The occasions upon which the master is called upon to exercise his reserve of authority either by interfering with the conduct of the ship or by taking the navigation out of the hands of a competent pilot are rare and should the master exercise that reserve authority he must justify his action. Section 15 was not limited to cases where the owners of a vessel under compulsory pilotage were facing claims by third parties but extended to a claim by the owners themselves.
Lord Normand discussed the Latin maxim: frustra petis quod mox es restiturus (‘it is no good trying to get something which immediately afterwards you are going to have to hand back’), saying ‘But if the shipowner might have recovered as damages in an action in negligence the sum paid to the harbour authority under section 74, the decision would be saved frustra petis quod mox es restiturus.’
Lord Radcliffe, Lord Normand
 AC 112
Pilotage Act 1913 15
England and Wales
Appeal from – Workington Harbour and Dock Board v Towerfield (Owners) CA 1949
Cited – BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland) HL 18-Oct-2001
A ship owned by the defenders caused substantial damage whilst moored at the claimant’s docks. The claim was made against different members of the defendants as they asserted and denied responsibility. The last company asserted that the claim was . .
Cited – Ahmed v Landstone Leisure Ltd ChD 30-Jan-2009
The claimant appealed against a refusal to set aside a statutory demand. He had given a cheque at a land auction, and it had bounced on his instructions, saying that the property had been misrepresented.
Held: The auctioneer had specifically . .
Cited – Farstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SC 5-May-2010
The defendants (E) were liable to F after a serious offshore accident, but sought a contribution from a third party (A), the main charterers, seeking to rely on section 3(2) o the 1940 Act saying that ‘if sued they might have been liable’. The court . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 May 2021; Ref: scu.181790