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 that the boat chosen for comparison had in fact been sold for more and had been in a lesser condition. The boat was of a unique and historical character.
Held: There had been an error as to the sale price of the boat chosen as a comparable. It was argued that the evidence sought to be admitted had been available at trial, and should not now be admitted. Following Ladd, the court applied three tests, that it had not reasonably have been available, that it would have been influential, and that it was credible. Those conditions applied, and a new value was assessed by the court. The appellants argued that the loss of the pontoon should have been treated as the loss of a building rather than a machine. The damages was the cost of replacing the pontoon, not the value of what was lost. The court found the judge’s assessment correct, and the damages were assessed on the basis of the remaining life of the pontoon as a chattel. It was not proper to award damages for loss of personal use in top of the award of the full value of the boat.
Judges:
Lord Justice Schiemann Lady Justice Hale And Lord Justice Rix
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 89, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Voaden v Champion, ‘The Baltic Surveyor’ 2001
. .
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited by:
Cited – Robot Arenas Ltd and Another v Waterfield and Another QBD 8-Feb-2010
The tenant company had defaulted under the lease, and the landlord had retaken possession. The landlord discarded the tenant’s possessions, and the tenant now sued, saying that the landlords as involuntary bailees owed duties to the proper owner. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Evidence, Damages
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167537