Tag: Transport

Goddart v Garrett; 16 Jun 1692

References: [1692] EngR 46, (1692) 2 Vern 269, (1692) 23 ER 774 (A)
Links: Commonlii
One having no interest in the ship, lends £300 on a bottomry bond, and insures £450 on the ship ; policy decreed to be delivered up. — One having no interest in a ship insures it, the insurance is void, though the policy runs, interest or no interest. But if he is interested in the ship, he may insure more than the value of his interest. Where one insures a ship, if he would have any benefit of the insurance, he must renounce his interest in the ship.
Last Update: 02-Sep-15 Ref: 393135

Diplock And Others v Blackburn; 19 Jul 1811

References: [1811] EngR 468, (1811) 3 Camp 43, (1811) 170 ER 1300 (A)
Links: Commonlii
If the master of a ship in a foreign port, from the state of the exchange, receives a premum for a bill drawn upon England on account of the ship, this belongs to his owner, although there may have been a usage for masters of shps to apprapriate such premiums to their own use.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others -v- Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 471, [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 425, [2014] WTLR 1135, [2014] 4 All ER 79, [2015] 1 AC 250, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 617, [2014] 3 WLR 535, [2014] WLR(D) 317, [2014] 2 BCLC 145, [2015] 1 P &CR DG1, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2013/0049, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
    The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .

Regina v The Inhabitants Of Hickling; 27 Jun 1845

References: [1845] EngR 1051, (1845) 7 QB 880, (1845) 115 ER 719
Links: Commonlii
By stat. 34 Q 3, c. 64, when the boundary of two parishes lay along the centre of a highway, justices were empowered, on information of the fact, to summon the surveyors of the respective parishes, hear the parties and their witnesses, and finally determine the matter by order, apportioning the highway between the parishes for the purpose of repair. Forms of information, summons and order were given. By an order under this Act, the justices recited an information laid before them that one side of a certain highways in, and repairable by, parish E, and the other side in, arid repairable by, parish W., praying an apportionment that they had summoned the surveyors, who attended, and that they had examined witnesses : and they ordered that the highway should be apportioned between H. & W., dividing it by a traversing line.

Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping ‘The Angel Bell’: 1979

References: [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 491, [1981] 1 QB 65
Coram: Donaldson J, Robert Goff J
Creditors of the defendant who was subject to a Mareva injunction applied to the court to authorise the repayment of a loan out of monies otherwise subject to the order.
Held: The purpose of a freezing order is to avoid dissipation of a defendant’s assets in order to avoid a judgment, it is only bona fide debts in the ordinary course of business of a defendant whose assets are frozen that will be permitted to be paid out, including debts which are not themselves enforceable.
Robert Goff J said: ‘Mr. Hobhouse submitted that the purpose of the Mareva jurisdiction was to freeze a foreign defendant’s assets in this country to ensure that there is a fund available in this country from which the plaintiff will be able to satisfy a judgment. In support of this he relied in particular on the form of the order usually made in these cases which restrains the defendant from dealing with his assets within the jurisdiction and from removing his assets from the jurisdiction. I do not, however, see that the usual form of the order as such assists his argument. As was made plain by Mustill J. in the Third Chandris case, the point of the Mareva jurisdiction is to proceed by stealth, to pre-empt any action by the defendant to remove his assets from the jurisdiction. To achieve that result the injunction must be in a wide form because, for example, a transfer by the defendant to a collaborator in the jurisdiction could lead to the transfer of the assets abroad by that collaborator. But it does not follow that, having established the injunction, the court should not thereafter permit a qualification to it to allow a transfer of assets by the defendant if the defendant satisfies the court that he requires the money for a purpose which does not conflict with the policy underlying the Mareva jurisdiction.’
and ‘All the interveners are asking is that the defendants should be free to repay such a loan if they think fit to do so, not that the loan transaction should be enforced. For a defendant to be free to repay a loan in such circumstances is not inconsistent with the policy underlying the Mareva jurisdiction. He is not in such circumstances seeking to avoid his responsibilities to the plaintiff if the latter should ultimately obtain a judgment; on the contrary, he is seeking in good faith to make payments which he considers he should make in the ordinary course of business. I cannot see that the Mareva jurisdiction should be allowed to prevent such a payment. To allow it to do so would be to stretch it beyond its original purpose so that instead of preventing abuse it would rather prevent businessmen conducting their businesses as they are entitled to do.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Anton Durbeck Gmbh -v- Den Norske Bank Asa ComC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2497 (Comm))
    The defendant bank arrested a ship carrying the claimant’s load of bananas. The cargo deteriorated while under arrest and was lost. It was not insured. The consignee sought damages from the arresting bank on the ground that it wrongfully interfered . .

Harrison v Wright; 11 Feb 1811

References: [1811] EngR 164, (1811) 13 East 343, (1811) 104 ER 402
Links: Commonlii
In assumpsit upon a memorandum for a charter-party, describing the agreement of the defendant, the shipowner, to proceed with all convenient speed to a foreign port, and there load, within 20 running days, a cargo from the plaintiff’s factors, and therewith return home, and in 15 running days deliver the same, on payment of certain freight, concluding with a certain penalty for non-performance : held that the plaintiff might recover damages on the breach of the contract, in the defendant’s not permitting the vessel to proceed on the voyage, beyond the amount of the penalty.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Total Transport Corporation -v- Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (‘the Eurus’) CA (Times 16-Dec-97, Gazette 08-Jan-98, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2754, [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 351, [1998] CLC 90)
    Arcadia chartered the Eurus, and had succeeded in their application for an award in arbitration proceedings against Total. The award had been reversed, and they now appealed against that order. The parties disputed whether the amount was an award of . .

Bridge Oil Ltd v The Owners and/or demise charters of the Ship ‘Guiseppe Di Vittorio’ (No. 2): AdCt 21 Nov 1997

References: [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 661
Coram: Clarke J
Effect of State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 Court ordered sale of vessel pendente lite on 15th July. Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on 29th October and refused a stay. State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 made on 30th October and came into force on 1st November. Republic submitted that the court should not allow vessel to be sold by reason of paragraph 3 of the Order. Held that paragraph 3 should not be construed as applying to vessels which the court had already ordered to be sold, inter alia, because to do so would be to interfere with or impair plaintiffs’ earlier rights under an Order of the court.
Statutes: State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 3
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (‘The Jordan II’): HL 25 Nov 2004

References: [2004] UKHL 49, Times 26-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1363, [2005] 1 All ER 175
Links: Bailii, House of Lords
Coram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Scott of Foscote
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 asked to depart from an interpretation of the rules which had stood and been applied for more than fifty years.
Held: There was no sufficient reason for departing from the rule in Renton. The House had to be aware that many commercial contracts had been put in place in reliance upon the existing interpretation, and other parties would be affected. Any change ought to make allowance for each of those interests. A review was current by UNCITRAL, and the House refused to overturn the long standing interpretation of the rules.
Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2
This case cites:

  • Cited – Pyrene Co Ltd -v- Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD ([1954] 2 QB 402)
    The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules was not to override freedom of contract to . .
  • Appeal from – Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others -v- Islamic Solidarity Company Jordan Inc and Another CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 144, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 87)
    The question was whether a carrier is liable to cargo owners when the latter, or their stevedores, perform their duties improperly or carelessly; whether an agreement which transfers responsibility for these operations from the shipowners to . .
  • Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL ([1966] 3 All ER 77, [1966] 1 WLR 1234)
    The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
  • Cited – The Ciechocinek CA ([1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 489)
    . .
  • Cited – The Coral CA ([1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1)
    . .
  • Cited – The Holstencruiser ([1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 378)
    . .
  • Cited – The Arawa ([1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 416)
    . .
  • Cited – The Panaghia Tinnou ([1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 586)
    . .
  • Cited – The Strathnewton CA ([1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 219)
    . .
  • Cited – The Filikos ([1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina -v- Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) HL (Times 02-Aug-00, House of Lords, Gazette 17-Aug-00, Bailii, [2000] 3 WLR 843, [2001] 2 AC 19, [2000] UKHL 48, [2000] 4 All ER 15, [2000] UKHRR 836)
    The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict . .
  • Cited – Vallejo -v- Wheeler ((1774) 1 Cowp 143)
    ‘In all mercantile transactions the great object should be certainty: and therefore, it is of more consequence that a rule should be certain, than whether the rule is established one way or the other. Because speculators in trade then know what . .
  • Cited – Homburg Houtimport BV -v- Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 12, Bailii, Times 17-Mar-03, Gazette 15-May-03, [2003] 2 WLR 711, [2004] 1 AC 715, [2003] 1 CLC 921, 2003 AMC 913, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 625, [2003] 2 All ER 785, [2003] 1 LLR 571)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Chandris -v- Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc CA ([1951] 1 KB 240, (1950) 2 All ER 618, (1950) 84 Lloyds Rep 347)
    Although section 3(1) of the 1934 Act expressly empowered only courts of record to include interest in sums for which judgment was given for damages or debt, arbitrators were nevertheless empowered by the agreement of reference to apply English law, . .
  • Cited – Regina -v- G and R HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 50, Bailii, Times 17-Oct-03, Gazette 13-Nov-03, [2003] 3 WLR 1060, [2004] 1 AC 1034, Bailii, (2003) 167 JP 621, (2003) 167 JPN 955, [2004] 1 Cr App R 21, [2003] 4 All ER 765)
    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 – Brys & Gylsen -v- J and J Drysdale & Co ((1920) 4 Ll L Rep 24)
    A literal interpretation of the Rules indicates that, where shippers and consignees select and pay for stevedoring, cargo claimants may recover compensation from owners for the negligence of cargo owners or the negligence of their stevedores, but . .
  • Cited – Chandris -v- Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc CA ([1951] 1 KB 240, (1950) 2 All ER 618, (1950) 84 Lloyds Rep 347)
    Although section 3(1) of the 1934 Act expressly empowered only courts of record to include interest in sums for which judgment was given for damages or debt, arbitrators were nevertheless empowered by the agreement of reference to apply English law, . .
  • Cited – Fothergill -v- Monarch Airlines Ltd HL ([1980] 2 All ER 696, [1980] 3 WLR 209, [1981] AC 251, mercatoria, Bailii, [1980] UKHL 6)
    The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
    Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
  • Cited – Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd -v- Lancashire Shipping Co Ltd HL ([1961] AC 807)
    Cargo was damaged in the course of a voyage by the failure of a fitter employed by ship repairers to secure the inspection cover on a storm valve. The cargo owner sued the shipowner in contract, and recovered.
    Held: It was no defence that the . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Golden Strait Corporation -v- Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 12, Times 30-Mar-07, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164, [2007] Bus LR 997, [2007] 3 All ER 1, [2007] 2 AC 353, [2007] 1 CLC 352, [2007] 2 WLR 691, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)
    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 – Golden Strait Corporation -v- Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 12, Times 30-Mar-07, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164, [2007] Bus LR 997, [2007] 3 All ER 1, [2007] 2 AC 353, [2007] 1 CLC 352, [2007] 2 WLR 691, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)
    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 . .

Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (‘The Muncaster Castle’): HL 1961

References: [1961] AC 807
Coram: Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simonds
Persons employed by a carrier in the work of keeping or making a vessel seaworthy are the carrier’s agents whose diligence or lack of it is attributable to the carrier. A shipowner’s or carrier’s duty under Article III, Rule 1 would not start and he would not be responsible for work carried out until the transfer of ownership, or possession of the vessel, or until the vessel came into his ‘orbit’, service or ‘control’.
Considered decisions of foreign courts, in particular appellate decisions, should be treated as persuasive in order to strive for uniformity of interpretation of international conventions.
Lord Radcliffe said: ‘It is plain to me that this conclusion turns on the consideration that the causative carelessness took place at a time before the carrier’s obligation under article III (1) had attached and in circumstances, therefore, when the builders and their men could not be described as agents for the carrier ‘before and at the beginning of the voyage to . . make the ship seaworthy’. This is a tenable position for those who engage themselves upon the work of bringing the ship into existence. The carrier’s responsibility for the work itself does not begin until the ship comes into his orbit, and it begins then as a responsibility to make sure by careful and skilled inspection that what he is taking into his service is in fit condition for the purpose and, if there is anything lacking that is fairly discoverable, to put it right. This is recognised in the judgment. But if the bad work that has been done is ‘concealed’ and so cannot be detected by any reasonable care, then the lack of diligence to which unseaworthiness is due is not to be attributed to the carrier.’
Statutes: Hague Visby Rules III 1
This case is cited by:

Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Limited (‘The Miramar’): HL 1984

References: [1984] AC 676, [1984] 3 WLR 1
Coram: Lord Diplock
A bill of lading incorporated a charterparty. The question was whether clauses in the charterparty or bill of lading prevailed. The charter clause incorporated a demurrage clause making the charterer’s laible for demurrage, and the owners asserted that the included demurrage clause made the cargo’s consignee, as holders of the bill, directly responsible for the demurrage.
Held: On its true construction, the contract the parties to the bill of lading intended that the charterer alone should carry responsibility. There is no general rule of construction that an incorporated clause which related directly to the issue operate in substitution for clauses on the same issue in the bill.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

Wilson; 7 Nov 1834

References: , [1834] EngR 993, (1834) 6 Car & P 605, (1834) 172 ER 1384
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Lyndhurst, C B, Parke, B, Alderson, B, Gurney, B
Wilson applied for a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, on two grounds – first, that the verdict was against evldence , and, second, that the survey of the manor was receivable in evldence to prove the plaintiff’s title to wreck.

Voaden v Champion, ‘The Baltic Surveyor’: 2001

References: [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 739
Coram: Colman J
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Voaden -v- Champion ( ‘Baltic Surveyor’ ) CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 89, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623)
    The ‘Baltic Surveyor’ was lost at its moorings in a storm. A neighbouring ship had been negligently secured, and freed itself and sank the Baltic Surveyor. The owner appealed findings as to the value of the boat, and securing pontoon. She asserted . .

Sanders, Snow and Cockings v Vanzeller; 2 Feb 1843

References: (1843) 4 QB 260, [1843] EngR 316, (1843) 114 ER 897
Links: Commonlii
Carrier’s lien under bill of lading
This case is cited by:

El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA; 10 Aug 2004

References: [2004] FCAFC 202, [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537
Links: Austilii
Coram: Black, Beaumont, Allsop JJ
(Federal Court of Australia) ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – carriage of goods by sea – Hague-Visby Rules – Australian COGSA Art 3 Rules 3, 4 and 8 – method for assessing value of cargo – where no ‘commodity exchange price’ or ‘current market price’ – where ‘normal value’ of goods at destination not determined. ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – limitation of liability – bill of lading – how to treat posters and prints enumerated as ‘pieces’ – whether an enumeration of packages or units – whether contractual limitation applies. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – construction of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth), Art 4 Rule 5(c) – meaning of ‘enumeration of packages or units’ – meaning of ‘as packed’.
This case is cited by:

The ‘Rosa S’: 1988

References: [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 574
Coram: Hobhouse J
THe effect of article IX is to make plain that what article IV rule 5 refers to is the gold value of the pound sterling not its nominal or paper value. ‘Fortunately for carriers this result is not disastrous, as most nations where Hague Rules are still mandatorily applicable have converted the package limitation into local currency instead of using the gold limitation. However, great care is needed in drafting bill of lading contracts (which usually contractually apply Hague Rules to shipments from those nations that have no mandatorily applicable law) to write in only Articles I to VIII of the Hague Rules and then provide separately for a package limitation of £100 (or whatever), thereby avoiding the ‘Gold Clause’ trap.’
Statutes: Hague Rules
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dairy Containers Ltd -v- Tasman Orient Line Cv PC (PC, Bailii, [2004] UKPC 22)
    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 . .

Nickel and Goeldner Spedition GmbH v ‘Kintra’ UAB: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

References: C-157/13, [2014] EUECJ C-157/13
Links: Bailii
Coram: A. Tizzano, P
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Article 3(1) – Concept of an ‘action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings’ – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(2)(b) – Concept of ‘bankruptcy’ – Action for payment of a debt brought by the insolvency administrator – Debt arising out of the international carriage of goods – Relationship between Regulations Nos 1346/2000 and 44/2001 and the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR)
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 3(1), Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 1(2)(b), Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road

Havelet Leasing Ltd v Cardiff-Wales Airport Ltd; 29 Jun 1988

References: 29 June 1988, (unreported)
Coram: Phillips J.
In order to exercise the statutory power of detention, of an aircraft the airport had to do some overt act evidencing the act of detention. Detention by an airport authority must be begun by some overt act. Such act need take no particular form. A simple declaration that the aircraft was detained, had it been made to [the operator], would have sufficed; so would an administrative act that would de facto have prevented the aircraft from being flown from the airport. In this case the fixing to the aircraft of a ‘lien notice’ was an act of detention.
Statutes: Civil Aviation Act 1982
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 . .

El Al Israel Airlines Ltd v Tsui Yuan Tseng; 16 Sep 1997

References: (1999) 525 US 155, 919 FSupp 155, 147 ALRFed 783, 65 USLW 2817, 142 L Ed 2d 576, 119 SCt 662, 122 F3d 99
Links: USSC
(US Supreme Court) The Warsaw Convention should be applied in a consistent manner internationally, without reference to the local laws of the high contracting parties.
Statutes: Warsaw Convention 29
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barclay -v- British Airways Plc CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1419, Times)
    The claimant sought damages for personal injury. The airline said that the injury was not the result of an accident within article 17.1. She was walking down the aisle and slipped.
    Held: The appeal was dismissed. The meaning of ‘accident’ . .

Bridge Oil Ltd v The Owners and/or demise charters of the Ship ‘Guiseppe Di Vittorio’ (No. 2): CA 1998

References: [1998] CLC 165
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

Naviera Mogor SA v Societe Metallurgique de Normandie: ‘The Nogar Marin’: CA 1988

References: [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412
Coram: Mustill LJ
It is the duty of the Master (or his agent) to ensure that the description of the cargo and the condition of the cargo as set out in the bill of lading are accurate before he signs it. It is up to the charterer/shipper how the goods are described in the Mate’s receipts and bill of lading.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Sea Success Maritime Inc -v- African Maritime Carriers Ltd ComC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1542 (Comm), Times 06-Sep-05)
    The ship’s master had refused to accept the cargo relying on clause 52 of the standard form charterpraty agreement saying that the cargo had been damaged.
    Held: Only if the shippers continued to insist on the description, and the master . .

The ‘Spontaneity’: 1962

References: [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460
Where the negligence of vessel X caused vessel Y to run aground, vessel X was not liable for such damages as were attributable to the subsequent, clearly separate and negligent re-floating of vessel Y. The original negligence of vessel X had ceased to be operative.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Borealis Ab -v- Geogas Trading Sa ComC (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 2789 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 482)
    The parties had contracted for sale and purchase of butane for processing. It was said to have been contaminated. The parties now disputed the effect on damages for breach including on causation, remoteness, mitigation and quantum.
    Held: The . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 28-Feb-16 Ref: 425892

Boukadoura Maritime Corporation v Societe Anonyme Marocaine de L’Industrie et due Raffinage: ‘The BOUKADOURA’: 1989

References: [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.393
Coram: Evans J
A claused bill of lading is one which qualifies the apparent good order and condition of the cargo as described in the bill of lading.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Sea Success Maritime Inc -v- African Maritime Carriers Ltd ComC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1542 (Comm), Times 06-Sep-05)
    The ship’s master had refused to accept the cargo relying on clause 52 of the standard form charterpraty agreement saying that the cargo had been damaged.
    Held: Only if the shippers continued to insist on the description, and the master . .

SIB International SRL v Metallgesellschaft Corporation (‘The Noel Bay’): CA 1989

References: [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 361
Coram: Staughton LJ
The Noel Bay was let on a charterparty to carry oil between ports in Europe, with demurrage provisions. The owners treated the charterer’s failure to nominate a port, as a repudiation. The owners found alternative employment for the ship and sought the difference in return as damages and demurrage for 72 hours which they would have earned together with the cost of getting the ship to the new port. They appealed refusal of the award of these additional sums.
Held: The appeal failed. Though they would have earned the demurrage had the contract continued, since it had not been, the proper basis for delay, giving credit for earnings in that period. The cost of getting the ship to the new port (the approach voyage) was part of the cost of the new contract for which the owner had to give credit. Staughton LJ accepted counsel’s submission that the value of the contract which the owners lost ‘must be assessed as at . . the date when repudiation was accepted’ and ‘It is established law that, at any rate if the option has not already been exercised at the date of the breach, the charterer must be assumed to have exercised that option in a way most favourable to himself.’
This case cites:

  • Approved (Megaw LJ) – Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA -v- BergbauHandel GmbH (The Mihalis Angelos) CA ([1971] 1 QB 164, Bailii, [1970] EWCA Civ 4, [1970] 3 WLR 601, [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 43, [1970] 3 All ER 125)
    The parties had agreed a charterparty. The ship was to sail to Haiphong to load a cargo for delivery in Europe. The charterer had a right to cancel if the vessel was not ready on a certain date, but a few days earlier they repudiated the charter. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Golden Strait Corporation -v- Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 12, Times 30-Mar-07, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164, [2007] Bus LR 997, [2007] 3 All ER 1, [2007] 2 AC 353, [2007] 1 CLC 352, [2007] 2 WLR 691, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)
    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 . .

Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’): CA 1919

References: [1919] 2 KB 670
Coram: Bailhache J
(Year?) The steamship was insured under a time policy against perils of the sea and stranding, and under further insurance against risks excluded under the first, particularly risks of hostile action. It was in a convoy of four ships zig zagging in the dark under the command of a naval officer to avoid possible torpedos. The court considered whether a merchant ship had been acting when in convoy as a military vessel: ‘sailing in convoy on a chosen route and taking precautionary measures [zig-zagging] necessary because of the presence of hostile submarines had led to the vessel being stranded. It was subsequently torpedoed’.
Held: There was no negligence on the part of the ship’s master or of the naval officer. The loss was not he proximate consequence of warlike operations, and responsibilty fell on the insurers, and not the King.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 19-Jan-16 Ref: 237696

Freeman v Read; 4 Jun 1863

References: [1863] EngR 643, (1863) 4 B & S 174, (1863) 122 ER 425
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Cockburn CJ
When the relevant period for the giving of a notice is a month or specified number of months after the giving of a notice, the general rule is that the period ends upon the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month, ie the day of that month that bears the same number as the day of the earlier month on which the notice was given. Cockburn CJ described the rule as ‘in accordance with common usage . . and with the sense of mankind’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dodds -v- Walker HL ([1981] 1 WLR 1027, [1981] 2 All ER 609)
    The landlord served his notice to determine the tenancy on the last day of a 30 day month. The tenant served his counternotice on the 31st day of the month four months later.
    Held: Dismissing the tenant’s appeal, the House found that the court . .
  • Cited – O’ Connor Utilities Ltd -v- HMRC Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 3704 (Admin), [2010] STI 624, [2010] STC 682)
    . .

Black and Others v Arriva North East Ltd; 1 May 2013

References: Unreported, 1 May 2013
Coram: Bowers HHJ
Middlesborough County Court. The claimants complained of a policy by the defendant bus company as to the use of wheelchair spaces on buses in that disabled users were not given absolute priority above buggy users.
Held: The company were not guilty of unlawful discrimination.
Statutes: Equality Act 2010
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Firstgroup Plc -v- Paulley CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1573)
    The claimant a wheelchair user had been unable to travel on a bus when a mother had left her sleeping child in a pushchair. The mother said she was unable to fold down the pushchair, and would not move the child. The claimant said that the driver . .
  • Cited – Firstgroup Plc -v- Paulley CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1573)
    The claimant a wheelchair user had been unable to travel on a bus when a mother had left her sleeping child in a pushchair. The mother said she was unable to fold down the pushchair, and would not move the child. The claimant said that the driver . .

A Meredith Jones and Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd (The Apostolis”): CA 11 Jul 2000″

References: [2000] EWCA Civ 213, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 337, [2000] CLC 1488
Links: Bailii
Coram: Waller LJ,
The proper construction of a contractual clause must not consider that clause in isolation, but must consider the clause in the context of the contract as a whole.
This case cites:

This case is cited by: