses] are not applicable in their full rigour when considering the effect of clauses merely limiting liability. Such clauses will of course be read contra proferentem and must be clearly expressed , but there is no reason why they should be judged by the specially exacting standards which are applied to exclusion and indemnity clauses. The reason for imposing such standards on these clauses is the inherent improbability that the other party to a contract including such a clause intended to release the proferens from a liability that would otherwise fall upon him. But there is no such high degree of improbability that he would agree to a limitation of the liability of the proferens, especially when . . the potential losses that might be caused by the negligence of the proferens or its servants are so great in proportion to the sums that can reasonably be charged for the services contracted for . .’
Lord Wilberforce said that limitation clauses are not viewed with the same hostility as are exclusion clauses.

Judges:

Lord Fraser, Lord Wilberforce

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 964, [1981] UKHL 12, [1983] 1 All ER 101, 1982 SLT 377

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hague Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King PC 21-Jan-1952
A lease of a freight shed exonerated the lessor from ‘any claim . . for . . damage . . to . . Goods . . being . . in the said shed’ and requiring the lessee to indemnify the lessor ‘from and against all claims’. The negligent use of an oxy-acetylene . .

Cited by:

Cited – Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another CA 3-Apr-2003
The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied.
Held: It . .
Applied – Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd HL 19-Oct-1995
The managing contractors sought damages from a sub-contractor. The contract was on a printed form and in letters. A letter limited time related damages to pounds 100,000. The main contractors sought a much larger sum.
Held: A clause seeking to . .
Cited – Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems Plc CA 17-Oct-2003
The appellant had contracted to purchase maintenance from the defendant of aircraft it had also purchased from them. They sought damages for negligence, saying the defendants had failed to prevent a known risk of corrosion. The defendants argued . .
Cited – Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
Held: There was a bailment . .
Cited – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others v Chase Manhattan Bank and others HL 20-Feb-2003
The insurance company had paid claims on policies used to underwrite the production of TV films. The re-insurers resisted the claims against them by the insurers on the grounds of non-disclosure by the insured, or in the alternative damages for . .
Cited – George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd CA 29-Sep-1982
The buyer bought 30lbs of cabbage seed, but the seed was not correct, and the crop was worthless. The seed cost pounds 192, but the farmer lost pounds 61,000. The seed supplier appealed the award of the larger amount and interest, saying that their . .
Cited – Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys SC 19-Dec-2012
The claimant’s employment by the bank had been terminated. The parties disputed the sums due, and the date of the termination of the contract. The court was asked ‘Does a repudiation of a contract of employment by the employer which takes the form . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Scotland

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.181088

Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Another: AdCt 25 Jun 2012

The claimant company was engaged in tuna fish culture off shore to Malta. The defendant ship was owned by a charity which campaigned against breaches of animal preservation conventions. Fish were being transporting live blue fin tuna in towed underwater cages. The defendant ‘attacked’ the cages causing much damage, on the basis that the fish had been caught illegally. The claimant denied this. The parties now disputed the responsibility of the ship owner for the torts of its captain.
Held: The claim against the ship’s paper owners failed. The practical reality is that at all times it was SSCS which had possession and control of the ‘STEVE IRWIN’, and ‘Although beneficial ownership does not carry with it the right to possession and control, in this case it helps to explain how and why possession and control was as a matter of fact exercised throughout by SSCS. Though there was no bareboat charter and such an arrangement would be necessary to transfer the right of possession to SSCS. However, if, as was the case, SSCS and SSUK acted on the basis that the ‘STEVE IRWIN’ was in SSCS’s possession and control there would be no need for any such formal arrangement. Watson and the crew were acting on behalf of SSCS and not SSUK or SSCS and SSUK whilst on board the ‘STEVE IRWIN’ during the Blue Rage campaign and at the time of the incident.’
Hamblen J set out the principles for establishing accessory liability in tort: ‘In respect of the common design issue, persons may be joint tortfeasors when their respective shares in the commission of a tort are done in furtherance of a common design . . The joint tortfeasor needs to join or share in the commission of the tort which generally means some act which at least facilitates its commission. . . there is no tortious liability for aiding and abetting or facilitating the commission of a tort, even knowingly. There may, however, be such a liability if that is done pursuant to a common design . . In considering whether there is any such liability it is relevant to consider whether the person has been so involved in the commission of the tort as to make the infringing act his own’
and ‘In summary, it is apparent that none of the matters relied upon by the claimant were of any real significance to the commission of the tort. The main thrust of the claimant’s pleaded case was that the attack was directed or authorised or carried out by [the appellant]. Once it is found that Watson and the crew were not acting on behalf of [the appellant] the claimant has to rely on participation which is remote in time and place. Whether considered individually or collectively I find that the matters so relied upon are of minimal importance and played no effective part in the commission of the tort.’

Judges:

Hamblen J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1717 (Admlty), [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – The Koursk CA 1924
The navigators of two ships had committed two separate torts or one tort in which they were both tortfeasors.
Held: Three situations were identified where A might be jointly liable with B for B’s tortious act. Where A was master and B servant; . .
Cited – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc CA 1987
Persons other than the Attorney General do not have standing to enforce, through a civil court, the observance of the criminal law as such. However, Sir Denys Buckley considered that such a claim might be maintained as a representative action . .
Cited – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
Cited – Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited CA 1989
Unilever claimed infringement of its patent. The court was asked whether there was a good arguable case against the United States parent company of the existing defendant sufficient to justify the parent company to be joined as a defendant and to . .
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department CA 23-Jul-1997
The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it.
Held: Where A becomes . .
Cited – SABAF SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Another CA 11-Jul-2002
The appellant challenged dismissal of its claim for patent infringement. The judge had held that the design was obvious, involving essentially only the collocation of two known features.
Held: Collocation was no more than a species of . .
Cited – Monsanto Plc v Tilly and Others CA 30-Nov-1999
A group carried out direct action in protesting against GM crops by pulling up the plants. The group’s media liaison officer, while not actually pulling up plants himself, ‘reconnoitred the site the day before. He met the press at a prearranged . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .
At first instance – Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467653

Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority: ECJ 23 Oct 2012

ECJ Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5 to 7 – Montreal Convention – Articles 19 and 29 – Right to compensation in the event of delay of flights – Compatibility

Judges:

V. Skouris, P

Citations:

C-581/10, [2012] EUECJ C-581/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

Citing:

Order – Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority ECJ 30-Nov-2011
Order – joinder of cases . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd CA 19-Jun-2014
The claimant’s flight had been delayed for six hours. The airline said that the claim having been made outside the two year period applicable under the Montreal convention, no compensation was payable.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. ‘We . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465396

Chaudhari v British Airways Plc: CA 16 Apr 1997

The passenger injured himself as he fell from an aeroplane chair because of pre-existing injury.
Held: He had no claim under the Convention. The falling of a semi-paralysed person whilst he was trying to get to his feet to go to the lavatory did not constitute an accident. It had not been an ‘accident causing injury’ within the Convention. Leggatt LJ said: ”accident’ is not to be construed as including any injuries caused by the passenger’s particular, personal and peculiar reaction to the normal operation of the aircraft’ and ‘what befell Mr Chaudhari was not caused by any unexpected or unusual event external to him but, but by his own personal, particular and peculiar reaction to the normal operation of the aircraft. As the judge said, he fell as the result of his pre-existing medical condition’.

Judges:

Leggatt LJ

Citations:

Times 07-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1413, CCRTI 96/0229/G

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 Art 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Air France v Saks 1985
(United States Supreme Court) The claimant suffered damage to and become permanently deaf in one ear as a result of pressurisation changes while the aircraft descended to land. The pressure system had worked normally. The airline said that the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation HL 8-Dec-2005
The appellants had suffered deep vein thrombosis whilst travelling on long haul air flights. The defendants said that their liability was limited because the injuries were not accidents.
Held: The claimants’ appeal failed. The definition of . .
Cited – Barclay v British Airways plc CC 27-Feb-2008
(Oxford County Court) The claimant slipped as she boarded an aircraft and sought damages for injuries to her knee. Her claim was brought under the Convention. The defendant denied that the injury occurred as the result of an accident, saying that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.78998

Gibraltar v Council: ECJ 29 Jun 1993

(Judgment) European Community jurisdiction on Gibraltar Airport dispute must await UK-Spain agreement.
ECJ Article 2(2) of Directive 89/463 concerning the authorization of scheduled inter-regional air services for the transport of passengers, mail and cargo between Member States, which suspends the application of that directive to Gibraltar airport until the cooperation arrangements for that airport agreed between the Governments of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom come into operation, cannot be regarded as constituting a decision within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so that an action for its annulment brought by a natural or legal person is inadmissible.
Where an instrument contains limitations or derogations which are temporary or territorial in nature, they form an integral part of the provisions as a whole within which they are found and, in the absence of any misuse of powers, are of the same general nature as those provisions. The suspension by the said article of the application of the directive, which is itself of general application, affects equally all air carriers wishing to operate a direct inter-regional air service between another Community airport and Gibraltar airport and, more generally, all those using the latter airport. Furthermore, apart from the fact that Gibraltar airport is not the only airport to have been temporarily excluded from the scheme of the directive, the said suspension merely reflects the consequences of the existence of an objective obstacle, arising from differences between two Member States, to the immediate application of the directive to Gibraltar airport.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-1993, C-298/89, [1993] EUECJ C-298/89, [1993] ECR I-3605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Constitutional, Transport

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.160346

Carboex Sa v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse Sa: CA 19 Jun 2012

This appeal concerns liability for delay to four vessels waiting to discharge cargoes of coal at Ferrol, North-west Spain in June and July 2008.
Held: The berth charter strike clause operated to transfer any liability for delay in the discharge of the cargo arising from strikes at the port from the charterer to the owner. This applied irrespective of whether it arose at the quayside or while the vessel had arrived but was unable to berth.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Moore-Bick, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] WLR(D) 179, [2012] 2 CLC 416, [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 1039, [2013] Ch 789, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 379, [2012] EWCA Civ 838, [2013] 2 WLR 754, [2013] 1 QB 789

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460503

Milor SRL and Others v British Airways Plc: CA 15 Feb 1996

The Warsaw Convention allows ‘forum shopping’, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. Article 28(1) specifies the jurisdictions in which claims under the Convention may be brought. If the English Court is one of those jurisdictions, then our procedural rules which permit an action to be stayed in favour of another jurisdiction on grounds of convenience should not be applied in favour of another competent jurisdiction.
Phillips LJ said: ‘by way of example, if the procedural law of the chosen forum imposed a 12 month limitation period, it does not seem to me that this could displace the two year period of limitation laid down by article 29 of the Convention’.

Judges:

Phillips LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1996, [1996] QB 702

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and Another v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd; Press Tech Controls Ltd v Same ComC 19-May-2003
The sum accepted as a payment in, in an air carriage case was capable of being the ‘amount of damages’ awarded under the convention. That it exceeded the amount offered in settlement negotiations meant that the rights to costs under article 22.4 . .
Cited – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Jurisdiction, Transport

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83735

Aectra Refining and Marketing Inc v Exmar NN: CA 15 Aug 1994

A time loss claim can found a legal set-off claim against ship owners, provided that the loss claim can be made in the same court. The court referred to a ‘transaction set-off and independent set-off’. Cross-claims must both be due and payable, and either liquidated or capable of being quantified by reference to ascertainable facts that do not, in their nature, require estimation or valuation.
Hoffman LJ reaffirmed the procedural character of legal set-off, saying: ‘Independent set-off, as its name suggests, does not require any relationship between the transactions out of which the cross claims arise. In English law it is based on section 13 of the Insolvent Debtors Relief Act 1729 . . The procedural basis of independent set-off is reflected in the rule that the mere existence of liquidated cross-claims does not automatically extinguish the smaller debt . . It operates only by express or implied agreement or through the judicial process by which the account is taken. As Sir George Jessel MR said in Talbot v Frere (1878) 9 ChD, 568, 573 ‘there could not be a set-off until action brought and set-off pleaded.’ The Act of 1729 is expressed in procedural terms’

Judges:

Hoffman LJ, Hirst LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 22-Aug-1994, Times 15-Aug-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 641, [1994] 1 WLR 1634

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Talbot v Frere CA 1878
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘there could not be a set-off until action brought and set-off pleaded.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Benford Ltd and Another v Lopecan Sl QBD 30-Jul-2004
The parties disputed the coverage agreed under a distribution agreement.
Held: ‘The counterclaim operated as a defence by way of set off. In order to establish that defence the defendant will have to prove the losses pleaded . . . Until the . .
Cited – Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and Another ChD 6-Mar-2001
A tenant complained to the landlord about his failure to repair. He ceased paying rent, and the landlord eventually distrained for rent by direct action.
Held: The tenant was unable to claim a legal set-off because there was no context of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Transport

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.77660

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Balbo B and C Auto Transporti Internazionali: Admn 22 Mar 2001

Where a notice of liability was served on a transport operator with regard to his responsibility for transporting illegal immigrants into the country, and he wished to challenge it, the proper approach was to allow the notice to expire, and then to defend any proceedings brought. Given that way of dealing with it, it was not appropriate to challenge the notice itself by way of judicial review. The form of notice issued after review did not refer to the Secretary of State’s need to pursue his remedy through the courts. This was unfortunate, but if it were true, it would make him judge and jury in his own cause.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-2001, Times 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 195, [2001] 1 WLR 1556

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration, Transport

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88650

Regina v Whitehouse: CACD 10 Dec 1999

The offence of endangering the flight of an aircraft required proof that there followed from the act of the defendant a real risk of danger, a danger that should not be ignored. A passenger refused to turn off his mobile phone. The prosecution brought evidence that the phone would emit signals searching for a base, and that such signals might interfere with the flight systems. The risk was of disastrous consequences for life, and the judge correctly identified the risk to be shown.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1999, Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970) Art 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85610

Morran v Waddell: SCS 24 Oct 1883

Inner House First Division. – Reparation – Culpa – Railway – Private Line of Railway – Obligation to Fence – Contributory Negligence.

Citations:

(1883) 11 R 44, [1883] SLR 21 – 28, [1883] SLR 21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Negligence

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.182842

Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Kairos Shipping Ltd and Others: ComC 27 Jul 2017

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1904 (Comm), [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 228, [2017] 2 CLC 364, [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 295, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 635

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv SC 1-Apr-2020
The insurers had settled a claim after the insured vessel was lost. It then concluded that the ship owners were responsible and sought recovery of the sums paid. . .
See Also – Aspen Underwriting Ltd and Others v Credit Europe Bank Nv ComC 1-Dec-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.594591

Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another: SC 25 Oct 2017

This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared proportionately between all those whose property and entitlements were imperilled as a result of that seizure – or whether they must be borne by the shipowner alone. The Appellants submitted that the negotiation period expenses fell within the expression ‘expense incurred’ by the owners within Rule F and those expenses were incurred ‘in place of another expense’ (i.e. the $4.15m saved as a result of the negotiations with the pirates). Further, the negotiation period expenses were less than the ‘general average expense avoided’ and it thereby followed that they were properly allowable under Rule F.
Held: (Lord Mance dissenting on the facts) The appeal succeeded. The Courts below had incorrectly assumed that the owners had to establish that it would have been reasonable to accept the pirates’ initial demand in order to justify the contention that the negotiation period expenses were allowable under Rule F. If accepted, this would lead to odd results, meaning that, where a ship-owner incurs expense to avoid paying a reasonable sum, he can in principle recover under Rule F, but that if he incurs expense to avoid paying
an unreasonable sum (i.e. a larger sum), he cannot recover.
Lord Neuberger said: ‘the reference to an ‘expense which would have been allowable’ is to an expense of a nature which would have been allowable. First, the word ‘allowable’ in Rule F naturally takes one to Rule C, where the similar word ‘allowed’ is used, rather than Rule A, where there is no reference to anything being ‘allowed’ (the same point applies to the French version – ‘admissible’ in Rule F and ‘admis’ in Rule C). Unlike Rule A, Rule C is concerned purely with the type of expense, and not with quantum. Secondly, the opening part of Rule F is unlikely to be concerned with quantum, as that is dealt with in the closing part, which imposes a cap on a sum recoverable under Rule F, namely ‘only up to the amount of the general average expense avoided’. Thirdly, the interpretation assumed in the courts below imposes an unnecessary fetter on the allowability of an ‘extra expense’, as there is already a reasonable fetter in the concluding part of Rule F. Fourthly, the interpretation I favour produces an entirely rational outcome: whenever an expense is incurred to avoid a sum of a type which would be allowable, that expense would be allowable, but only to the extent that it does not exceed the sum avoided.’
Lord Sumption said: ‘The York-Antwerp Rules have a status in shipping law similar to that of the Uniform Customs and Practices in the law relating to documentary credits. They depend wholly on contractual incorporation for their binding force. But they are designed to create a body of principle applicable internationally in a uniform way, although incorporated in shipping agreements of different kinds, governed by different laws. It will therefore rarely if ever be appropriate to imply matter into them which is not apparent from the natural meaning of the words, unless the implication is necessary to make them workable or intelligible or to avoid absurdity. Rule F is simplicity itself. It provides for the allowance of expenditure which is not allowable as general average expenditure but has successfully mitigated expenditure or sacrifice which would have been allowable as general average. The cost of maintaining the ship and crew during a period of delay which would not have occurred but for the peril but was necessary to enable the ransom to be reduced, is deemed to be general average up to the amount of the reduction.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 68, [2017] Bus LR 1909, [2017] WLR(D) 703, UKSC 2016/0164

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170717 am Video, SC 20170717 pm Video, SC 20170718 am Video, SC 20170718 pm Video

Statutes:

York Antwerp Rules 1974 F

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Birkley and Others v Presgrave 3-Feb-1801
An action upon promises lies by a ship owner to recover from the owner of the cargo his proportion of general average loss incurred by sacrificing the tackle belonging to a ship for an unusual purpose, or on an extraordinary occasion of danger, for . .
Cited – James Buchanan and Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd HL 1978
A consignment of whisky was stolen whilst on consignemt from a bonded warehouse under CMR terms for Teheran. In bond, it was worth 7,000 pounds, and on export no excise duty was to be paid. Being stolen in the course of transit, excise duty of . .
Cited – Marida Ltd v Oswal Steel (The Bijela) CA 1993
Hoffmann LJ dissented . .
Cited – King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
At First Instance – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another QBD 2015
The sip had been taken by pirates. The parties disputed the burden of expenses while negotiations took place for its release.
Held: the hypothetical other expense must be one which would have been reasonably incurred in a sense ‘interpreted . .
At CA – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg and Others CA 13-Jul-2016
The court was asked whether the general expenses incurred when a ship was taken by pirates were allowable in General Average while the negotiations for release took place. . .
Cited – Marida Ltd and Others v Oswal Steel and Others (The Bijela) HL 2-May-1994
Ship owners may claim for the cost of interim repairs in average, but still subject to the overall limits imposed by the rules. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.597669

Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg and Others: CA 13 Jul 2016

The court was asked whether the general expenses incurred when a ship was taken by pirates were allowable in General Average while the negotiations for release took place.

Judges:

Kitchin, Hamblen LJJ, Sir Thomas Lloyd

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 708, [2016] WLR(D) 390, [2016] Bus LR 1285

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

York Antwerp Rules 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another QBD 2015
The sip had been taken by pirates. The parties disputed the burden of expenses while negotiations took place for its release.
Held: the hypothetical other expense must be one which would have been reasonably incurred in a sense ‘interpreted . .

Cited by:

At CA – Mitsui and Co Ltd and Others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft Lpg Tankerflotte Mbh and Co Kg and Another SC 25-Oct-2017
This appeal raises the issue whether the daily vessel-operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demands of pirates should be allowed in general average – ie whether those expenses should be shared . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.566888

Commission v Luxembourg C-481/03: ECJ 30 Sep 2004

ECJ (Transport) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directives 2001/12 / EC and 2001/13 / EC – Community railways – Development – Level playing, uniform and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure – Licensing of railway undertakings – Common scheme – Failure -transposition within the prescribed period

Citations:

C-481/03, [2004] EUECJ C-481/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.214653

King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd: IHCS 25 Oct 2000

The definition ‘any other bodily harm’ contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.82783

European Night Services v Commission T-388/94: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI Competition – Transport by rail – Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel – Restrictions on competition – Directive 91/440/EEC – Appreciable effect on trade – Supply of necessary services – ‘Essential facilities – Statement of reasons – Admissibility.

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-388/94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433444

Naftiliaki Etaireia Thasou: ECJ 17 Mar 2011

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Maritime cabotage – Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 – Articles 1 and 4 – Prior administrative authorisation for cabotage services – Review of conditions relating to the safety of ships – Maintenance of order in ports – Public service obligations – Absence of precise criteria known in advance.

Citations:

C-129/10, [2011] EUECJ C-129/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430718

Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional S.A, The Playa Larga: CA 1983

There had been a theft by Cuban sellers of one cargo of sugar, property in which had already passed to the buyers, and non-delivery of a second combined with trickery whereby the intended buyers were nonetheless induced to pay its price. The first cargo was on a vessel which was discharging at its Chilean discharge port, when the vessel was withdrawn by the sellers. The second cargo was on the high seas en route to Chile when withdrawn.
Held: The effect of disregarding a provision of foreign law as manifestly contrary to public policy may be to render enforceable in England a contract which is not enforceable by its proper law. The court considered the measure of damages in relation to the non-delivery of goods sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the damages recoverable should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and the date of the arbitration award. This contention was rejected.
Ackner LJ said: ‘Mr. Rix, in his cross-appeal, argued that the damages recoverable by Iansa in contract should be related to the highest price prevailing at any time between the date of the breach and date of the award. Mr. Justice Mustill rejected this submission and has set out his reasons most fully, which we are happy to adopt. We would, however, venture to suggest that the matter can be put more simply. Iansa, as complainants, must establish what damage they have suffered. Mr. Rix had to accept: (a) That after the date when Iansa could have bought in to cover their loss there was no evidence at all that the fluctuations in the sugar market made the slightest financial difference to them. There was no evidence that they could have sold at the highest price. On the contrary, the reasonable inference was that the goods would have been resold for domestic or other consumption in Chile, (b) Although theoretically Cubazucar was capable of selling the sugar at the highest price, there is no evidence that it did so.
Accordingly, to the plaintiffs’ contention that Cubazucar should not profit from its own wrong comes the simple reply: they have not shown that Cubazucar have done so. We cannot, therefore, see any basis upon which Iansa can seek to achieve a windfall in the form of an extra $1,200 per tonne over and above the price which was prevailing when they should have bought in the market.’
The Court rejected any defence of foreign act of state, primarily because there was no such plea and no proof that the acts were acts of the Chilean government, but secondarily also because, if they were, there ‘seems no compelling reason for judicial restraint or abstention’ in a case ‘where it is clear that the acts relied on were carried out outside the sovereign’s own territory’.

Judges:

Ackner LJ, Stephenson LJ, Sir Segab Shaw

Citations:

[1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 171

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Playa Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congreso del Partido (Owners) QBD 1978
The trading or commercial activities of states are not protected by state immunity. The basic principle of international law is that all states are equal, the rule is ‘par in parem non habet imperium’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Followed – Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA The Angelic Grace QBD 1994
The court considered whether a claim for a collision between two ships was governed by an arbitration clause which read ‘all disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall . . be referred to the arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying . .
Followed – The Ermoupolis 1990
A claim for the tort of conversion fell within the phrase ‘any dispute arising in any way whatsoever out of this bill of lading’. . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Appeal from – Playa Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Jurisdiction, Contract, Damages

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.248210

Soufflet Negoce Sa v Bunge Sa: CA 13 Oct 2010

The court asked: ‘If, in a typical Free On Board (‘FOB’) contract, the buyer presents a vessel at the loading port which is not ready to take the cargo because the holds need to be cleaned, is the seller obliged to begin loading? ‘

Judges:

Longmore, Wilson, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425193

The Pensylvania, M’Pherson, Master: PC 28 Jun 1809

(United Kingdom) The master or crew of a neutral vessel captured, not bound to assist in carrying the vessel into port for adjudication. Resistance to the captors by the master or crew must be proved to have been actually made, in order to subject the vessel. to condemnation on the principle of rescue.

Citations:

[1809] UKPC 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416643

Alzetta and Others v Commission (State Aid) T-607/97: ECFI 15 Jun 2000

Europa Carriage of goods by road – State aid – Action for annulment – Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition – Conditions for derogation from the prohibition laid down by Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) – New aid or existing aid – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Principle of proportionality – Statement of reasons.

Citations:

[2000] EUECJ T-607/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415235

Alzetta and Others v Commission (State Aid) T-606/97: ECFI 15 Jun 2000

Europa Carriage of goods by road – State aid – Action for annulment – Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition – Conditions for derogation from the prohibition laid down by Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) – New aid or existing aid – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Principle of proportionality – Statement of reasons.

Citations:

[2000] EUECJ T-606/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415234

Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another: SC 10 May 2017

The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and indemnity risks. The grounding occurred during a combination of severe weather events. Each of the two elements was known, but they had not previously occurred together.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. There had been no breach of the safe port undertaking. Had there been a breach of that undertaking Daiichi (the sub-charterers) would not have been entitled to limit its liability through the Convention.
Lords Toulson and Mance, Lord Hodge concurring, upheld the Court of Appeal opinion that the joint insurance would have precluded any claim by owners against the demise charterer, or therefore by the latter down the line. Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption disagreed on this point.
An ‘abnormal occurrence’ has its ordinary meaning. It is not a term of art. On the evidence the combination of conditions were an abnormal occurrence and there was therefore no breach by Daiichi of the safe port undertaking.
A charterer does not assume responsibility for unexpected and abnormal events which occur suddenly and which create conditions of unsafety after he has given the order to proceed to the relevant port. These are the responsibility of the ship’s hull insurers (if owners have insured) or of owners themselves. Moreover the concept of ‘safety’ is necessarily not an absolute one.
‘there is nothing in clause 12 which provides that the demise charterers have no liability for breach of clause 29 and I see no basis for such a necessary implication, essentially for the reasons given by the judge and by Lord Sumption. In particular, it seems to me to be striking that, as the judge observed in para 195, clause 13, which contained an alternative insurance and repairs clause which not only provided that hull insurance would be paid for by the registered owner but also expressly stated that the registered owners and/or insurers would not have any rights of recovery or subrogation against the demise charterers in respect of insured losses, was deleted from the printed form. Thus the demise charterers chose not to be bound by clause 13.’
Had there been a breach of the safe port warranty, Gard claimed to be able to recover the insured value of the vessel from the time charterers as the demise charterer’s assignee on the basis that the demise charterer was liable to the owners for breach of its safe port undertaking, and so entitled to recover the same sum from the time charterer. Lords Toulson, Mance and Hodge concluded that the provisions of clause 12 of the demise charter, which provided for joint insurance and a distribution of insurance proceeds, precluded such a claim. Co-insureds cannot claim against each other in respect of an insured loss. Clause 12 provided a comprehensive scheme for an insurance funded result in the event of loss of the vessel by marine risks. The safe port undertaking did not alter this scheme.

Judges:

Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 35, [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 1, [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 521, 2017 AMC 1336, [2017] 1 CLC 870, [2017] WLR(D) 333, [2017] 1 WLR 1793, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 291, [2018] 1 All ER 832, UKSC 2015/0036, UKSC 2015/0037

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary Video (37), SC (36), SC Summary (36), SC Summary Video (36), SC (37), SC summary (37

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 31 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City) CA 1958
Non-performance, in the context of the clause, would be the refusal or failure of the ship to enter upon the charterparty’s obligations at all or the refusal or failure of the charterers to take any step to fulfil the contract into which they had . .
Cited – Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v Bowater’s Pulp and Paper Mills Limited (The Stork) CA 1954
Where, in breach of charterparty, charterers order a vessel to proceed to an unsafe port, the conduct of the vessel’s master in obeying the order (placed as he well may be, on the horns of a dilemma) will be judged sympathetically, in context and . .
Appeal from – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
At First Instance – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others ComC 30-Jul-2013
The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in . .
Cited – Reardon Smith Line Limited v Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City) PC 26-Jan-1956
(Australia) . .
Cited – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) HL 1982
Lord Diplock regarded the nature of the contractual promise by the charterer in what he called the safe port clause as having been well settled for a quarter of a century at the very least: ‘It was correctly and concisely stated by Sellers L.J. in . .
Cited – The Saga Cob CA 1992
The fact that an event (in this case a guerrilla attack) was theoretically foreseeable did not make it an ‘normal characteristic’ of the port: ‘Be that as it may, there is no evidence whatever that the system introduced after the Omo Wonz had any . .
Cited – Ogden v Graham and Another 27-Nov-1861
The defendants chartered a ship to proceed from England to a safe port in Chilli, with laave to call at Valparaiso. On her arrival at Valparaiso; the charterers’ agent named the port of Carrisal Bajo as the port of discharge, and directed the master . .
Cited – GW Grace and Co Ltd v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Sussex Oak) QBD 1950
The court considered a time charter in the Baltime form. The charterers entered into a voyage sub-charter with the board of trade. Under the voyage charter the ship loaded a cargo of timber for London from Hamburg. On the voyage to and from Hamburg . .
Cited – Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc (The Mary Lou) QBD 1981
Mustill J considered a charterparty which provided that the vessel was to ‘proceed to one or two safe berths one safe port US Gulf (excluding Brownsville) New Orleans/Ama/Reserve/Myrtle Grove/Destrehan counting as one port . . ‘ He said: ‘The . .
Cited – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) CA 1982
. .
Cited – Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd HL 1974
The court considered how to construe a clause in a contract which excluded a remedy provided by law. Lord Diplock said: ‘It is, of course, open to parties to a contract . . to exclude by express agreement a remedy for its breach which would . .
Cited – Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango and Company HL 1931
English statutes which give effect to international conventions need to be interpreted with the international origin of the rules well in mind. The Act only applies to contracts of carriage of goods outwards from ports in the United Kingdom, and the . .
Cited – Pearl Carriers Inc v Japan Line Ltd ‘The Chemical Venture’ QBD 1993
. .
Cited – D/S A/S Idaho v Clossus Maritime DA (The Concordia Fjord) QBD 1984
The vessel was chartered for 4 months, with a safe port requirement and a limited area of operation subject to payment of additional insurance premiums. The vessel set off to Beirut, then a safe port. The port lost that designation before the vessel . .
Mentioned – Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd CA 2-Apr-2008
. .
Overruled by Statute – Bureau Wijsmuller NV v Owners of the Tojo Maru (No 2) HL 1971
Salvors were held not to be entitled to limit in respect of the negligent action of their diver since, by definition, neither the diver nor the damaged vessel were on board the salvor’s tug and, further, the diver was not acting in the management of . .
Cited – Aegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (‘The Aegean Sea’) AdCt 1998
The Aegean Sea was lost at sea causing very extensive damage through the escape of its cargo of crude oil. AST asserted as a preliminary issue, that RP had become liable for that damage. RP’s wholly owned subsidiary ROIL was the charterer, argued . .
Cited – CNA CGM S A v Classica Shipping Company Ltd ComC 27-Mar-2003
. .
Cited – CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’ CA 12-Feb-2004
The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was . .
Cited – Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of Steamship ‘Blanche’ and Others HL 28-Feb-1908
Charterers by demise are ‘owners’ within the meaning of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and can, therefore, under that section, claim the benefit of limitation of liability, conferred by sections 503 and 504, in respect of loss or . .
Cited – James Buchanan and Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd HL 1978
A consignment of whisky was stolen whilst on consignemt from a bonded warehouse under CMR terms for Teheran. In bond, it was worth 7,000 pounds, and on export no excise duty was to be paid. Being stolen in the course of transit, excise duty of . .
Cited – Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .
Cited – Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
Cited – The Winkfield 1902
A bailee in possession has a right to recover for loss or damage to his bailor’s goods even though he would have had a good defence to an action by the bailor. . .
Cited – Dunlop v Lambert HL 16-Jun-1839
A cargo of whisky was lost in carriage by sea between Leith and Newcastle. A second shipment was made and the loss was claimed. The House was asked whether ‘in a question between a carrier and the person to whom the carrier is responsible in the . .
Cited – King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
Cited – Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership, Hoare Lea and Partners (a Firm) and Others CA 4-Jul-2000
A building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy in the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist . .
Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd HL 10-Jul-1980
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
Cited – Hopewell Project Management Ltd v Ewbank Preece Ltd 1998
Recorder Jackson QC described as nonsensical if parties who were jointly insured under a contractors’ all risks policy could make claims against one another in respect of damage to the contract works. . .
Cited – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .
Cited – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Cited – Petrofina (UK) Ltd v Magnaload Ltd 1983
A finding of double insurance requires the same insured to be covered in respect of the same property against the same risks.
Lloyd J held that: ‘a head contractor ought to be able to insure the entire contract works in his own name and the . .
Cited – Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd CA 28-Jun-1994
The plaintiff council complained of the work done for it by the defendant builder.
Held: Steyn LJ said: ‘in the case of a building contract, the prima facie rule is cost of cure, i.e., the cost of remedying the defect: East Ham Corporation v. . .
Cited – Tate Gallery (Board of Trustees of) v Duffy Construction Ltd and Another TCC 15-Feb-2007
. .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Cited – Herrmann and Another v Withers Llp Admn 30-May-2012
. .
Cited – Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v Korea Line Corporation ComC 14-Jul-2011
(‘The Wren’) Appeal against arbitrator’s award finding repudiatory breach of charterparty. . .
Cited – Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Societa Di Navigazione ARL (The Elena d’Amico) QBD 1980
The ship owners wrongfully repudiated a charterparty in March 1973, 14 months after its inception. The charterers did not hire a substitute but claimed damages for the loss of profits they would have made between January and April 1974, during which . .
Cited – Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd ComC 28-Apr-2010
The Kildare . .
Cited – Hussey v Eels CA 1990
Profits made on development were not deductible
The purchasers of a property for a price of 53,250 pounds had relied on a negligent misrepresentation that the property had not been the subject of subsidence. In fact it had. The cost of the required works was 17,000 pounds, which they could not . .
Cited – Palatine Graphic Arts Co Ltd v Liverpool City Council CA 1985
The defendant local authority agreed to pay for the plaintiff’s premises in Liverpool at the price which would have been payable if the acquisition had been by way of compulsory purchase. The major part of the price constituted compensation for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.582171

Globalia Business Travel Sau of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama: SC 28 Jun 2017

The court was asked how to assess damages arising out of the repudiation of a charterparty by charterers of a cruise ship, the ‘New Flameno’. The charter ending two years early, the owners chose to sell, and in the result got a much better price than would have been obtained had the charter continued for two years.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the judge at first instance. Viewed as a question of principle, most damages issues arise from the default rules which the law devises to give effect to the principle of compensation, while recognising that there may be special facts which show that the default rules will not have that effect in particular cases. On the facts here the fall in value of the vessel was in my opinion irrelevant because the owners’ interest in the capital value of the vessel had nothing to do with the interest injured by the charterers’ repudiation of the charterparty.
‘ . . difference in kind is too vague and potentially too arbitrary a test. The essential question is whether there is a sufficiently close link between the two and not whether they are similar in nature. The relevant link is causation. The benefit to be brought into account must have been caused either by the breach of the charterparty or by a successful act of mitigation.’
‘That difference or loss was, in my opinion, not on the face of it caused by the repudiation of the charterparty. The repudiation resulted in a prospective loss of income for a period of about two years. Yet, there was nothing about the premature termination of the charterparty which made it necessary to sell the vessel, either at all or at any particular time. Indeed, it could have been sold during the term of the charterparty. If the owners decide to sell the vessel, whether before or after termination of the charterparty, they are making a commercial decision at their own risk about the disposal of an interest in the vessel which was no part of the subject matter of the charterparty and had nothing to do with the charterers.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 43, [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 95, [2018] 1 All ER 45, [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 177, [2017] 2 CLC 58, [2017] WLR(D) 440, 173 Con LR 20, [2017] 1 WLR 2581, UKSC 2016/0026

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first Instance – Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU (Formerly Travelplan SAU) of Spain ComC 21-May-2014
The former owners of the ‘New Flameno’ appealed from an arbitration award. A charter of the vessel had been repudiated with two years left to run. The owners chose to sell. They made a substantial profit over the price they would have received after . .
Appeal from – Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel Sau CA 21-Dec-2015
The charter of the ship ‘New Flameno’ was repudiated two years early. The owners sold it, making rather more profit than they would have if sold after the end of the term. The court was now asked how the profit should affect the loss claim on the . .
Cited – Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .
Cited – British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited HL 1912
The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the . .
Cited – Shearman v Folland CA 1950
The injured plaintiff had lived before the accident in hotels to which she paid seven guineas a week for board and lodging. After the accident she spent just over a year in nursing homes at a cost of twelve guineas a week exclusive of medical . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – P Samuel and Co v Dumas HL 1924
Viscount Cave said: ”… My Lords, there is force in this argument, but I am not prepared to say that in the present case it should prevail. It may well be that, when two persons are jointly insured and their interests are inseparably connected so . .
Cited – Bellingham v Dhillon QBD 1973
The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries, and in particular the loss of profits from his driving school business. He lost the opportunity to lease a driving simulator which would have enabled his company to earn a continuing profit. In . .
Cited – The Yasin 1979
Receivers claimed against shipowners under a bill of lading for loss of a cargo. The shipowners argued on a preliminary issue that the insurance proceeds paid to receivers fell to be taken into account so as to wipe out the damages claimed. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Transport

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.588313

Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v Korea Line Corporation: ComC 14 Jul 2011

(‘The Wren’) Appeal against arbitrator’s award finding repudiatory breach of charterparty.

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1819 (Comm), [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 370

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.441825

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd: ComC 28 Apr 2010

The Kildare

Judges:

David Steel J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 903 (Comm), [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 360

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.408678

Certain Bus Operating Companies In The Stagecoach Group and Others v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: Admn 16 Feb 2010

Challenge as to obligations imposed by European regulations requiring concessionary fare schemes.

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 223 (Admin), [2010] Eu LR 505, [2010] 3 CMLR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, European

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.400998

Axel Walz v Clickair SA: ECJ 26 Jan 2010

ECJ (Transport) Air transport – Liability of carriers in respect of baggage – Limit in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage – Material and non-material damage.

Citations:

C-63/09, [2010] EUECJ C-63/09 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Axel Walz v Clickair SA ECJ 6-May-2010
ECJ Judgment – Air transport Montreal Convention Liability of carriers in respect of checked baggage Article 22(2) Limits of liability in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage Concept of ‘damage’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396583

Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd: AdCt 13 Mar 2017

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty), [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 775, [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 666, [2017] 1 CLC 217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from AdCt – Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd CA 5-Oct-2018
Liability after collision . .
At AdCt – Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd SC 19-Feb-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.579942

First Essex Buses Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another: Admn 25 Nov 2009

The claimant sought judicial review of a proposed scheme for re-imbursement for a concessionary travel scheme.

Judges:

Sir Thayne Forbes

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3024 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1985, Transport Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.381472

Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others: ComC 30 Jul 2013

The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in the third-party proceedings, that the charterers were liable to the intermediate charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the sub-charter. The court rejected the charterers’ argument that the cause of the casualty was not the breach of the safe port warranty, but rather the master’s navigational decision to put to sea in extreme conditions, and also the charterers’ contention that the demise charterers, were not, even assuming a breach of the safe port warranty, liable to the owners in respect of the loss of the vessel, and that, in the circumstances, the demise charterers had suffered no loss in respect of the loss of the vessel, and accordingly had no claim to pass on to the intermediate charterers, or, in turn, the charterers. The casualty was caused by the unsafety of the port in breach of the safe port undertaking in the time charters.
The Court awarded Gard substantial damages, namely the agreed value of the vessel (US$88.5m), damages in respect of liability for SCOPIC expenses (US$12m), damages for wreck removal expenses (US$34.5m) and damages for loss of hire (US$2.7m).
The events which led to the grounding and subsequent loss of the vessel were: ‘The danger facing OCEAN VICTORY was one which was related to the prevailing characteristics of Kashima. The danger flowed from two characteristics of the port, the vulnerability of the Raw Materials Quay to long swell and the vulnerability of the Kashima Fairway to northerly gales caused by a local depression. It may well be a rare event for these two events to occur at the same time but nobody at the port could, I consider, be surprised if they did. There is no meteorological reason why they should not occur at the same time. Long waves were clearly a feature of the port (as they must be of any port facing the Pacific) and low pressure systems generating gale force winds cannot, in my judgment, be regarded as abnormal. I do not consider that the juxtaposition of long waves and a low pressure system generating gale force winds from the north amounts to an abnormal occurrence unrelated to the characteristics of Kashima. Long waves may give rise to a need for a vessel to leave the port. It may be a matter of chance whether at that time there is also a low pressure system generating gale force winds from the north but I am unable to accept that such winds are so rare that they cannot be said to be a feature of the port. It is not without significance that the Guide to Port Entry notes that during periods of northerly swell the entry channel is fully exposed and that vessels at low speed generally have difficulty in steering.
It may be that the storm which affected the port on 24 October 2006 was one of the most severe storms to have affected Kashima in terms of severity, speed of deterioration and duration as suggested by Mr Lynagh’s analysis of its characteristics. But the relevant characteristics are those which give rise to the danger, namely the occurrence of long waves and northerly gales. Neither long waves nor northerly gales can be described as rare. Even if the concurrent occurrence of those events is a rare event in the history of the port such an event flows from characteristics or features of the port.’

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm), [2013] 2 CLC 322, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 59, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 1058

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd CA 2-Apr-2008
. .
Binding – CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’ CA 12-Feb-2004
The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
At First Instance – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.513727

Prankerd, Regina (On the Application of) v The Carrick District Council: QBD 24 Jul 1998

The court considered the unresolved question as to the statutory power of a harbour authority to distrain for non-payment of mooring charges in respect of a private yacht.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[1998] EWHC 2005 (QB), [1999] QB 1119, [1999] 2 WLR 489, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 675

Links:

Bailii

Local Government, Transport

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375088

Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003

The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied.
Held: It was not yet decided that the wharehouse and deviation case law was defunct along with the doctrine of fundamental breach of contract. Whether a clause operates to limit liability or excuse it entirely is a matter of construction of each clause. The carrier in this might still be able to take advantage of the rules limiting his liability.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Judge And Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 451, Times 17-Apr-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hague Rules 1924

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another ChD 2002
. .
Cited – Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale HL 1966
No magic in the words “fundamental breach”
There is no rule of law which prevents parties to a contract agreeing to limit their respective liabilities. It is a question of the construction of the particular clause as to whether it applies to a fundamental breach or not. The court doubted the . .
Cited – The Chanda ChD 1989
Part of an asphalt drying and mixing plant had been shipped on deck in breach of contract. The court asked whether the shipment on deck disentitled the shipowner from relying on Article IV rule 5.
Held: A carrier by sea, who carries cargo on . .
Cited – Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an . .
Cited – Gibaud v Great Eastern Railway Co CA 1921
Scrutton LJ said: ‘If you undertake to do a thing in a certain way, or to keep a thing in a certain place, with certain conditions protecting it, and have broken the contract by not doing the thing contracted for in the way contracted for, or not . .
Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’ CA 17-May-2002
There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules.
Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should . .
Cited – Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd HL 26-Nov-1981
Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable . .
Cited – Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango and Company HL 1931
English statutes which give effect to international conventions need to be interpreted with the international origin of the rules well in mind. The Act only applies to contracts of carriage of goods outwards from ports in the United Kingdom, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.180735