The defendants contracted to carry a cargo for the plaintiff. The plaintiffs asserted that it was delivered in a damaged condition. The Act required an action to be brought within one year. The defendants granted extensions of time until at last ‘up to and including 21 June 1981’. The 21st was a Sunday, the court was closed, and the writ was issued on the day after. The defendants argued that the issue was out of time, saying that properly construed, the extension had expired on the Friday; the extension being by agreement rather than by statute or court rules, the law would not opeate to extend the time further.
Held: The defendant’s argument failed. The same rules applied to extensions granted by agreement as to times limits imposed by the law. Those rules extended the time for issue until the next day upon which the court was open. The court felt also that this interpretation was consistent with decisions of the US courts, which in the field of admiralty was desirable.
Judges:
Sheen J
Citations:
[1982] 3 All ER 905, [1982] 1 WLR 1292
Statutes:
Carriage of Goods at Sea Act 1971
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd CA 2-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendant. The limitation period expired on Saturday 5 September 1970. The writ was issued on the Monday following.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The writ was . .
Cited – Astro AMO Compania Naviera SA v Elf Union SA and First National Bank, ‘The Zographia M’ 1976
Ackner J said: ‘I am not persuaded that the obligation to pay in advance of a certain date which must mean before a certain date, means after that date where there is some practical difficulty, such as a bank being closed, which prevents payment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.231054