Tag: Transport

London Borough of Hillingdon and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport and Others: Admn 30 Jan 2017

Judicial review to challenge a decision of the Secretary of State for Transport which selected for inclusion in a draft National Policy Statement (‘NPS’) a proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 121 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 54

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Planning Act 2008

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Transport

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573917

Bitumen Invest As v Richmond Mercantile Ltd Fzc: ComC 17 Nov 2016

Claimant’s application for Summary Judgment against the Defendant (Richmond) in respect of sums alleged to be due under a Deed of Guarantee, asking whether or not the Deed constitutes an ‘on-demand guarantee’, payable on the certification of sums due by the Owners, or whether, before liability arises under the Deed, the Owners must establish the liability of the party guaranteed the Bareboat Charterers under a Barecon 2001 Charter with the Owners.

Judges:

Sir Jeremy Cooke

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2957 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573351

Andersen v Commission: ECFI 18 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) State aid – Rail transport – Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking Danske Statsbaner (DSB) – Public service contracts for the supply of rail passenger transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to certain conditions – Temporal application of rules of substantive law – Service of general economic interest – Manifest error of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:14, [2017] EUECJ T-92/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573243

Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others: 18 Jun 1998

Judgment – Freedom to provide services – Maritime transport – Undertakings holding exclusive rights – Mooring services for vessels in ports – Compliance with the competition rules – Tariffs

C-266/96, [1998] EUECJ C-266/96
Bailii
European
Citing:
Opinion – Corsica Ferries France v Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others ECJ 22-Jan-1998
Opinion – ‘the Court has once again been asked to assess the compatibility with the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods and services and on competition of the Italian legislation governing ports. The reference concerns companies having . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572710

European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dynamiki v Commission: ECFI 13 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Public procurement of services – Tender procedure – Technical assistance, development and implementation of an ASEAN Customs Transit System (ACTS) – Rejection of a tender offer – Award of the contract To another tenderer – Selection criteria – Award criteria – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Equal treatment – Transparency

ECLI:EU:T:2016:723, [2016] EUECJ T-764/14
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572579

Commission v Luxembourg C-152/16: ECJ 1 Dec 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 – Common rules on the conditions for exercising the profession of transport by road – Article 16, paragraphs 1 and 5 – national electronic register of road transport undertakings – lack of interconnection with the national electronic registers of other Member States

ECLI:EU:C:2016:919, [2016] EUECJ C-152/16
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009
European

Transport

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572317

Vinnlustodin Hf and Another v Sea Tank Shipping As: ComC 14 Oct 2016

‘There are two issues in this Part 8 claim, namely whether the package limitation provisions in Article IV r.5 of the Hague Rules (‘Article IV r.5’) apply to bulk cargoes and, if they do, how they apply to the damaged cargo of fishoil with which this action is concerned. Article IV r.5 provides that the carrier’s liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods shall not exceed andpound;100 ‘per package or unit’. The Defendant’s case is that Article IV r.5 can be applied to bulk or liquid cargo by reading the word ‘unit’ as a reference to the unit used by the parties to denominate or quantify the cargo in the contract of carriage. The Defendant relies on the description of the cargo in the charterparty as ‘2,000 tons cargo of fishoil in bulk’. The Claimants’ case is that the word ‘unit’ can only refer to a physical item of cargo, or to a combination of physical items bundled together for shipment. Article IV r.5 does not apply to a liquid or other bulk cargo: when cargo is shipped in bulk, there are no relevant ‘packages’ or ‘units’.’

Sir Jeremy Cooke
[2016] EWHC 2514 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570437

EL-EM-2001 Ltd v Nemzeti Ado-es Vamhivatal Del-alfoldi Regionalis Vam- es Penzugyori Foigazgatosaga: ECJ 19 Oct 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Road transport – Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Article 10(3) – Articles 18 and 19 – Fine imposed on the driver – Measures necessary to the execution of the penalty taken against the transport company – Immobilisation of the vehicle

ECLI:EU:C:2016:777, [2016] EUECJ C-501/14
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570371

Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited: ECJ 5 Oct 2016

ECJ (Order) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Absence of reasonable doubt – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(l) – Definition of ‘cancellation’ – Flight making an unscheduled stopover

C-32/16, [2016] EUECJ C-32/16 – CO, ECLI:EU:C:2016:753
Bailii
European

Transport

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570150

Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd v Spar Shipping As: CA 7 Oct 2016

Is charterers’ failure to pay an instalment of hire punctually under a time charterparty a breach of condition, strictly so called? Or, without more, does such a failure ‘merely’ entitle shipowners to withdraw the vessel from service under the charterparty in accordance with the express provisions of a withdrawal clause?

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gross, Hamblen LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 982
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Contract

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569918

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

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

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

Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Cited – Ide v ATB Sales Ltd and Another CA 28-Apr-2008
Each appellant challenged how the judge had decided between alternative proofs of causation of the respective loss. In Ide, the claimant asserted a fault in a cycle handlebar, and in Lexus, the claimant asserted that it caught fire whilst . .
Cited – Barlow Clowes International Ltd and Others v Henwood CA 23-May-2008
The receiver appealed against an order finding that the debtor petitioner was not domiciled here when the order was made. The debtor had a domicile of origin in England, but later acquired on in the Isle of Man. He then acquired a home in Mauritius . .
Cited – Fosse Motor Engineers Ltd and others v Conde Nast and National Magazine Distributors Ltd and Another TCC 20-Aug-2008
The claimant said that the defendant’s employees had negligently started a fire which burned down the claimant’s warehouse. There was limited evidence to establish the cause.
Held: The claim failed. The scientific evidence did not point to any . .
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment UK Ltd v Cinram Logistics UK Ltd CA 8-Aug-2008
Various items were deemed to have been lost whilst being transported by the defendants. The claimants sought damages based on the price for which they would have been sold. The defendants appealed a judgment on that basis.
Held: The carrier’s . .
Cited – Alford v Cambridgeshire Police CA 24-Feb-2009
The claimant police officer had been held after an accident when he was in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle into the neighbouring respondent’s area. The prosecution had been discontinued, and he now appealed against rejection of his claims for . .
Cited – Whitehouse v Lee CA 14-May-2009
The tenant appealed against an order requiring her to give up possession of her flat, held under the 1977 Act, saying that the court should not have found it reasonable to make an order after finding alternative accommodation suitable.
Held: . .
Cited – Cooper and Others v Fanmailuk.Com Ltd and Another CA 17-Dec-2009
F claimed to be the beneficial owner of shares registered in the names of the claimants. The appellants challenged a finding that the shares were held on trust for F, and the implication that the first appellant had presented a dishonest claim.
Cited – Nulty and Others v Milton Keynes Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
There had been two fires at a depot owned by the claimants. The fires were found to have been likely to have been caused by the deceased employee. His insurers had repudiated liability saying that the had not been notified oin a timely fashion.
Cited – Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
Cited – Fortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
Cited – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
Mentioned – Shagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd SC 5-Aug-2020
Allegations had been made that a contract had been procured by bribery. The other party said that the admissions of bribery had been extracted by torture and were inadmissible. The CA had decided that the unproven possibility that it was obtained by . .
Cited – Actavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract, Damages

Leading Case

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.252416

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

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

C-399/01, [2004] EUECJ C-399/01, C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-403/01, C-397/01, C-398/01, C-402/01, C-403/01, C-400/01, [2005] IRLR 137, [2004] ECR 8835, [2005] ICR 1307, [2004] ECR I-8835
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Directive 93/104/EC
European
Citing:
Approved – Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger ECJ 9-Sep-2003
Concepts of working time and rest period – On Call
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Concepts of working time and rest . .
See Also – Pfeiffer etc v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV 4 ECJ 5-Oct-2004
ECJ Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red . .

Cited by:
Cited – Greenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .
Cited – Attridge Law (A Firm of Solicitors) v Coleman and Law EAT 20-Dec-2006
The claimant asserted associative disability discrimination. She was the carer for her disabled son.
Held: To succeed the claimant would have to show that associative discrimination was prohibited by the directive and that the 1995 Act could . .
Cited – English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for harrassment and sex discrimination. Though heterosexual, he had been subject to persistent jokes that he was homosexual. The court first asked whether the alleged conduct was ‘on the grounds of sexual . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 24-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the calculation of annual leave pay for crew members in civil aviation under the Regulations. The company argued that it was based on the fixed annual remuneration, and the pilots argued that it should include other . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 28-Jul-2010
The appellant had worked as a part time judge. He now said that he should be entitled to a judicial pension on retirement by means of the Framework Directive. The Regulations disapplied the provisions protecting part time workers for judicial office . .
Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
Cited – Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another ChD 9-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones.
Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 17-Oct-2012
The claimants, airline pilots, and the company disputed the application of the 1998 Regulations to their employment. They sought pay for their annual leave made up of three elements: a proportionate part of the fixed annual sum paid for their . .
Cited – R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Transport, Employment, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.215895

Thyssen Inc v Calypso Shipping Corp Sa: ComC 23 Jun 2000

Application by the Claimants, who were receivers of a steel cargo, for a declaration that their claim against the Respondents, who were the owners of the carrying ship, is not time-barred. In the alternative, the Claimants seek an extension of time to commence arbitration proceedings pursuant to Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

David Steel J
[2000] EWHC B20 (Comm)
Bailii

Transport, Limitation

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.568024

The Ruta: QBD 21 Mar 2000

Where a ship-owner became insolvent, and the only remedy for unpaid employees was against the proceeds of sale of the ship, such claims would be granted a priority over lienors of the ship. No formal system can be created compartmentalising such competing claims, but it was characteristic that the employees on the ship once engaged had had to continue. Where several ships were damaged in what was one incident they should be ranked equally.

Times 21-Mar-2000, Gazette 23-Mar-2000
England and Wales

Insolvency, Transport, Employment

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89844

Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge Sa: ComC 24 Jun 2016

The question of law which arises on these arbitration appeals is as follows: ‘Where under a time charter the owner warrants to the time charterer that the vessel shall maintain a particular level of performance throughout the charter period, and the time charterer alleges underperformance in breach of that warranty, is it a defence for the owner to prove that the underperformance resulted from compliance with the time charterer’s orders?’

Phillips J
[2016] EWHC 1506 (Comm)
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 69

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566292

NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa: SC 11 May 2016

The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the time charter for IBG’s acts or omissions in the conduct of cargo handling operations at the port of discharge, extended only to acts or omissions in the actual performance of those operations while they were in progress.
Lord Clarke (dissenting) said: ‘The real question, he says, concerns the scope of that ‘agency’. To what acts or omissions did it extend?
Approaching the matter in that way, I am of the opinion that the answer is that it extends to the operation of the vessel from the time that notice of readiness was given (or perhaps earlier) until the completion of discharge. Throughout that time the vessel was complying with the orders of the charterers (ie Cargill) as to proceeding to a berth, waiting to discharge and subsequently discharging. If she had been arrested by Transclear or IBG in the course of the discharging operations themselves there could surely be no doubt that they would be treated as the ‘agents’ of Cargill. To my mind the same is true of an arrest during the period during which she was waiting to discharge.’ and ‘I would hold that the failure to discharge the cargo was caused by the acts or omissions of the charterers’ ‘agents’ and that when the vessel was arrested by Transclear she was arrested by the charterers’ agents within the meaning of clause 49. ‘

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 20, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 587, [2016] WLR(D) 255, [2016] 4 All ER 298, [2016] 1 WLR 1853
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Arbitration Act 1996 69
England and Wales
Citing:
At ComC – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC 1-Feb-2013
The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
At CA – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA CA 8-Apr-2014
The court was asked as to ‘the true construction and application of a proviso to an off hire clause in a time charterparty, dealing with the capture, seizure, detention or arrest of the vessel. The issue thus raises the familiar question as to the . .
Cited – Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty (‘Doric Pride’) CA 25-Jan-2006
The court considered the relationship between express an implied warranties.
Held: Under a time charterparty, hire continues to run unless the charterer can bring himself within the plain words of an off-hire provision; the risk of delay is . .
Cited – Mediolanum Shipping Co v Japan Lines Ltd (‘The Mediolanum’) CA 1984
The charterers had contracted to provide and pay for fuel. They ordered her to a safe port but she was directed to an unsafe place in that port by the refinery with whom the charterer had contracted for the supply of bunkers. The court was asked to . .
Cited – Richmond Shipping v D/S and A/S Vestland (‘The Vestland’) 1980
The court was asked whether the charterer was in breach of a positive obligation imposed on him by the charter. . .
Cited – The ‘Goodpal’ 2000
The court dealt with the apportionment of claims under the Interclub NYPE Agreement . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563294

Feest v South West Strategic Health Authority and Others: QBD 7 Feb 2014

The claimant sustained a serious spinal injury whilst a passenger on board a 9 metre RIB (rigid inflatable boat) called the Celtic Pioneer. She and 10 work colleagues were participating in a 1 hour boat trip in the Bristol Channel as part of a corporate team building exercise.

Havelock Allen QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 177 (QB), [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 419
Bailii
Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea

Transport, Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563235

ACG Acquisition Xx Llc v Olympic Airlines Sa: ComC 21 Apr 2010

The claimant had granted a lease of an aircraft to the defendants, undertaking in the agreement that the aircrat would be airworthy. It now claimed payment under the agreement, the defendant saying it had not been airworthy and had to be withdrawn from service, the costs of the repairs exceeding the value of the aircraft.
Held:

Hamblen J
[2010] EWHC 923 (Comm), [2010] 1 CLC 581
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Olympic Airlines Sa v ACG Acquisition XX Llc CA 17-Dec-2012
The airline had been placed in liquidation in Greece. The liquidator now appealed against orders for payment of debts and costs to the respondent . .
See Also – Olympic Airlines Sa v ACG Acquisition XX Llc CA 17-Apr-2013
The parties disputed their mutual obligations under aircraft leasing agreements. The insolvent airline said that in signing to accept the condition of the aircraft on delivery, it had not created an estoppel against itself when the aircraft later . .
At Commerial Court – Olympic Airlines Sa v ACG Acquisition Xx Llc CA 17-Jun-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.416129

Tempest (t/a Cesspool Sid) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 16 Mar 2000

The taxpayer owned and operated vehicles for discharging cesspool waste over agricultural land. He sought to reclaim the rebate entitlement for heavy oil. It was held that the four wheeled vehicles were off-the-road vehicles even if they would be driven on roads to and from the work sites. It was not an agricultural vehicle but was entitled as an off road vehicle if it was not otherwise entitled to a rebate, if it was designed and constructed mainly for use off the roads, and if it could not exceed 25 mph under its own power.

Times 16-Mar-2000
Hydrocarbon Oil Duty Act 1979
England and Wales

Road Traffic, Transport, Agriculture

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.89763

Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission T-38/11: ECFI 16 Dec 2015

(Judgment) Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons

[2015] EUECJ T-38/11
Bailii
European

Transport, Commercial

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556995

Council v Commission C-73/14: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Action for annulment – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing – Advisory opinion proceedings – Submission by the European Commission of a written statement on behalf of the European Union – No prior approval of the content of that statement by the Council of the European Union – Article 13(2) TEU, Article 16 TEU and Article 17(1) TEU – Article 218(9) TFEU and Article 335 TFEU – Representation of the European Union – Principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance – Principle of sincere cooperation

ECLI:EU:C:2015:663, [2015] EUECJ C-73/14
Bailii
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
European

Transport, Agriculture

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553093

The South West Strategic Health Authority v Bay Island Voyages: CA 14 Jul 2015

potential liability of sea carriers to contribute to the liability incurred by third parties for the death of or personal injury to a passenger, or the loss of or damage to his luggage, occurring in the course of carriage performed by the sea carrier.

[2015] EWCA Civ 708, [2016] 2 WLR 649, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 652, [2016] 1 All ER (Comm) 821, [2016] 4 All ER 107, [2016] QB 503
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550307

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another: CA 11 Mar 2015

[2015] EWCA Civ 203
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Transport

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544225

Barreiro, Alonso, Rodriguez v Air France SA: ECJ 13 Oct 2011

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(l) – Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight – Meaning of ‘cancellation’ – Article 12 – Meaning of ‘further compensation’ – Compensation under national law

K Lenaerts, P
[2011] EUECJ C-83/10, [2012] Bus LR 1596
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
European
Citing:
Opinion – Barreiro, Alonso, Rodriguez v Air France ECJ 28-Jun-2011
barreiroECJ11
ECJ Air transport – Assistance, care and compensation for passengers – Meaning of ‘cancellation’ and ‘further compensation’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Consumer

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540514

Campbell v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd: CA 30 Oct 2014

The court was asked whether the provisions of paragraph 33(2) of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act excluded the application of the duties contained in section 29 of the 2010 Act to the provision of airport services at an airport outside the European Union (EU).

Vos, McCombe, Longmore LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1668, [2014] WLR(D) 454
Bailii, WLRD
Equality Act 2010 29, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006
England and Wales

Discrimination, Transport

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540484

HS2 Action Alliance and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport: CA 9 Dec 2014

[2014] EWCA Civ 1578
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport and Another Admn 6-Aug-2014
The claimants objected to the proposed HS2 rail link seeking now judicial review of safeguarding arrangements made. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Planning

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539781

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

Order – joinder of cases

[2011] EUECJ C-581/10, C-581/10
Bailii
Cited by:
Order – Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority ECJ 23-Oct-2012
ECJ Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5 to 7 – Montreal Convention – Articles 19 and 29 – Right to compensation in the event of delay of flights – Compatibility . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Transport

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526743

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.179802

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.571232

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

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

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

Transport

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520895

Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU (Formerly Travelplan SAU) of Spain: ComC 21 May 2014

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

Popplewell J
[2014] EWHC 1547 (Comm), [2014] 1 CLC 711, [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 1205, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 230, 154 Con LR 183
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
Cited – Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .
Cited – British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited HL 1912
The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the . .
Cited – Staniforth v Lyall And Others 27-Nov-1830
Defendants chartered a ship to New Zealand, where they were to load her, or by an agent there to give Plaintiff, the owner, notice that they abandoned the adventure; in which case they were to pay him 5001. The ship went to New Zealand, but found . .
Cited – Wertheim v The Chicoutimi Pulp Company PC 18-Mar-1910
(Quebec) The buyer sought damages for late delivery of goods calculated on the difference between the market price at the place of delivery when the goods should have been delivered and the market price there when the goods were in fact delivered. . .
Cited – The Erie County Natural Gas and Fuel Company Limited and Others v Samuel S Carroll and Another PC 14-Dec-1910
(Ontario) The defendant was found to have breached its obligations to supply natural gas to the plaintiff. The plaintiff spent money on works to procure its own supply, and subsequently sold those works at a profit.
Held: Their Lordships . .
Cited – Jebsen v East and West India Dock Co CCP 25-Feb-1875
Delay caused by a charterer in discharging cargo caused the shipowner to lose passengers whom he had contracted to carry but he was able to take the same passengers in another of his vessels.
Held: The shipowners’ damages were not to be . .
Cited – Shearman v Folland CA 1950
The injured plaintiff had lived before the accident in hotels to which she paid seven guineas a week for board and lodging. After the accident she spent just over a year in nursing homes at a cost of twelve guineas a week exclusive of medical . .
Cited – Shearman v Folland CA 1950
The injured plaintiff had lived before the accident in hotels to which she paid seven guineas a week for board and lodging. After the accident she spent just over a year in nursing homes at a cost of twelve guineas a week exclusive of medical . .
Cited – Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd CA 19-Jul-1966
The plaintiff had been wrongly dismissed. He came to be employed by Martindale at a lower salary, and bought shares in Martindale and Ventilation which increased in value.
Held: The new salary and the increase in the value of the Martindale . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Bellingham v Dhillon QBD 1973
The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries, and in particular the loss of profits from his driving school business. He lost the opportunity to lease a driving simulator which would have enabled his company to earn a continuing profit. In . .
Cited – Nadreph Ltd v Willmett and Co 1978
The landlord of commercial premises brought a claim in negligence against its solicitors for a notice to terminate the tenancy, which caused the tenant (Citroen) to vacate the premises and become entitled to statutory compensation from the landlord. . .
Cited – The Yasin 1979
Receivers claimed against shipowners under a bill of lading for loss of a cargo. The shipowners argued on a preliminary issue that the insurance proceeds paid to receivers fell to be taken into account so as to wipe out the damages claimed. They . .
Cited – Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
Cited – Choil Trading Sa v Sahara Energy Resources Ltd ComC 26-Feb-2010
Losses incurred from hedging undertaken in mitigation of breach of a sale contract are recoverable . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel Sau CA 21-Dec-2015
The charter of the ship ‘New Flameno’ was repudiated two years early. The owners sold it, making rather more profit than they would have if sold after the end of the term. The court was now asked how the profit should affect the loss claim on the . .
At first Instance – Globalia Business Travel Sau of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama SC 28-Jun-2017
The court was asked how to assess damages arising out of the repudiation of a charterparty by charterers of a cruise ship, the ‘New Flameno’. The charter ending two years early, the owners chose to sell, and in the result got a much better price . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Transport

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.525784

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

Coroner may not use flight records

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

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

Coroners, Transport

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.569629

Haydon v Kent County Council: CA 1978

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Personal Injury, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.180995

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

airfrance_folkertsECJ2013

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

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

European, Transport, Consumer

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.471208

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

(High Court of Admiralty)

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.419013

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

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396614

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Licensing

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.599415

Medvedyev And Others v France: ECHR 29 Mar 2010

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

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

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, International, Crime, Transport

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.406700

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

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

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.284495

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (Indian Endurance and Grace (No 2): CA 1 May 1996

An action against ship in rem prevents a personal action against the owner; there would be a risk of double jeopardy.
Times 01-May-1996
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 34
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Republic of India and Others v India Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Indian Endurance and The Indian Grace’) (No 1) HL 29-Mar-1993
Munitions were being carried to Cochin on board the defendants’ vessel. Some was jettisoned in a fire and the remainder was damaged. The cargo owners sought damages in India for short delivery under the bills of lading, as to the jettisoned cargo . .

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

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

Colley v Overseas Exporters: 1921

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

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

Railtrack Plc v Smallwood: QBD 16 Feb 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black King Shipping Corpn and Wayang (Panama) SA v Massie (The Litsion Pride”): 1985″

References: [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437
Coram: Hirst J
Ratio: The LITSION PRIDE was insured against war risks. The terms required of her owners, notice as soon as practicable of her entry into specified war zones and then to pay an additional premium. The owners traded her into a war zone without giving notice, dishonestly intending to avoid the payment of the additional premium if the vessel got out unscathed. When she was hit by a missile and sunk, they gave the required notice by a letter which they dishonestly backdated to a date before the vessel entered the war zone. The fraud was irrelevant to the merits of the claim, because the vessel was held to be insured under a held covered clause with or without prior notice.
Held: The claim was forfeit on the ground that it was a breach of the insured’s duty of good faith. His decision has not fared well in subsequent decisions.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 26-Sep-18
Ref: 623434

Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge Willemstad”: 9 Dec 1976″

References: [1976] HCA 65, (1976) 136 CLR 529
Links: Austlii
Coram: Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.
Ratio: Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence – Duty of care – Foreseeability of harm – Economic loss not consequential upon damage to person or property – Damage to property of one person – Economic loss suffered by person as a result – Pipeline carrying oil to plaintiff’s depot – Damaged by defendant’s negligence – Supply interrupted – Pipeline and depot owned by different persons – Expense incurred by plaintiff in arranging alternative means of delivery – Whether recoverable – Remoteness of loss or damage.
Shipping and Navigation – Action in rem – Action against ship – Negligence – Master not sued as defendant – Appearance entered by master – No proprietary interest in ship – Whether master liable to judgment.
A pipeline was damaged and the owner of the terminal (who was not the owner of the pipeline) incurred expense in transporting refined oil to the terminal while the pipeline was out of use.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover that expense from the dredger which had damaged the pipeline. Jacobs J said that the duty of care owed to the owner of the pipeline was also owed to ‘a person whose property was in such physical propinquity to the place where the acts of omissions of the dredge . . had their physical effect that a physical effect on the property of that person was foreseeable as the result of such acts or omissions’.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: Australia

Last Update: 13-Jul-18
Ref: 331084

Adelfamar SA v Silos e Mangimi Martini Spa (the Adelfa”): 1988″

References: [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 466
Coram: Evans J
Ratio:
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 30 (Comm), [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455)
    The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 30 (Comm), [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455)
    The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 19-Jun-18
Ref: 616913

The Goodpal”: 2000″

References: [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638
Ratio: The court dealt with the apportionment of claims under the Interclub NYPE Agreement
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 403, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 103)
    The court was asked as to ‘the true construction and application of a proviso to an off hire clause in a time charterparty, dealing with the capture, seizure, detention or arrest of the vessel. The issue thus raises the familiar question as to the . .
  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa SC (Bailii, [2016] UKSC 20, Bailii Summary, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 587, [2016] WLR(D) 255, [2016] 4 All ER 298, [2016] 1 WLR 1853, WLRD, SC, SC Summary)
    The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
    Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 19-Jun-18
Ref: 617003

Richmond Shipping v D/S and A/S Vestland (The Vestland”): 1980″

References: [1980] 2 Lllyds Rep 171
Ratio: The court was asked whether the charterer was in breach of a positive obligation imposed on him by the charter.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa SC (Bailii, [2016] UKSC 20, Bailii Summary, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 587, [2016] WLR(D) 255, [2016] 4 All ER 298, [2016] 1 WLR 1853, WLRD, SC, SC Summary)
    The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
    Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 19-Jun-18
Ref: 616910

Mediolanum Shipping Co v Japan Lines Ltd (The Mediolanum”): CA 1984″

References: [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 136
Coram: Kerr LJ
Ratio: The charterers had contracted to provide and pay for fuel. They ordered her to a safe port but she was directed to an unsafe place in that port by the refinery with whom the charterer had contracted for the supply of bunkers. The court was asked to construe the safe port warranty.
Held: The charterer was not in breach of the safe port warranty because even on the assumption that the refinery’s authority as agent extended to designating a bunkering place, it was not at fault in designating this particular bunkering place.
However, Kerr LJ said: ‘Although, in relation to the charterers, the refinery was in the position of an independent contractor, we naturally accept that for the purposes of the charterers’ obligation, under clause 2 of the charter-party, to provide the fuel, the refinery was the agent of the charterers as between the charterers and the owners. The reason is that, in that respect, the refinery was used by the charterers in order to perform one of the charterers’ obligations under the contract.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 30 (Comm), [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455)
    The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 403, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 103)
    The court was asked as to ‘the true construction and application of a proviso to an off hire clause in a time charterparty, dealing with the capture, seizure, detention or arrest of the vessel. The issue thus raises the familiar question as to the . .
  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa SC (Bailii, [2016] UKSC 20, Bailii Summary, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 587, [2016] WLR(D) 255, [2016] 4 All ER 298, [2016] 1 WLR 1853, WLRD, SC, SC Summary)
    The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
    Held: (Lord Clarke dissenting) The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13-Jun-18
Ref: 616909

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty (Doric Pride”): ComC 20 May 2005″

References: [2005] EWHC 945 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Dispute about the meaning and effect of an ‘off hire’ clause in a single trip time charter.
This case is cited by:

  • At ComC – Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty (‘Doric Pride’) CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 599, [2007] 2 CLC 1042, [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 188, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 175)
    The court considered the relationship between express an implied warranties.
    Held: Under a time charterparty, hire continues to run unless the charterer can bring himself within the plain words of an off-hire provision; the risk of delay is . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 06-Jun-18
Ref: 226009

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty (Doric Pride”): CA 25 Jan 2006″

References: [2006] EWCA Civ 599, [2007] 2 CLC 1042, [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 188, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 175
Links: Bailii
Coram: Brooke, Rix LJJ, Sir Paul Kennedy
Ratio: The court considered the relationship between express an implied warranties.
Held: Under a time charterparty, hire continues to run unless the charterer can bring himself within the plain words of an off-hire provision; the risk of delay is thus essentially on the time charterer (rather than the owners).
Rix LJ, with whom Brooke LJ and Sir Paul Kennedy agreed, said at: ‘ Mr Cooper went on to cite examples of the effectiveness of an express safe port warranty, even in cases of charters to nominated ports such as The Helen Miller [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 95 at 101 and The Mary Lou [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 272. Those citations are, in my judgment, again apposite. It is of course standard law that express warranties and provisions must be given their true effect, such as they are, and that there is only room for the implication of an indemnity clause to the extent that the express provisions do not allocate risks in other inconsistent ways.’ ‘under a time charter the risk of delay is fundamentally on a time charterer, who remains liable to pay hire in all circumstances unless the charterer can bring himself within the plain words of an off-hire provision’.
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa ComC (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 30 (Comm), [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455)
    The ship (Global Santosh), having been found with illicit drugs, was arrested in error, leading to considerable delays in unloading the cement cargo. The charterparty period off-hire clause (NYPE form) was applied and hire withheld by the head . .
  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 403, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 103)
    The court was asked as to ‘the true construction and application of a proviso to an off hire clause in a time charterparty, dealing with the capture, seizure, detention or arrest of the vessel. The issue thus raises the familiar question as to the . .
  • Cited – NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) Nv v Cargill International Sa SC (Bailii, [2016] UKSC 20, Bailii Summary, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629, [2016] 2 All ER (Comm) 587, [2016] WLR(D) 255, [2016] 4 All ER 298, [2016] 1 WLR 1853, WLRD, SC, SC Summary)
    The ship ‘Global Santosh’ had been arrested as a side issue in a dispute as to its cargo between its anticipated receiver and a sub-sub charterer.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. Any responsibility of Cargill under the time charter for IBG’s acts . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 06-Jun-18
Ref: 242539

Parsons Corporation and others v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger”: ComC 9 Feb 2006″

References: [2006] EWHC 122 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mrs Justice Gloster DBE
Ratio: 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.
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 14-Apr-17
Ref: 238654

Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer ‘The Queen of the South’: 1968

References: [1968] 1 All ER 1163, [1968] 2 WLR 973, [1968] P 449, [1968] 1 Lloyds Rep 182
Ratio: Among the peope who might intervene on a ship’s arrest are the harbour authority itself claiming statutory rights of detention and sale.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bristol Airport Plc and Another v Powdrill and Others CA (lip, [1990] 2 WLR 1362, [1990] Ch 744, [1990] BCLC 585)
    An airline company went into administration. The airport seized two airplanes. The administrators claimed they were property within the administration, could not be seized without a court order, and the court should exercise its discretion not to . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 02-Aug-16
Ref: 181066

John Grahame, James Coulter, and Others, Underwriters of The Ship ‘The Jean,’ and Her Cargo v Robert M’Nair: HL 29 Mar 1770

References: [1770] UKHL 2_Paton_244
Links: Bailii
Ratio Marine Insurance – Deviation.-
Held that deviation of the ship in the course of the voyage insured, must be wilful, in order to void the policy, and that accidental or involuntary deviation will not have that effect. Circumstances in which held wilful deviation not proven.

Last Update: 14-Apr-16
Ref: 561672

The Ship ‘Marlborough Hill’ v Alex Cowan and Sons Limited: PC 1921

References: [1921] AC 444
Coram: Lord Phillimore
The question was whether a document, describing itself as a bill of lading but written in the form of a receipt of goods for (rather than of) shipment, was a bill of lading for the purposes of the Act, which set out the jurisdiction of the admiralty court for an action in rem. The claim had been brought by consignees which provided for delivery to the shipper’s order.
Held: It was a bill of lading within the Act. The court noted that it purported to be negotiable. If this document is a bill of lading, it is a negotiable instrument. Other incidents of the document were standard for a bill of lading, such as detailed terms and conditions in familiar form; the fact that the document was called a bill of lading many times in the course of such provisions and that it was made subject to the US Charter Act; the fact that it provides that ‘If required by the shipowner, one signed bill of lading, duly endorsed, must be surrendered on delivery of the goods’; and that it ‘ends in the time honoured form’, viz ‘In witness whereof the master or agent of said vessel has signed three bills of lading, all of this tenor and date, of which if one is accomplished, the others shall be void’ The court emphasised that the document would work as merchants would expect a bill of lading to work. It accorded wit hstandard commercial practiceand the parties agreed to call it a bill of lading, and entered into obligations and acquired rights proper to a bill of lading. All the other incidents in its very detailed language are such as are proper to such a document.
Statutes: Admiralty Court Act 1861
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 31-Jan-16 Ref: 181886

Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’): HL 1921

References: [1921] 1 AC 99
Coram: Lord Atkinson, Lord Wright, Viscount Cave, Lord Shaw
The House considered the relationship between a merchant vessel in convoy and a convoying naval vessel.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Atkinson: ‘With all respect, I am quite unable to concur in the learned judge’s view that the merchant ships convoyed, whose task was simply to sail peacefully on the course they might be directed to follow, and to keep their proper places in the convoy, became so identified with the ships of war directing and protecting them, as to be treated as members of a joint flotilla on a common enterprise. I concur with Atkin LJ in thinking that the learned judge treats as he said the sheep and the shepherd as both engaged in the operation of shepherding. The duties and proper tasks of convoying warships and the ships they convoy are respectively indicated in ss 30 and 31 of the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 . . The naval officers are to diligently perform the duties of convoying and protecting the ships they are appointed to convoy according to instructions, to defend these ships and the goods they carry without deviation, to fight in their defence if they are assailed and not to abandon them or expose them to hazard. Every master or other officer in command of any merchant or other vessel convoyed is bound to obey the commanding officer of the ships of war in all matters relating to the navigation or security of the convoy, and is also bound to take such precautions for avoiding the enemy as may be directed by this commanding officer. It does not appear, however, that this latter officer has any power to require the master, officers or crew of any merchant ship which is being convoyed to take combative action against a vessel of any kind, or to join in such action if taken by all or any of the ships of war. The roles of the two classes of ships are entirely different in nature and character. That of the ships of war is protective and if need be combative; that of the merchantmen is not at all combative in nature and character as would be their enterprise in time of peace’ Viscount Cave: ‘But in the present case the orders were a part of the convoying operation which included the choice of the route, the setting of the course, and the precautions taken on the voyage; and I do not think that the transaction can be split up and treated as in part an operation and in part something other than an operation . . .’
Lord Shaw: ‘ . . I think that the putting of a vessel under convoy, with all that that involves, is an actual and accomplished change of circumstances and an operation which is conducted in the course of hostilities or war . . .’ and ‘To all intents and purposes it is the same as if he had placed on the convoyed ship a naval officer in command as subordinate to himself. In short, so far as the direction of the course of the vessel was concerned, the merchant captain and officers were no longer in control. The naval officers were. Not only so, but the orders of the commander of the convoy were clothed with the instant sanction of force . . . I myself see great force in the view which Bailhache J. so clearly expresses to the effect that all the vessels – those acting as convoy and those under convoy – must be treated as a unity. . . . I am humbly of opinion that, so far as ships under convoy are concerned, all these ships are, along with the ships acting as convoy, under a unified command, and that command issuing from the commander of the convoy is, as part of the direction of the convoy, a military operation.’
Statutes: Naval Discipline Act 1866 30
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16-Dec-15 Ref: 237694

Brownsville Holdings Ltd v Adamjee Insurance Co Ltd (‘The Milasan’): 2000

References: [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 458, [2000] EWHC 223 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Aikens J
A 90 foot motor yacht sank in calm weather in the course of a voyage from Piraeus to Sardinia with a crew of three: a skipper, an engineer and a deckhand.
Held: The owner’s insurance claim failed. There had been a breach of warranty in these terms: ‘Warranted professional skippers and crew in charge at all times.’ The claimants accepted that this was a promissory warranty – there was no argument that it was a term simply delimiting or describing the risk. Aikens J: ‘I accept . . that a practical construction must be given to the words of the warranty. I think it is clear that the insurers were concerned to ensure that the vessel was properly looked after all the time, both winter and summer, and wherever she was – whether cruising or in a marina for the winter months.
The ‘skipper’ together with the ‘crew’ has to be ‘in charge’ of the vessel ‘at all times’. In my view the wording ‘professional skippers and crew to be in charge’ means that the skipper and the crew’ together are to take care of and manage the vessel; that is the sense in which they are to be ‘in charge’ of her. They are also to be ‘in charge’ of the vessel together ‘all the time’. The last phrase is . . quite clear. It means that there must be a professional skipper and a crew that looks after the vessel the whole time, as opposed to intermittently or at intervals.’ As the claimants had not employed anyone who was a ‘professional skipper’ over a period of time, they were in breach of warranty. In summary ‘On the proper construction of the ‘professional skipper warranty’ the claimants were obliged to keep a suitably qualified skipper on board the yacht at all times . . ..’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd -v- CMM Trust No.1400 (the ‘Newfoundland Explorer’) AdCt (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 429 (Admiralty), Times 02-May-06, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep IR 704)
    The owner sought to claim under his insurance policy. The yacht was, in the policy warranted to be fully crewed at all times. The owner had left the boat to return a few hours later when it was found on fire.
    Held: The insurance claim failed. . .
  • Cited – Pratt -v- Aigaion Insurance Company SA (‘the Resolute’) CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1314, Times, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 149, [2008] 2 CLC 756, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 387, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 225)
    The court considered the interpretation of a term in a contract of insurance to the effect that ‘Warranted Owner and/or Owner’s experienced skipper on board and in charge at all times and one experienced crew member.’, asking whether ‘at all times’ . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 25-Oct-15 Ref: 242640

The Calder And Hebble Navigation Company v Pilling And Others; 23 Apr 1845

References: [1845] EngR 685, (1845) 14 M & W 76, (1845) 153 ER 396
Links: Commonlii
By a local act, 6 Geo. 4, c. Ixxi., the company of proprietors of a public navigation were empowered to make bye-laws for the good government of the company and for the good and orderly using the navigation, and also for the well-governing of the burgemen, watermen, and boatmen, who should carry any goods, wares, or merchandise upon any part of the said navigattion, and to impose and inflict such reasonable fines or forfeitures upon all persons offending against the same, as to the major part of the company should seem meet, not exceeding £5. The company made a bye-law that the navigatiori should be closed on every Sunday throughout the year, and that no business should be transacted thereon during such time, (works of necessity only excepted), nor should any person during such time navigate any boat, &c nor should any boat, &c. pass along any part of the said navigation on any Sunday, except for a reasonable distance for the purpose of mooring the same, and except on some extraordinary necessity, or for the purpose of going to, or returning from, any place of divine worship, under a penalty of £5 :-Held, that the act did not authorize the company to make the above bye-law, and that it was illegal and void.
Last Update: 04-Sep-15 Ref: 303827