Crawford and Law v Allan Line Steamship Co Ltd: HL 19 Dec 1911

Where a through bill of lading has been signed, inter alios, on behalf of the last carriers, the shipowners, providing that each carrier is only to be liable for damage occurring on his portion of the route, and acknowledging that the goods have been received in good order at the beginning of the transit, and the last carriers have taken no exception to the condition of the goods when handed over to them, they are liable for any damage discovered unless they prove it occurred previously.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 117, 49 SLR 117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract, Transport

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619221

Caledonian Railway Co v Symington: HL 16 Nov 1911

It is a question of fact, to be decided on the circumstances of the particular case, whether ‘freestone’ is a mineral falling within the exception contained in section 70 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 49

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619214

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co Of Chicago And Xenofon Maritime SA v Alliance Assurance Co Ltd: 1986

(‘The Captain Panagos DP’) The ship ran aground in the red sea. While aground it suffered a major fire. The owners submitted a claim on the basis that it was a total loss, or in the alternative, that they could recover a partial claim arising from each event. The underwriters said that each loss had been connived at or procured by the owners.
Held: The claim was rejected. The vessel had been deliberately run aground and then set on fire.
Evans J defined a fraudulent claim as ‘one which is made on the basis that facts exist which constitute a loss by an insured peril, when to the knowledge of the assured those alleged facts are untrue’.

Judges:

Evans J

Citations:

[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623436

Chapman v Pole: 1870

In the context of exaggerated value Cockburn, CJ spoke of one who ‘knowingly preferred a claim he knew to be false or unjust’

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

(1870) 22 LT 306

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.623435

Cameron and others v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedFoster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Human Rights, Personal Injury, Transport, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210

The Kate: 1899

The Kate was totally lost in a collision with the defendants’ ship, whilst on the ballast leg of a charterparty. The issue was whether in a case of total loss as opposed to partial loss of a ship without a cargo, the plaintiffs could recover only the market value of the ship at the time of the loss (as the defendants contended) or the profit lost under the charterparty as well (as the plaintiffs contended).
Sir Francis Jeune P laid it down that the general principle which governs the assessment of damage is ‘restitutio in integrum qualified by the condition that the damage sought to be recovered must not be too remote.’ and also said: ‘Sir Robert Phillimore states that the value should be taken as at the end of the voyage, and therefore lets in freight or interest as an additional compensation . . The present case, which is that of a vessel without cargo, but under charter, being totally lost, is not exactly that contemplated by Sir Robert Phillimore; but it appears to me to follow from his judgment that the value of the vessel may in such case be taken as at the end of her voyage, and something allowed in respect of the period between the time of collision and the end of the voyage . . the profits under the charterparty should take the place of interest, as more accurately representing the loss to the owner, and may fairly be considered to be the equivalent of freight when a cargo is on board. Indeed I can see no distinction in principle between the case of freight when a cargo is on board and . . a charterparty under which cargo is to be taken.’

Citations:

[1899] P 165

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe ‘Columbus’ 9-Mar-1849
Where a vessel is sunk in a collision, and compensation is awarded by the Court of Admiralty to the full value of the vessel as for a total loss, the plaintiff will not be able to recover anything in the nature of a demurrage for loss of the . .

Cited by:

CitedMitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Another v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime ComC 12-Sep-2013
In the lead case, Sony’s warehouse at Enfield had been severely damaged in what were said to be riots in August 2011. The court considered preliminary issues as to whether the events constituted a riot within the 1886 Act, and the extent of damages . .
CitedMitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime CA 20-May-2014
The appellant had suffered damage in a riot, and, under the 1886 Act, the respondent was liable to pay compensation.
Held: The MOPC was liable to pay compensation by way of indemnity. Analysis of section 2(1) suggested compensation for loss . .
CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.608294

Steadman v Scholfield and Another: QBD 6 May 1992

A jet ski is neither a boat nor a vessel. The maritime limitation rules did not therefore apply to an accident involving a jet ski. The applicant could therefore claim full damages.

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992

Statutes:

Marine Conventions Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89518

Semco Salvage and Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd: HL 10 Feb 1997

A ‘fair rate’ for salvage operations includes the overheads of the salvage company and the additional costs of being instantly available.

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-1997, [1997] UKHL 2; [1997] 1 All ER 502; [1997] 2 WLR 298; [1997] 1 Lloyds Rep 323

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

International Salvage Convention 14.3

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89168

Odfjfell Seachem A/S v Continentale Des Petroles Et D’Investissements and Another: ComC 15 Dec 2004

Application by the Claimants for summary judgment pursuant to CPR Part 24 upon the grounds that the Defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

Judges:

Nigel Teare QC

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2929 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.331184

Johnson And Another v Chapman: 10 Jul 1865

Deck-cargo {timber) lawfully laden pursuant to charterparty, having broken adrift in consequence of stormy weather, and impending the navigation and endangering the safety of the vessel, was necessarily thrown overboard.
Held: that the shipper was entitled to claim general average in respect thereof, as against the ship-owner.

Judges:

Cockburn CJ

Citations:

[1865] EngR 665, (1865) 19 CB NS 563, (1865) 141 ER 907

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.281577

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, Ex Parte International Air Transport Association: QBD 3 Jun 1999

The Association sought judicial review to challenge the 1998 Order.
Held: Where an EC regulation was properly completed, it was valid even though different member states had, before joining the EC, had subscribed to International Treaties inconsistent with the Regulation, but were not bound by it because of such subscription.

Judges:

Jowitt J

Citations:

Times 03-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 333, [1999] COD 315, [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 242, [1999] Eu LR 811, [1999] 2 CMLR 1385

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation 2027/97, EC Treaty 234, Warsaw Convention 1929, Air Carrier Liability Order 1998, Council Regulation (EC) Number 2027/97

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 6-Nov-1998
. .
LeaveRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 21-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85507

Handelsveem Bv and Others v Coreck Maritime GmbH: ECJ 1 Dec 2000

When a court looked at a choice of the jurisdiction clause, it was not necessary that the clause should withoutmore establish the jurisdiction. A clause could be effective where the forum will be ascertainable at the time by reference to a the circumstances. In this case of the clause required a dispute under a bill of lading to be decided in the country where the carrier had his principal place of business. The requirement under the convention, that the parties should have should of ‘agreed’ the jurisdiction was satisfied where they had agreed a method of establishing it. The Brussels convention applied only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract was domiciled in the contracting state and, second, the parties agreed to submit any dispute before the Court of a contracting state.
‘The Court has held that, by making the validity of a jurisdiction clause subject to the existence of an ‘agreement’ between the parties, article 17 of the Convention imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining first whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, and that the purpose of the requirements as to form imposed by article 17 is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established . . ‘

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-2000, C-387/98, [2000] ECR I-9337, [2000] EUECJ C-387/98

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedBols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Transport, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81216

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Linster and Others: ECJ 19 Sep 2000

Where a road or other development project would have a substantial impact on the environment, a law passed by a member state authorising the construction to proceed but which was in the absence of an impact assessment, was not in compliance with the Directive. It was not possible to bypass the procedure by use of special statutory powers. The Directive did not apply where its purposes were satisfied by a statutory process, but that implied the need for that process to produce a similar investigation.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-2000, [2000] ECR I-6917, [2000] EUECJ C-287/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedHS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80973

Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd: QBD 25 Jan 2001

A ship’s captain was, under standard Syncomex contract terms, to arrive in port and then to give notice that the cargo was available for collection. He gave the notice before arriving. The owners’ claim for demurrage failed because it depended upon such notice having been given, as a condition precedent. The notice was invalid. Lay-time could not commence to run until a notice had been given. The carrier who was to collect the cargo was not empowered to waive the requirement or vary the charter agreement.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC 503 (Comm), [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 754

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromFlacker Shipping Ltd v Glencore Grain Ltd (Happy Day) CA 15-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80867

Clarke (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks; MacLeod (Inspector of Taxes) v Same; Guild (Inspector of Taxes) v Newrick and Another: ChD 3 May 2000

The relief of foreign earnings given to those working as seafarers, did not apply to those working on a jack-up drilling rig with floating hull, and retractable legs., since this was not a ship. Being a seafarer involved the performance of duties on a ship. Definition in other acts suggested a vessel used in navigation. These rigs were without propulsion. Other decisions indicated the need for it to be used for navigation.

Citations:

Times 03-May-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 193 Sch 12

Cited by:

Appeal fromPerks and Others v Clark and Others CA 27-Jul-2001
Workers on North Sea drilling rigs which were capable of being moved, claimed relief as seafarers, since they were employed on a ship. The first instance court said the rigs were not ships. They appealed.
Held: The word ‘ship’ is an ordinary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Income Tax

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79200

Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration and Another v Bouygues Offshore Sa and Others; Ultisol et Cetera v Same (4): AdCt 3 Jul 1997

Liability under a claim can be limited by the court under the Act even before liability has itself been decided. Shipping – declaration limiting liability – prior to admission of liability -permissible – article 2.1 – scope – misrepresentation – monetary claims – declaration of limitation – no admission of liability – stay – prejudice to proceedings in foreign jurisdiction.

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-1997, Gazette 17-Sep-1997, [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 507, [1997] CLC 1463

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Merchant Shipping Act 1979, Convention on Limitation of liability for Maritime Claims 1976 A2.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78938

Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Bromley London Borough Council: ChD 9 Jan 2001

Applicants sought the right to fly from the airport. Local residents sought to intervene on the basis that if the lease controlling such rights was construed in such a way as to allow such an extension, this would interfere with their human rights. The lease had to be construed against the factual background as at the time it was entered into, and the Act could not affect that interpretation, and there was no basis for implying any such term into the lease. The local authority was not acting unlawfully in granting a declaration in the terms it proposed.

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-2001, Times 09-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78394

The Mozart: 1985

C took a charter of the Mozart from O, to carry coal from Port Arthur to Rotterdam. A conveyor belt failed in loading causing delay. O claimed demurrage. C had not given notice of the breakdown or claimed a deduction of time. C now appealed against the arbitral award to O.
Held: The stoppage was not the fault of C even though it occurred on its side of the arrangement. The requirement for due notice did refer to a notice under the charterparty, it did not import an element that it was to be relied upon for demurrage. O was well aware of the circumstances, and therefore C was not obliged to inform C.

Judges:

Mustill J

Citations:

[1985] 1 Lloyds Rep 239

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616912

Astro Vencedor Compania Naviera SA v Mabanaft GmbH: CA 1971

For an arbitration clause in a contract between parties to be used to enforce arbitration of a tortious claim, the tortious claim must arise out of the contractual matters. In this case damages were sought for the wrongful arrest of a ship in consequence of an alleged breach of the contract.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The arrest of the ship was the direct consequence of the charterers’ claim for damages against the shipowners. . The arrest was simply the follow-up to that claim. It was so closely connected with it that the rightness or wrongness of the arrest is also within the scope of the arbitration. This is borne out by the practice of the Admiralty Court. There have not been many claims for wrongful arrest recently. But the practice of the Court of Admiralty is to deal with a claim for wrongful arrest at the same time as the claim for which the arrest was made. In The Evangelismos . . the Privy Council said that such procedure is very ‘convenient’.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1971] Lloyd’s R 502, [1971] 2 QB 588

Cited by:

CitedS Ltd v C Ltd ComC 27-Feb-2009
Defamation allegation not subject to arbitration
The parties had an agreement referring disputes between them to arbitration. One party raised an allegation of defamation, but the arbitrator refused jurisdiction. The parties had chosen the London Metal Exchange for its expertise in metals trading, . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.375637

Knight v Cambridge: 1795

If the master of a sbip, intending to avoid the payment of port duties, attempt to run her out of port, and is stopped, and the ship thereby forfeited, this is barratry in the master, and renders the underwriter of the ship liable, within the terms of a policy insuring against the barratry of the master.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 2308, (1795) 8 Mod 229, (1795) 88 ER 165 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.354653

The Sea Insurance Company Of Scotland v Gavin, And Others: SCS 1829

Under a policy insuring a brigantine ” at and from L. to S., and thence to ‘Barcelona, and at and from thence and two other ports in Spain, to a ‘port in Great Britain : ‘–held, that Saloe, a place lying in a bay, having warehouses and a jetty, with a depth of water sufficient for feluccas, but not for large ships, and a good roadsted anchorage where ships lie and are loaded by means of small craft ; having also a custom-house and officers is a ”port’ within the meaning of the policy.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 244, (1829) 4 Bligh NS PC 578, (1829) 5 ER 206

Links:

Commonlii

Scotland, Transport, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.322112

Regina, and Francis Hart Dyke, Her Majesty’s Procurator-General v Johann Peter Hildebrandt;The Aline and Fanny: PC 9 Jul 1856

Rule as to the admission of further proof by the Captors [IO Moo. P.C. 197]. By the law of Prize, the evidence, whether to acquit or condemn the ship, must, iri the first instance, come from the ship’s papers and the primary depositions of the master and crew : aud the captors are not, except under circumstances of suspicion arising from the primary evidence, entitled to adduce any intrinsic evidence in opposition.
In a case where no suspicion of an intention to break a blockade appeared from the ship’s papers, or the primary depositions, the Judicial Committee (affirming the interlocutory decree of the Admiralty Court) refused the admission of further proof by the captors to contradict the depositions with respect to the place of capture.
The principle laid down in the Ostee (9 Moore’s P.C. Cases, l57), that a clairnant upon restitution of the ship is entitled to costs and damages from the Captors, only in circumstances where the ship was in no fault, and was not by any act of her own, voluntarily or involuntarily, open to any fair ground of suspicion, approved.

Citations:

[1856] EngR 764, (1856) 10 Moo PC 491, (1856) 14 ER 577

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.291519

Corbyn v Saunders: 1978

The defendant appealed a conviction for fare evasion, saying that it had been his intention to pay at the end of his journey.
Held: The section references to ‘dishonestly’ and the specific intention ‘to avoid payment’ were not two separate elements in the mens rea of the offence. Woolf LJ said: ‘It is clear from the first clause of section 5(3)(a) that the traveller is not to travel on the railway without paying the fare for the intended journey before he begins that journey. The intention that has to be proved is intention to avoid that obligation, ie, payment of the proper fare before he begins his journey.’

Judges:

Cummin-Bruce J, Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1978] 1 WLR 400

Statutes:

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 5(3)

Crime, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276465

Atkins v Wrekin District Council and Another: ECJ 11 Jul 1996

A concessionary fares scheme did not fall within the scope of sex discrimination laws. Equal treatment of men and women – Concessionary fares on public passenger transport services – Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC – Link with retirement age.
ECJ On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, a scheme under which concessionary fares on public passenger transport services are granted to certain classes of persons, including certain elderly persons, does not fall within the scope of the Directive.
First, a benefit consisting of concessionary fares on public passenger transport services does not afford direct and effective protection against one of the risks listed in Article 3(1) and the fact that the recipient of a benefit is, as a matter of fact, because of his age, in one of the situations envisaged by that article does not suffice to bring that benefit as such within the scope of the Directive.
Secondly, it cannot be concluded from the fact that, besides referring to the field of social security, Article 1 of Directive 79/7 refers to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 and that Article 3(1)(a) refers to statutory schemes which provide protection against the risks listed, without specifying that those schemes must fall under social security, that the scope of the Directive extends to social protection as a whole, and consequently to measures such as the said concessionary fares. In view of the unequivocal terms of the title of Directive 79/7, the various recitals in its preamble and Article 1 thereof, which all state that the Directive is intended to ensure the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, the reference to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 cannot be interpreted otherwise than as referring to provisions concerning social assistance, which generally fall outside the area of social security but fall within the scope of the Directive pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) where they are intended to supplement or replace the schemes referred to in Article 3(1)(a).

Judges:

G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-1996, C-228/94, [1996] EUECJ C-228/94

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1985 93(7), Directive 79/7/EEC

Discrimination, European, Transport

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77938

W. Angliss v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co: 1927

Wright J held: ‘The Carriage of Goods by Sea Acts have introduced a new and obligatory code of responsibilities and immunities as affecting carriers under bills of lading in place of the former rule that carriers by sea, while generally under the liability of common carriers, were free by contract to vary and limit their liabilities. In particular, the Acts have expressly abolished the previous absolute obligation to provide a seaworthy ship and have substituted an obligation to use due diligence to that effect. The carrier may not be the owner of the ship, but merely the charterer; he may not have contracted for the building of the ship, but merely have purchased her, possibly years after she has been built. In the two latter cases the builders and their men cannot possibly be deemed to have been the agents or servants of the carrier and it is illogical that there should be such difference in the carrier’s obligations merely because he has bought the ship by the method of contracting with the builders to build it for him. In addition, if the carrier were held liable for the bad workmanship of the builders’ men, he might equally be held liable for bad workmanship by the men employed by the various sub-contractors who supply material for the builders, such as steel-workers in furnaces and rolling mills, or who supply special articles such as castings, pumps or proprietary machines, which would involve an almost unlimited retrogression.’

Judges:

Wright J

Citations:

[1927] 1 KB 456

Cited by:

CitedParsons Corporation and others v CV Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Happy Ranger’ ComC 9-Feb-2006
A large cylinder part was damaged as it was being loaded on board the Happy Ranger in Italy. A hook on the crane was brittle and did not meet the approriate specification. It had not been tested as required. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.252502

The 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

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 85

Cited by:

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
. .
At First InstanceHomburg 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.180512

Boson v Sandford and Others: 1629

A shipper of goods sued the ship owner for damage caused by the negligence of the master. Eyre J held that there was no difference between a land carrier and a water carrier, and therefore the owners were under a special liability as carriers for the acts of their servants; but Holt CJ rested his judgment on the broad principle that ‘whoever employs another is answerable for him, and undertakes for his care to all that make use of him’.
Both master and part owners of a ship are liable; but part-owners must be joined. Trespass on the case on a special verdict, the case was, A. loaded goods in good plight on board a ship, which commonly carried goods in safety from Topsham to London, and from London to Topsham, for reasonable freight (the danger of the seas only excepted) ; and ’tis found that these goods were damnify’d otherwise than by the sea ; that the goods were delivered to the master of the ship, that the plaintiff did not know the part-owners ; that the owners had the money agreed for the freight;
and farther, that there were more owners than the now
defendant.
Upon this case three points do arise.
1. Whether the action lay against the owners or against the master.
2. Whether the action be well brought against some of the part-owners only.
3. Admitting it is not, whether it be good nom, it being waved, arid not pleaded in abatement’?

Judges:

Eyre J, Holt CJ

Citations:

(1691) 2 Salk 440

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .
See AlsoBoson v Sandford and others 1724
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Transport

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606512

Regina v Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Others: QBD 21 Mar 1996

An order restricting the number of night flights but without apportioning those numbers between different categories was valid.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Apr-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Environment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87961

Regina v The Caledonian Railway Company: 20 Nov 1850

A railway company, before applying for a Deviation Act, deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county, plans and sections of the proposed line, and cross sections shewing the manner in which roads were to be carried over the line. On one of those cross sections, No. 3, were delineated the manner in which it was proposed to carry a road at I. over the line by a bridge, and the proposed inclination of the altered line of road. The Deviation Act, when obtained, incorporated the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and enacted (sect. 9) that it should be lawful to the company to construct the bridges, for carrying the railway thereby authorized over any roads, or for carrying any roads over the said railway, of the heights and spans and in the manner shewn on the sections deposited. The company made the line, and at I. deviated two feet vertically from the level marked on the plans. They carried the road over the line on a bridge of the proposed height and span, but with a different inclination of the altered road. A mandamus having issued, commanding the company to make the bridge and carry the road over it in conformity with crass section, No. 3, and at the rates of inclination delineated thereon as the rates of inclination of the road when altered. 1, That the exhibition of the plans and sections imposed no obligation on the company, except in so far as the plans, andc., were incorporated in the Act. 2. That nothing in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, rendered the cross sections obligatory on the company. 3. That, if sect. 9 in the special Act was obligatory (which, semble, it was so far as regarded the height and spans of the bridges), the obligation did not extend to the rates of inclination of the altered road, and that, Held, on demurrer to a plea to the return, 1, That
the exhibition of the plans and sections imposed no obligation on the company, except in so far as the plans, andc., were incorporated in the Act. 2. That nothing in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, rendered the cross sections obligatory on the company. 3. That, if sect. 9 in the special Act was obligatory (which, semble, it was so far as regarded the height and spans of the bridges), the obligation did not extend to the rates of inclination of the altered road, and that, the mandatory part of the writ going in this respect beyond the obligation
imposed by law, the writ was bad altogether.
Distinguished,

Citations:

[1850] EngR 868, (1850) 16 QB 19, (1850) 117 ER 782

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.298215

Willoughby And Others v Horridge: 19 Nov 1852

The lessees of a ferry provided steam-boats for the conveyance of passengers, goods, and cattle from A. to B., and also slips for landing and embark ing, which were (generally) sufficient for the purpose :—Held, that they were liable for an injury sustained by the horse of a passenger, in consequence of the side-rail of the landing slip (of the dangerous state of which they had been forewarned) giving way, although the horse was at the time under the control and management of its owner.

Citations:

[1852] EngR 1026, (1852) 12 CB 742, (1852) 138 ER 1096

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Animals

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.296149

The ‘Columbus’: 9 Mar 1849

Where a vessel is sunk in a collision, and compensation is awarded by the Court of Admiralty to the full value of the vessel as for a total loss, the plaintiff will not be able to recover anything in the nature of a demurrage for loss of the employment of his vessel or his own earnings in consequence of the collision.

Citations:

[1849] EngR 380, (1849) 3 W Rob 158, (1849) 166 ER 922

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Kate 1899
The Kate was totally lost in a collision with the defendants’ ship, whilst on the ballast leg of a charterparty. The issue was whether in a case of total loss as opposed to partial loss of a ship without a cargo, the plaintiffs could recover only . .
CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.298685

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association: Admn 21 Apr 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 332

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 6-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

LeaveRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, Ex Parte International Air Transport Association QBD 3-Jun-1999
The Association sought judicial review to challenge the 1998 Order.
Held: Where an EC regulation was properly completed, it was valid even though different member states had, before joining the EC, had subscribed to International Treaties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.139596

Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association: Admn 6 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 1052

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 21-Apr-1999
. .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, Ex Parte International Air Transport Association QBD 3-Jun-1999
The Association sought judicial review to challenge the 1998 Order.
Held: Where an EC regulation was properly completed, it was valid even though different member states had, before joining the EC, had subscribed to International Treaties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.139173

Hussain v Bradford City Council: QBD 15 Feb 1993

If a complaint was made that a private hire vehicle was acting in contravention of the regulation, requiring it to display the licence plate issued by the local authority, indicating the maximum number of passengers, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the vehicle was plying for hire at the time of the alleged offence.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 48 (6)(b)

Local Government, Licensing, Transport, Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.81565

K A and S B M Feakins Ltd v Dover Harbour Board: QBD 9 Sep 1998

A wrongful decision by a harbour authority not to allow exports of live animals through the port, did not give a right to a private claim for damages, even though it was in breach of a statutory duty.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Sep-1998, Times 09-Sep-1998

Statutes:

Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Transport

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.82654

Thomas Cook Group Ltd and Ors v Air Malta Ltd: ComC 6 May 1997

The court considered the circumstances in which the court would apply the misconduct exceptions under the Convention: ‘The starting point when considering whether in any given circumstances the acts or omissions of a person entrusted with goods of another amounted to wilful misconduct is an enquiry about the conduct ordinarily to be expected in the particular circumstances.
The next step is to ask whether the acts or omissions of the defendant were so far outside the range of such conduct as to be properly regarded as ‘misconduct’. (An important circumstance would be a deliberate disregard of express instructions clearly given and understood.)
It is next necessary to consider whether the misconduct was wilful.
What does not amount to wilful misconduct? Wilful misconduct is far beyond negligence, even gross or culpable negligence.
What does amount to wilful misconduct? A person wilfully misconducts himself if he knows and appreciates that it is misconduct on his part in the circumstances to do or to fail or omit to do something and yet (a) intentionally does or fails or omits to do it or (b) persists in the act, failure or omission regardless of the consequences or (c) acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of his carelessness may be. (A person acts with reckless carelessness if, aware of a risk that goods in his care may be lost or damaged, he deliberately goes ahead and takes the risk, when it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for him to do so.)
The final step is to consider whether the wilful misconduct (if established) caused the loss of or damage to the goods.’ and

‘Wilful misconduct in such a special condition means misconduct to which the will is a party as contradistinguished from accident and is far beyond any negligence, even gross or culpable negligence, and involves that a person wilfully misconducts himself who knows and appreciates that it is wrong conduct on his part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be) a particular thing and yet intentionally does or fails or omits to do it, or persist in the act, failure or omission regardless of the consequences.’ Per Johnson J. in Graham v Belfast and Northern Counties Railway [1901] 2.I.R. 13, which was cited with approval by Lord Alverstone in Forder v GWR [1905] 2 KB 532, who added ‘or acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of his carelessness may be.
Wilful misconduct, to put it most shortly, as it has often been put in the past, is misconduct to which the will is a party, and it is something which is wholly different in kind from mere negligence or carelessness, however gross that negligence or carelessness may be. I think the first thing for you to remember is that the will must be party to the misconduct, and not merely a party to the conduct of which complaint is made. Let us take an example: if the pilot of an aircraft knowingly does something which subsequently a jury find amounted to misconduct, those facts alone do not show that he is guilty of wilful misconduct. To establish wilful misconduct on the part of this imaginary pilot it must be shown not only that he knowingly (and in that sense wilfully) did the wrongful act, but also that when he did it he was aware that it was a wrongful act – that is to say, he was aware that he was committing misconduct.’per Barry J. in Horabin v BOAC [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 450 at page 459.
‘If I summarise the principle in my own words, it would be to say that for wilful misconduct to be proved there must be either (one) an intention to do something which the actor knows to be wrong or (two) a reckless act in the sense that the actor is aware that loss may result from his act and yet does not care whether loss will result or not or, to use Mr Justice Barry’s words in Horabin’s case, ‘he took a risk which he knew he ought not to take’ per Longmore J. in National Semiconductors v UPS [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Reports 212 at 214.
Further, a person could be said to act with reckless carelessness towards goods in his care if, aware of a risk that they may be lost or damaged, he nonetheless deliberately goes ahead and takes the risk when it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for him to do so.’ per Beldam LJ. in Laceys Footwear (Wholesale) Ltd v Bowler International Freight Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Reports 369, at page 374.

Judges:

Cresswell J

Citations:

[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39

Statutes:

Warsaw Convention Article 25(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMicro Anvika Ltd and others v TNT Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) Nv and others ComC 20-Feb-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220775

Global Container Lines ltd v State Black Sea Shipping and Ors: ComC 11 Sep 1997

Agreement for exclusive selling rights over vessel – authority of president of parent company to enter into ratification- whether terms (relating to period etc) sufficiently certain to be enforceable. Repudiation – interlocutory instruction restraining sale through other means.

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

Unreported, 11 September 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoGlobal Container Lines Limited v Bonyan Shipping Company CA 9-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromGlobal Container Lines Limited v State Black Sea Shipping Company; Amber Seatrade SA and Clifton Navigation SA CA 16-Dec-1997
. .
See AlsoGlobal Container Lines Ltd v Bonyad Shipping QBD 14-Jul-1998
Where companies had amalgamated and one had been a party to litigation, it was possible for the court to order the retrospective substitution of the new company even though the original party had disappeared in law. . .
See AlsoGlobal Container Lines Limited v Bonyan Shipping Company CA 9-Nov-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220793

Goulandris Bros v Goldmann and Sons: 1958

An insurance clause ensuring ‘loss or damage in connexion with the goods’ under the Hague Rules for carriage of goods by sea includes economic loss even in the absence of such physical damage.

Judges:

Pearson J

Citations:

[1958] 1 QB 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPilkington United Kingdom Limited v CGU Insurance Plc QBD 28-Jan-2004
The claimants had installed glass tiles in a roof. They fractured, and facing a claim for damages, they sought payment from their insurers. The claimants argued that the risk of fracture meant that the damage occurred upon installation, the insurers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198320

In re the Oropesa: CA 1943

Two steam vessels collided. One’s Master sent fifty of his crew in boats to the other ship and about an hour and a half after the collision decided himself to go to that ship and confer with her Master on measures to be taken. He transferred in another lifeboat, which he embarked with sixteen men. The weather was rough and before the lifeboat could reach the other ship it capsized and sank with nine of the occupants drowning. The badly damaged vessel subsequently sank and its owners sued the owners of the other ship. In addition, the parents of one of the deceased sailors joined as plaintiffs. They recovered against the other shipowners. It was argued that the drowning was not caused by the collision and therefore no liability should ensue.
Held: The plea failed: ‘If the master and the deceased in the present case had done something which was outside the exigencies of the emergency, whether from miscalculation or from error, the plaintiffs would be debarred from saying that a new cause had not intervened. The question is not whether there was new negligence, but whether there was a new cause. I think that is what Lord Sumner emphasized in The Paludina. To break the chain of causation it must be shown that there is something which I will call ultroneous, something unwarrantable, a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events, something which can be described as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic.’ They were not prepared to say that in all the circumstances the fact that the deceased’s death was due to his leaving the ship in the lifeboat and its unexpected capsizing prevented it from be a direct consequence of the casualty.

Judges:

Lord Wright

Citations:

[1943] P 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSouth Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL 24-Jun-1996
Limits of Damages for Negligent Valuations
Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
CitedGreen and Another v Alexander Johnson (A Firm) and Another ChD 26-May-2004
The judgment related to the assessment of damages for professional negligence by the defendants. The court deprecated the practice of separating off assessments of damages from the principal claim, since this created a risk of confusion. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Transport

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197925

Rich v Commissioner for Railways (NSW): 1959

The Board considered a claim arising from an accident occurring at a railway level crossing

Citations:

[1959] 101 CLR 135

Jurisdiction:

Australia

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182850

The Iran Vojdan: 1984

Electric cable was carried on an Iranian flagged vessel from Hamburg to Dubai. The plaintiff consignees, alleging that the cargo was damaged, commenced proceedings against the shipowners in the English courts. The defendants sought a stay on saying that the bill of lading had an exclusive jurisdiction clause under which all disputes were to be tried in Hamburg. There was an issue as to the proper law of the bill of lading contract, the defendants contending for German law and the plaintiffs for Iranian law. The bill of lading contained a provision that the contract was, in the option of the carrier to be declared by him on the merchant’s request, to be governed either by Iranian law with the Tehran courts having exclusive jurisdiction or by German law with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Hamburg courts or by English law with the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of London.
Held: The proper law must be capable of determination when the contract was entered into. The bill was impliedly under German law since that had the closest and most real connection. Applying German law the jurisdiction clause was invalid because it was printed in such small print as to be insufficiently legible. There was therefore no valid exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Obiter he considered the position under Iranian law. There being no evidence of that law, it was assumed to be identical to English law. It was common ground that, having regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Armar Shipping Co v. Caisse Algerienne, supra, the jurisdiction clause was unenforceable at least in so far as it introduced a floating proper law. The question then was whether that invalidity also rendered the optional choice of forum invalid.
Bingham J thought it did: ‘If the clause had confined itself to conferring three options for the choice of jurisdiction on the carrier alone that would seem to me a clause to which effect could properly and without difficulty be given. Moreover, it would seem to me that the plaintiff could well protect himself against abortive proceedings, if that were the effect of the clause, by requesting an exercise of the option before issuing proceedings in one jurisdiction or another. I very much doubt if there is any obligation on the merchant to request the exercise of the option. I do not, however, construing this clause as a whole, think that the choice of jurisdiction can be excised from each of these sub-clauses and given independent effect if the choice of law falls. They are intimately connected with the choice of law options and are not expressed in the clause as separate options. I think, as a matter of construction, that it is artificial and unreal to give effect to the ancillary provision while rejecting the main provision to which it is, as I think, parasitic. Accordingly, I reach the conclusion that this must be treated as a case in which there is no exclusive jurisdiction, applying the principles of English law on the assumption that that is the same as Iranian law.’

Judges:

Bingham J

Citations:

[1984] 2 Lloyds Rep 380

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLexington Insurance Co v AGF Insurance Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
The respondent insurers had been held liable in Washington, and had been granted indemnity against the appellants by the Court of Appeal. The insurance contract had been under the law of Pennsylvania, but that of the re-insurance under the law of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.372863

Couturier And Others v Hastie And Others: 26 Jun 1852

Action for recovery of cargo lost at sea.

Citations:

[1852] EngR 774, (1853) 8 Exch 40, (1852) 155 ER 1250

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoHastie And Others v Couturier And Others 25-Jun-1853
. .
See AlsoCouturier and others v Hastie and Another HL 26-Jun-1856
Action for recovery of value of cargo lost at sea. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.295897

Hastie And Others v Couturier And Others: 25 Jun 1853

Citations:

[1853] EngR 764, (1853) 9 Exch 102, (1853) 156 ER 43

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCouturier And Others v Hastie And Others 26-Jun-1852
Action for recovery of cargo lost at sea. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoCouturier and others v Hastie and Another HL 26-Jun-1856
Action for recovery of value of cargo lost at sea. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.294750

Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom Case C-359/97: ECJ 10 Oct 2000

The UK had not complied with its obligations to the commission with regard to VAT in that it had failed to apply VAT to the collection of tolls on the use of roads and bridges where operated privately. The fact that similar operations were carried out by public bodies which would be exempt was insufficient to cause private operators to be exempt. Because the UK had failed to collect these sums, its accounting with the Commission was also in error.

Citations:

Times 10-Oct-2000

VAT, Transport, European

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79306

ITT Schaub-Lorenz Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH v Birkart Johann lnternationale Spedition GmbH and Co KG: CA 1988

Bingham LJ considered dicta in Cummins Engine, and said: ‘although it could not be regarded as ‘having more than persuasive authority . . I think (with respect) that it is plainly right’.

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 487

Statutes:

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCummins Engine Co Ltd v Davis Freight Forwarding (Hull) Ltd CA 1981
Cummins as consignor had contracted with Davis, another English company, for the carriage of engines from England to Amsterdam. Davis instructed Charterway to undertake the leg from Rotterdam to Amsterdam, and Charterway in turn asked Graaf, who . .

Cited by:

CitedBritish American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592016

Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage: 1975

The carrier who contracts with the sender is the first carrier, even if he does not undertake any stage of the carriage himself.

Judges:

Donaldson J

Citations:

[1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 502

Statutes:

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromUlster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage CA 1977
A carrier who contracts with the sender is the first carrier, even if he does not undertake any stage of the carriage himself.
The court noted the sometimes great difficulty in finding consistent interpretations of European Law . .
CitedBritish American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592013

Dickenson v Jardine: CCP 1868

Goods had been insured for the voyage, but were jettisoned on it. The ship completed her voyage, and the owners of the goods became entitled to recover general average contribution from the other interests which had profited from the jettison. Instead they sued underwriters for the totality of their loss.
Held: They entitled to recover the loss.
Willes J explained: ‘Mr. Williams argued the case in the only way which was possible when he said that a case of jettison under the circumstances here detailed did not constitute a total loss of the goods, because in point of law the loss was less than total, by the value of the right which accrued to have compensation for part of the loss from the shipowner and the other owners of cargo. It was so in one sense, because if the vessel or any part of the cargo arrived safely in consequence of the jettison, the owners must contribute to the loss sustained by the owners of the goods so sacrificed for the general advantage; but the goods were totally lost at the time, though their owner had a contingent right to recover from certain persons a portion of their value. The result is that the owner has two remedies – one for the whole value of the goods against the underwriters, the other for a contribution in case the vessel arrives safely in port; and he may avail himself of which he pleases….’

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

(1868) LR 3 CP 639

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSimpson and Co v Thomson HL 1877
The House discussed the extent of an insurer’s right of subrogation: ‘My Lords, these authorities seem to me to be conclusive that the right of the underwriters is merely to make such claim for damages as the insured himself could have made, and it . .
CitedCaledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191159

Yates v Whyte: 1838

Plaintiff sued Defendants for damaging his ship by collision : Held, that Defendants were not entitled to deduct from the amount of damages to be paid by them, a sum of money paid to Plaintiff by insurers in respect of such damage.

Citations:

(1838) 4 Bing NC 272, [1838] EngR 396, (1838) 132 ER 793

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSimpson and Co v Thomson HL 1877
The House discussed the extent of an insurer’s right of subrogation: ‘My Lords, these authorities seem to me to be conclusive that the right of the underwriters is merely to make such claim for damages as the insured himself could have made, and it . .
CitedCaledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191158

The Mareva AS: 1977

The wording ‘average accident’ in the policy: ‘merely means an accident which causes damage.’

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not FollowedCosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd and Another v M/V ‘Saldanha’ C/P Dated 25/06/08 ComC 11-Jun-2010
The court considered the effect of a ship being taken by pirates at sea on the obligations in the charterparty contract. The insurers said that a claim for ‘average accident’ must include an element of physical damage – absent in this case.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.416711

Owners of Cargo lately laden on Board the ship Nazym Khikmet and Ors: CA 1996

Citations:

[1996] CLC 1044, [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 362

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1956 3(4), Supreme Court Act 1981 21(4)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromOwners of Cargo lately laden on Board the ship Nazym Khikmet and Others AdCt 30-Nov-1995
ComC Shipping – ship – ‘beneficial ownership’ – Supreme Court Act 1981 – section 21(4)(ii) – demise charterers Shipping – ship – charterer under charter by demise – Supreme Court Act 1981 section 21(4)(ii) – . .

Cited by:

Appealed toOwners of Cargo lately laden on Board the ship Nazym Khikmet and Others AdCt 30-Nov-1995
ComC Shipping – ship – ‘beneficial ownership’ – Supreme Court Act 1981 – section 21(4)(ii) – demise charterers Shipping – ship – charterer under charter by demise – Supreme Court Act 1981 section 21(4)(ii) – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185996

Sills v Tilbury Cargo Handling Ltd and Others: AdCt 2 Nov 1995

Procedure – RSC Order 20 r.5(3) – amendment with leave – discretion – RSC Order 6 r.8(1) – validity of writ – 4 months – RSC Order 11 r.1(1) – leave to serve outside jurisdiction – validity of writ – 6 months – admiralty action in personam RSC Order 75 r.4(4) – exclusion of RSC Order 11 r.1(2) – meaning. Privilege – deployment of court material otherwise privileged – principles – application at interlocutory stage – Fairness – disclosure of part of privileged document – waiver of privilege with respect to other parts

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

Unreported, 02 November 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185993

The Llanover: CA 1948

Bucknill LJ said: ‘On the undisputed evidence as to the circumstances leading up to the collision, it seems to me that a prima facie case of negligence is made out against the ‘Llanover’ which she has failed to rebut. Her rebuttal rests on her evidence that her steering gear jammed, which made it impossible for her to keep out of the way. It is not sufficient for a ship to say: ‘My steering gear has jammed and therefore I can do nothing.’ I think the burden is cast on her of showing that the jamming could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and skill on her part, or at least that she used all reasonable care and skill to prevent the jamming of the gear, and that it might reasonably have jammed for a cause which they could not have prevented by the exercise of reasonable care and skill.’

Judges:

Bucknill LJ

Citations:

[1948] 79 Lloyds LLR 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromThe Llanover 1947
The lost vessel for which the claim was made, was under charter, to the British government in wartime. The war conditions had driven up the need for shipping, and with it the market value of ships.
Held: The owner was not awarded damages more . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.581030

The Llanover: 1947

The lost vessel for which the claim was made, was under charter, to the British government in wartime. The war conditions had driven up the need for shipping, and with it the market value of ships.
Held: The owner was not awarded damages more than such profit as the vessel would have made if the voyage on which it was engaged at the time of its loss had been completed.
Pilcher J said: ‘in March, 1942, any British shipowner selling or buying a British ship would do so with the knowledge that his ship would, so long as she was kept efficient, be assured of profitable engagement probably at rates laid down by the Ministry of War Transport. If this were so, it seemed to follow that any enhanced value due to the virtual certainty of profitable employment was already reflected in the prices realized by the sales of comparable ships and was therefore already included in the sum allowed by the assistant registrar’ as the going concern value of the vessel.

Judges:

Pilcher J

Citations:

[1947] P 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromThe Llanover CA 1948
Bucknill LJ said: ‘On the undisputed evidence as to the circumstances leading up to the collision, it seems to me that a prima facie case of negligence is made out against the ‘Llanover’ which she has failed to rebut. Her rebuttal rests on her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Damages

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.581029

Le Cras v Hughes: 3 May 1782

A squadron of ships of war, assisted by land forces, having captured two Spanish register ships, held that the officers and crews of the squadron have an insurabIe interest in the ships captured under the Prize Act, 19 G, 3, c, 67, before condemnation. An average loss opens a valued policy.

Citations:

[1782] EngR 54, (1782) 3 Doug 81, (1782) 99 ER 549

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.372402

Xenos v Wickham: 1862

Citations:

[1862] EngR 250, (1862) 2 F and F 735, (1862) 175 ER 1262

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoXenos v Wickham 12-Jul-1862
. .
See AlsoStephanos Xenos And Another v Wickham, Chairman Of The Victoria Fire And Marine Insurance Company 18-Apr-1863
. .
See AlsoXenos v Wickham HL 1866
Delivery of document in Escrow
Blackburn J said that a deed is delivered ‘as soon as there are acts or words sufficient to [show] that it is intended by the party to be executed as his deed presently binding on him.’
Lord Cranworth said: ‘The maker (of a deed) may so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.286416

The Pelopidas: 1999

The use in court of plots of ship courses was to be only with care.

Citations:

[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 675

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited‘Bow Spring’, Owners of Ship v ‘Manzanillo Ii’, Owners of Ship CA 28-Jul-2004
There had been a collision at sea.
Held: (Addendum) Where the admiralty court sought advice from assessors, modern good practice required that the advice should be disclosed to the parties advisers and that they have opportunity to comment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200450

Maxine Footwear Co v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd: PC 1959

Cargo was ignited as a result of fire in insulation in the hold caused before the cargo was loaded.
Held: the vessel was unseaworthy from the time that the vessel caught fire and that the damage to the cargo was caused by the unseaworthiness.

Citations:

[1959] AC 589

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187653

Vehicle Inspectorate v Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd: QBD 19 Oct 2001

To rely upon the defence of having broken the seal unavoidably, the defendant had to prove that the breaking or removal of the tachograph seal could not have been avoided in itself. It was not enough to show the breaking of the seal could not have been avoided, and nor did the word ‘avoid’ mean the same as ‘prevent’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Poole

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001

Statutes:

Transport Act 1968 97(4), Community Recording Equipment Regulation (EC Regulation 3821/85) (OJ 1985 L370/8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166811

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 16 Feb 1995

Supply of limousine service with airline ticket not separate taxable supply. It was incidental to the supply of air transport, and accordingly zero-rated.

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 03-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Value added Tax Act 1983 3(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Transport

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.90175

Rolls Royce Ltd and another v Heavylift-Volga Dnepr Ltd and another: QBD 26 Apr 2000

There is no effective difference between the words ‘aerodrome’ and ‘airport’. One is merely an old-fashioned version of the other. Where goods were damaged when the carriers storage agents sought to lift them. By that time, the carriage of the goods by air had begun, and the Warsaw convention applied with the effect of limiting the damages to be awarded.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-2000, Times 26-Apr-2000

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Damages

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88850

Sameon Co Sa v Nv Petrofina SA and Another (The World Hitachi Zosen): QBD 8 Apr 1996

An express contractual term will be required to displace the Convention rules on domicile. The standard wording in charterparty contracts is insufficient to do this. The word ‘adjusted’ by itself would normally be taken to refer to the process of assessment of general average contributions; more explicit wording would be needed to create a binding agreement as to the place of payment. Consequently, the wording of the clause was not sufficiently specific to bring the contract within article 5(1) or article 17 of the Brussels Convention, thereby enabling the general rule conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the defendants’ country of domicile to be ousted.

Judges:

Justice Langley

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1996

Statutes:

1968 Brussels Convention 5(1) 17, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Jurisdiction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88992

Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd: QBD 28 Mar 2003

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground.
Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute excluded such claims, and nor was there any reason why they should be excluded from the statute. The law had changed since the earlier statute. However the normal requirements as to foreseeability and remoteness applied.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982 76(2), Air Navigation Act 1920

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
CitedWhite, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180853

Commission v Poland C-127/17: ECJ 19 Sep 2018

(Opinion) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Directive 96/53 / EC – Articles 3 and 7 – Transport – International road traffic – Vehicles – Maximum authorized axle weights – Limitations on certain roads or engineering structures – Special authorization scheme

Citations:

C-127/17, [2018] EUECJ C-127/17 – O, [2019] EUECJ C-127/17

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622612

HH Ferries and Others v Commission: ECFI 19 Sep 2018

(Public Financing Granted By The Swedish State and The Danish State To The Fixed Link Infrastructure Project – Judgment (Extracts)) State aid – Aid in favour of the Oresund road-rail fixed link – Public financing granted by the Swedish State and the Danish State to the Fixed Link infrastructure project across the Oresund – State guarantees – Tax aid – Decision not to raise any objection – Decision that there was no State aid – Action for annulment – Challengeable act – Admissibility – Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure – Serious difficulties – Concept of ‘aid scheme’ – Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest – Assessment of the aid element in a guarantee – Whether the aid contained in a guarantee is limited – Proportionality – Legitimate expectations

Citations:

T-68/15, [2018] EUECJ T-68/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622616

Nelson Line, Ltd v James Nelson and Sons, Ltd: HL 21 Nov 1907

The law imposes on shipowners, in a question with those to whom they charter their vessels, a general duty of providing a seaworthy ship, and of using reasonable care in everything which pertains to her. They may, it is true, contract themselves out of those duties, but the contract must be a clear one-‘an ambiguous document is no protection.’ Terms of a document which were held too ambiguous to relieve shipowners of their duty to provide a ship fit to carry her cargo.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Macnaghten and Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 967, 45 SLR 967

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622316

Attorney General v Mersey Railway Co: HL 9 Jul 1907

A railway company started a service of omnibuses from their station to and through a town. The omnibuses ran in connection with trains, but carried ordinary passengers for any distances. They had no special powers in their Act.
Held that the omnibus business as carried on by the company was not incidental to the undertaking of the railway, and accordingly was ultra vires.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Macnaghten, Lord James of Hereford, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 631, 45 SLR 631

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Company

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622299

Barclay, Curle and Co Ltd v Sir James Laing and Sons Ltd: HL 25 Nov 1907

A contracted to build and sell, and B to purchase, two ships, which were to be paid for by instalments and built under the supervision of B’s inspector. C arrested the ships when approaching completion for an alleged debt of B’s to him. A petitioned for recal of the arrestments.
Held that under the Sale of Goods Act 1893 the property in the ships depended upon the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract, and as there was nothing in the contract to show that the parties intended to transfer the property in the ships while in course of building, the property remained in A, the builder, who was therefore entitled to recal of the arrestments.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord Macnaghten, Lord James Of Hereford, Lord Robertson, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622313

Board of Trade v Baxter and Another, ‘The Scarsdale’: HL 29 Jul 1907

A fireman signed articles of agreement for a ‘voyage not exceeding one year’s duration to any ports or places within the limit of 75 degrees north and 60 degrees south latitude, commencing at Cardiff, proceeding thence to Malta, thereafter trading to ports in any rotation, and to end at such port in the United Kingdom or Continent of Europe, within home trading limits, as may be required by the master.’
The vessel proceeded to Malta, the Black Sea. and thence back to Southampton, where she unloaded her cargo, and where the fireman claimed his discharge. The master refused, and required him to go on with the ship to Cardiff. Held that the master was justified (in view of the agreement, which in no way contravened sec. 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894) in his refusal, it being within his power to determine (with in certain limits, including Cardiff), the port at which the voyage should terminate, and the discharge of the cargo at Southampton not being equivalent to the termination of the voyage.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords James of Hereford, Atkinson, and Collins

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 640, 45 SLR 640

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622300

Kruger and Co v Moel Tryfan Ship Co: HL 4 Jul 1907

The respondents, a firm of shipowners, chartered a vessel to the appellants. By the charter-party the shipowners were exempted from liability for accidents of navigation, even if occasioned by the master’s negligence, and the master was to sign clean bills of lading without prejudice to the charter. The charterers sold the intended cargo to a purchaser, and, the cargo having been loaded, drew and presented bills of lading to the master, who signed them. The clause of exemption was not referred to in the bills, the charterers and the master both believing (erroneously) that it was incorporated by the words ‘all other conditions as per charter-party.’ The bills of lading were thereafter indorsed to the purchaser. The ship was lost owing to the master’s negligence. The indorsee of the bills of lading having in an action recovered the sum of pounds 12,571 from the shipowners on the ground of the master’s negligence, held that the charterers were bound to indemnify the shipowners who had become liable to the indorsee owing to the charterers’ breach of contract in tendering to the master for signature bills of lading disconform to the charter.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords James of Hereford and Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 623, 45 SLR 623

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622308

Owners of SS ‘Knutsford’ v E Tillmans and Co: HL 3 Jul 1908

The plaintiffs (respondents) were the holders and indorsees of bills of lading in respect of goods carried on the s.s. ‘Knutsford’ belonging to the appellants. They asked for damages for breach of contract in failure to carry the goods to Vladivostock. The bills of lading contained the following exceptions-‘(2) . . error in judgment, negligence, or default of . . master . . whether in navigating the ship or otherwise . . ; (4) should a port be inaccessible on account of ice, . . or should entry and discharge at a port be deemed by the master unsafe in consequence of war, disturbance, or any other cause, it shall be competent for the masters to discharge goods intended for such port on the ice or at some other safe port or place at the risk and expense of the shippers, consignees, or owners of the goods. . . ‘ The appellants relied upon the portions italicised.
The master of the ‘Knutsford’ tried for three days to enter Vladivostock, but at that time it was impossible because of ice. He considered it unsafe to persist in the attempt owing to the ice and severe weather. He therefore left and discharged the goods at Nagasaki. The day after leaving the approach to Vladivostock the ice dispersed and entry became easy.
Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs was pronounced by Channell, J., and affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Vaughan Williams, Farwell, and Kennedy, L. JJ.). The defendants appealed.
held (1) that ‘error of judgment in navigating the ship or otherwise’ does not cover the master’s erroneous view of the ship’s contractual duties; (2) that ‘inaccessible on account of ice’ means inaccessible without inordinate delay, not merely three days; (3) that ‘unsafe in consequence of war disturbance or any other cause’ does not include danger by perils of the sea.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnagliten, James of Hereford, and Dunedin

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 691, 46 SLR 691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621519