Charter-party - Mixed time and voyage charter-Alterations to printed form of time charter-Effect-"One round voyage to"-Customary meaning-Repugnancy- Charter of ship to be delivered at a Bristol Channel bunkering port "for a period of one round voyage to the Kara Sea. . . . To be employed in lawful trades . . . between good and safe ports or places within the following limits: United Kingdom, Continent, South Africa, Baltic, White Sea, Murmansk; Mediterranean not east of Greece (excluding Spain and Spanish possessions) and Igarka, Yenissei River, Kara Sea, with liberty to call at ports or places en route and including Spitzbergen (Barentsburg and Grumant City) and Dikson. . . . To be redelivered . . . at an ice-free port in charterers' option in South Africa Cape Town/Lourenco Marques range"-Ship sent in ballast to Igarka-Timber cargo loaded, ship sailing for Durban on Sept. 1, 1939 - Ordered by U.S.S.R. authorities while still in Russian waters to put into Murmansk and discharge her cargo-Arrival at Murmansk on Sept. 9 -Discharge completed by Sept. 29-Ship unable to obtain immediate clearance from Russian authorities - Evidence of negotiations between British and Russian government authorities as to release of ships in Russian waters-Loading of pitprops commenced on Nov. 8 and completed on Nov. 17, ship then sailing for Garston- Arrival at Garston on Dec. 14, ship being requisitioned by British Government after discharge-Claim by shipowners against charterers-Alleged breach in failing to order ship to proceed to South Africa immediately after discharging at Murmansk and in sending the ship to Garston with a cargo of pitprops-Arbitration- Award that charterers were liable in damages - Measure of damages - Case stated.
Master and servant-Transference of employment -Respondeat superior-Negligence -Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer-Unloading of iron girders from ship to bogie on quayside by means of ship's derrick and from bogie to railway wagon by mobile crane - Plaintiff (employee of stevedoring company) in railway wagon-Mobile crane hired by stevedoring company from defendant dock board on terms that hirers "must supply all necessary slings, chains, and labour for preparing the article to be lifted, and for unshackling the same. They must also take all risks in connection with the matter. The Board do not provide any labour in connection with the cranes except the services of the crane drivers for power cranes. The drivers so provided shall be the servants of the [hirers]"- Failure by crane driver, in spite of warning that sling was too long, to swing girder over railway wagon, girder coming to rest on side of wagon-Plaintiff requested by crane driver to help free girder by pushing -Fall of girder into bottom of wagon, plaintiff being injured-Claim brought by plaintiff against dock board-Evidence as to crane driver's negligence-Error of judgment - Alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff-Whether crane driver at time of accident acting as servant of dock board.
Insurance (Marine or War)-Warlike operations - Stranding - Plaintiffs' tanker requisitioned by M.W.T.-Carriage of full cargo of oil from Trinidad to naval bases at Loch Alsh and Scapa Flow - Ship instructed to anchor at Loch Alsh to await orders to discharge-Ship holed by sitting on rock while swinging to her anchor- Right of plaintiffs to recover from defendant war risk insurers as damage occurring as a consequence of the warlike operation on which the ship was engaged-Essential elements of "warlike operation" - Whether movement through water a necessary ingredient.
Collision-Convoy-Fog-Duty to keep station -Collision between steamships Socony and Tongariro in Atlantic Ocean - Ships in second column from port of eastbound convoy, Tongariro being astern of Socony -Both ships streaming fog buoys-Port helm action taken by Socony to avoid running into ship ahead which had begun to drop back-Slight port helm action taken by Tongariro to keep in touch with Socony's fog buoy-Slight reduction in speed by Tongariro - Disappearance of Socony's fog buoy on Tongariro's port bow -Resumption by Tongariro of convoy course and speed-Starboarding by Socony to get back on to her convoy course-Sudden reappearance of Socony on Tongariro's port bow, heading across her course- Hard-a-porting by Socony; hard-a-starboarding and shortly afterwards full astern action by Tongariro-Impact between stem of Tongariro and starboard quarter of Socony - Socony sunk - Whether Tongariro should have taken earlier astern action.
Collision-Convoy-Fog-Duty to keep station -Collision between motor vessels Henry Dundas and Clavella in Atlantic Ocean- Ships in eastbound convoy, Clavella being third ship in fourth column from port and Henry Dundas being third ship in fifth column from port-Case of Henry Dundas that, being on her convoy course and on starboard beam of Clavella, the Clavella suddenly sheered across her course-Case of Clavella that, being on her proper convoy course, Henry Dundas was being navigated on a converging course-Hard-a-starboarding by Henry Dundas-Hard-a-porting by Clavella- Sliding blow between port quarter of Henry Dundas and starboard side forward of Clavella.
Collision-River-Barges in tow-Plaintiffs' barges Voltaic and Welcome Home and defendants' barges Coverdale and Dorothy in tow of tug Addie in River Severn- Plaintiffs' barges lying first and second and defendants' barges lying third and fourth in flotilla-Flotilla bound down from Sharpness to Avonmouth-Parting of tow rope between Welcome Home and Coverdale while navigating the "Shoots" -Turning of tug to pick up Coverdale and Dorothy which were adrift-Inability of Welcome Home to conform to manoeuvres of tug, resulting in Welcome Home running into Voltaic-Admitted towage difficulties in vicinity of collision-Duty to pay special regard to tow ropes-Efficiency of tow rope between Welcome Home and Coverdale-Cause of collision-Whether tug justified in turning round immediately barges were adrift-Novus actus interveniens.
Workmen's compensation - Action against employer - Remedies independently of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925 - Workman's option either to "claim compensation under this Act or take proceedings independently of this Act" -Meaning of "option"-Circumstances in which it must be concluded that workman has exercised his option - Accident to appellant-Unfenced machinery -Breach of statutory duty-Weekly payments made by employers-Common law claim subsequently brought-Findings of learned Commissioner that on and after Apr. 30, 1942, the appellant accepted the weekly payments knowing them to be made as compensation under the Act; that the appellant when he began to receive such payments did not know that he had an option under Sect. 29 (1) to choose between two alternative remedies; but that in July, 1942, he did become aware of that right, but nevertheless continued to draw compensation money; and that the appellant was accordingly debarred from afterwards suing at common law-Decision upheld by Court of Appeal, Court holding itself bound by its previous decisions in Perkins v. Hugh Stevenson & Sons, Ltd.,  1 K.B. 56, and Selwood v. Townley Coal & Fireclay Company, Ltd.,  1 K.B. 180.
Collision - Anchored vessels - Dragging - Collision between steamships Mammy and Neuralia in River Clyde anchorage - Both vessels originally at anchor-Dragging by Neuralia, vessel colliding with another vessel, and later with Mammy- Mammy admittedly not to blame-Very severe gale - Evidence of precautions taken by Neuralia in the worsening weather-Duty to raise steam-Inevitable accident.
Negligence-Breach of statutory duty-Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931 - Staging - Duty of occupier - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff welder - Welder employed by first defendants - First defendants under contract with second defendants (shipwrights) to carry out certain welding work in ship in dock- Second defendants in occcupation of ship and dock - Staging erected by second defendants used by plaintiff - Warped plank insecure-Fall-Action brought by plaintiff against employers alleging common law negligence and against second defendants alleging common law negligence and breach of Shipbuilding Regulations - Contributory negligence - Plaintiff aware that plank was warped and had been wedged-Regulation 11.
Insurance-Marine or war insurance-Warlike operations-Damage to plaintiffs' ship by sea perils - Proximate cause - Plaintiffs insured by defendant association against "consequences of hostilities or warlike operations"-Ship loaded with war stores for carriage from Liverpool to Alexandria -Circuitous route via Cape of Good Hope -Urgency of operations necessitating carriage of heavy deck cargo (which was unusual on such voyage) - Very heavy weather experienced on voyage, resulting in deck cargo breaking adrift, tearing tarpaulins and smashing hatch covers- Entry of sea water into hold, causing ship to be down by head-Speed maintained in spite of change of trim-Damage to ship -Whether recoverable under policy as a consequence of warlike operations-Cause of loss.
Stevedores - Negligence - Bad stowage - Loss of vessel with all hands-Cause unknown -Balance of probabilities-Onus of proof -Coasting steamer loaded at Liverpool by defendants with rolls and bales of wood pulp for carriage to Preston-Part cargo loaded on deck-Nothing heard of vessel after passing Bar Light-vessel-No wreckage found-Bodies of crew washed ashore -Claim brought by widow of deceased naval gunner against stevedores alleging that the vessel was lost by reason of negligent stowage - Evidence of method of stowage - Proof that ship was slightly tender - Responsibility of stevedores as regards loading of deck cargo-Suggestion of loose stowage in hold which would permit cargo to shift.
Negligence - Damage to pursuers' crane - Toppling of crane into harbour - Third defenders' steamship berthed in dock belonging to first defenders-Pursuers' crane and driver lent on hire to second defenders (ship-repairers) for purpose of loading material on board - Ship under orders of first defenders to be towed to another berth - Crane engaged in lowering valve cases into engine-room through skylight, when "all clear" signal given to pilot by first defenders' deputy harbour-master-Tugs signalled by pilot to commence towing-Fall of crane caught in skylight-Crane pulled over into harbour in spite of craneman's efforts to free fall-Responsibility for accident-Evidence as to position of jib when "all clear" signal given by deputy harbour-master - Second defenders' servants aware that ship was about to be moved-Liability of pursuers for acts of craneman - Whether craneman guitly of contributory negligence-Conjoined action brought by third defenders against other three parties in respect of damage to ship.
Collision - Convoy - Look-out - Lights - Collision between steamships Avon Coast and Coulmore in North Sea-Avon Coast commodore vessel in south-bound convoy; Coulmore making her way across course of Avon Coast's convoy to join north-bound convoy-Vessels sighted by each other at distance of about two cables-Loom of Avon Coast sighted by Coulmore on port bow; red of Coulmore sighted by Avon Coast on starboard bow-Dispute as to whether Coulmore was showing her navigation lights at the critical time.
Revenue - National Defence Contribution - Assessment - Underwriting agents-Computation of profits - Basis of liability - Chargeable accounting period-Practice of Lloyd's-Company acting as agents for various Lloyd's underwriting syndicates - Company to receive as remuneration fixed salary and expenses and commission on net profits on each year's underwriting- Tax returns for accounting period Apr. 1, 1938/Mar. 31, 1939, showing commission relating to transactions initiated in 1936-Commission relating to transactions initiated in 1938 included in returns for 1941 (when commission finally ascertained) - Additional assessment to National Defence Contribution for 1938/1939 period made in respect of commission on 1938 transactions - Agency agreement providing: 8. The underwriter shall pay to the company as remuneration for its services in conducting the agency a fixed salary [at the rate of so many pounds per annum, so many pounds expenses] and a commission of [so much] per cent. on the net profits on each year's underwriting. The said fixed salary and expenses shall be paid quarterly and shall be treated as an outgoing of the underwriting. 9. The said fixed salary and expenses shall cease at the termination of the agency but after such termination (whether by death of the underwriter or otherwise) the company shall be entitled to wind up the underwriting and the accounts in connection therewith and shall be paid for its services in connection therewith a remuneration of not less than one hundred guineas. 10. An account shall be kept for the period ending the thirty-first day of December [next after the agency commences] and for each subsequent year of the agency . . . and each such account shall be made up and balanced at the end of the second clear year from the expiration of the period or year to which it relates and the amount then remaining to the credit of the account shall be taken to represent the amount of the net profit of the period or year to which it relates and the commission payable to the company shall be calculated and paid thereon. Provided always that for the purpose of ascertaining the commission payable to the company the account for each period or year shall be treated as a separate account and the profits of any one period or year shall not be affected by the result of the underwriting done in any other period or year. 12. In the event of any transaction relating to the underwriting carried on in any period or year being left outstanding when the account for such period or year is made up and balanced any payments or receipts which may afterwards result from such transaction shall be carried to the debit or credit as the case may be of the account for the next year as if the transactions giving rise thereto had occurred in that year. Provided always that in the event of the termination of this agreement the account may at the discretion of the company remain open until all risks have run off and the business shall have been completely wound up. 14. Either of the parties may terminate the agency on the thirty-first day of December [in a particular year] or on the thirty-first day of December of any succeeding year by giving to the other party six months' previous notice in writing of his or its intention to do so. Construction of agreement - Evidence as to Lloyd's practice - Whether, for the purpose of computing profits, such commission should be credited at the date actually received or at the date when the policies were underwritten.
Collision-Ships meeting on slightly diverging courses-Helm action-Collision between steamships Susan V. Luckenbach and Nea Hellas in Gulf of Suez-Susan V. Luckenbach on course of 140 deg.; Nea Hellas on course of 326 deg. - Red of Nea Hellas sighted by Susan V. Luckenbach about a mile ahead - Starboarding by Susan V. Luckenbach, no helm signal being sounded -Green of Susan V. Luckenbach sighted by Nea Hellas on port bow - "Port wheel" ordered by officer in charge on bridge of Nea Hellas, followed by "starboard wheel" when red of Susan V. Luckenbach opened - Order to starboard countermanded by superior officer, wheel being put to port - Further starboarding by Susan V. Luckenbach, helm signal being sounded, when she realised that the Nea Hellas was porting - Whether vessels were at any time all clear green to green-Engines of Nea Hellas put astern just before collision.
Admiralty Court - Jurisdiction - Damage to wharf abroad - Negligent navigation of British ship-Action in rem brought by English company (owners of wharf in Lagos Harbour) against British ship alleging that their wharf was damaged by reason of her negligence - Preliminary objection by defendant shipowners that Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such claim-Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court-"Damage done by a ship"-Admiralty Court Acts, 1840 and 1861 - Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 22.
Collision-Ship joining up with convoy-Fog -Duty to take special precaution-Look-out -Collision between steamships Northleigh and Appledore in North Atlantic Ocean-Northleigh in convoy; Appledore manoeuvring to join up with Northleigh's convoy - Long blast sounded by Northleigh as an indication of position to other vessels in convoy-Long blast heard by Northleigh on her port beam-Convoy number "34" sounded by Northleigh- Convoy number "36" sounded in reply by Appledore - Appledore subsequently sighted by Northleigh between 300 and 400 ft. on her port beam - Hard-a-starboarding by Northleigh-Impact between starboard bow of Appledore and port side of Northleigh.
Collision-Convoy-Duty of vessel regaining lost position in convoy-Collision between motor vessel Dolabella and H.M. rescue tug Growler in convoy in North Atlantic Ocean-Convoy partially dispersed owing to bad weather-No lights being exhibited -Porting by Growler to avoid running up on ship ahead - Starboarding to regain position-Dolabella and Growler sighted by each other at very close quarters- -Impact between port bow of Dolabella and starboard side of Growler - Action brought by Dolabella-No counterclaim or allegation of negligence by Growler against Dolabella.
Docks, Harbours, &c.-Wreck-Raising and removal-Recovery of cost by harbour authority - Negligence - Sinking of first defendants' crane-barge moored alongside pier in Dover Harbour - Barge under demise charter to second defendants- Time-chartered to third defendants - Claim by Dover Harbour Board against defendants for expenses of raising and removal of wreck (1) on grounds of negligence: (2) under Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847-First defendants admittedly not liable in negligence-Cause of sinking-Barge unattended-Duty of master - Whether master acting as servant of second or of third defendants- Onus of proof-Construction of provisions of time-charter - Evidence of warnings given to third defendants' servants that berth was unsuitable for barge if left unattended, and of proposals that she should in such circumstances be shifted to a safer position - Third-party claim brought by second defendants against third defendants alleging that they (the second defendants) were entitled to indemnity in respect of the plaintiffs' claim.
Collision-Convoy-Fog-Reduction of way- Duty to maintain heading-Collision between steamship St. Abb's Head and motor vessel Opalia in approaches to Pentland Firth-St. Abb's Head in port column of two-column convoy on N.N.W. course-Opalia some way astern-Porting by St. Abb's Head and reduction of speed upon entering dense fog, vessel eventually lying stopped on a heading opposite to convoy course-Appropriate whistle signals sounded - Reduction of speed by Opalia when she entered fog - Engines stopped on hearing "lying stopped" signal fine on starboard bow - St. Abb's Head and Opalia sighted by each other close to, St. Abb's Head heading across bows of Opalia from starboard to port- Impact between stem of Opalia and port bow of St. Abb's Head-Heading of St. Abb's Head at time of collision-Action brought by St. Abb's Head against Opalia -No counterclaim-Onus of proof.
Collision-Convoy-Defective steering gear- Collision between steamships Photinia and Llanover in Firth of Forth-Ships in same convoy, bound from Tyne to Methil - Llanover overtaking Photinia or port side-Steering gear of Llanover jammed to starboard-Failure of special hydraulic rudder brake to function-"Not under control" signals sounded and engines stopped-Photinia hailed to "put your helm hard-a-starboard" - Engines of Photinia put astern and helm put hard-a-starboard when she realised that Llanover was swinging to starboard-Impact between starboard bow of Llanover and port bow of Photinia - Evidence that Llanover's steering gear had jammed on the previous day just after leaving Tyne -Unexplained cause-Prima facie negligence - Onus of rebuttal - Duty of Photinia as overtaken ship - Whether guilty of any lack of seamanlike care and skill.
Collision - Fog - Speeds - Breaking up of convoy-Collision between motor vessels Nueva Granada and Geo. W. McKnight in North Channel, Firth of Clyde, in fog- Vessels originally in port column of inward-bound convoy on course of 142 deg., Geo. W. McKnight being next but one astern of Nueva Granada-Orders given that vessels in port column, hound for Clyde, should alter course to 95 deg. a few hours later-Slight porting by Nueva Granada in accordance with instructions, speed being reduced and signals sounded when she ran into bank of fog-Porting by Geo. W. McKnight-Speed maintained when she ran into fog, no signals being sounded-Geo. W. McKnight aware that other vessels in port column were on her port side-Impact between port bow of Geo. W. McKnight and starboard side of Nueva Granada.
Collision - Convoy - Look-out - Collision between steamships Evgenia Chandris and Exmouth in North Sea-Vessels originally in same south-bound convoy, making for examination vessel at entrance to Tyne- Exmouth navigating on starboard side of Evgenia Chandris on parallel course - Porting by Exmouth to close with examination vessel, no signal being sounded - Exmouth seen by Evgenia Chandris about 100 yards away approaching on starboard side at about right angles -Impact between stem of Exmouth and starboard side of Evgenia Chandris - Evgenia Chandris so badly damaged that she had to be beached - Position of Evgenia Chandris when Exmouth commenced her turn.
Collision-Fog-Speeds-Helm action-Duty under Collision Regulations-Collision between steamships Blush Rose and Glaucus in Irish Sea in fog-Blush Rose, proceeding at five knots (reduced from nine knots on entering fog), on course of E. 14 N.; Glaucus, proceeding at speed of 14 knots, on course of S. 55 W.-Whistle signals of each vessel heard by the other vessel forward of her beam-Starboarding by Blush Rose-Speed reduced-Engines of Glaucus stopped-"Lying stopped" signal sounded, though not heard by Blush Rose - Vessels sighted by each other between 100 yards and 200 yards away- Full speed astern by Blush Rose-Hard-a-porting and full speed astern by Glaucus -No helm signals sounded by either vessel -Impact between stem of Glaucus and port side of Blush Rose at about right angle-Blush Rose sunk-Apportionment of blame-Consideration of faults contributing to collision-"If, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally" - Collision Regulations, Arts. 16, 28-Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, Sect. 1 (1).
Collision - Convoy - Alteration of course - Look-out - Collision between steamships City of Glasgow and Dunsley off N.W. coast of Scotland - Both vessels in port column of convoy on a westerly course, Dunsley being originally immediately astern of City of Glasgow-Convoy in process of wheeling southwards into Minch- Dunsley out on port side of port column, owing to her difficulty in keeping station- Red lights sighted on starboard beam- Course and speed maintained-Turn to southward by City of Glasgow in excess of convoy orders-Red of City of Glasgow seen by Dunsley on starboard bow - Dimmed green light of Dunsley then switched on-No engine or helm action taken by Dunsley until just before collision, when she hard-a-ported and went full astern-Port helm signal sounded by City of Glasgow when she saw dimmed green light of Dunsley on port hand- -Impact between stem of Dunsley and port side of City of Glasgow. Convoy - Wheeling - Duty to turn in stages-Orders to turn given by commodore either by exhibiting certain lights or by sounding appropriate whistle signals -Prohibition against repetition of whistle signals by vessels down line - Whistle signals out of earshot-Lights beyond range of visibility-Duty of vessels in turning to follow next ahead.
Negligence-Safe system of working-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff-Accident while making his way from engine-room of ship under construction in wet dock belonging to defendants (his employers) -Claim for common law damages-Allegation that defendants had failed to provide a safe system of working.
Brokers - Insurance brokers - Commission - Introduction of business to brokers - Plaintiffs acting as insurance agents for S. to effect motor insurances-Insurances originally placed with company-Refusal by company to renew at same rate - Renewal effected (at suggestion of S.) with Lloyd's through defendants (Lloyd's brokers) on terms that plaintiffs should receive part commission - Commission paid by defendant to plaintiffs for three yearly renewal periods-Renewals then effected by S. with defendants direct - Right of plaintiffs to part commission- Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for damages for breach of contract (limited to £100).
Negligence - Shipbuilders - King's ship - Trials-Sinking of submarine Thetis with crew during diving trials in Liverpool Bay -Civilian and naval personnel on board- Failure of rescue operations-Submarine salved later-Consolidated claims by personal representatives-Thetis, built by C. L., not yet accepted by Admiralty- "All trials, including completion trials, and gun trials, and the navigation of the vessel and the working of the machinery during passage to and from the place of trial, and on all other occasions required by the specification and by these conditions, shall be conducted at the risk and at the expense of the contractors"-W. D. B. under sub-contract with C. L. to carry out certain painting work to vessel (including torpedo tubes) such work "to be to the entire satisfaction and approval of the Admiralty overseer"-Cause of loss-Failure of submarine to submerge according to plan-Rear door of No. 5 torpedo tube opened by W. (officer in charge of tube compartment) and H. (experienced naval rating) in belief that tube was empty-Submarine flooded by sea water through No. 5 tube (bow cap being open to sea)-Precautions taken by W. and H. before opening rear door- Negative results obtained from test cock- Evidence that hole in test cock was ineffective because it was completely blocked by paint negligently applied by workman of W. D. B.-Painting work passed by employee of C. L. as fit for inspection by Admiralty overseer-No inspection by Admiralty overseer-Allegations of negligence against W. and H.; against W. D. B.; against C. L.; and against B. (naval officer in charge of submarine) -Whether W. and H. took all reasonable steps to ascertain real condition of affairs inside No. 5 tube-Provision of rimer to clear possible obstruction in hole in test cock-Rimer not used by W. or H.-Liability of W. D. B.-Duty towards third persons in carrying out painting work-Rear door normally harmless but rendered dangerous by negligent work- "Proximity"-Duty of C. L. towards persons on board-Invitors-Vessel in their control and occupation up to date of commencement of trials-Opportunity to detect and remedy defect.
Collision-Convoy-Fog-Speeds-Seamanship -Collision between steamships Luminetta and Clan Macinnes in North Channel- Luminetta in port column of outward-bound convoy on course of 316 deg.; Clan Macinnes in inward-bound convoy originally on course of 140 deg.-Alteration of course by Clan Macinnes and other vessels bound for Clyde-Porting by Clan Macinnes on to course of 88 deg., speed being increased to catch up with other vessels bound for Clyde which had disappeared in fog-Whether Clan Macinnes still part of convoy-Whistles of Clyde-bound group heard ahead, and whistles of remainder of inward-bound convoy identified on starboard bow and beam-Wireless message intercepted by Clan Macinnes indicating that convoy outward-bound from Mersey was in vicinity-Reasonable probability that such outward-bound convoy would pass under Clan Macinnes' stern-Fog signals heard ahead by Clan Macinnes, not coming from Clyde- or Mersey-bound convoys-Supposition by Clan Macinnes that such signals came from vessels outward-bound from Clyde-Engines rung "stand-by" and two minutes later stopped-Vessels sighted by each other close to-Impact between stem of Luminetta and starboard bow of Clan Macinnes -Luminetta admittedly not to blame.
Negligence-Safe system of working-Duty of employers to provide and maintain - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff engaged on plate bending machine-Plate (weighing over 4 tons) supported in part by single barrel to enable plate to be moved in between rollers-Fall of plate when plaintiff went underneath to remove wedges from barrel-Right arm severed- Claim against employers-Evidence that two barrels were normally used and that one was out of commission.
International law-Foreign shipping company - Dissolution - Company domiciled in Estonia-Occupation of Estonia by Russia in June, 1940-Estonia declared to be Soviet Socialist Republic-Election of new Chamber of Deputies-New constitution published - Issue of nationalisation decrees - Effect - Plaintiffs (Estonian company) acting as managers of and part shareholders in Estonian shipping association owning steamship Vapper-Insurance of ship placed with English underwriters -Domicile transferred by company to Stockholm in October, 1939, practically all business thereafter being transacted there and conducted by N. (plaintiffs' managing director) acting under general power of attorney-Decrees issued on July 22, 1940, and afterwards, nationalising banks and large industrial enterprises, "including deposits and current accounts in the banks in the Republic and abroad, as well as all claims belonging to these enterprises including claims to insurance sums" - Estonia occupied by Germans from July, 1941, until September, 1945- Loss of Vapper on July, 6, 1940-Insurance moneys paid into Court by English underwriters - Title to fund - Interpleader issue-Claim by plaintiffs opposed by Estonian State Steamship Line (which had taken over shipping in Estonia) on grounds: (1) that the plaintiff company was dissolved by decrees issued by the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic and therefore was incapable of maintaining claim; (2) that the property in the moneys claimed was now in the Estonian State Steamship Line; (3) that N's authority was determined by the German occupation of Estonia-Legality of new Constitution -Effect of decrees-Legislation confiscatory in character - Enforceability in English Courts-Government of Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic recognised by H.M. Government as de facto (but not de jure) government of Estonia-Effect of German occupation-Alien enemy.
Workmen's compensation - Workman - Contract of service-Nature of employment- Injuries sustained by dock labourer while engaged in discharging cement from ship at Campbeltown-Claim for compensation brought against H. Ltd., purchasers of cement for resale at Campbeltown - H. Ltd. responsible for discharge-M. acting as agents of H. Ltd. to attend to discharge -Dock labourers engaged by M. under group system by which work was allotted in rotation - Work paid for at tonnage rate agreed with union secretary (working dock labourer), lump sum earnings being divided equally between men employed, irrespective of individual occupation - Lump sum earnings paid by M., who also stamped national health and unemployment insurance cards, deducted dock labourers' contributions from wages and received employers' contributions from H. Ltd. - Arbitration - Whether claimant working under contract of service with H. Ltd. or as member of joint stevedoring adventure - Award of compensation by learned Sheriff-Substitute-Case stated- Award recalled by Court of Session- Appeal by claimant-Whether arbitrator misdirected himself as to the essentials of a contract of service - Consideration of relationship between claimant and H. Ltd. -Superintendence and control-Incidence of national health insurance contributions.
Repairs to ship-Negligence-Undocking from dry dock-Purchase by plaintiffs of wreck of steam trawler Tarbetness-Salved and taken to Gourdon-Towed to dry dock at Peterhead for repairs - Repairs undertaken partly by first defenders (repairs to hull) and partly by second defenders (engine and woodwork repairs, etc.)- Docking and undocking to be carried out by shipwrights employed by second defenders -Instructions given by naval authorities that ship must be undocked as soon as possible-Undocking postponed until bottom repairs completed by first defenders - Harbour-master informed by first defenders that repairs were completed and that ship was ready to undock - Date fixed for undocking - Second defenders instructed to be present to assist-Dock flooded - Removal of shores by second defenders' shipwrights as ship became waterborne-Capsizing of ship before she became fully waterborne-Claim by pursuers for damages - Cause of accident - Respective duties of first and second defenders-Responsibility for undocking- Alleged duty upon pursuers to satisfy themselves upon stability - Contributory negligence-Decision of Sheriff-Substitute that capsizing was solely due to negligence of employees of second defenders in their work of undocking - Appeal by second defenders.
Collision-Convoys on crossing courses-Fog- Look-out - Speeds - Seamanship - Collision between steamship Toorak and motor vessel Hoyanger off Nova Scotia in dense fog-Toorak leading port column of small three-column convoy on course of 228 deg.; Hoyanger in second column from port of five-column convoy on course of 90 deg.-Convoy signals and fog signals being sounded by Toorak; fog signals being sounded by Hoyanger-Ships sighted by each other close to, collision then being unavoidable - Impact between stem of Toorak and port bow of Hoyanger-Duty of Hoyanger when she first heard whistle signals ahead-Whether Toorak negligent in failing to hear whistle signal sounded by Hoyanger - Collision Regulations, Art. 16.
Collision - Look-out - Vessels, originally at anchor in Thames Estuary, proceeding to take up station in convoy - Ribera anchored half a mile up river of Kylebrook -Orders given by commodore to weigh anchor, "allowing ships with lower pennant numbers to take up station ahead" -Ribera allotted position at head of column-Porting by Kylebrook and starboarding by Ribera on to down-river heading-Ribera sighted by Kylebrook on starboard side, close to, on converging course-Hard-a-porting and full astern action taken by Kylebrook-Starboarding by Ribera restricted by presence of anchored vessels-Impact between starboard bow of Kylebrook and port bow of Ribera.
Negligence - Damage to ship - Buckling of mast-Repairs-Plaintiffs' steamship discharging cargo (grain and crated lorries) in London dock-First defendants engaged in discharging lorries; second defendants engaged in discharging grain by suction into elevator-First defendants refused permission to we ship's derricks to drag crates in 'tween decks under square of hatch to permit discharge by shore cranes-Crates heavier than safe working load - Discharge of crates commenced, ship's derricks being used without permission -Elevator in meantime moved alongside, discharge of grain commencing next morning- Subsequent recommencement of discharge of crate-Derricks again used without permission - Buckling of mast owing to stays having been removed-Dispute as to responsibility for removal- Time occupied in effecting repairs-Detention.
Negligence-Safe system of working-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff engaged by defendants to unload tierces of tobacco from steamship at defendants' wharf- Plaintiff's case that crane was used to dislodge tierce which had become fixed, and that in dislodging it the tierce struck an iron ladder between 'tween decks and floor of hold; that ladder broke away from its fastening because it was insecurely fixed by means of a wooden batten across its foot; and that the defendants had accordingly failed to provide a safe system of working-Onus of proof.
Collision - Overtaking - Duty of overtaking vessel - Onus of proof - Collision between H.M. drifter Boy Andrew and steamship St. Rognvald in Firth of Forth-Both vessels eastward bound in swept channel, St. Rognvald overtaking Boy Andrew at lateral distance of about 100 ft. - Sudden starboarding by Boy Andrew across course of St. Rognvald - Hard-a-starboarding by St. Rognvald, engines being stopped-Impact between starboard side aft of Boy Andrew and stem of St. Rognvald-Boy Andrew sunk with all hands-Whether St. Rognvald attempted to pass Boy Andrew with insufficient clearance - Collision Regulations, Art. 21.
Revenue - Income tax - Mutual insurance association - Object of company to indemnify members in respect of workmen's compensation claims-Transactions exclusively with own members-Surplus arising from such transactions-Whether assessable to income tax - Effect of Finance Act, 1933, Sect. 31. (1) In the application to any company or society of any provision or rule relating to profits or gains chargeable under Case 1 of Schedule D (which relates to trades) . . . any reference to profits or gains shall be deemed to include a reference to a profit or surplus arising from transactions of the company or society with its members which would be included in profits or gains for the purposes of that provision or rule if those transactions were transactions with non-members, and the profit or surplus aforesaid shall be determined for the purposes of that provision or rule on the same principles as those on which profits or gains arising from transactions with non-members would be so determined. (7) In this section the expression "company or society" means any incorporated company or society whether incorporated in the United Kingdom or elsewhere . . . .
Collision - Routeing - Failure to carry out Admiralty instructions-Look-out-Poor visibility - Collision between steamships Karlshamn and Clan Lamont in Gulf of Aden-Karlshamn eastward bound; Clan Lamont zigzagging on westerly course- Vessels sighted by each other close to, when Clan Lamont was on port leg of her zigzag, on course of 217 deg.-Collision then unavoidable-Admission during argument that Clan Lamont was in no way to blame - Evidence that Karlshamn had been instructed to navigate to the northward of the "Admiralty Line" and that the collision occurred six or seven miles to the southward of that line (reserved for west-bound vessels)-Whether Karlshamn negligent in navigating to the southward of the "Admiralty Line"- Evidence of predominant northerly set- Ship in fact subjected to strong southerly set-Inability to take stellar observations.
Negligence - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff lighterman engaged in loading barge with copper ingots-Ingots (in sets held by single chain) being slung by defendants' shore crane from railway wagons direct into barge at Brentford Dock - Shore crane with fixed jib - Inability to swing load plumb over off side of barge-Sets slung over barge and then swung by lightermen over proposed stowage position, orders then being given by lightermen to lower - Plaintiff's thumb trapped by hook which slid down chain when the set landed slightly on one corner -Alleged breach of duty by defendants in using fixed jib crane-Whether defendants negligent in loading by single chain method-Evidence as to making up of sets -Alleged negligence of crane driver- Contributory negligence.
Negligence-Breach of statutory duty-Safe means of access - Lighting - Repairs to ship in wet dock-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff charge-hand boilermaker in defendants' employ-Defendants engaged in carrying out repairs to ship in dock belonging to Port of London Authority -Preliminary inspection of work to be done made by plaintiff-Subsequent visit to ship preparatory to starting work-Fall down unlighted hatch-Alleged failure by defendants to provide torches - Applicability of Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931 - Whether defendants "occupiers" of that part of dock where ship was lying- Obligation of employer towards workmen sent to premises occupied by somebody else and over which he has no control-Contributory negligence-Regulations 1, 10, 42.
Negligence - Maintenance of ship's equipment -Alleged failure by shipowners to maintain-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff fireman - Breaking of fall of hoist used for raising and lowering articles from stokehold to deck-Evidence that wire rope customarily used had been damaged and replaced by a fibre rope made up of odd pieces; that a water can supplied by the defendants had rusted during the voyage and was replaced first by a canvas receptacle and subsequently by a glass jar; that the rope snapped when lowering the glass jar full of water; and that the jar fell and broke, injuring the plaintiff - Claim brought by plaintiff against defendants-Whether defendants under obligation to provide water can- Duty of employer to provide and maintain proper appliances-Whether accident occurred as result of failure in such duty -Casual negligence of fellow employee- Common employment - Contributory negligence.
Australian Sea-Carriage of Goods Act, 1924- Limitation of liability - Agreement between shippers and shipowners as to maximum value of each package-Repugnancy -Shipment of goods in cartons under bill of lading providing:- 14 (a) It is mutually agreed that the value of each package or parcel receipted for as above does not exceed the sum of £5 (unless otherwise stated herein) on which basis the rate of freight is adjusted. (b) The [carrier] is not accountable . . . beyond such mutually agreed value . . . unless the same shall have been booked with a declaration of the true character and value thereof and the bill of lading signed in accordance therewith, and extra freight paid prior to receipt thereof for shipment, and then not beyond such declared value and subject to all other terms and conditions of this contract . . . Non-delivery of carton-No declaration of value or extra freight paid-Claim by shippers for real value (£57)-Whether shipowners entitled to limit their liability to £5-Australian Sea-Carriage of Goods Act, 1924, Sects. 4, 6, Schedule, Arts. III (8), IV (5).
Admiralty Court - Jurisdiction - Damage to wharf abroad-Negligent navigation of British ship - Action in rem brought by English company (owners of wharf in Lagos Harbour) against British ship alleging that their wharf was damaged by reason of her negligence - Preliminary objection by defendant shipowners that Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such claim-Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court-"Damage done by a ship"-Admiralty Court Acts, 1840 and 1861-Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 22.
Motor insurance - Notice of loss - Condition precedent-Notification to agent-Waiver -Insurance of car by B. (plaintiff) with T. Co. effected through provincial agent (N.)-Loss of car by fire on Dec. 17, 1943 - Accident reported by B. to N. on Dec. 18, B. then being supplied with claim form- Form, dated Jan. 3, 1944, completed by B. and returned to N., who sent it to head office of T. Co., in London-Provision in policy that "Notice of any accident or loss must be given in writing to the company at its head office immediately upon the occurrence of such accident or loss . . . In the event of failure to comply with the terms of this condition and in particular, if within seven days after such accident or loss has occurred, the company had not been notified as above set forth, then all benefit under this policy shall be forfeited"-Liability denied by T. Co. on ground that notification of loss was out of time-Decision of Stable, J., that T. Co. (through their agent N.) had waived the policy conditions as to notice of loss and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover - Appeal by T. Co. - Waiver not pleaded-Authority of N.
Collision - Convoy - Courses -Alteration of course at buoy-Collision between steamships Esturia and Macbrae in North Sea -Esturia, acting as commodore vessel of two-column southbound convoy, at head of port column; Macbrae, acting as vice-commodore vessel, at head of starboard column - Recognised turning point at buoy - Port helm signal sounded by Esturia on approaching buoy-Porting by Macbrae-Vessels found to be converging -Impact between post bow of Macbrae and starboard quarter of Esturia.
Practice-Writ-Motion to set aside-Foreign corporation - Whether "resident" in Great Britain at date of writ - Action brought by harbour authority against Belgian shipping company, owners of steamship Brabo, and other defendants, claiming cost of raising and removal, etc., of wreck of Brabo sunk in plaintiffs' harbour-Writ served on A., resident in Great Britain and for some time acting as Belgian company's representative in Great Britain - Motion by Belgian company to set aside writ on ground that they were not residing or carrying on business in Great Britain at date of writ and that therefore service upon A. did not constitute service upon Belgian company- Evidence that when Belgium was invaded by Germans, the effective management of the affairs of the Belgian company were conducted in England by A., a director of the company, and that A. continued so to act until the liberation of Belgium in 1945 -Writ served upon A. in March, 1946- Registration provisions of Sect. 344 (1) of the Companies Act, 1929, not complied with by Belgian company-Effect.
Negligence - Staging - Necessity to fence - Personal injuries sustained by rivet-boy in falling from staging alongside ship under repair in defendants' dry dock- Staging composed of trestles and planks- Alleged duty of defendants to fence- Whether planks should have been banded together-Evidence as to cause of accident -Factories Act, 1937, Sect. 26.
Carriage of Goods by Sea-Unseaworthiness- Delay in prosecution of voyage-Outbreak of war-Ship directed by authorities to different port of discharge-Cargo transhipped at port of discharge to contract destination - Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners for cost of transhipment - Measure of damages - Cargo of beans purchased by pursuers from Japanese firm-Defenders' ship chartered by Japanese firm for carriage of cargo from Rashin to Karlshamn-Serious delay on voyage due to boiler trouble-Whether, as pursuers alleged, ship's boilers, evaporator and condenser were defective, or whether, as shipowners alleged, inefficiency of boilers was due to poor quality of only bunker coal available on voyage-Damages consequent upon unseaworthiness Obligation of shipowners as regards quality of bunkers at commencement of voyage-Duty to carry out voyage with reasonable dispatch - Remoteness of damage.
Bill of lading-Freight-Return freight-War -Abandonment of voyage-Cargo undischarged -Return of ship with cargo to port of shipment-Voyage freight prepaid -Shipowner's lien on cargo for return freight-Master as agent of necessity- Cargo of flour shipped by plaintiffs at Australian port for Singapore, etc.-Ship ordered by naval authorities to proceed in convoy to Batavia-Arrival at Batavia on Feb. 8, master being directed to anchor in roads to await orders to berth and discharge -Deterioration in war position- Approach of Japanese forces-Ship still undischarged on Feb. 19, in spite of repeated applications by master for berth -Opinion formed by master that cargo would not be discharged-Master informed on visiting naval authorities ashore that port must be cleared of all shipping immediately and that his ship must berth to take on board sufficient water to carry him to Fremantle and leave by convoy on Feb. 20-Ship unable to water in time to leave on Feb. 20-Master then directed to take his ship to rendezvous on Feb. 21 to join another convoy-No other ship found at rendezvous-Decision of master to sail alone to Fremantle-Voyage continued to Sydney - No communication made to plaintiffs-Cargo released by shipowners only upon payment of return freight by plaintiffs-Return freight paid by plaintiffs under protest - Action brought by plaintiffs to recover return freight - Whether master in returning to Australia acted as agent of necessity of plaintiffs- Onus of proof-Consideration of bill of lading terms-Express provision made for abandonment of voyage if state of war existed-No reference to return freight- Whether return to Australia to be considered part of contractual voyage.
Salvage-Services rendered by tugs Salthouse, Canning, Alexandra and Enid Blanche to steamship Lista in Eastham Channel, River Mersey-Lista manoeuvring to enter lock, with Salthouse fast on starboard bow and Canning fast on starboard quarter- Grounding on eastern bank of channel when sluices opened - Ebb tide - Tugs Alexandra and Enid Blanche engaged to assist in refloating-Lista refloated after services lasting 40 minutes-Damage sustained by Lista while aground-Risk of serious damage - Salved value of ship: £65,000-Government-owned cargo valued at £2,000,000-Request made to learned Judge to indicate award had fund included both ship and cargo.
Collision - Single ship meeting convoy - Respective duties of single ship and of convoy - Look-out - Lights - Collision between motor vessels Spondilus and Sheaf Holme in North Sea-Spondilus, lighted, proceeding as single ship on course of 33 deg. to pick up north-bound convoy; Sheaf Holme, in starboard column of convoy, on course of 165 deg. - Lighted vessel (Bangkok II) and looms of other unlighted vessels of convoy seen by Spondilus on starboard bow - Porting and full astern action taken by Spondilus to avoid Bangkok II - Helm then starboarded and engines put full ahead - Sheaf Holme, following behind Bangkok II, aware of presence of Spondilus-Whether Sheaf Holme under duty to put on her lights-Astern action taken at last moment-Impact between bow of Sheaf Holme and port side of Spondilus-Notice to Mariners, No. 7 of 1943.
Jewellery insurance-All risks-Proof of loss- Onus of proof-Insurance of diamond necklace by plaintiff with defendant underwriter-Claim under policy-Allegation by plaintiff that necklace, which he carried in an inside pocket of his waistcoat, was stolen from his person on a particular day when he attended the Law Courts-Method alleged to have been used by thief-Statements made by plaintiff as to circumstances surrounding loss-Statements at variance with each other and with plaintiff's evidence in Court.
Marine insurance-Riots and civil commotions -"Any other malicious act"-Insurance of Spanish trawlers-Constructive total loss-"This insurance is only to cover loss or damage to the within insured interest caused by strikers, locked-out workmen or persons taking part in labour disturbances or riots or civil commotions or arising from incendiarism, use of explosive bombs or other engines of destruction or from any other malicious act whatsoever by any persons, including general average, salvage and salvage charges as a direct result of malicious damage not recoverable under the marine policies. Excluding war risk and excluding all other risks ordinarily covered under the vessels' marine policy"-Unrest in Spain at commencement of civil war- Plaintiffs' trawlers M., V., E. and H., stationed at Pasajes, seized in August and September, 1936, by armed men and taken to Bilbao, where the Basque Government was in control-Ships taken over by Basque Government and armed for defence against approaching Nationalist forces- V. sunk in engagement with Nationalist cruiser-H. scuttled just before Bilbao fell to Nationalist forces-Escape of M. and E. to French port, where they were interned - H. subsequently raised and returned to plaintiffs-M. and E. returned to plaintiffs in bad condition and with considerable loss of gear-Claim brought against defendant underwriter in respect of total loss of V. and gear and in respect of total loss of gear of M., E. and H. and serious damage to vessels - Right of recovery as for loss due to riots and civil commotions-Meaning of "riots and civil commotions" and of "any other malicious act" - Whether original seizures amounted to constructive total loss - Notice of abandonment given by plaintiffs in February, 1937-Notice unaccepted by defendant, but date of notice agreed as notional date of writ - Writ not issued until March, 1941-Right of assured to recover as for partial loss where recovery made after notice of abandonment has been given and refused and before issue of writ-Effect of notice of abandonment- Loss under policy followed by actual total loss in case of V. and partial loss in cases of M., E. and H. by excepted peril after expiration of policy - Whether original seizure was proximate cause of subsequent losses - Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 55, 56 (4), 60, 77 (2).
Master and servant-Contract of service- Soliciting custom in breach of-Restraint of trade - Severance of covenants - Termination of contract - Implied term - Defendant employed by plaintiff company (insurance brokers) as manager of fire department under agreement providing:- 3. The [defendant] unless prevented by ill-health shall during the said term devote the whole of his time attention and abilities to the business of the company and shall obey the orders from time to time of the board of directors of the company and in all respects conform to and comply with the directions and regulations given and made by such board and shall well and faithfully serve the company and use his utmost endeavours to promote the interests thereof. 13. The [defendant] as a separate agreement hereby agrees that he will not at any time after the termination of this agreement (a) solicit the custom of or deal with any person or company who has during the three years preceding such determination been a client of the company, or (b) represent himself as being in any way connected with or interested in the business of the company. -Agreement due to terminate in 1934- Defendant's service continued after expiry date-Resignation tendered on Aug. 28, 1943, to take effect on Sept. 30-Incorporation of company by defendant on Sept. 15, 1943, to carry on business of insurance brokers on his own account - Business solicited by defendant from plaintiffs' clients - Action brought by plaintiffs claiming damages and injunction - Whether terms of contract of service continued to operate-Consideration of Clause 13 - Whether covenants unreasonably wide and therefore unenforceable - Contemplation of parties when contract of service entered into- Protection of employers - Nature of insurance brokerage business - Success often dependant upon personal contact with client-Different classes of insurance usually placed through same broker - "Solicit the custom of" or "deal with" -Measure of damages-Damages at large -Scope of injunction.
Charter-party-Cancellation-Non-payment of hire-"Monthly, in advance"-Cesser of hire-Time charter for seven years (one month more or less at charterers' option), providing: 11. Payment of the said hire to be made as follows:-In cash, monthly, in advance, in London. In default of such payment the owners shall have the faculty of withdrawing the said vessel from the service of the charterers, without prejudice to any claim they (the owners) may otherwise have on the charterers in pursuance of this charter. 27. In the event of loss of time through . . . breach of orders or neglect of duty on the part of the captain causing delay, the payment of hire shall cease from the commencement of such loss of time until she be again in an efficient state to resume her service . . . 34. The Act of God, perils of the sea, fire, barratry of the master and crew . . . and other accidents of navigation always excepted, even when occasioned by negligence, default or error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, or other servants of the shipowners . . . Nothing in this clause shall, however, limit the charterers' right to suspension of hire for any period the vessel may not be at charterers' disposal for a period exceeding 48 hours. -Outbreak of war during currency of charter-Dispute between parties as to destination-Vessel then lying at port in Venezuela-Master instructed by owners not to commence loading until instructed by them-Dispute settled on Sept. 25, 1939 -Hire due on 27th of each month- Instructions to master to load, sent by owners on Sept. 25, not received-Cheque for hire sent by charterers to owners' London bank on Sept. 25, immediately they were informed by owners that master had been instructed to commence loading -Owners notified that cheque was in post -Cheque not received until Oct. 3, owing to delay due to war-Notice of cancellation of charter given by owners on Sept. 30, as "hire not received," master being instructed to stop loading-Right of owners to cancel-Whether charterers in breach for non-payment of hire-Arbitration -Award in owners' favour-Case stated-Questions for opinion of Court: (a) Whether the charterers were in default in not paying the hire having regard to the fact that the owners had instructed the captain not to proceed with the loading until authorised by them and that in fact the captain had not received instructions to load at the time the hire was tendered, viz., on Oct. 3, 1939. (b) Whether on the facts stated the owners had the right on Sept. 30, 1939 (at which date the captain was still without instructions to load and the vessel was not at the disposal of the charterers to load) to cancel the charter-party. (c) Whether on the facts stated, and on the assumption that hire became due on Sept. 27, 1939, notwithstanding the fact that the captain had not received the owners' instructions to load, the charterers were excused from paying hire on Sept. 29 [?27] owing to the fact that the charterers' letter of Sept. 25 was delayed in the post.
Insurance-Marine or war insurance-Warlike operations-Damage to plaintiffs' ship by sea perils - Proximate cause - Plaintiffs insured by defendant association against "consequences of hostilities or warlike operations"-Ship loaded with war stores for carriage from Liverpool to Alexandria -Circuitous route via Cape of Good Hope -Urgency of operations necessitating carriage of heavy deck cargo (which was unusual on such voyage) - Very heavy weather experienced on voyage, resulting in deck cargo breaking adrift, tearing tarpaulins and smashing hatch covers- Entry of sea water into hold, causing ship to be down by head-Speed maintained in spite of change of trim-Damage to ship -Whether recoverable under policy as a consequence of warlike operations-Cause of loss.
Collision-Convoy-Station-keeping-Look-out -Double collision-Collision between first defendants' motor vessel Atlantic and second defendants' steamship Baltyk, followed by collision between Atlantic and plaintiffs' motor vessel Sutlej in Atlantic Ocean - Vessels in same eastward-bound convoy, with Sutlej astern of Baltyk and with Atlantic ahead of Baltyk and in column to port of her - Impact first between stem and port bow of Baltyk and starboard side of Atlantic and then between port side of Sutlej and starboard bow of Atlantic-Whether Sutlej in starboarding without any immediate reduction of speed took best action to avoid second collision. Evidence - Admissibility of sworn statements of master and other members of crew-Witnesses not available at trial- "Person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish"- No evidence of attempt to secure attendance -Evidence Act, 1938, Sect. 1 (1), (3) -Statements of crew admitted on ground that they were not interested persons and "that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused" - Statement of master rejected on grounds that it was not shown that it was "not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance" and that the master when he made his statement was "a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated," in that, as master of the Atlantic and in charge of her navigation before the collision between the Sutlej and the Atlantic, he might be personally liable for damage to the Sutlej caused by his negligence.
Salvage-Serviced rendered by tugs Alexandra, Cairngarth, Coburg, Crosby, Morpeth, Yorkgarth, Beemore, Ceemore and Deemore to Dutch motor vessel Madoera, which had grounded on Pluckington Bank, River Mersey, just before high water - Towing and pushing services lasting up to one hour - Risk of serious damage - Appearance entered on behalf of Government-owned cargo-Salved values: ship, £277,000; cargo, £548,812-Awards (calculated chiefly on horse-power): Alexandra, £750; Cairngarth, £650; Coburg, £1000; Crosby, £1100; Morpeth, £650; Yorkgarth, £750; Beemore, £1000; Ceemore, £1100; Deemore, £1000.
Negligent navigation-Damage to houseboats moored in Molesey Cut, River Thames- Claim by owners of houseboats against owners of motor barge Fidelitie (first defendants), against owners of barge Northampton (second defendants) and against owners of tug Richmond - Northampton (in tow of Fidelitie) bound down river - Richmond, astern of Northampton, also bound down river- Sheer to starboard by Northampton, resulting in her smelling the ground, sheering to port and colliding with and damaging plaintiffs' houseboats-Res ipso loquitur-Plea by first and second defendants that sheer was due to Richmond overhauling Northampton too closely on her starboard side-Admission of liability by Richmond - Whether Fidelitie employed too long a tow rope-Speed- Duty of lighterman on entering Cut to pay particular attention to his steering.
Collision-Dragging-Anchored vessels-Wind of gale force-Collision between steamships Epiros and Merchant Royal followed by collision between Epiros and steamship Horace Luckenbach-Horace Luckenbach anchored on starboard beam of Merchant Royal, Epiros being anchored ahead of both vessels - Dispute whether Epiros dragged down on Merchant Royal or whether Merchant Royal came ahead; further, whether, assuming Epiros dragged, Merchant Royal could have avoided collision-Failure by Epiros to close watertight doors when collision with Merchant Royal became imminent-Epiros unable to use her engines by reason of first collision-Cause of second collision- Novus actus interveniens - Whether Horace Luckenbach dragged or could have avoided collision.
Collision - Rounding point - Starboard-hand rule - Local by-laws - Seamanship - Collision between motor vessel Llangibby Castle and steamship Antenor in Southampton Water in broad daylight - Llangibby Castle proceeding down Southampton Water, with tide; Antenor approaching entrance to Southampton Water from west, against tide - Vessels sighted by each other over land - Starboarding by Llangibby Castle; porting by Antenor to pass L.S.T. followed by hard-a-porting to get more quickly on to up-channel course-Duty of Antenor under by-laws providing that vessels shall keep to starboard side of channel and that "Every steam vessel navigating against the tide shall on approaching points or sharp bends in the channel ease her speed, and if necessary stop and wait before rounding, so as to allow any vessel navigating with the tide to round and pass clear of her" - Whether Antenor had steadied on her up-channel course before Llangibby Castle starboarded - Dispute as to place of collision - Southampton Harbour Board By-laws, Nos. 25, 27.
Negligence - Dangerous premises - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff electrician on board defendants' steamship-Plaintiff employed as member of gang to do electrical work on board-Arrival on board - No knowledge of ship's lay-out - Decision of plaintiff (without previous orders or instructions) to make his way to engine-room to obtain piece of apparatus necessary for his work - Endeavour to reach engine-room by way of unlighted coal bunker-Leg injured by slipping down open coal hatch - Allegation that shipowners were in breach of their duty to provide premises which were reasonably safe - Invitee or licensee - Contributory negligence.
Limitation - Public authorities' protection - Requisition of ship by M.W.T. under T. 99A-Carriage of commercial cargo- Loss of cargo by fire-Alleged negligence of officers of Crown (representing M.W.T.) -Cargo of potassium chlorate loaded at Persian Gulf port for Bombay - Cargo destroyed by fire during unloading - Action brought by cargo-owners against officers of Crown - Allegation that loss occurred through their negligence both in loading and discharging - Proceedings commenced more than "one year after the date on which the cause of action accrued"-Whether defendants' acts done "in pursuance of a public duty or authority" - Limitation Act, 1939, Sect. 21 (1)-Defence Regulations, 1939.
Collision - Routeing - Failure to carry out Admiralty instructions-Look-out-Poor visibility - Collision between steamships Karlshamn and Clan Lamont in Gulf of Aden-Karlshamn eastward bound; Clan Lamont zigzagging on westerly course- Vessels sighted by each other close to, when Clan Lamont was on port leg of her zigzag, on course of 217 deg.-Collision then unavoidable-Admission during argument that Clan Lamont was in no way to blame-Evidence that Karlshamn had been instructed to navigate to the northward of the "Admiralty Line" and that the collision occurred six or seven miles to the southward of that line (reserved for west-bound vessels)-Whether Karlshamn negligent in navigating to the southward of the "Admiralty Line"- Evidence of predominant northerly set- Ship in fact subjected to strong southerly set-Inability to take stellar observations.
Collision - Anchored vessels - Dragging - Foul berth-Collision between motor vessel Kota Baroe and steamship Diomed in Durban Roads-Vessels at anchor, with Diomed astern of Kota Baroe and to leeward of her-Sudden squall-Impact between stem of Diomed and port quarter of Kota Baroe, followed by further impacts between port side of Diomed and stern of Kota Baroe-Whether Diomed anchored too close to Kota Baroe and gave her foul berth or whether Kota Baroe negligently dragged her anchor.
Collision - Convoy - Station-keeping - "Not under control"-Collision between motor vessel F. J. Wolfe and motor vessel Neritina in Atlantic Ocean in broad daylight -Vessels in same west-bound convoy F. J. Wolfe being in column to starboard of Neritina-Both vessels, in ballast, carrying starboard wheel to counteract effect of wind-Steam mistakenly cut off from telemotor system of Neritina- Neritina found to be falling off to starboard -"D" flag and two black balls hoisted-Dispute as to when such warning was given-Evidence of astern action taken by Neritina-Criticism of contemporary records-Hard-a-starboarding and full ahead by F. J. Wolfe-Impact between stem of Neritina and port quarter of F. J. Wolfe.
Collision - Crossing courses - Seamanship - Look-out-Collision between motor vessels Port Fremantle and Hopepeak in Atlantic Ocean-Port Fremantle, proceeding at her full speed of 13 knots, on course of 164 deg.; Hopepeak, proceeding at her full speed of 11 knots, on course of 315 deg. -Both vessels without lights-Hopepeak sighted close to Port Fremantle, fine on port bow; Port Fremantle sighted close to Hopepeak, fine on starboard bow- Starboarding by Port Fremantle; porting by Hopepeak-Applicability of crossing rule - Whether vessels should have exhibited lights on sighting.
Collision - River - Starboard-hand rule - Channel obstructed by anchored vessels- Vessel moving into fairway - Collision between motor vessel British Gratitude and steamship Benrinnes in Gravesend Reach, River Thames, in broad daylight- British Gratitude (in ballast) bound down river-S.W. gale-Anchored vessels lying wind-roe in mid-channel with their sterns to northward-British Gratitude navigated to northward of anchored vessels-Benrinnes (laden), originally at anchor down river of anchored vessels, nosing her way from behind anchored vessels to pass up river-Vessels sighted by each other-Starboarding by British Gratitude in an attempt to pass as closely as possible to sterns of anchored vessels- Porting by Benrinnes-Duty of vessels to pass port to port-Contention that it was not "safe and practicable" for deep-draughted Benrinnes to starboard - Meaning of "fairway"-Whether British Gratitude was under duty to pass to southward of anchored vessels-Look-out-Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rule 38.
Limitation of liability - Dock-owners - Landing-place-Actual fault or privity- Damage to barge and cargo - Action successfully brought against berth-owners (present plaintiffs)-Claim by plaintiffs to limit liability-"The owners of any dock or canal, or a harbour authority or a conservancy authority, as defined by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall not, where without their actual fault or privity any loss or damage is caused to any vessel or vessels, or to any goods, merchandise, or other thinks whatsoever on board any vessel or vessels, be liable to damages beyond an aggregate amount not exceeding £8 for each ton of the tonnage of the largest registered British ship which, at the time of such loss or damage occurring, is, or within the period of five years previous thereto has been, within the area over which such dock or canal owner . . . performs any duty or exercises any power" - "The term 'dock' shall include wet docks and basins, tidal basins . . . wharves . . . landing-places . . ."-"The term 'owners of a dock or canal' shall include any person or authority having the control and management of any dock or canal"- Alleged fault or privity of engineer in employ of plaintiffs (limited liability company)-Meaning of "dock"-Whether berth-owners exercised control.
Negligence-Safe system of working-Proper plant and appliances-Duty of employer- Negligence of employees-Claim by plaintiff in respect of death of husband by accident while engaged in unloading carcasses by net from defendants' ship- Type of nets used-Fall of carcass from net-Evidence of instructions given as to filling nets.
Negligence-Safe system of working-System customarily used-Duty of employer- Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff- Plaintiff employed by defendants at their factory, working short distance away from metal rolling machine-Periodic removal of rollers (each weighing about one ton)- Overhead transporter crane used-Roller first dragged clear by crane before being carried away-Liability of roller to swing when first being dragged clear-Men in vicinity warned of operation-Plaintiff not warned-Excessive swing by roller, striking derrick which fell and injured plaintiff-Contention by plaintiff that defendants had failed to provide a safe system of working-Evidence that method used had been in operation for six years previously without accident.
Negligence-Explosion on board ship due to petrol leaking from pump - Engineer killed-Action brought by widow against first defendants (managers of ship) and second defendants (suppliers of pump)- Pump designed for general A.R.P. purposes - Engine, pump and petrol tank, forming one unit, installed below deck- Cause of explosion-Whether ventilation adequate-Board of Trade recommendation that petrol tank should be fitted apart from rest of unit - Discovery of petrol fumes by engineers - Engineers unable to detect leak-Increase in petrol fumes-Engineers unable to enter pump-room to turn off petrol owing to heavy fumes - Explosion, killing engineer and sinking ship - Whether engineers were negligent in failing to stop engine immediately they discovered petrol fume -Evidence of satisfactory running tests- Duty of first defendants-Liability of second defendants.
Master and servant-Vehicle and servant lent on hire-Negligence of servant-Liability of hirers-Respondeat superior-Prima facie responsibility of employers for negligence of servant-Onus of proof upon employers to prove that their servant was pro hac vice the servant of hirers-Claim by plaintiff checker against C. & G. (stevedores) and Dock Board-Plaintiff employed by D. & Co. in checking loading of cargo on board ship at North Sandon Dock, Liverpool-Mobile crane hired by C. & G. from Dock Board-Negligence of crane driver, resulting in personal injury to the plaintiff-Whether crane driver pro hac vice the servant of C. & G.-Effect of Dock Board Regulations providing that "the Board do not provide any labour in connection with the cranes except the services of the crane drivers for power cranes. The drivers so provided shall be the servants of the applicants"- Evidence that Dock Board paid wages of crane driver and that they alone had power of dismissal; that hirers had immediate direction and control of operations to be executed by crane driver- Decision of Croom-Johnson, J., that the crane driver was still employed by the Dock Board at the time of the accident, and that they were therefore liable to the plaintiff - Decision affirmed by C.A. - Appeal by Dock Board.
Collision-Convoy-Failure to keep station- Breakdown of steering gear creating risk of collision-Prima facie negligence-Onus of proof - Respective duties after risk of collision arose - Collision between motor vessels Maja and Henry Stanley in west-bound convoy in Atlantic Ocean - Henry Stanley originally immediately ahead of Maja in same column - Evidence that Maja, having previously by reason of increasing her speed drawn up too close to the Henry Stanley, had drawn out to starboard- Duty of Maja in the circumstances to keep a specially good look-out-Breakdown of steering gear of Henry Stanley-Swing to starboard-Nature of swing-"Not under command" signal exhibited-Breakdown of steering gear due to blowing out of packing of piston-No explanation given by Henry Stanley as to cause of packing blowing out-Evidence of routine inspections ashore and at sea.
Collision-Vessels in attendance upon examination vessel-Duty to avoid such vessels- Crossing rule-Seamanship-Look-out- Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Hertha and first defendants' steamship Divatte in Bristol Channel - Hertha, heading south, lying stopped in the water, in attendance upon examination vessel- Second defendants' steamship Ulea, with little headway, heading about N.N.E. on port bow of Hertha, also in attendance upon examination vessel-Divatte outward bound at full speed on course of S. 36 W. (true)-Green of Ulea sighted by Divatte on port bow, red of Hertha on starboard bow-Whether Ulea under duty to give way under crossing rule-No action taken by Ulea until very late moment, when she put her engines astern -Starboarding by Divatte to avoid Ulea when it became obvious that collision could not be avoided by Ulea alone- Impact between stem of Divatte and port side of Hertha-Alleged failure by Hertha to take steps to avoid collision-Collision Regulations, Art. 19.
Collision-Ship manoeuvring to join convoy- Sailing without lights-Look-out-Helm and engine action - Applicability of Collision Regulations-Collision between steamship Welsh Trader and H.M.S Vanity off mouth of River Humber- Welsh Trader, outward bound from River Humber, under instructions to join southbound convoy-Loom of H.M.S. Vanity (escorting south-bound convoy) sighted close to (600 to 700 ft.) on port bow-Port light of Welsh Trader put on and off- No alteration of course and speed by Welsh Trader-No evidence that Welsh Trader had reached pre-arranged convoy rendezvous-Welsh Trader sighted by H.M.S. Vanity about 400 yards distant on starboard beam, apparently on parallel course-Dimmed lights switched on, her wheel ported and later hard-a-starboarded with engines full speed ahead-Impact between stem of Welsh Trader and starboard side of H.M.S. Vanity-H.M.S. Vanity unaware that ships would be joining her convoy from River Humber- Action brought by Welsh Trader against commanding officer of H.M.S. Vanity- Court informed that cross-action by Lords Commissioners of Admiralty against Welsh Trader was pending.
Collision - Swept channel - Vessel meeting convoy-Helm action-Signals-Duty to switch on lights-Seamanship-Collision soon after outbreak of war between H.M.S. Flamingo and steamship Lowland in North Sea-Flamingo (without lights) on starboard side of north-bound convoy navigating in eastward half of swept channel; Lowland, bound south, also navigating in eastern half, and aware that she was passing convoy on her starboard hand-Red of Lowland sighted by Flamingo fine on port bow-Starboarding by Flamingo-Lights not switched on nor helm signal sounded-Loom of Flamingo sighted by Lowland fine on starboard bow -Porting by Lowland-Impact between starboard bow of Lowland and stem of Flamingo - Duty of vessels in swept channel-Whether a "narrow channel" within Art. 25 of the Collision Regulations.
Seaman - Assault - Damages - Claim by Chinese seaman against employers and against second officer of ship-Allegation by seaman that while at sea off the Goodwin Sands, when his ship was waiting for a pilot, he was seized from behind by the second officer and thrown overboard; that after swimming for some time he was picked up by the pilot boat; that he was then refused permission by his captain to board his ship and that he was taken ashore by the pilot boat-Burden of proof -Denial by defendants that any such incident took place - Probabilities - Evidence of independent witness in support of defendants-Proof that plaintiff's general conduct was bad and that he had been logged for disobedience.
Negligence-Stranding of oil tanker-Salvage by naval personnel-Loss of ship and cargo by fire-Damages-Alleged failure by officer in charge of salvage operations to take reasonable precautions against fire-Proceedings brought by owners of ship and cargo against Admiralty by way of petition of right and against salvage officer in tort-Stranding of plaintiffs' ship Delphinula off entrance to Alexandria Harbour-Request made by master to naval authorities for tugs and lighters- Conduct of operations put in hands of D. (O.C. Admiralty Salvage Section)- Refloating a matter of urgent military necessity-Failure of first attempts at refloating by lightening and towing-Full responsibility accepted by D. for decision to force petrol cargo through holes in bottom of tanks by means of compressed air applied to top of tanks-Creation of dangerous area around ship by reason of escape of large quantities of petrol-Great risk of fire-Necessity for special precautions to be taken-Whether D. took all reasonable steps, by instructions given to tugs and personnel, to ensure that risk was reduced to the minimum-Explosion and fire as tugs were nearing vessel- Cause of spark or flame starting fire unknown-Total loss of ship-Standard of skill to be applied in conduct of salvage operations-Alleged assent by plaintiffs' representatives to method adopted - Volenti non fit injuria-Failure of subsequent attempt to salve machinery by reason of further explosion and fire - Measure of damage - Market value - Depreciation-Estimated cost of repairs.
Motor insurance-Accident-Negligence of driver of lorry (employed by defendants) -Death of volunteer assistant (also employed by defendants) - Common employment-Policy covering defendants' liability in respect of driver's negligence -Personal liability of driver not covered -Lorry engaged in furniture removal- C., employed by defendants as bricklayer, requested by defendants on occasion to act as long driver's mate to assist in loading and unloading-C. killed by accident on journey owing to negligence of driver- Claim by widow against defendants for damages under Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 -Defendants' plea of common employment - Meaning of "common employment" - Limitations upon doctrine - Alternative contention by plaintiff that defendants were in breach of their duty to insure the personal liability of their drivers, imposed by the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
Lighterage - Short delivery - London Lighterage Clause-Defendant lightermen engaged by plaintiff wharfinger to bring cargo (cases of dried eggs) by barge from ship in London dock to plaintiffs' wharf -Evidence that barge arrived on Friday and that unloading commenced on the following Monday; and that when unloading was completed it was found that 40 cases were missing-No evidence as to when loss took place-"The goods are carried only at owners' and/or customers' risk, excepting loss arising from pilferage and theft of goods on board the barge whilst in course of transit. . . ."-Duty of protection of cargo after arrival at plaintiffs' wharf-Onus of proof of loss by pilferage or theft during voyage.
Negligence - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff-Iritis caused by flash of light from stud-welding machine operated by defendant (employed by Crown) - Liability of defendant-Whether machine was adequately guarded-Evidence that machine was reasonably safe in normal circumstances and that risk of injury was slight; but that plaintiff was affected by reason of an extraordinary susceptibility due to the presence of decayed tooth.
(1945) 79 Ll.L.Rep. 649
Lloyd's and the Lloyd's Crest are trademarks of the Society incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871
by the name of Lloyd's