The Ikarian Reefer: CA 1995

The court reversed the decision of the trial judge that the plaintiff insured shipowners had not deliberately scuttled their vessel or cast her away: ‘(1) The burden of showing that the trial Judge was wrong lies on the appellant . . (2) When questions of the credibility of witnesses who have given oral evidence arise the appellant must establish that the trial Judge was plainly wrong. Once again there is a long line of authority emphasizing the restricted nature of the Court of Appeal’s power to interfere with a Judge’s decision in these circumstances though in describing that power different expressions have been used.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
[1995] Lloyd’s Rep 455
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMersey Docks and Harbour Board v Proctor HL 1923
Viscount Cave LC said: ‘In such a case . . it is the duty of the Court of Appeal to make up its own mind not disregarding the judgment appealed from and giving special weight to that judgment in cases where the credibility of witnesses comes into . .
CitedSS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack HL 1927
The court discussed the weight to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by the court of first instance.
Held: Not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial . .
CitedGlasier v Rolb 1889
A finding by a judge that a party is innocent of fraud should only reluctantly be disturbed. . .
CitedAkerhielm v De Mare PC 1959
A company prospectus contained the following: ‘About a third of the capital has already been subscribed in Denmark.’ Though the directors believed this to be true, it was not true at the time the prospectus was issued.
Held: The statement was . .
See AlsoNational Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .

Cited by:
CitedAssicurazioni 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. . .
CitedNiru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited CA 23-Oct-2003
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had . .
CitedSix Continents Hotels Inc v Event Hotels Gmbh QBD 21-Sep-2006
The claimant had licensed the defendant to use its trademarks in connection with the naming of their hotels in Germany. The defendants failed to pay their fees as agreed, the claimants terminated the license and now sought payment under the . .
CitedKastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .
See AlsoComninos v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer no 2) CA 12-Oct-1999
Mr Comninos challenged the jurisdiction of the court to have made an order for costs made against him. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.187256