The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen’s families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that limitation.
Held: A breach of the safety rules did not give rise to a separate cause of action for damages against the ship owners. The system for certifying vessels would sit uneasily with any other interpretation, and a criminal remedy was also provided for. The court distinguished between challenges to conclusions of primary fact or inferences from those facts and an evaluation of those facts.
Mance LJ said: ‘With regard to an appeal to this court (which would never have involved a complete rehearing in that sense), the language of ‘review’ may be said to fit most easily into the context of an appeal against the exercise of a discretion, or an appeal where the court of appeal is essentially concerned with the correctness of an exercise of evaluation or judgment-such as a decision by a lower court whether, weighing all relevant factors, a contract of service existed. However, the references in rule 52.11(3)(4) to the power of an appellate court to allow an appeal where the decision below was ‘wrong’ and to ‘draw any inference of fact which it considers justified on the evidence’ indicate that there are other contexts in which the court of appeal must, as previously, make up its own mind as to the correctness or otherwise of a decision, even on matters of fact, by a lower court. Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue, it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellant court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission to appeal) that a finding or inference is wrong, the role of an appellate court is to determine whether or not this is so, giving full weight of course to the advantages enjoyed by any judge of first instance who has heard oral evidence. . In the present case, therefore, I consider that (a) it is for us if necessary to make up our own mind about the correctness or otherwise of any findings of primary fact or inferences from primary fact that the judge made or drew and the claimants challenge, while (b) reminding ourselves that, so far as the appeal raises issues of judgment on unchallenged primary findings and inferences, this court ought not to interfere unless it is satisfied that the judge’s conclusion lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement is possible. In relation to (a) we must, as stated, bear in mind the important and well-recognised reluctance of this court to interfere with a trial judge on any finding of primary fact based on the credibility or reliability of oral evidence. In the present case, however, while there was oral evidence, its content was largely uncontentious.’
Neuberger J stressed that the question whether there was a contract of service on the facts involved the weighing up of a series of factors.
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Neuberger
Times 03-May-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 293, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 185(1), Fishing (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (SI 1975 No 330) 16
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Ziemniak v ETPM Deep Sea Ltd CA 7-May-2003
A seaman was injured taking part in a safety drill aboard ship. The defendant had been found not to be negligent, but the claimant alleged breach of statutory duty under the Regulations.
Held: Groves v Wimborne clearly established that . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Health and Safety, Damages, Litigation Practice
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.170213