Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority: ECJ 30 Nov 2011

Order – joinder of cases

[2011] EUECJ C-581/10, C-581/10
Bailii
Cited by:
OrderNelson 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526743

Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’): HL 13 Mar 2003

Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific terms added prevailed over the standard terms printed on the bill of lading. The bill was drafted to express a contract between the shipper and the owner of the vessel. Did the terms protect the shipowner from liability to the cargo owners? Clause 5 could not be construed as a covenant not to sue. The second part did not restrict the operation of the first. The cause of action was perfected not on each occasion when the damage to the cargo worsened, but was complete as soon as more than insignificant damage had occurred. At that time only one of the parties had established ownership. ‘the court should not interpolate words into a written instrument, of whatever nature, unless it is clear both that words have been omitted and what those omitted words were’ Where there is a conflict between printed and handwritten clauses, the handwritten clauses will usually prevail. (Lord Steyn dissenting) If a party, otherwise liable, is to exclude or limit his liability or to rely on an exemption, he must do so in clear words; unclear words do not suffice; any ambiguity or lack of clarity must be resolved against that party.
Otherwise: Owners of cargo lately laden on board the ship or vessel ‘Starsin’ and others (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants) v. Owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel ‘Starsin’ (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) and two other actions

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett
[2003] UKHL 12, Times 17-Mar-2003, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 2 WLR 711, [2004] 1 AC 715, [2003] 1 CLC 921, 2003 AMC 913, [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 571, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 625, [2003] 2 All ER 785, [2003] 1 LLR 571
House of Lords, Bailii
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, Hague-Visby Rules 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromThe Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ CA 23-Jan-2001
. .
CitedGlynn v Margetson and Co HL 1893
A printed form of bill of lading contained general words of obligation referring to the goods being shipped ‘in and upon the .. Zena, now lying in the port of Malaga, and bound for Liverpool’. Those words were followed by printed words intended ‘to . .
CitedUniversal Steam Navigation Company Ltd v James McKelvie and Company HL 1923
If there was inconsistency between a term added to a pre-printed form and general descriptions elsewhere in the text, the former should be regarded as the ‘dominating factor’ and as of ‘preponderant importance’. . .
CitedHamilton v Mendes 8-Jun-1761
The daily negotiations and property of merchants ought not to depend upon subtleties and niceties; but upon rules, easily learned and easily retained, because they are the dictates of common sense, drawn from the truth of the case. . .
CitedSimond v Boydell 1779
To seek perfect consistency and economy of draftsmanship in a complex form of contract which has evolved over many years is to pursue a chimera. . .
CitedThe Mahkutai PC 24-Apr-1996
(Hong Kong) The question was whether shipowners, who were not parties to the bill of lading contract between the charterers and carriers on the one part, and the cargo-owners, the bill of lading being a charterer’s bill, could enforce against the . .
CitedLeigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd (The Aliakmon) HL 24-Apr-1985
The plaintiff contracted to buy a cargo to be shipped on the defendant’s vessel. Because of poor stowage, the cargo was damaged. At the time of the damage the claimant was neither the owner nor possessor of the cargo, but under the terms of the . .
Appeal fromHomburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) CA 23-Jan-2001
Cargo had been negligently stowed on a ship so that condensation caused damage during the subsequent voyage. The claimant only acquired a title to the cargo after the voyage had commenced. The defendants contended that no duty of care could be owed . .
CitedAdler v Dickson; ‘the Himalaya’ CA 29-Oct-1954
The defendants were the master and boatswain of the P and O passenger liner Himalaya. The plaintiff was a passenger who was injured when an insecure gangway slipped and he fell 16ft to the wharf. The plaintiff had a contract with P and O which . .
At First InstanceThe Owners And/Or Demise Charterer Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ v The Owners Of The Cargo Lately Laden Aboard The Ship Or Vessel ‘Starsin’ ComC 2000
. .

Cited by:
CitedJIS (1974) Ltd v MCP Investment Nominees I Ltd CA 9-Apr-2003
The parties agreed for a lease to be granted of a new building. Part had been intended to be excluded for shops, but permission was not obtained, the shops area was included and leased back. When the tenants sought to determine the lease, the . .
CitedDairy Containers Ltd v Tasman Orient Line Cv PC 20-May-2004
PC (New Zealand) The appeal concerned the correct interpretation of a damage limitation clause in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea.
Held: Clause 6(B)(b)(i) must be construed in the context of the . .
CitedTaylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .
CitedPhonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
CitedPhonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
CitedJindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (‘The Jordan II’) HL 25-Nov-2004
Cargo was damaged by rough handling during loading and/or discharging, and/or inadequate stowage due to failure to provide dunnage, failure to secure the coils and/or stacking them so that the bottom layers were excessively compressed. The House was . .
CitedJ I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .
CitedTelewest Communications Plc Telewest (Publications) Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 10-Feb-2005
The taxpayers sold cable services which were liable to VAT through 28 subsidiaries, and supplied by a third party as part of the same service a listings magazine. They sought exemption from VAT for that part of the consideration related to the . .
CitedIqbal v Legal Services Commission CA 10-May-2005
The claimant had been a partner in a firm of solicitors. They came to be suspected by the respondent of overclaiming legal aid payments and sums were withheld. For this and other reasons the practice folded, and the claimant became insolvent. He . .
CitedGolden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
CitedAlchemy Estates Ltd v Astor and Another ChD 5-Nov-2008
The parties disputed the effect of a contract between them for the sale of a leasehold property. After exchange the solicitors failed to obtain the landlord’s consent to the proposed assignment as required by the lease. In the meantime the proposed . .
CitedChartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
CitedRainy Sky Sa and Others v Kookmin Bank SC 2-Nov-2011
Commercial Sense Used to Interpret Contract
The Court was asked as to the role of commercial good sense in the construction of a term in a contract which was open to alternative interpretations.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In such a case the court should adopt the more, rather than the . .
CitedBNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital No 1 Plc and Another SC 16-Jun-2016
The Court was asked whether Lloyds Banking Group was entitled to redeem 3.3 billion pounds of loan notes which would otherwise carry a relatively high rate of interest, namely over 10% per annum. The loan notes are contingent convertible securities . .
CitedVolcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa SC 5-Dec-2018
The claimant appellants, arranged shipment of bagged Colombian green coffee beans, stowed in 20 unventilated 20-foot containers from Panama to Rotterdam, Hamburg or Bremerhaven for on carriage to Bremen. The bill of lading for each consignment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.179802

Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa (T/A CSAV): CA 10 Nov 2016

Claim for damages to cargo of coffee beans – onus of proof of liability for negligence

Gloster , King LJJ, Flaux J
[2016] EWCA Civ 1103, [2016] WLR(D) 589
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromVolcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa (T/A Csav) ComC 5-Mar-2015
Coffee beans damaged in transit – onus of proof of liability in negligence . .

Cited by:
CitedVolcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa SC 5-Dec-2018
The claimant appellants, arranged shipment of bagged Colombian green coffee beans, stowed in 20 unventilated 20-foot containers from Panama to Rotterdam, Hamburg or Bremerhaven for on carriage to Bremen. The bill of lading for each consignment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.571232

Trafigura Beheer Bv v Navigazione Montanari Spa: ComC 30 Jan 2014

Proper construction of a charterparty recorded in a recap, under which the claimants chartered a vessel owned by the defendants, the ‘Valle di Cordoba’, for the carriage of a consignment of premium motor oil.

Andrew Smith J
[2014] EWHC 129 (Comm), [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 550
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520895

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 the full term of the charter. The arbitrator set off that profit against the losses arising on the repudiation. The owners now appealed.
Held: On the facts found by the arbitrator, the application of the principles of law which he had identified did not require the owners to give credit for any benefit in realising the capital value of the vessel in October 2007, by reference to its capital value in November 2009, ‘because it was not a benefit which was legally caused by the breach.’
The search for a single general rule which determines when a wrongdoer obtains credit for a benefit received following his breach of contract or duty is elusive . . Nevertheless a number of principles emerge from the authorities considered above which I would endeavour to summarise as follows: (1) In order for a benefit to be taken into account in reducing the loss recoverable by the innocent party for a breach of contract, it is generally speaking a necessary condition that the benefit is caused by the breach: Bradburn, British Westinghouse, The Elena D’Amico, and other authorities considered above.
(2) The causation test involves taking into account all the circumstances, including the nature and effects of the breach and the nature of the benefit and loss, the manner in which they occurred and any pre-existing, intervening or collateral factors which played a part in their occurrence: The Fanis.
(3) The test is whether the breach has caused the benefit; it is not sufficient if the breach has merely provided the occasion or context for the innocent party to obtain the benefit, or merely triggered his doing so: The Elena D’Amico. Nor is it sufficient merely that the benefit would not have been obtained but for the breach: Bradburn, Lavarack v Woods, Needler v Taber.
(4) In this respect it should make no difference whether the question is approached as one of mitigation of loss, or measure of damage; although they are logically distinct approaches, the factual and legal inquiry and conclusion should be the same: Hussey v Eels.
(5) The fact that a mitigating step, by way of action or inaction, may be a reasonable and sensible business decision with a view to reducing the impact of the breach, does not of itself render it one which is sufficiently caused by the breach. A step taken by the innocent party which is a reasonable response to the breach and designed to reduce losses caused thereby may be triggered by a breach but not legally caused by the breach: The Elena D’Amico.
(6) Whilst a mitigation analysis requires a sufficient causal connection between the breach and the mitigating step, it is not sufficient merely to show in two stages that there is: (a) a causative nexus between breach and mitigating step; and (b) a causative nexus between mitigating step and benefit. The inquiry is also for a direct causative connection between breach and benefit (Palatine), in cases approached by a mitigation analysis no less than in cases adopting a measure of loss approach: Hussey v Eels, The Fanis. Accordingly, benefits flowing from a step taken in reasonable mitigation of loss are to be taken into account only if and to the extent that they are caused by the breach.
(7) Where, and to the extent that, the benefit arises from a transaction of a kind which the innocent party would have been able to undertake for his own account irrespective of the breach, that is suggestive that the breach is not sufficiently causative of the benefit: Lavarack v Woods, The Elena D’Amico.
(8) There is no requirement that the benefit must be of the same kind as the loss being claimed or mitigated: Bellingham v Dhillon, Nadreph v Willmett, Hussey v Eels, The Elbrus, cf The Yasin; but such a difference in kind may be indicative that the benefit is not legally caused by the breach: Palatine.
(9) Subject to these principles, whether a benefit is caused by a breach is a question of fact and degree which must be answered by considering all the relevant circumstances in order to form a commonsense overall judgment on the sufficiency of the causal nexus between breach and benefit: Hussey v Eels, Needler v Taber, The Fanis.
(10) Although causation between breach and benefit is generally a necessary requirement, it is not always sufficient. Considerations of justice, fairness and public policy have a role to play and may preclude a defendant from reducing his liability by reference to some types of benefits or in some circumstances even where the causation test is satisfied: Palatine, Parry v Cleaver.
(11) In particular, benefits do not fall to be taken into account, even where caused by the breach, where it would be contrary to fairness and justice for the defendant wrongdoer to be allowed to appropriate them for his benefit because they are the fruits of something the innocent party has done or acquired for his own benefit: Shearman v Folland, Parry v Cleaver and Smoker.’

Popplewell J
[2014] EWHC 1547 (Comm), [2014] 1 CLC 711, [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1205, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 230, 154 Con LR 183
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGolden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
CitedBradburn 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 . .
CitedBritish 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 . .
CitedStaniforth v Lyall And Others 27-Nov-1830
Defendants chartered a ship to New Zealand, where they were to load her, or by an agent there to give Plaintiff, the owner, notice that they abandoned the adventure; in which case they were to pay him 5001. The ship went to New Zealand, but found . .
CitedWertheim v The Chicoutimi Pulp Company PC 18-Mar-1910
(Quebec) The buyer sought damages for late delivery of goods calculated on the difference between the market price at the place of delivery when the goods should have been delivered and the market price there when the goods were in fact delivered. . .
CitedThe Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Company Limited and Others v Samuel S Carroll and Another PC 14-Dec-1910
(Ontario) The defendant was found to have breached its obligations to supply natural gas to the plaintiff. The plaintiff spent money on works to procure its own supply, and subsequently sold those works at a profit.
Held: Their Lordships . .
CitedJebsen v East and West India Dock Co CCP 25-Feb-1875
Delay caused by a charterer in discharging cargo caused the shipowner to lose passengers whom he had contracted to carry but he was able to take the same passengers in another of his vessels.
Held: The shipowners’ damages were not to be . .
CitedShearman 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 . .
CitedShearman 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 . .
CitedLavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd CA 19-Jul-1966
The plaintiff had been wrongly dismissed. He came to be employed by Martindale at a lower salary, and bought shares in Martindale and Ventilation which increased in value.
Held: The new salary and the increase in the value of the Martindale . .
CitedParry 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 . .
CitedBellingham 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 . .
CitedNadreph Ltd v Willmett and Co 1978
The landlord of commercial premises brought a claim in negligence against its solicitors for a notice to terminate the tenancy, which caused the tenant (Citroen) to vacate the premises and become entitled to statutory compensation from the landlord. . .
CitedThe 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 . .
CitedGolden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
CitedChoil Trading Sa v Sahara Energy Resources Ltd ComC 26-Feb-2010
Losses incurred from hedging undertaken in mitigation of breach of a sale contract are recoverable . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromFulton 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 . .
At first InstanceGlobalia 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Transport

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.525784

The Secretary of State, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Senior Coroner for Norfolk and Another: Admn 28 Sep 2016

Coroner may not use flight records

The coroner was charged to investigate four deaths in an helicopter accident. The Secretary of State now challenged various decisions of the Coroner by which (i) she ordered disclosure to her of a cockpit voice and flight data recorder and/or a full transcript of that voice recording; and (ii) she imposed a fine for non-compliance with those orders.
Held: The request for judiial review succeeded. The 1944 Convention applied to restrict the use of such recordings save where disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Singh J
[2016] EWHC 2279 (Admin)
Bailii
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944
England and Wales

Coroners, Transport

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.569629

Haydon v Kent County Council: CA 1978

Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully taken up with sanding and gritting roads, but on the Wednesday evening one of their workmen reported the dangerous state of the particular path to them, and they took prompt action next morning, but not in time to prevent the plaintiff’s accident.
Held: The authority was liable. The duty to maintain the highway in section 44(1) included removing snow and ice and taking such protective measures as would render highways and paths safe for vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather conditions.
Lord Denning (dissenting): ”Repair’ means making good defects in the surface of the highway itself so as to make it reasonably passable for the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood at all seasons of the year without danger caused by its physical condition. That is the combined effect of the statements of Blackburn J. in Reg. v. Inhabitants of High Halden (1859) 1 F. and F. 678; of Diplock L.J. in Burnside v. Emerson [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1490, 1497 and Cairns L.J. in Worcestershire County Council v. Newman [1975] 1 W.L.R. 901, 911. Thus deep ruts in cart roads, potholes in carriage roads, broken bridges on footpaths or bushes rooted in the surface make all the highways ‘out of repair’.’ The statutory definition does not imply that ‘maintain’ has a wider meaning than ‘repair’, and that given the legislation history the cause of action which an injured person has under the 1961 Act was limited to ‘non-repair’ of a highway, and did not include other cases. On the extent of that duty: ‘In my opinion, therefore, the duty in section 44 of the Act of 1959 ‘to maintain the highway’ is the equivalent of the duty at common law and in the Act of 1835 ‘to repair and keep in repair.’ It means that whenever there is a defect in the surface of the highway, the highway authority is under a duty to repair it. But it does not mean that the highway authority is under a duty to remove snow or ice whenever it makes the highway slippery or dangerous. I adhere, therefore, to the view I expressed in Burnside v. Emerson [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1490, 1494: ‘. . . an icy patch in winter or an occasional flooding at any time is not in itself evidence of a failure to maintain’.
Goff L.J said that the highway authority would be in breach of duty only if: ‘having regard to the nature and importance of the way, sufficient time [has] elapsed to make it prima facie unreasonable for the authority to have failed to take remedial measures. Then the authority is liable unless it is able to make out the statutory defence.’

Lord Denning MR, Goff and Shaw LJJ
[1978] QB 343, [1978] 2 All ER 97
Highways Act 1959 44(1), Highways Act 1961
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Inhabitants of High Halden 1859
highhalden1859
The court considered the liability of the parish for injury arising from a failure to repair the road. The road was ‘an old soft road formed of Weald of Kent clay, and had never been repaired with hard substances’. The evidence was that in wet . .
CitedBurnside and Another v Emerson and Others CA 1968
The plaintiffs were injured in a road accident caused by flooding. They sued the executors of the deceased driver whose car spun out of control into the path of their own car, and also the highway authority, who had installed a proper system of . .
CitedHereford and Worcester County Council v Newman CA 1975
The council had been found responsible by the magistrates for allowing footpaths to be ‘out of repair’. The paths were unusable for various reasons including having a hawthorn hedge growing down the middle, and having barbed wire fencing strung . .

Cited by:
ConsideredStovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party) CA 16-Feb-1994
A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view.
Held: The . .
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
CitedJane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
CitedThoburn v Northumberland County Council CA 19-Jan-1999
The claimant alleged that the defendant by allowing a flood across a road not to be cleared was in breach of their statutory duty under the 1980 Act.
Held: Though the blockage was not entirely on the Highway, the nature and extent of it was . .
CitedDepartment for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
CitedAli v The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority . .
CitedPritchard v Clwyd County Council CA 16-Jun-1992
The plaintiff was injured wading through a flooded street. She claimed damages alleging a failure to maintain the storm water sewers. The defendants appealed a finding that they were responsible, and she appealed a contributory negligence . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Personal Injury, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.180995

Air France Sa v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts: ECJ 26 Feb 2013

airfrance_folkertsECJ2013

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 6 and 7 – Connecting flight(s) – Delay in arrival at the final destination – Delay equal to or in excess of three hours – A passenger’s right to compensation

V Skouris, P
C-11/11, [2013] EUECJ C-11/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 6 7

European, Transport, Consumer

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.471208

Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

pfeiffer_deutchesrotesreuzECJ102004

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of ‘road transport’ – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions
A National Court, when applying domestic law and in particular legislative provisions specifically adopted for the purposes of implementing the requirements of a Directive, is bound to interpret national law, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the Directive. It is the responsibility of the National Court to ensure that the rules of Community law are fully effective.
Europa Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of – road transport – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions.

C-399/01, [2004] EUECJ C-399/01, C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-403/01, C-397/01, C-398/01, C-402/01, C-403/01, C-400/01, [2005] IRLR 137, [2004] ECR 8835, [2005] ICR 1307, [2004] ECR I-8835
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Directive 93/104/EC
Citing:
ApprovedLandeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger ECJ 9-Sep-2003
Concepts of working time and rest period – On Call
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Concepts of working time and rest . .

Cited by:
CitedGreenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .
CitedAttridge Law (A Firm of Solicitors) v Coleman and Law EAT 20-Dec-2006
The claimant asserted associative disability discrimination. She was the carer for her disabled son.
Held: To succeed the claimant would have to show that associative discrimination was prohibited by the directive and that the 1995 Act could . .
CitedEnglish v Thomas Sanderson Ltd CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for harrassment and sex discrimination. Though heterosexual, he had been subject to persistent jokes that he was homosexual. The court first asked whether the alleged conduct was ‘on the grounds of sexual . .
CitedBritish Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 24-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the calculation of annual leave pay for crew members in civil aviation under the Regulations. The company argued that it was based on the fixed annual remuneration, and the pilots argued that it should include other . .
CitedO’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 28-Jul-2010
The appellant had worked as a part time judge. He now said that he should be entitled to a judicial pension on retirement by means of the Framework Directive. The Regulations disapplied the provisions protecting part time workers for judicial office . .
CitedTwentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
CitedForensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another ChD 9-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones.
Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection . .
CitedBritish Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 17-Oct-2012
The claimants, airline pilots, and the company disputed the application of the 1998 Regulations to their employment. They sought pay for their annual leave made up of three elements: a proportionate part of the fixed annual sum paid for their . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, European, Health and Safety, Transport, Employment, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.215895

Brown v Gaudet (The Ex Cargo Argos): PC 30 May 1873

(High Court of Admiralty)

[1873] UKPC 54
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoGaudet Geipel and Others v Brown (The Ex Cargo Argos) PC 18-Feb-1873
Petrol was shipped in London on the Argos under a bill of lading to deliver at Le Havre. It arrived in the later stages of the Franco-Prussian war, when the port was full of munitions, and the landing of flammable cargoes was forbidden. The master . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.419013

Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International, The Alaskan Trader (No 2): 1984

The 24 month charterparty vessel suffered a major engine breakdown after nearly a year. The repairs would take several months. The charterers said they had no further use for the vessel but the owner did the repairs and sought to hold the charterers liable for hire for the rest of the period of the charterparty, once the repairs had been completed – some seven months. On an arbitration, the award was that the owners had no legitimate interest in pursuing their claim for hire rather than asserting a claim for damages. The owners appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Given the defendants’ conduct when called on to honour their clear obligations and because of their policy of non-cooperation during the proceedings, including admitting liability only at the last moment, it would not be equitable to deny the claimants their statutory rights.
Lloyd J reviewed the case law and said: ‘this court is bound to hold that there is some fetter [on the innocent party’s right to elect to disregard the repudiation], if only in extreme cases; and for want of a better way of describing that fetter it is safest for this court to use the language of Lord Reid, which, as I have already said, was adopted by a majority of the Court of Appeal in The Puerto Buitrago.’ The correct analysis was that, the court, on equitable grounds, refused to allow the innocent party to enforce his full contractual rights.

Lloyd J
[1984] 1 All ER 129, [1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 645
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH, The Puerto Buitrago CA 1976
The parties entered into a charterparty by demise of a bulk carrier. It was in a state of disrepair. The owners required the charterers to repair it before redelivery, and claimed hire losses until it was returned repaired. The extensive repairs . .

Cited by:
CitedReichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396614

Monarch Airlines Ltd v Airport Coordination Ltd and Another: Admn 15 Nov 2017

The court was asked whether the defendant, Airport Co-ordination Limited, is under a duty to allocate slots at certain United Kingdom airports for the summer 2018 season to the insolvent Monarch Airlines Limited.

Gross LJ, Lewis J
[2017] EWHC 2896 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromMonarch Airlines Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Airport Coordination Ltd CA 22-Nov-2017
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.599415

Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd: HL 16 May 2007

The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that the value of any one item did not exceed the stated limit. The claimants said that the alleged misconduct of the defendant’s staff meant that UPS could not rely on the limitation of liability provided by the Convention, and that with both restrictions not applying, UPS’s liability was unlimited.
Held: The contract should be read to reflect the commercial reality under which there remained an effective contract despite the excess value. Had the misconduct been proved? The judge had not reflected the proper effect of the expert evidence, and ‘theft involving a UPS employee was shown on a strong balance of probability to have been the cause of this loss. ‘ UPS’ appeal was therefore dismissed.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Times 18-May-2007, [2007] UKHL 23, [2007] 1 WLR 1325, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 114, [2007] Bus LR 1291
Bailii
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 81, Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedManning v Stylianou CA 26-Oct-2006
Where an appeal is against a judge’s evaluation of the facts, the Court of Appeal should consider the evaluation in the same way it would approach an appeal against the exercise of discretion. . .
CitedQuantum Corporation Inc and Others v Plane Trucking Ltd and Another CA 27-Mar-2002
A valuable cargo was stolen whilst being transported. Part of the journey was by road, and part by air. The carriers sought to limit their liability, because of the provisions of the Act and Convention. It was argued that that did not apply, because . .
ApprovedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
At First InstanceDatec Electronic Holdings Ltd and Another v United Parcels Service Ltd and Another ComC 22-Feb-2005
The claimant sought damages for the loss of goods in transit under the care of the defendant. Andrew Smith J held as regards the burden of proof in an allegation of wilful misconduct: ‘I should add that I was properly reminded by counsel that the . .
Appeal fromDatec Electronic Holdings Ltd and Another v United Parcels Service Ltd CA 29-Nov-2005
The parties put forward alternative explanations for the loss of a mail packet. Richards LJ said: ‘Nor do I see any inconsistency between my approach and the observations of Lord Brandon in The Popi M. The conclusion that employee theft was the . .

Cited by:
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
CitedIde v ATB Sales Ltd and Another CA 28-Apr-2008
Each appellant challenged how the judge had decided between alternative proofs of causation of the respective loss. In Ide, the claimant asserted a fault in a cycle handlebar, and in Lexus, the claimant asserted that it caught fire whilst . .
CitedBarlow Clowes International Ltd and Others v Henwood CA 23-May-2008
The receiver appealed against an order finding that the debtor petitioner was not domiciled here when the order was made. The debtor had a domicile of origin in England, but later acquired on in the Isle of Man. He then acquired a home in Mauritius . .
CitedFosse Motor Engineers Ltd and others v Conde Nast and National Magazine Distributors Ltd and Another TCC 20-Aug-2008
The claimant said that the defendant’s employees had negligently started a fire which burned down the claimant’s warehouse. There was limited evidence to establish the cause.
Held: The claim failed. The scientific evidence did not point to any . .
CitedSony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd v Cinram Logistics UK Ltd CA 8-Aug-2008
Various items were deemed to have been lost whilst being transported by the defendants. The claimants sought damages based on the price for which they would have been sold. The defendants appealed a judgment on that basis.
Held: The carrier’s . .
CitedAlford v Cambridgeshire Police CA 24-Feb-2009
The claimant police officer had been held after an accident when he was in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle into the neighbouring respondent’s area. The prosecution had been discontinued, and he now appealed against rejection of his claims for . .
CitedWhitehouse v Lee CA 14-May-2009
The tenant appealed against an order requiring her to give up possession of her flat, held under the 1977 Act, saying that the court should not have found it reasonable to make an order after finding alternative accommodation suitable.
Held: . .
CitedCooper and Others v Fanmailuk.Com Ltd and Another CA 17-Dec-2009
F claimed to be the beneficial owner of shares registered in the names of the claimants. The appellants challenged a finding that the shares were held on trust for F, and the implication that the first appellant had presented a dishonest claim.
CitedNulty and Others v Milton Keynes Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
There had been two fires at a depot owned by the claimants. The fires were found to have been likely to have been caused by the deceased employee. His insurers had repudiated liability saying that the had not been notified oin a timely fashion.
CitedFortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
CitedFortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
CitedMichalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
MentionedShagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd SC 5-Aug-2020
Allegations had been made that a contract had been procured by bribery. The other party said that the admissions of bribery had been extracted by torture and were inadmissible. The CA had decided that the unproven possibility that it was obtained by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract, Damages

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.252416

Medvedyev And Others v France: ECHR 29 Mar 2010

(Grand Chamber) A Cambodian vessel, The Winner, trafficked drugs on the high seas (Cape Verde). It was detected and boarded by the French authorities, detaining the crew on board and took them on the vessel to France for trial. France was, but Cambodia was not, party to the relevant international drug trafficking conventions, which did not in the circumstances authorise the arrest by France of the Cambodian vessel. Nevertheless, Cambodia had given France specific ad hoc authorisation ‘to intercept, inspect and take legal action against the ship’. The crew complained that they were not within the jurisdiction of the French Courts.
Held: (Majority) They were within the jurisdiction of France for the purposes of article 1, France ‘having exercised full and exclusive control over the Winner and its crew, at least de facto, from the time of its interception, in a continuous and uninterrupted manner until they were tried in France (contrast Bankovic, cited above)’. As to Bankovic, the Court noted that it was ‘only in exceptional cases that acts of the Contracting States performed, or producing effects, outside their territories can constitute an exercise of jurisdiction by them for the purposes of article 1 . . this excluded situations, however, where – as in the Bankovic case – what was at issue was an instantaneous extraterritorial act, as the provisions of article 1 did not admit of a ’cause-and-effect’ notion of ‘jurisdiction’.’
The detention of the crew was nevertheless unjustified. Although international as well as domestic law was capable of shaping a ‘procedure prescribed by law’ within article 5.1, Cambodia’s ad hoc authorisation did not meet the requirements under article 5.1 of ‘clearly defined’ and ‘foreseeable’ law. The Court allowed the possibility of a purely factual (albeit unlawfully exercised) concept of jurisdiction under article 1. Dissenting, seven judges, said that article 1 applied: ‘the Winner – with the agreement of the flag state – was undeniably within the jurisdiction of France for the purposes of article 1.’. That state B may authorise state A to exercise jurisdiction which would otherwise belong to state B for the purposes of article 1 was consistent with the principles in Bankovic.
The court awarded 5,000 Euros in damages.

(2010) 51 EHRR 39, 3394/03, [2010] ECHR 384
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 1 5.1
Human Rights
Citing:
ExplainedBankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .

Cited by:
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedAssange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
CitedFaulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, International, Crime, Transport

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.406700

The Mersey Docks And Harbour Board v Penhallow And Others: CEC 18 Jun 1861

Trustees incorporated by statute for the purpose of constructing a dock, and who receive rates and have funds which they are bound to apply in maintaining and cleansing the dock, so that it may be in a fit state for vessels to enter, are liable for injury to a vessel caused by an accumulation of mud in the dock, of which by their servants they had the means of knowing, and were negligently ignorant.
[1861] EngR 734, (1861) 7 H and N 329, (1861) 158 ER 500
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.284495

Abnett v British Airways Plc (Scotland): IHCS 28 Apr 1995

A passenger wrongfully detained in Kuwait, whilst travelling at the time when Iraq invaded Kuwait, only has right to claim damages under Warsaw Convention.
Lord Allanbridge, Lord Mayfield and Lord Clyde
Times 22-Jun-1995, 1996 SLT 529
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929
Scotland
Citing:
DistinguishedGatewhite v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA 1990
In a contract for the carriage of goods by air, the court considered whether the owner of goods who had not been named as the consignor or consignee on the air waybill was entitled to sue the carrier for damages to the goods while in transit.
Cited by:
Appeal fromSidhu and Others v British Airways Plc; Abnett (Known as Sykes) v Same HL 13-Dec-1996
The claimants had been air passengers who were unlawfully detained in Kuwait, when their plane was captured whilst on the ground on the invasion of Kuwait. They sought damages for that detention.
Held: There are no exceptions to the Warsaw . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.77611

Compagnie Commercial Andre S A v Artibell Shipping Company Limited and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland: SCS 7 Jan 1999

The pursuers employed the defenders to carry sugar across Iraq. The voyage had been abandoned. The defenders challenged the proceedings as to jurisdiction and otherwise.
Lord MacFadyen
[1999] ScotCS 2
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
See alsoCompangnie Commerciale Andre S A v Artibell Shipping Co Ltd and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland SCS 21-Feb-2001
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.163434

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.
Times 01-May-1996
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 34
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRepublic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace’) (No 1) HL 29-Mar-1993
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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRepublic of India and Another v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace) (No 2) HL 23-Oct-1997
When a action in rem against a ship was in fact parallel to an action in personam begun in India and awaiting a decision; an action was not to be allowed here.
Lord Steyn: ‘It is settled that an estoppel by convention may arise where parties to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.88742

Colley v Overseas Exporters: 1921

Sellers brought an action for the price of goods sold on terms fob Liverpool. The buyers made five successive nominations of vessels to take delivery of the cargo but in each case the vessel was eventually unable to take the goods. No effective nomination was made, the goods remained at the dock awaiting shipment, and the sellers brought an action for the price. The argument advanced on behalf of the sellers was that because it was the buyers’ own fault which had prevented the goods being put on board, the buyers were disabled from saying that the price, which would have been payable if and when the goods had actually been put on board, was not now due to the sellers.
Held: The argument was rejected. Judgment was given for the buyers, there being no alternative claim for damages. Having found that s. 49(1) did not apply because property would not pass until the goods were loaded on board under standard fob terms, and that s. 49(2) did not apply because there was no agreement as to payment of the price on a day certain, he held at p. 310 that those findings were fatal to an action on the price because s. 49 was exclusive:
‘The existing condition of the law is put in Benjamin on Sale, 6th ed., p. 946, where it is rightly stated that the old principles ‘are by implication preserved by s. 49 of the code’. And the learned editor adds: ‘Where property has not passed, the seller’s claim must, as a general rule, be damages for non-acceptance.’ An exception to the general rule is to be found in the cases provided for by s. 49, sub-s. 2, of the code. In my opinion (subject to what I say hereafter as to estoppel), no action will lie for the price of goods until the property has passed, save only in the special cases provided for by s. 49, sub-s. 2. This seems plain both on the code and on common law principle. I have searched in vain for authority to the contrary.’
McCardie J
[1921] 3 KB 302, [1921] All ER 596
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.618133

Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another: ECJ 27 Oct 1998

French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims).
Held: There was no jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because none of the defendants were domiciled in France. After referring to Kalfelis: ‘It follows that two claims in one action for compensation directed against different defendants and based in one instance on contractual liability and in the other on liability in tort or delict cannot be regarded as connected.’
Europa An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considers to be the actual maritime carrier, does not fall within the scope of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, since the bill of lading in question does not disclose any contractual relationship freely entered into between the consignee and the defendant. Such an action is, however, a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, of that Convention, since that concept covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and are not related to matters of contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1. As regards determining the `place where the harmful event occurred’ within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, the place where the consignee, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine that place. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned concept may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, the place where the damage arose can, in the circumstances described, only be the place where the maritime carrier was to deliver the goods. Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State, before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.
Times 16-Nov-1998, C-51/97, [1998] ECR I-6511, [1998] EUECJ C-51/97
Bailii
Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
European
Cited by:
CitedMazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
CitedShahar v Tsitsekkos and others ChD 17-Nov-2004
The defendant wished to make a claim against another party outside the jurisdiction and was granted permission to serve documents which were headed ‘defence and counterclaim’. The proposed defendant argued that such a document could be served in . .
CitedCasio Computer Co Ltd v Sayo and others CA 11-Apr-2001
The court was asked whether a constructive trust claim based on dishonest assistance is a matter ‘relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention?
Held: A constructive trust claim based upon . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.88750

Railtrack Plc v Smallwood: QBD 16 Feb 2001

It was not incorrect for an inspector to proceed to issue a prohibition notice to the rail operator, with regard to the use of a signal set, which had been deemed unsafe, even where the operator had given formal undertakings with regard to its’ use. The overwhelming need was to re-assure the public as to their safety, and the additional imposition of the notice operated as a belt and braces method of ensuring such safety. The section should be read purposively. The inspector would have been free to issue the notice before the accident. The accident had merely confirmed the need for a notice. ‘Activities’ might include suspended activities.
Sullivan J said: ‘In the light of those factors, and of the authorities cited in De Smith Woolf and Jowell’s Judicial Review of Administrative Law (1999), pp 251-252, paragraph 6-010, I expressed the provisional view during the course of argument that a Tribunal hearing an appeal under section 24 of the 1974 Act was not limited to reviewing the genuineness and/or the reasonableness of the Inspector’s opinions. It was required to form its own view, paying due regard to the Inspector’s expertise, see in particular Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971} 2QB 614.’
Sullivan J
Times 16-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] ICR 714
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 22
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedChilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd Admn 17-Jul-2009
The company had successfully appealed against a prohibition notice relating to its arrangements for working at height. By the time of the prohibition notice, it had implemented a plan satisfactory to the inspector.
Held: The tribunal had not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.85650

North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others: ComC 22 Apr 2005

[2005] EWHC 665 (Comm), [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 76, [2005] 2 CLC 238
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoNorth Star Shipping Ltd. and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others ComC 27-Oct-2004
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromNorth Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others CA 7-Apr-2006
A claim was made under a marine insurance policy for damage caused to a vessel by an explosion. Underwriters alleged that they were entitled to avoid the policies for (inter alia) non-disclosure of the existence of criminal proceedings in Greece . .
CitedNavigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.224563

Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda: SC 22 May 2018

The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from the insurers. The Court of Appeal had rejected the claim allowing the insurers to rely on an exclusion in the clauses relating to malicious acts by a third party.
Held: The ship-owners’ appeal failed. The acts complained of were not aimed at the owners, but at the ship, and that was the essential of the exclusion. ‘clause 1.5 is not apt to cover the present circumstances, and . . the premise on which this appeal reaches the Supreme Court is incorrect. ‘
Lord Mance (Deputy President), Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge and, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 26, [2018] 2 WLR 1671, [2018] WLR(D) 317, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 671, [2019] AC 136, [2018] 4 All ER 589, [2018] 2 WLR 1671, [2018] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [2018] Lloyds Rep IR 448
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC 180320 am Hearing, SC 180320 pm Hearing, SC Summary Video, WLRD
Institute War and Strikes Clauses 1/10/83 with additional perils, cls 1.5, 4.1.5
England and Wales
Citing:
Preliminary Issues ComCAtlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 29-Mar-2012
Trial of preliminary issues in an action in which the Claimant claims under its war risks insurance for the constructive total loss of the vessel ‘B Atlantic’ (‘the Vessel’). Between 7 and 12 August 2007 the Vessel loaded a cargo of coal at . .
At ComCAtlasnavios-Navegacao, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 8-Dec-2014
The claimant’s vessel and its crew had been detained after illegal drugs were found to be attached to its hull in port in Venezuela by ship crew members. The ship owners asserted effective total loss.
Held: The owners were entitled to recover . .
At CAAtlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others CA 1-Aug-2016
(The B Atlantic) The court was asked whether Flaux J was right to find that the owners of a ship were entitled to be indemnified by the insurers in respect of the constructive total loss of the vessel under war insurance after detention ‘by reason . .
CitedNishina Trading Co Ltd v Chiyoda Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd (The Mandarin Star) CA 1968
The ship owners had not been paid two months of charter hire due to them, so the master took the cargo. The cargo did not belong to the defaulting charterer, however, but rather to an innocent third party. The insurance clause provided that ‘it is . .
CitedBrough v Whitmore 11-Feb-1791
Provisions sent out in a ship for the use of the crew, are protected by a policy of assurance on the ship and furniture. . .
CitedRickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd CA 1941
MacKinnon LJ said: ‘There are two massive volumes of Arnould which purport to deal with The Law of Marine Insurance. They now contain over 1800 pages, and the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, is entitled ‘An Act to codify the Law relating to Marine . .
CitedPanamanian Oriental Steamship Corpn v Wright (The ‘Anita’) 1970
. .
CitedPanamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright (The Anita) CA 1971
The burden is on Underwriters to bring themselves within an exclusion clause they seek to rely on.
Lord Denning distinguished between what might be described as justified or ‘connected’ political interference on the one hand and unjustified or . .
CitedShell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) QBD 1981
Conspirators disposed of a cargo of oil dishonestly, in South Africa, in breach of sanctions and with a view to profit. Mustill J. considered whether this loss was caused by persons acting maliciously, that is out of spite or ill-will or the like. . .
CitedShell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) CA 1982
The conspirators purchased and manned a tanker, The Salem. They chartered her to an innocent charterer, Pontoil SA, for a voyage to Europe carrying a cargo of oil which Pontoil acquired from Kuwait Oil Co in Mina al Ahmadi and agreed to resell to . .
CitedNorth Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others ComC 22-Apr-2005
. .
CitedSunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Ltd (Formerly Know As Colonia Baltica Insurance Ltd) and others CA 24-Jan-2003
(The ‘Kleovoulos of Rhodes’) A large quantity of cocaine was discovered by divers behind a grille in a sea chest at the vessel’s discharge port, Aliveri – having been placed there by unknown third persons at the load port in Colombia, South America. . .
CitedAllen v Flood HL 14-Dec-1898
Tort of Malicicious Inducement not Committed
Mr Flood had in the course of his duties as a trade union official told the employers of some ironworkers that the ironworkers would go on strike, unless the employers ceased employing some woodworkers, who the ironworkers believed had worked on . .
MentionedRegina v Cunningham CCA 1957
Specific Intention as to Damage Caused
(Court of Criminal Appeal) The defendant wrenched a gas meter from the wall to steal it. Gas escaped. He was charged with unlawfully and maliciously causing a noxious thing, namely coal gas, to be taken by the victim.
Held: Byrne J said: ‘We . .
CitedRegina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
CitedCory v Burr HL 30-Apr-1883
In a time policy of marine insurance on ship the ordinary perils insured against (including ‘ barratry of the master ‘) were enumerated, and the ship was warranted ‘free from capture and seizure and the consequences of any attempts thereat.’ In . .
CitedIn re Etherington and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Co CA 8-Feb-1909
By the terms of a policy an accident insurance company undertook, if, at any time during the continuance of the said policy, the insured should sustain any bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external, and visible means, then, in case such . .
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
CitedRoyal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The Ann Stathatos) 1949
The ship had been chartered, but the crew refused to sail without an escort, in war conditions. The charterer sought to be excused liability under a clause making allowance for ‘insufficiency of crew’.
Held: The presumption against surplusage . .
CitedWayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd CA 1973
The court discussed the effect of an exception clause in an insurance policy: ‘The effect of an exception is to save the insurer from liability for a loss which but for the exception would be covered. The effect of the cover is not to impose on the . .
CitedHandelsbanken v Dandridge and others CA 30-Apr-2002
The Aliza Glacial
Construction of two standard clauses in the Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls-Time, 1983 edition. Potter LJ treated the vessel’s loss, following the owners’ refusal to meet an outrageous ransom demand by a terrorist organisation, as outside . .
CitedMelinda Holdings Sa v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd ComC 18-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to assert its claim for payment under war risks insurance with the defendant after the insured ship was arrested and detained in Cairo. . .
CitedGlobal Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad SC 1-Feb-2011
An oil rig (The Cendor MOPU) was being transported from Texas to Malaysia. During the voyage, three of the four legs suffered damage. The insurers refused liability saying that the damage was the result of inherent weaknesses in the rig.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.616316

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

Updated: 01 June 2021; 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.
Times 07-Aug-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1077, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 46, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 461
Merchant Shipping Act 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromGeorgian Maritime Corporation v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd ComC 18-Apr-1997
ComC Time charterparty – proper construction – cancellation clause – cancellation – non-delivery . .
Appeal fromBouygues 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:
CitedDonohue 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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; 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.
Lord Fraser, Lord Wilberforce
[1983] 1 WLR 964, [1981] UKHL 12, [1983] 1 All ER 101, 1982 SLT 377
Bailii
Hague Rules
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCanada 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:
CitedDaewoo 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 . .
AppliedBovis 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 . .
CitedAmiri 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 . .
CitedFrans 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 . .
CitedHIH 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 . .
CitedGeorge 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 andpound;192, but the farmer lost andpound;61,000. The seed supplier appealed the award of the larger amount and interest, saying that . .
CitedSociete 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 May 2021; 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.’
Hamblen J
[2012] EWHC 1717 (Admlty), [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe 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; . .
CitedCBS 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 . .
CitedCBS 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 . .
CitedUnilever 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 . .
CitedGenerale 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 . .
CitedSABAF 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 . .
CitedMonsanto 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 fromFish 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 instanceSea 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; 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
V. Skouris, P
C-581/10, [2012] EUECJ C-581/10
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
Citing:
OrderNelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority ECJ 30-Nov-2011
Order – joinder of cases . .

Cited by:
CitedDawson 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2021; 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’.
Leggatt LJ
Times 07-May-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1413, CCRTI 96/0229/G
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 Art 17
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAir 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:
CitedDeep 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 . .
CitedBarclay 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2021; 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.
Times 09-Jul-1993, C-298/89, [1993] EUECJ C-298/89, [1993] ECR I-3605
Bailii
European

Updated: 15 April 2021; 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.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Moore-Bick, Toulson LJJ
[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
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 12 April 2021; 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’.
Phillips LJ
Times 15-Feb-1996, [1996] QB 702
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGKN 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 . .
CitedLaroche 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; 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’
Hoffman LJ, Hirst LJ
Ind Summary 22-Aug-1994, Times 15-Aug-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 641, [1994] 1 WLR 1634
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedTalbot 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:
CitedBenford 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 . .
CitedFuller 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; 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.
Gazette 11-May-2001, Times 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 195, [2001] 1 WLR 1556
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 34
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; 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.
Times 10-Dec-1999, Gazette 07-Jan-2000
Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970) Art 55
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; 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.
(1883) 11 R 44, [1883] SLR 21 – 28, [1883] SLR 21
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedBritish 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 April 2021; Ref: scu.182842

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.’
Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge
[2017] UKSC 68, [2017] Bus LR 1909, [2017] WLR(D) 703, UKSC 2016/0164
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
York Antwerp Rules 1974 F
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBirkley 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 . .
CitedJames 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 . .
CitedMarida Ltd v Oswal Steel (The Bijela) CA 1993
Hoffmann LJ dissented . .
CitedKing 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 InstanceMitsui 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 CAMitsui 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. . .
CitedMarida 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. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; 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.
Kitchin, Hamblen LJJ, Sir Thomas Lloyd
[2016] EWCA Civ 708, [2016] WLR(D) 390, [2016] Bus LR 1285
Bailii, WLRD
York Antwerp Rules 1974
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceMitsui 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 CAMitsui 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 March 2021; Ref: scu.566888

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.
Times 25-Oct-2000
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929
Scotland

Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.82783

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

Updated: 14 March 2021; Ref: scu.214653

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.
[1998] EUECJ T-388/94
Bailii
European

Updated: 07 March 2021; Ref: scu.433444

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’.
Ackner LJ, Stephenson LJ, Sir Segab Shaw
[1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 171
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromPlaya 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:
CitedFiona 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.
FollowedAggeliki 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 . .
FollowedThe 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’. . .
CitedAspect 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 . .
CitedBelhaj 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 fromPlaya 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.248210

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.
C-129/10, [2011] EUECJ C-129/10
Bailii
European

Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.430718

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? ‘
Longmore, Wilson, Toulson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1102
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425193