Tag: Transport

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:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – The 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 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

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 Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association Admn 21-Apr-1999
. .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.139173

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

Cited by:

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

Transport, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.139596

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

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

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:

Cited – Micro 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 Also – Global Container Lines Limited v Bonyan Shipping Company CA 9-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Global Container Lines Limited v State Black Sea Shipping Company; Amber Seatrade SA and Clifton Navigation SA CA 16-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – Global 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 Also – Global 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:

Cited – Pilkington 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:

Cited – South 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 . .
Cited – Green 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:

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

Transport, 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:

Cited – Lexington 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 Also – Hastie And Others v Couturier And Others 25-Jun-1853
. .
See Also – Couturier 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 Also – Couturier And Others v Hastie And Others 26-Jun-1852
Action for recovery of cargo lost at sea. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Couturier 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:

Cited – Cummins 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:

Cited – British 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 from – Ulster-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 . .
Cited – British 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:

Cited – Simpson 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 . .
Cited – Caledonian 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:

Cited – Simpson 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 . .
Cited – Caledonian 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 Followed – Cosco 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 from – Owners 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 to – Owners 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 from – 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 . .
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 from – 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 . .
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 Also – Xenos v Wickham 12-Jul-1862
. .
See Also – Stephanos Xenos And Another v Wickham, Chairman Of The Victoria Fire And Marine Insurance Company 18-Apr-1863
. .
See Also – Xenos 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:

Cited – King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
Cited – White, 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

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

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

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

Larsen v Sylvester and Co: HL 21 May 1908

An action was raised by the plaintiff (appellant) against the respondents for demurrage under a charter-party entered into by them. The defendants pleaded the clause of exemption in rubric. Delay in loading had been caused by the crowded state of the harbour and a block of other vessels in the loading dock. The charter-party contained a clause exempting the parties ‘from all liability arising from frosts, floods, strikes, locks-out of workmen, disputes between master and men, and any other unavoidable accidents or hindrances of what kind soever beyond their control preventing or delaying the . . shipping of the said cargo.’ The loading was delayed by reason of a block of other ships at the loading dock. Held that this was a hindrance within the terms of the exemption, and that the doctrine ejusdem generis did not apply to the form of words used.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 685, 46 SLR 685

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621509

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

Andersen v Marten: HL 3 Jul 1908

A ship was insured against perils of the sea under a time policy for total loss only, and ‘warranted free from capture, seizure, detention, and the consequences of hostilities.’ She carried contraband of war and was seized by a belligerent cruiser. While under control of the captors she ran aground and became a total loss, partly in consequence of damage which she had sustained by perils of the sea before capture. After the ship’s total loss she was condemned by the belligerent prize-court.
Held that upon the date of the capture there was a total loss by capture which the policy did not cover.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl Of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne and Robertson

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 693, 46 SLR 693

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621515

Greenshields, Cowie, and Co v Thomas Stephens and Sons: HL 31 Jul 1908

The appellants were the owners of the ss ‘Knight of the Garter,’ and the respondents owned a cargo of coal which she carried. Damage both to ship and cargo was caused by fire under circumstances which are fully narrated in the judgment of the Earl of Halsbury. The appellants made a general average claim in respect of damage to the ship. The respondents counterclaimed in respect of the damaged cargo, hut the appellants contested this on the grounds that it was a loss by fire for which they were free under statute from liability, and also that it arose from the inherent vice of the coal cargo itself. Channell, J., allowed the counter-claim, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The shipowners appealed.
Held: In adjustment of general average the damaged portion of the cargo must be taken into account as part of the loss notwithstanding that the damage is due to its ‘inherent vice’ or peculiar liability to damage; section 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which relieves the shipowner from liability for loss of goods by fire, does not apply in a case of general average.

Judges:

Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 697, 46 SLR 697

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621516

X North British Railway Order: HL 27 Jul 1908

Provisional Order – Harbour – Dock – Support – Working of Mines – Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, secs. 70 to 78, Applied to Dock.

Judges:

Earl of Strathmore, Viscount Falkland, Chairman, Mr J.D. Hope, M.P., and Mr J. M’Callum, M.P.

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 1007, 45 SLR 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport, Land

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621522

Great Western Railway Co v Phillips and Co Ltd: HL 4 Feb 1908

A Railway Act, after providing that when merchandise is conveyed in trucks not belonging to the company the trader shall be entitled to recover from the company a reasonable sum by way of demurrage for any detention of his trucks beyond a reasonable time, enacted that ‘any difference arising under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade at the instance of either party.’
A claim by a trader for damages sustained by him in hiring a truck in the place of one delayed by the railway company held to be in respect of a ‘difference arising under this section,’ and to be accordingly a question for an arbitrator and not for a court of law.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, Atkinson, and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 974, 45 SLR 974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621493

James Nelson and Sons Ltd v Nelson Line Ltd: HL 6 Feb 1908

A charter-party provided ‘seven weather working days (Sundays and holidays excepted) to be allowed by owners to charterers for loading.’
Loading took place on two holidays, but there was no evidence of any express agreement under which the work was carried on, or at whose instigation it took place.
Held (rev. judgment of Court of Appeal) that the two days in question were not to be counted as lay days.
A more or less obscure agreement of the nature of a charter-party entered into between the owners of a line of steamships and charterers was made with respect to a fortnightly service of steamers between A and B. The agreement provided that on the arrival of each steamer at her loading berth at A the charterers were to receive notice that she was ready to load, and that the lay days were to commence twelve hours after the receipt of such notice.
Held that the clause which regulated the commencement of the lay days must be read with due regard to the fact that the agreement was for fortnightly sailings, and that accordingly the charterers were under no obligation to begin loading a vessel until a date which would suit an interval of fourteen days between the sailings.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 976

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621494

Macbeth and Co v Maritime Insurance Co: HL 6 Mar 1908

In deciding the question whether or not there has been a constructive total loss of a vessel which has been wrecked, the selling value of the wreck falls to be added to the cost of repairing the vessel.
A vessel’s value was pounds 12,000. She was wrecked. The cost of repairing her was pounds 11,000; the wreck was worth pounds 1000. Held that she was a constructive total loss.
Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Robertson and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 988, 45 SLR 988

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621500

Ardan Steamship Co Ltd v Weir and Co: HL 4 Aug 1905

Held: (rev. the judgment of the First Division) that the obligation of the charterers of a ship to have the cargo ready as soon as the vessel is in ordinary course ready to load, being apart from special stipulation express or implied an absolute obligation, distinct from the obligation to load, it was no defence to an action of damages for detention, brought by the owners of a ship which had been chartered to go to a certain port and there ship a cargo of coals that the vessel by the custom of the port had not been given a loading berth, inasmuch as the reason why she had not been given a loading berth was that she had not a loading order, her cargo being not yet available because the colliery was under obligation to load vessels in their turn and there were two other vessels to be loaded first.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Davey, James of Hereford, and Robertson

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 851, 42 SLR 851

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621186

Elderslie Steamship Co v Borthwick: HL 16 Feb 1905

The bill of lading of a cargo contained two clauses of exceptions inconsistent with each other, the first, printed in large type, conferring on the owners of the vessel an absolute exemption from liability for damage to cargo, the second, printed in smaller type, an exemption qualified by a proviso that reasonable means must have been taken to provide against defects and unseaworthiness.
The cargo was damaged by the unseaworthiness of the vessel, which might have been provided against by the owners.
Held, on the principle that effect must be given if possible to every part of a document or contract, that the first clause was qualified by the second, and that the owners of the vessel were liable in damages to the owners of the cargo. (Decision of Court of Appeal affirmed.)
Observed by Lord Macnaghten ‘that a shipowner who wishes to escape from the liability which would attach to him for sending an unseaworthy vessel to sea must say so in very plain words.’ The indorsee of a bill of lading brought an action against the shipowners for damage to frozen meat shipped under the bill of lading for carriage from Melbourne to London.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Macnaghten, and Lord Lindley

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 854, 42 SLR 854

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621170

Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc v Glencore Agriculture Bv: CA 21 Aug 2018

The court was asked as to certain letters o indemnity given in a voyage charterparty were subject to the limitation provisions contained within the charterparty itself.

Judges:

Sir Geoffrey Vos Ch, Simon, Asplin LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ComC – Songa Chemicals As v Navig8 Chemicals Pool Ltd ComC 2-Mar-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621169

Thomas and Sons v Harrowing Steamship Co: HL 26 Jun 1914

Where by the charter-party a lump sum was due for freight upon delivery of the cargo at its destination, and the ship was wrecked just outside the port of delivery, held that floating off the cargo to the beach was equivalent to delivery by transhipment, and that loss of one quarter of it by ‘perils of the sea,’ as provided for in the charter-party, did not affect the shipowners’ right to the full freight.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Lords Shaw, Moulton, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 649, 52 SLR 649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620720

Barnsley British Co-Operative Society Ltd v Worsborough Urban District Council: HL 14 Oct 1915

The appellants were a firm using traction engines for the transport of their wares to neighbouring branches. Owing to a certain part of the main road being rendered unsafe for this traffic, the appellants used, and thereby destroyed, a country road unsuited for the support of such heavy traffic. The respondents claimed damages under section 23 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878.
Held that the question whether traffic was extraordinary was one of fact. Further, that constant use of the road by the appellants’ traction engine from 1909 to 1911 was not in itself sufficient to render by the end of that period such traffic ordinary.

Judges:

The Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 530, 53 SLR 530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620696

Stott (Baltic) Steamers Line v Marten and Others: HL 5 Nov 1915

A marine insurance policy covered ‘perils of the seas,’ ‘in port and at sea, in docks and graving docks, and on ways, gridirons, and pontoons, at all times, in all places, and on all occasions.’ Clause 7 provided – ‘This insurance also specially to cover . . loss of or damage to hull or machinery through the negligence of the master, mariners, engineers, or pilots, or through explosions, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or through any defect in the machinery or hull.’
The pin of a shackle broke whilst a boiler was being lifted into the hold and damaged the hull. The owners claimed under the policy.
Held that the damage was not caused by a peril of the seas or ejusdem generis, and that the Institute time clauses were not intended to extend the scope of the risks insured against.

Judges:

Viscount Haldane, Lords Dunedin and Atkinson

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 784,
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620704

United States Steel Products Co v Great Western Railway Co: HL 13 Jul 1915

Competition arose between the unpaid vendors’ right of stopping in transit certain goods and a general lien created by a condition of the bill of lading against ‘the owners of such goods upon any account.’
Held, in construction of the contract, that the general lien was not preferred to the vendors’ right of stoppage in transitu. Opinions that ‘the owners’ meant the persons entitled to demand and demanding the goods.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Buckmaster), Lords Atkinson, Parker, Parmoor, and Wrenbury

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 504, 53 SLR 504

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620694

Thomas Wilson Sons and Co Ltd v Owners of Cargo Ex ‘Galileo’: HL 26 Jun 1915

Under a bill of lading goods were to be delivered at Hull, and thence transhipped ‘at ship’s expense and shipper’s risk to the port of N.’ There was a further provision that the shipowner should have the right to convey the goods ‘in craft and (or) lighters to and from the steamer at the risk of the owner of the goods.’ At Hull the goods were put into a lighter to be taken to a ship sailing for N., and were left unattended. The lighter was unseaworthy and sank. The goods were damaged.
Held that the clause in the bill of lading did not exempt the shipowner from liability for negligence.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (110 L.T.R. 614) affirmed.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Lords Shaw and Moulton

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 858, 52 SLR 858

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620689

Kerr v Screw Collier Co Ltd: HL 14 Dec 1909

Ship – Collision at Sea – Narrow Channel – Firth of Forth – Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1897, Art. 25

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 99, 47 SLR 99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1894

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620599

Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd: ECJ 4 Jul 2018

Transport – Definition of ‘Operating Air Carrier’ – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(b) – Scope – Definition of ‘operating air carrier’ – Lease of aircraft including crew ‘Wet lease’

Citations:

C-532/17, [2018] EUECJ C-532/17, [2018] WLR(D) 412

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620055

CX v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Scharding: ECJ 11 Jul 2018

International Road Transport – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – International road transport – Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey – Article 9 – Additional Protocol – Articles 41 and 42 – Freedom to provide services – Standstill clause – Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council – Articles 5 and 7 – Free movement of goods – National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned – Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest

Citations:

C-629/16, [2018] EUECJ C-629/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620014

Buonotourist v Commission: ECFI 11 Jul 2018

Judgment
State aid – Enterprise operating bus routes in the Regione Campania – Advantage – Service of general economic interest – Tariff compensation for public service obligations paid following a decision of a court ruling on last resort – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market – Existing aid and new aid – Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 – Conditions for exemption from the obligation to notify – Article 4 (5) and Article 7 paragraph 6,of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 – Jurisdiction of the Commission and national courts in the field of State aid control – Res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court – Application in time of substantive law – legitimate expectations – legal certainty

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:430, [2018] EUECJ T-185/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620002

Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v Monjasa A/S: ComC 15 Jun 2018

‘ two important issues in relation to the law of carriage of goods by sea.
i) The first is whether the time bar created by Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules applies to claims for wrongful misdelivery, where the shipowner has delivered the cargo to a third party without production of the bill of lading.
ii) The second is whether the requirement in Article III Rule 6 that ‘suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered’ can ever be satisfied if proceedings are commenced in the courts of one country, when the bill of lading incorporates a clause from a charterparty giving exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of another country.’

Judges:

David Foxton QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1495 (Comm), [2018] WLR(D) 369

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619819

M’Dermott v Owners of The ‘Tintoretto’: HL 13 Dec 1910

A seaman while on a foreign voyage was totally incapacitated by accidental injury. Under the Merchant Shipping Acts his employers became liable to pay wages up to the date of discharge, hospital and surgical expenses, and his maintenance until his arrival back in England. The County Court Judge held that compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act commenced only upon the date of arrival, and that the previous payments by the employers under the Merchant Shipping Acts should not be taken into account. The award was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
Held: Where employers become liable in respect of a seaman employed by them, both under the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 to pay, relieve, and maintain him while disabled abroad, and also, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, to pay compensation to him, the right to compensation commences at the expiry of the duties of maintenance, and the cost of maintenance does not fall to be taken into account.

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 728, 48 SLR 728

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Employment, Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619807

Grant v Owners of SS ‘Egyptian’: HL 21 Apr 1910

The ‘Egyptian’ was negligently navigated by her temporary master B., whereby the ‘Nelson’ was damaged while at anchor in harbour. B. was also the watchman in charge of the ‘Nelson’ but he negligently failed to discover her injuries and stop a leak, owing to which the ‘Nelson’ sank. Held that the owners of the ‘Egyptian’ were not liable for the whole loss of the ‘Nelson,’ but only for the injuries originally caused.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 905, 47 SLR 905

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619789

Kish and Another v Taylor Sons and Co: HL 26 Jul 1912

The terms of a charter-party provided that the shipowners should have a lien for dead freight upon the cargo, which was to be of a specified amount and to be delivered to the charterers’ order, ‘all other conditions as per charter.’ As the charterers failed to load a complete cargo, the shipowners took so much deck cargo that the ship was rendered unseaworthy, and encountering storms was obliged to deviate for repairs. The shipowners claimed against the holders of the bill of lading for loss caused by the charterers’ failure to load sufficient cargo. Held that the right to dead freight arose before the ship sailed and was not lost by the ship’s unseaworthiness or deviation, and that dead freight is damages for breach of contract.

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 1046, 49 SLR 1046

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619249

Alexander Stephen and Sons Ltd v Allan Line Steamship Co Lltd: HL 11 Mar 1912

Circumstances in which, approving the judgment of the Lord President in which he deals with the presumption of fault when a collision occurs between a moving and a stationary vessel, and the necessity of averring and proving specific fault on the part of a compulsory pilot in order to obtain the benefit of section 633 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, the defenders were assoilzied in an action of damages arising out of a collision between their vessel, a moving vessel under a compulsory pilot, and the pursuers’ vessel, a stationary vessel moored to a wharf.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Robson, with Nautical Assessors

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 473, 49 SLR 473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619233

Owners of SS ‘Raphael’ v Brandy: HL 1 Jun 1911

A stoker was injured by accident while in the appellants’ employment. At the same time he was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve and in receipt of an annual retainer of pounds 6. In consequence of the accident he was discharged from that service and lost the retainer. In assessing the amount of compensation the County Court Judge took into account the amount of the stoker’s retainer paid to him by the Royal Naval Reserve. This finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., and Fletcher Moulton, L.J., diss. Farwell, L.J.). The employers appealed.
Held: In assessing the amount of the weekly compensation payable by the appellants, the amount of the stoker’s earnings from the Royal Naval Reserve must be taken into account, and that section 9 of the Act only operated to prevent liability upon the Crown in respect of persons in its naval or military service.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Robson

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 625, 49 SLR 625

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619204

Klein and Others (Owners of The ‘Tatjana’) v Lindsay and Others (Cargo Owners): HL 20 Feb 1911

‘The onus of proving unseaworthiness is upon those who allege it. This is, of course, a sound doctrine; and it is none the less sound although the vessel break down or sink shortly after putting to sea. That is the principle of law. But the enunciation of that proposition does not impair or alter certain presumptions of fact, such presumptions, for instance, as those which arise from the age, the low classing or non-classing, the non-survey of ship or machinery, the refusal to insure, the laying-up, the admitted defects, and generally the poor and worsening record of the vessel, together with finally the break-down, say, of the machinery immediately, or almost immediately, on the ship putting to sea.’
Circumstances in which held ( rev. judgment of the First Division) that it lay with the owner to establish the seaworthiness of his vessel, the onus on the cargo owners who alleged unseaworthiness being displaced by the presumptions of fact.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord James of Hereford, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 326, 48 SLR 326

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619185

Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Wurttemberg v Germanwings GmbH: ECJ 28 Jun 2018

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Transport – Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 – Common rules for the operation of air services in the Union – Article 2 (18) and Article 23 (1) – Information – Need to indicate fares passengers ‘in euro or in national currency’ – Obligation to mention these fares in a specific national currency – Relevant criteria, if any, for the purpose of identifying this currency

Citations:

C-330/17, [2018] EUECJ C-330/17 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2018:516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.619033

Caledonian Railway Co v North British Railway Co: SCS 11 Jan 1916

For the purpose of fixing the tolls to be paid by one company to another, the Caledonian Railway (Grangemouth Harbour) Act 1876, section 25, enacted-‘ . . the cost of the lines of rails and sidings which may be hereafter formed by the company shall only include the expense of the rails, chairs, and other permanent-way material, and of laying down the same on the surface, together with the purchase-money of any land which may have been or may be acquired by the company for the purposes hereof and compensation for any damage to adjoining lands. . . ‘ A subsequent Act, 1897, in section 12, for the same purpose, referred to ‘interest upon the cost of such works (including the cost of land) calculated at the rate and in the manner provided by’ section 25 of the 1876 Act.
Held that ‘cost of land’ in the 1897 Act meant the ‘purchase-money’ of the 1876 Act, and that that term did not include the expenses of acquisition; that ‘permanent-way material’ did not include ballast.

Citations:

[1916] SLR 275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618259

Wegener v Royal Air Maroc SA: ECJ 31 May 2018

Consumer Protection – Definition of ‘Connecting Flight’ – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 3(1) – Scope – Definition of ‘connecting flight’ – Flight departing from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, including a transfer at an airport situated in the territory of a third State and destined for another airport of that third State

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, [2018] EUECJ C-537/17, [2018] WLR(D) 327

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Consumer, Transport

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616991

Agile Holdings Corporation v Essar Shipping Ltd: ComC 11 May 2018

Whether jurisdiction to hear appeal from arbitration award where argued that did not refer to a question of law capable of determination.

Judges:

Judge Waksman QC sitting as a High Court judge

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm), [2018] WLR(D) 294

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617005

Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission: ECFI 16 May 2018

Concentrations – Air Transport Market – Judgment – Competition — Concentrations – Air transport market – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market subject to certain commitments – Request for a waiver of part of the obligations forming the subject matter of the commitments – Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Misuse of powers

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:269, [2018] EUECJ T-712/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.615554