(Singapore) The parties disputed liability for damage to 17 tyres belonging to the plaintiff received in the harbour operated by the defendant but never delivered. The defendant claimed the protection of an Ordinance requiring any claim to be made within six months. To claim that protection, the defendant had to establish that in receiving the tyres, it was doing an act ‘in pursuance of any public duty or authority’.
Held: The Company’s appeal failed.
To claim the defence, the act must be in the discharge of a public duty. In deciding this it will sometimes be relevant go ask whether the contract had been entered into voluntarily but the existence of a contract as such is not decisive to exclude the defence. Some effect must be given to the word ‘authority’.
In this case, the Board was under a duty to provide the harbour services, and these included warehousing as a normal adjunct.
Judges:
Mormand, Tucker, Asquith of Bishopstone, Cohen LL
Citations:
[1952] UKPC 17, 50 LGR 619, [1952] 1 TLR 1625, [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, [1952] AC 452, [1952] 2 All ER 219
Links:
Commonwealth, Transport, Limitation, Administrative
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445963
