i-law.com

STAG LINE, LTD. v. BOARD OF TRADE.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Charter-party-Arrived ship-Demurrage -Commencement of lay days-Arrival at nominated loading port - Nomination of loading berth by charterers- Delay in berthing-Right of charterers to nominate berthing-"Scanfin" Adapted Form Charter-party - Chartering by defendants of plaintiffs' steamship Cydonia to

proceed to one or two safe ports East Canada or Newfoundland, place or places as ordered by charterers

and there load cargo of pitprops- Miramichi nominated by charterers as lading port-Arrival at Miramichi, ship anchoring off Chatham-Notice of readiness given by master-Millbank then nominated by charterers as loading berth-Delay in berthing-Claim by shipowners for demurrage on basis that Cydonia was an arrived ship when she anchored off Chatham and notice of readiness was given-Contention by charterers that Cydonia was not an arrived ship until berthed at Millbank -Construction of charter-party-Right of charterers to nominate "place" to load.

THE "OCEAN HOUND."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 5

Salvage - Stranding - Lifeboatmen as salvors-Services rendered by lifeboat to motor yacht Ocean Hound stranded near Dungeness-Request for assistance in refloating-Ebb tide-Danger to yacht-Liability of lifeboatmen for damage to lifeboat-Expenses incurred in rendering services-Application by salvors for judgment in default of appearance by owner of yacht, and for order for sale-Yacht valued at £1500- Expenses incurred by salvors estimated at £36-Award: £186-Order for sale made-Costs awarded on High Court scale.

THE "ALBANO."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 8

Collision - River - Turning in river - Signals-Look-out-Collision between motor vessel Tern and steamship Albano in Gravesend Reach, River Thames - Tern, having rounded head to flood tide in order to report to Customs authorities, turning to port in order to resume her course up, river - No turning signal sounded-Albano bound down river, having resumed her course after changing pilots-Starboard helm signals sounded by Tern before her turning manoeuvre was completed- Port helm signals sounded by Albano- Dispute as to relative positions of vessels when Tern commenced her turning manoeuvre-Duty of Tern under by-laws - Look-out on Albano - Action brought by Tern-No counterclaim by Albano-Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rule 30.

THE "CRESCENCE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 15

Salvage-Engines broken down-Anchor dropped close to lee shore-Wind of gale force-Dragging-Services rendered by harbour tug Souter to motor vessel Crescence in North Sea - Crescence drifting off Seaham Harbour after breakdown of engines-Bad weather- Dropping of anchor to prevent drift towards shore-Request for assistance through wireless station-Locating of Crescence by Souter-Lifeboat and another vessel already standing by- Dispute as to degree of danger- Towage connection established between Crescence and Souter with aid of lifeboat -Towage to Sunderland, distance of eight miles, occupying about four hours.

THE "EVA."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 20

Procedure - Writ in rem - Action by mortgagees-Compensation paid under Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939- Motion to set aside writ-Admiralty jurisdiction-Requisition of mortgaged ship by M.O.T.-Loss-Compensation paid by M.O.T.-Writ in rem issued by mortgagees against the ship "and the compensation for her loss paid or to be paid by the M.O.T."-Motion by judgment creditors of owner of ship to set aside writ-Jurisdiction of High Court - Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 22 (1) -Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, Sect. 14.

THE "ATLANTIC SCOUT."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 22

Practice-Limitation of action-Salvage action by "enemy" plaintiffs-Motion by defendants to set aside writ as being out of time-Salvage services rendered by French company to British ship in January, 1940 - France occupied by Germans in June, 1940-Recognition by H. M. Government of De Gaulle Government of France in October, 1944 -Writ issued by French company in February, 1950-Motion by defendant shipowners to set aside writ on ground that action was statute-barred-Plea by plaintiffs that, by virtue of certain statutory provisions, time had not commenced to run-Right of plaintiffs to sue - Whether plaintiffs still technically "enemies" within meaning of Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act, 1945, which provided (inter alia): 1. (1) If at any time before the expiration of the period prescribed by any statute of limitation for the bringing of any action any person who would have been a necessary party to that action if it had then been brought was an enemy or was detained in enemy territory, the said period shall be deemed not to have run while the said person was an enemy or was so detained, and shall in no case expire before the end of twelve months from the date when he ceased to be an enemy or to be so detained, or from the date of the passing of this Act, whichever is the later . . . 2. (1) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say . . .

"enemy" means any person who is, or is deemed to be, an enemy for any of the purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, except that in ascertaining whether a person is such an enemy the expression "enemy territory" in section two of the said Act shall have the meaning assigned to that expression by this section;

"enemy territory" means . . . (c) any area which, by virtue of Regulation six or Regulation seven of the Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, 1940, or any order made thereunder, is treated for any of the purposes of the said Act as enemy territory as so defined . . .

Defence (Trading with the Enemy) Regulations, 1940, amended by Order in Council ([1943] S.R. & O., No. 1034) providing:

(6) (1): Where after the coming into force of this Regulation any area ceases to be enemy territory as defined in the [Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939] (whether by reason of the occupation thereof by His Majesty or a Power allied with His Majesty or by reason of its no longer being in the occupation of a Power with whom His Majesty is at war, or for any other reason) that area shall, for the purposes of sections three A, four, five and seven of the [Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939] . . . and, save as expressly provided by any such Order, for the purposes of any Order made under the said section seven, be treated as if, until such time as the Board of Trade may by Order specify, there has been no such cessation.

Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, Sect. 8 -Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939 (as amended by [1940] S.R. & O., No. 1289).

YOUNG v. RANK AND OTHERS.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 26

Master and Servant-Wrongful dismissal- Breach of warranty-Conspiracy to secure dismissal-Compromise of claim -Revocability before payment-Accord and satisfaction. Practice-Trial before Judge and jury- Submission of "no case" at conclusion of plaintiff's case-Discretion of learned Judge to rule without putting defendants' Counsel to his election as to whether or not he proposed to call any evidence. Contract-Breach-Compromise of claim for damages-Revocability before payment -Accord and satisfaction.

DENNY v. SUPPLIES & TRANSPORT COMPANY, LTD., AND SCRUTTONS, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 47

Negligence - Loading of barge - Bad stowage-Apprehension of danger in unloading-Opportunity for inspection -Novus actus interveniens-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer in unloading timber from barge-Barge loaded by second defendant stevedores overside from steamship -Barge taken to quay where she was discharged into lorries by first defendant stevedores (plaintiff's employers) -Timber negligently stowed in barge- Complaint made by plaintiff as to method of stowage-Collapse of timber during unloading-Knowledge and opportunity for inspection by first defendants of bad stowage-Whether amounting to novus actus interveniens -Evidence that only practical choice lay between refusing to unload and unloading it in the normal way-Judgment entered by learned County Court Judge against second defendants- Appeal by second defendants.

DEEVY v. OCEAN STEAM SHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 53

Negligence-Discharge of ship-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff stevedore engaged in discharging logs from 'tween decks of defendants' ship-Plaintiff employed as member of gang of four, consisting of signaller, winchman, and two men in 'tween decks-Logs stowed in wings-Method of discharge to pull logs into centre of hatch by means of ship's winch and then to hoist them overside by shore crane-Log wedged by obstruction-Obstruction moved by plaintiff and his mate, both men then retiring out of harm's way into wings- Sudden lurch forward by log, plaintiff being injured-Cause of accident- Alleged negligence of winchman- Whether winch was operated without signal being given and/or before plaintiff had reached a place of safety.

WARE v. CUNARD WHITE STAR, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 59

Collision-Damages-Life claims-Loss of expectation of life-Reference to Registrar-Motion in objection to report-Collision between steamship Queen Mary and H.M. cruiser Curacoa in 1942 - Cruiser sunk, over 300 members of her crew being lost-Queen Mary in part to blame for collision- Claim by administrator of estate of deceased able seaman-Award of £500 damages for loss of expectation of life -Matters to be taken into consideration in assessing such damages- Discretion of Court-Whether limited by mathematical standards.

THE "LOCH TULLA."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 62

Salvage-Supersession during service- Service rendered at request-Prospect of successful service being completed- Standing by-Grounding of defendants' steam trawler Loch Tulla in Honningsvaag Harbour-General call for assistance answered by plaintiffs' steam trawler Pollard and accepted by Loch Tulla-Towage connection established -Unsuccessful attempt to refloat -Towage line slipped, it being then contemplated by masters of both vessels that further attempt would be made on next tide, and that in the meantime Pollard would stand by-Steam trawler Imperialist engaged by master of Loch Tulla to assist her in refloating-Loch Tulla refloated by Imperialist on next tide-Right of Pollard to salvage award-Whether Pollard had reasonable chance of successfully refloating Loch Tulla-Measure of compensation.

THE "CORMIST."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 71

Collision-River-Turning in river after casting off from jetty-Approaching vessel-Respective duties-"Give and take"-Look-out-Speeds-Collision in River Thames between steamships Suecia and Cormist-Suecia, having just cast off from jetty on north side, turning to starboard preparatory to proceeding down river - Warning signals sounded before casting off, followed by turning signals sounded and repeated during turning manoeuvre -Cormist bound up on flood tide-Starboard helm signal sounded by Cormist, indicating an intention to pass between Suecia and jetty-Plea that south side of river was obstructed by another down-coming vessel-Engines of Suecia stopped-Impact between port bow of Cormist and starboard side of Suecia, followed by collision between Cormist and pierhead - Duty of Cormist as approaching vessel to "take action to avoid collision"-Failure to take off way - Whether Suecia negligent in failing to take earlier I astern action- Limits of "give and take" principle- Whether collision between Cormist and pierhead was inevitable consequence of first collision-Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rule 30.

THE "TOLWORTH."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 81

Collision-River-Starboard-hand rule- Vessel approaching sharp bend-Look-out -Unauthorized whistle signals- Second steaming light - Collision between motor vessel Kingfisher and steamship Tolworth, off Cuckholds Point, River Thames-Kingfisher proceeding down river on her proper side- Tolworth, having cut the corner, navigating up river on her wrong side- Flood tide-Vessels anchored on both sides of river-Unauthorized signals of one long blast sounded by Tolworth as warning to down-coming vessels-Red light of Tolworth sighted by Kingfisher fine on starboard bow; green light of Kingfisher sighted by Tolworth on port bow-Starboard helm signals sounded by Kingfisher, speed being increased- Port helm signals sounded by Tolworth, engines being stopped-Courses maintained until just before collision - Whether Tolworth excused by reason of congestion in river from obeying starboard-hand rule-Duty of Kingfisher under Rule 42 (a) of Port of London River By-laws, 1938-Both vessels in breach of Rule 8 (b) in failing to exhibit second steaming light.

CHARLES H. WINDSCHUEGL, LTD. v. ALEXANDER PICKERING & CO., LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 89

Sale of goods - Non-delivery - Term of contract-Subject to import licence being obtained-Sale by defendants to plaintiffs of five tons of candelilla wax at £275 per ton, c.i.f. London, shipment September/October - Contract subject to import licence being obtained by defendants-Licence for two tons only granted in September - No further application made by defendants-Rise in price owing to devaluation-Claim by plaintiffs for damages for breach of contract in failing to deliver-Evidence that a licence for five tons would not have been granted in September, but that a licence for a further three tons might have been granted in October in time for shipment under contract-Plea by defendants that contract was conditional on full licence being obtained, and that, a limited licence only having been granted, no firm contract was made-Liability of defendants under contract.

GEORGE COHEN, SONS & CO., LTD. v. DOCKS AND INLAND WATERWAYS EXECUTIVE.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 97

Landlord and tenant-Lease-Rectification - Specific performance - Covenant to repair-Mutual mistake-Lease entered into in 1924 between plaintiffs (or their predecessors in title) and defendants (or their predecessors in title) whereby defendants' quay, etc., was demised to plaintiffs for term of 21 years-Covenant by plaintiff lessees that they

shall and will at all times during the continuance of this demise as often as occasion shall require at their own expense well and sufficiently repair maintain uphold support paint cleanse and amend and keep the said premises and all erections buildings and fences which now are or shall hereafter be erected built or set up upon the same.

Covenant by defendant lessors

that they will within a reasonable time after the execution of these presents but in any event before the 24th June, 1924, repair and make good all the quay walls bounding the premises hereby demised and will during the term hereby created keep such quay walls in a fit and proper state.

Negotiations in 1943 as to renewal of lease (with additional premises)- Arrangement between parties that new lease should be prepared by defendants' solicitor - Discussion as to terms - "Terms and conditions contained in the present lease to be embodied in the new lease where applicable"-Draft lease submitted to, and approved by, plaintiffs-Covenant by plaintiffs in new lease

at all times during the said term well and substantially to repair cleanse amend paint and maintain and keep in a good and substantial state of repair and condition the demised premises and all erections buildings cranes machinery equipment fixtures and premises as shall at any time during the continuance of the said term be in or upon the demised premises . . . and all waterway and other walls fences drains and gates and all other the demised premises with the appurtenances thereof.

Plaintiffs unaware that lessors' repair covenant (as contained in lease of 1924) was omitted from new lease-Collapse of quay wall in 1945-Liability for repair-Damages-Action brought by plaintiffs claiming declaration that now lease was not binding on them and should be set aside; specific performance of agreement evidenced by correspondence during negotiations; rectification of new lease by insertion of a repair covenant by lessors (in terms similar to those contained in lease of 1924) and by deletion of certain of lessees' obligations to repair-Plaintiffs' right to relief-Unilateral or mutual mistake - Onus of proof - Evidence of matters leading up to preparation of new lease - Intention of parties-"Terms where applicable"- Meaning.

VELLA v. LLANBERIS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 140

Negligence-Occupiers of ship undergoing repairs in dock-Means of access and egress-Duty of inspection-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff boiler scaler engaged on repair work to ship- Ship in occupation of owners-Jacob's ladder belonging to shipowners in use to enable plaintiff to get from deck to staging where he was working- Evidence given on plaintiff's behalf that when work was finished for the day at about 4 30 p.m. the Jacob's ladder was securely attached near bows so that it could not be used, but that when plaintiff left the ship by way of a fixed ladder the Jacob's ladder was seen to be hanging down amidships; that on arriving at the ship at about 8 30 a.m. next morning he found the Jacob's ladder in approximately the same amidships position and apparently securely fixed; and that on climbing the Jacob's ladder it fell and he was injured-Claim against shipowners - No evidence called by shipowners-Duty of shipowners (as occupiers) to take reasonable care to see that means of access to and egress from ship were reasonably safe- Extent of duty of inspection-Appeal by plaintiff against decision of learned Judge that negligence was not proved.

THE "HARTLEPOOL."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 145

Practice-Lis alibi pendens-Stay of action -Collision in Bona Harbour between Italian and English steamships-Proceedings in personam initiated by Italian owners (plaintiffs) against English owners (defendants) in Commercial Court of Bona-Cross-action brought by defendants-No security furnished by either side-Action in rem subsequently brought by plaintiffs in England-Motion by defendants to stay action in rem-Discretion of Court.

THE "CARSLOGIE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 148

Collision-Damages-Detention for repairs -Collision repairs deferred at owners' convenience-Necessity for machinery overhaul - Heavy weather damage sustained before collision repairs effected-Three types of repair effected at same time-Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Heimgar and defendants' steamship Carslogie off Oban- Heimgar under time-charter to M.W.T. -Temporary repairs effected at Greenock, seaworthiness certificate being granted subject to permanent repairs being carried out at owners' convenience-Voyage to West Africa cancelled by arrangement between owners and charterers, voyage to New York being substituted for purpose of undergoing permanent collision repairs and also overhaul of machinery- Heavy weather damage sustained on voyage to repair port-Repair of heavy weather damage necessitating detention for 50 days, during which time machinery overhaul and collision repairs were also carried out-Time necessary for effecting collision repairs alone estimated at 10 days-Claim by plaintiffs for 10 days' detention allowed by learned Registrar - Motion in objection brought by defendants- Collision repairs not immediately necessary-Ship diverted to repair port at owners' convenience-Heavy weather as supervening event-Effect.

MARK LEVER & CO., LTD. v. W. WINGATE & JOHNSTON, LTD. (COX & KINGS (AGENTS), LTD., THIRD PARTIES).

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 156

Contract - Shipping agents - Failure to carry out shippers' instructions- Instructions passed on to sub-agents- Delay-Deterioration of goods shipped -Negligence as bailees-Damages- Sale of cosmetics by plaintiffs to Indian importers - Shipping arrangements made by defendants - Plaintiffs informed by Indian importers that goods would not be accepted as they were overstocked-Unsuccessful attempt by defendants at plaintiffs' request to stop shipment-Instructions given by plaintiffs to defendants as to disposal of goods and passed on by defendants to their Indian sub-agents-Dispute as to terms of plaintiffs' instructions- Sub-agents instructed by defendants to contact Indian importers on arrival of goods and to re-offer them for inspection and acceptance, and to reship goods to England if refused-Action for damages brought by plaintiffs alleging excessive delay by defendants and by their sub-agents (third parties) in carrying out plaintiffs' instructions, resulting in unsaleability by reason of deterioration - Proof of damage - Evidence of normal "shelf-life" of goods-Whether delay due to causes beyond sub-agents' control-Onus of proof-Conditions of contract.

BOGUSLAWSKI AND ANOTHER v. GDYNIA-AMERYKA LINJE ZEGLUGOWE SPOLKA AKCYJNA.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 169

International law-Poland-Polish seamen -Gratuities payable by owners on leaving ships-Breach of agreement to pay-Foreign law-Expert evidence- Change of Government-Retroactive effect of recognition by H.M. Government of new Polish Government (Lublin Government)-Action brought by Polish seamen against defendants (Polish shipping company) claiming sums alleged to be due to them on leaving their ships - Polish Act of March, 1939, providing that in the event of war the supreme management or control of shipping companies would be handed over to Polish Minister of Shipping-Poland attacked and overrun by Germans in September, 1939- Polish Government (afterwards known as the Warsaw Government) moved to London-Resolution of Council of Ministers of Warsaw Government on June 25, 1945, under which civil servants and office employees of shipping companies would be paid three months' wages as gratuity on termination of service - Resolution given statutory effect by decree of Warsaw Government dated June 28, 1945-Lublin Government established in Poland on June 28, 1945-Meeting between Polish Minister of Shipping and seamen's union representatives on July 3 at which Minister indicated Warsaw Government's intention to pay similar gratuity to ships' crews-Telegram dispatched on July 5 by Minister to masters of Polish ships intimating Warsaw Government's intention - Recognition of Lublin Government by H.M. Government as from midnight on July 5/6 - Retroactive effect - Telegram brought to notice of officers and crew of Polish motor vessel Morska Wola (in which plaintiffs were serving) on July 5 and 6 -Gratuities not paid to plaintiffs, who had left their ship-Enforceability of agreement-Evidence of Polish law- Power of Polish Minister of Shipping to enter into agreement on defendants' behalf-Whether agreement was "collective agreement" (which was required by Polish law to be in writing) - Meaning of "collective agreement" - Authority of union representatives to enter into agreement - Unilateral obligation - Ratification by seamen - Validity of decree passed by Warsaw Government- Judgment entered by Finnemore, J., in favour of both plaintiffs (B., an officer in the Morska Wola at all material times; and K., a seaman who had joined the ship on July 4)-Interest awarded at 8 per cent. (as provided by Polish law - Appeal by defendants.

SARANDIS v. P. WIGHAM-RICHARDSON & CO., LTD., AND OTHERS.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 188

Practice-Award-Enforcement as order of Court-Nature of award-Action for an account commenced in King's Bench Division-Settlement of action- Terms of settlement that action be stayed; that an account be taken, as between plaintiff, defendants and others not parties to the action,

without delay before a Special Referee to be agreed or in default of agreement to be appointed by the Court . . . .

Any decision or award given or made by the Special Referee . . . . shall be made an order of the Court and all parties hereto shall by the execution of this agreement be deemed to have consented to such order being made . . . . Liberty to apply.

Special Referee appointed by agreement between parties-Award not taken up-Motion by defendants that award be made order of Court under Sect. 12 of Arbitration Act, 1889, upheld by Master Grundy and on appeal by Finnemore, J.-Appeal by plaintiff- Contention that wrong procedure had been adopted, in that the award was in fact a report of a Special Referee appointed by the Judge under Sect. 88 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and that an appeal lay to the Divisional Court- Arbitration Act, 1889, Sect. 12- Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sects. 88, 89-R.S.C. Order 59 A, r. 1.

Costs-Respondents represented by two firms of solicitors, who were instructed to give effect to terms of settlement- Same Counsel briefed by both firms- Respondents' right to two sets of costs.

THE "SEATTLE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 194

Collision-Crossing courses-Overtaking- Look-out - Seamanship - Collision between steamship Parthenia and motor vessel Seattle in San Francisco Harbour in broad daylight - Parthenia inward bound to Oakland Inner Harbour; Seattle bound from Oakland Outer Harbour to Oakland Inner Harbour- Seattle sighted by Parthenia on port bow, and Parthenia sighted by Seattle on starboard bow, at distance of about mile and a half - Necessity for Parthenia to starboard, and for Seattle to port, to enter entrance channel- Dispute as to courses prior to and at time of collision-Parthenia's case that Seattle cut across her head when the vessels were manoeuvring to enter channel; Seattle's case that she was already on an up-channel course when Parthenia tried to overtake her- Impact between port bow of Parthenia and starboard side of Seattle-Evidence of signal sounded by Parthenia, indicating that she intended to keep her course and speed-Unexplained sheer to port by Parthenia-No "danger signal" (as provided by local rules) sounded by either vessel-Continuing negligence-U.S. Pilot Rules for Inland Waters-U.S. Rules to prevent Collisions of Vessels (Inland Rules).

THE "HELMSMAN."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 207

Salvage-Adrift in river-Proof of danger -Motor vessel Holberg moored at berth in River Tyne-Defendants' motor vessel Helmsman fast alongside Holberg for purpose of supplying fuel oil by pipe line-Moderate gale-Forward quay moorings of Holberg broken adrift-Arrival of plaintiffs' tugs to assist-Breaking adrift of Holberg's stern quay moorings-Risk of collision with vessels and/or property on south bank-Holberg (with Helmsman still fast alongside) towed by tugs to another berth, where she was safely moored with assistance of plaintiff foyboatmen- Discharge of oil into Holberg completed by Helmsman, after which Helmsman cast off and proceeded to her berth at Jarrow-Salvage services to Holberg admitted - Claim by plaintiffs to salvage award for services alleged to have been rendered to Helmsman.

LAZELL v. COX & KINGS (AGENTS), LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 216

Master and servant-Contract of employment - Breach - Wrongful dismissal- Plaintiff in employ of defendant- Agreement by defendants that plaintiff would be appointed joint branch manager or freight manager-Plaintiff not immediately appointed-Complaint made by plaintiff as to delay-Intimation by plaintiff that he was not prepared to continue as defendants' servant unless appointment was made- Plaintiff's protest accepted by defendants as tantamount to resignation- Dispute as to terms of defendants' agreement to appoint plaintiff to managership-Enforceability.

"TOWER FIELD" (OWNERS) v. WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK BOARD.

(1950) 84 Lloyd's Rep. 233

Docks, Harbours, etc. - Grounding in approaches to port-Compulsory pilot -Liability of shipowners-Negligence of harbour authority-Duty to maintain in safe condition or to give warning of obstructions-Grounding in 1941 of plaintiffs' steamship Tower Field on bank of silt in entrance channel to Workington Harbour - Damage to ship-Claim by shipowners against harbour authority - Denial of liability by harbour authority - Counterclaim for damages resulting from obstruction-Alleged contributory negligence of pilot - Inaccurate and misleading inset on Admiralty Chart of Solway Firth-Inset based on plan supplied by harbour authority-Statement on inset that certain depth and width were maintained by dredging- Evidence that such depth and width of entrance channel were not maintained -Leading beacons indicating centre of channel inaccurately placed-Harbour authority aware of serious encroachments into entrance channel caused by development of banks of silt on each side-Evidence of periodical personal inspections of channel by local pilots- Pilot aware of encroachments into channel and of misleading character of leading beacons - Reliance upon own judgment - Attempt to bring in ship without reference to the line of leading beacons, but using a beacon on the northern side of the channel as a guide - Whether contributory negligence of compulsory pilot a bar to recovery by plaintiffs by reason of Sect. 15 (1) of Pilotage Act, 1913, which provided: Notwithstanding anything in any public or local Act, the owner or master of a vessel navigating under circumstances in which the Pilotage is compulsory shall be answerable for any loss or damage caused by the vessel or by any fault of the navigation of the vessel in the same manner as he would if pilotage were not compulsory.

Right of recover by harbour authority under Sect. 74 of Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847 - Judgment entered for harbour authority by Willmer, J., on ground that grounding was solely due to negligence of pilot- Majority judgment of C.A. upholding shipowners' claim and dismissing harbour authority's counterclaim - Appeal by harbour authority.

THE "MANCHESTER PORT."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 271

Collision-Canal-Ships meeting-Look-out - Collision between steamships Donaghadee and Manchester Port in Manchester Ship Canal-Donaghadee outward bound; Manchester Port, assisted by tugs, inward bound - Manchester Port informed of approach of three outward-bound vessels and advised to allow them to pass before entering narrow portion of canal - Manchester Port accordingly brought up to allow those vessels to pass, after which she proceeded to gather headway -Manchester Port then passed by a fourth ship, the steamship Guinness, which informed her that a fifth ship, the Donaghadee, was following close behind-Steps immediately taken by Manchester Port to take off her way and to keep her straight-Cant to port -Collision almost end on between starboard bow of Donaghadee and stem of Manchester Port-Donaghadee aware of up-coming Manchester Port-Claim by Donaghadee-Onus of proof.

WM. CORY & SON, LTD. v. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 278

Contract - Repudiation - Anticipatory breach-Port health authority-Local by-laws-Agreement in 1936 between barge-owners and city corporation (as sanitary authority) providing for collection and removal of refuse-Barges to be "fitted and maintained with temporary coamings and coverings to be secured to the permanent coamings . . ."-Barge-owners to "observe and comply with the by-laws of the port health authority of the Port of London"-By-laws made by corporation (as port health authority) in September, 1948, and to take effect in November, 1950, requiring barges removing refuse to have permanent coamings and close-fitting hatches capable of completely covering the refuse-Contention by barge-owners that making of such by-laws amounted to repudiation of agreement by city corporation, entitling barge-owners to treat agreement as having been determined in September, 1948 - - Whether making of by-laws by city corporation in performance of their statutory duty as port health authority could be treated as a repudiation of a contract entered into by city corporation acting in different capacity.

INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS v. FRANCIS WEST AND OTHERS; SAME v. FRED WEST AND OTHERS; SAME v. ROBERT FORMAN AND OTHERS; SAME v. WILLIAM REID AND OTHERS.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 284

Revenue - Income tax - Assessment - Reconditioning moneys-Repairs to ship-Lump sum paid by charterers in lieu of liability for reconditioning -Requisition charter by M.W.T. of respondents' fishing vessels Laurel and Guelder Rose-Charter providing for payment of hire and for redelivery of vessels in same good order as delivered, fair wear and tear excepted -Derequisition-Payment of lump sums by charterers in lieu of their obligation to restore vessels to their pre-war condition-Part only of such sums spent by respondents in restoration - Assessment to income tax of respondents' profits from vessels - Payments for hire treated as trading receipts-Inclusion of whole of reconditioning moneys as trading receipts with allowance for amounts spent on repairs-Claim by respondents that reconditioning moneys were capital receipts-Decision of Special Commissioners in favour of respondents-Case stated-Whether reconditioning moneys were trading receipts or capital receipts - Income Tax Act, 1918, Schedule D, Cases I and II, Rule 3 (d). Revenue-Income tax-Balancing charges -Sale of part shares in respondents' fishing vessels Guelder Rose and Mistress Isa-Whether sale of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. West and Others. Ct. of Sess. 285 "plant" - Ownership of vessels - Custom of Scottish herring fishing industry-Fishing partnership formed by individual groups of part-owners, each being entitled to share in profits of enterprise: one group (which included respondents) holding shares in and providing vessel; another group providing fishing gear; and the crew providing labour-Ownership of vessels divided into 64 parts, each part-owner having undivided share in the whole- Sale by certain part-owners of their shares in vessels-Vessels continuing to fish as before-Sum received for shares greater than written-down value of proportionate part of vessel-Contention by Crown that such sale was a sale of plant which gave rise to a balancing charge-Claim by Crown against respondents jointly for payment of balancing charges - Decision of Special Commissioners in favour of respondents-Case stated-Income Tax Act, 1945, Sect. 17. Revenue-Income tax-Balancing charges -Sale of whole of shares in vessel- Whether sale of "plant"-Sale by all part-owners of Girl Eileen (respondents) to purchasers who continued to fish vessel from different port-Sale price in excess of written-down value of vessel-Discontinuance of business- Decision of Special Commissioners in favour of respondents-Case stated- Income Tax Act, 1945, Sect. 17.

WESTMINSTER AIRWAYS, LTD. v. KUWAIT OIL COMPANY, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 297

Practice-Discovery of documents- Privilege-Communications between defendants and their insurers-Damage to plaintiffs' aircraft which, while stationary on a road in Iraq after making forced landing, was run into by defendants' motor truck alleged to have been driven by their servant or agent-Action brought by plaintiffs for damages for negligence-Defendants' denial that driver was negligent or that he was their servant or agent-Production of documents by defendants-Correspondence passing between defendants and their insurance brokers and insurers before claim made-Plea of privilege raised by defendants on ground that such further documents

came into existence and were made after litigation was in contemplation and in view of such litigation for the purpose of obtaining and furnishing to the solicitors of the defendant company evidence and information as to the evidence which could be obtained and otherwise for the use of the said solicitors to enable them to conduct the defence in this action and to advise the defendants.

Privilege contested by plaintiffs-Right of Court to inspect documents-Order of Parker, J., reversing order of Master, that such documents were privileged-Appeal by plaintiffs-Discretion of learned Judge-R.S.C., Order 31, r. 19 A (2).

THE "BASIS."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 306

Negligent navigation-Towage-Sinking of tug by tow-Overrunning-Look-out -Speeds-Tugs Toxteth and Eastham employed in towage of Norwegian steamship Basis from dock into River Mersey-Propeller of Basis fouled by tow rope from Eastham (stern tug)- Towage continued in Mersey by Toxteth (forward tug) to enable propeller to be cleared-Short scope of tow rope-Basis in ballast-Wind of gale force-Slackening of tow rope- Short blast signal (conventionally accepted on Mersey as request for tow to reduce speed) misinterpreted by officers of Basis (though understood by pilot)-Toxteth overrun by Basis, Toxteth being sunk-Master (who was also owner) and three members of crew drowned-Claims against owners of Basis by executrix of owner's estate and by others suing for lost effects. Towage-Conditions of towage-Indemnity -Sinking of tug by tow-Tug Toxteth engaged to tow Norwegian steamship Basis-Basis under time-charter to M.O.T.-Sub-charter by M.O.T. to Cunard White Star-Tugs belonging to Alexandra Towing Company normally employed by Cunard White Star for towage purposes-No such tugs available-Employment of Toxteth (belonging to Mr. Portus)-Towing contract (on Alexandra Towing Company form) signed by master of Basis-Form stamped "For time charter's (sic) account"-Applicability of towage conditions indemnifying tug against loss.

THE "SUSAN V. LUCKENBACH."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 318

Salvage-Grounding after being holed by collision-Colliding vessel to blame- Salving vessels in same ownership as colliding vessel-Right of recovery- Circuity of action-Services rendered by H.M. tug Confederate and H.M.S. Arpha to steamship Susan V. Luckenbach in Gulf of Suez-Susan V. Luckenbach grounded in exposed position after collision with steamship Nea Hellas-Bad weather-Unsuccessful attempts made by Confederate to refloat by fixing patches to damaged hull of Susan V. Luckenbach and pumping out flooded compartments-Vessel subsequently refloated after jettisoning 700 tons of fuel oil and towed to less exposed position-Patching then effectively carried out and vessel towed by Confederate to safe anchorage in Suez Roads-Steam supplied by Arpha to Susan V. Luckenbach during salvage operations, men also being put on board to assist-Salvage claims brought by Admiralty (as owners of Confederate and Arpha) and by commanding officer and crew of Arpha-Services of commanding officer and crew of Arpha admitted-Plea by defendants that Crown, in the name of the Admiralty, was disentitled to recover as a salvor owing to the fact that it was also, in the name of M.W.T., owner of Nea Hellas, which vessel had been found solely to blame for the collision making the salvage services necessary-Further plea that a salvage award to the Crown would involve circuity of action- Services occupying 44 days-Whether unduly prolonged by salvors, in that they attempted to patch and refloat vessel in an exposed position and failed to empty fuel tank sooner- Confederate, a Danish salvage tug manned by Danish officers under requisition to Admiralty-Right of Admiralty to recover on basis of professional salvors.

THE "SODALITY."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 329

Collision-Look-out-Confused signal- Helm action-Narrow channel-Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Kornat and defendants' motor vessel Sodality in King's Channel, Thames Estuary-Kornat, on course of N. 37 E., reducing her way preparatory to dropping her pilot; Sodality on course of S.W. by S. 12 S.-Masthead and green lights of Sodality sighted by Kornat fine on starboard bow, at distance of about one mile-Confused signal sounded by Sodality when about four cables distant, which Kornat assumed to be port helm signal-Hard-a-porting by Kornat, followed by astern action when she realized that Sodality was swinging to starboard across her bows -Impact between stem of Kornat and port side of Sodality-Plaintiffs' claim not proceeded with as Kornat was found on drydocking to have sustained no damage-Case presented on defendants' counterclaim-Alleged negligence of Kornat in hard-a-porting and in failing to take astern action immediately confused signal was sounded by Sodality-Whether collision occurred within narrow channel.

F. E. HOOKWAY & CO., LTD. v. W. H. HOOPER & CO.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 335

Arbitration-Extension of time-Failure to claim arbitration within prescribed time-Undue hardship-Contract for sale of coffee on standard form of Coffee Trade Federation (London)- Coffee to be shipped from Singapore to Gibraltar-Disputes on quality, failing amicable agreement, to be settled by arbitration in London according to arbitration rules of Coffee Trade Federation-Further provisions of contract: 11. If at ports other than London, samples to be drawn and sealed, at buyers' expense, at the port and time of discharge in the presence of representatives of buyers and sellers or by an independent recognised sampler . . . 13. Failing amicable agreement, both parties to this contract hereby agree to submit any dispute of whatever nature arising out of this contract to arbitration in London according to the rules of the Coffee Trade Federation (of London). Any claim must be made within 14 days after final day of weighing and/or discharge of goods at port of final destination.

Coffee Trade Federation Arbitration Rule No. 2:

All arbitrations must be claimed within 14 days following final day of weighing and/or warehousing of the contract goods at port of final destination.

Coffee delivered into warehouse at Gibraltar-Request by buyers to their agents to take samples-Samples not taken until long after expiry of 14 days after delivery into warehouse-Claim by buyers for arbitration on quality- Failure of arbitrators to agree- Appointment of umpire, who awarded that "as buyers' claim for arbitration F. E. Hookway & Co., Ltd. v. W. H. Hooper & Co. K.B. (Div. Ct.) 336 was made out of time they have no case against sellers"-Motion brought by buyers for leave to extend time for bringing of arbitration-Arbitration Act, 1934, Sect. 16 (6).

THE "ARDENNES."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 340

Carriage of goods by sea-Deviation resulting in delay in arrival-Loss of market -Increase in import duty-Measure of damages-Agreed term at variance with bill of lading-Admissibility of evidence of true contract-Collateral warranty-Shipment of mandarines by plaintiffs from Carthagena to London in defendants' steamship-Oral promise by ship's agent that ship would proceed direct to London-Parties aware of importance of arrival by specified date, and that delay would result in increased import duty and loss of market-"Received for shipment" bill of lading issued by defendants containing clause that The owners are to be at liberty to carry the said goods to their port of destination, by the above or other steamer, or steamers, ship or ships or railway, either belonging to themselves or to other persons, proceeding by any route, and whether directly or indirectly to such port, and in so doing to carry the goods beyond their port of destination, and so tranship or land and store the goods either on shore or afloat and reship and forward the same at the owner's expense but at merchant's risk.

Ship ordered by owners to proceed first to Antwerp-Late arrival at London, resulting in plaintiffs having to pay increased import duty and loss of market-Admissibility of evidence of promise made by ship's agent that ship would proceed direct to London- Delivery of mandarines taken by plaintiffs on arrival, freight being paid -Whether evidence of waiver of plaintiffs' claim-Matters to be taken into account in assessing damages for loss of market.

CHANDRIS v. ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER COMPANY, INCORPORATED.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 347

Arbitration-Award of damages-Interest -Jurisdiction of arbitrator-Dispute under charter-party-Breach by charterers -Alternative award of damages in favour of shipowner upheld by Devlin, J.-Appeal by shipowner against decision of learned Judge that arbitrator was without power to award interest-Civil Procedure Act, 1833, Sects. 28, 29-Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, Sect. 3 (1).

NOEMIJULIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. MINISTER OF FOOD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 354

Charter-party-Readiness to load-"Full reach and burthen of the steamer"- Availability of stowage space-Reserve bunker space-Ship without mainmast or after derricks-Right of charterer to cancel-Plaintiffs' ship chartered by defendant to load grain at River Plate ports for U.K. under "Centrocon" Charter-party providing (inter alia): 6. . . . The charterers are to have the full reach and burthen of the steamer including 'tween and shelter decks, bridges, poop, etc. (provided same are not occupied by bunker coal. and/or stores). 12. . . . should the steamer not be ready to load by 6 p.m. on 27th December, 1948, charterers shall have the option of cancelling this charter-party . . . 17. The cargo to be brought to and taken from alongside at charterers' risk and expense. 19. Owners undertake that the steamer shall not load more than 7350 tons, and not less than 6650 tons . . .

Arrival at Buenos Aires with inward cargo-Collapse of mainmast due to steps taken in extinguishing fire in store room-Temporary repairs effected (though jury mast not erected), ship being given certificate of seaworthiness for voyage homewards with grain- No. 3 hold ('tween and lower) occupied by bunker coal-Notice of readiness given by shipowners in accordance with charter-party-Refusal by charterer to accept notice on the grounds (inter alia) that the ship had no mainmast or after derricks, and that No. 3 hold ('tween and lower) still contained bunker coal-Cancellation of charter-party by charterer-Claim by shipowners for damages - Arbitration - Finding of umpire that No. 3 hold was designed as reserve bunker space and that No. 3 'tween deck and No. 3 lower hold, if not used for reserve bunkers, were capable of carrying cargo; that in Noemijulia Steamship Company, Ltd. v. Minister of Food. C.A. 355 order to proceed to nearest bunkering port on homeward voyage sufficient reserve bunkers could have been carried in No. 3 'tween deck, leaving No. 3 lower hold free for grain; and that ship was not ready to load by her cancelling time in that she was without mainmast or after derricks and in that part of her No. 3 lower hold was not free for Drain-Award that charterer was entitled to cancel-Case stated - Alternative award in favour of shipowners upheld by Devlin, J.-Appeal by charterer.

THE "MARPESSA."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 365

Collision-Fog-"Lying stopped" signals -Helm action-Speeds-Duty to "navigate with caution"-Collision in dense fog between steamships City of Waterford and Marpessa in English Channel -Ships on almost opposite courses- City of Waterford following close behind steamship Keynes-Both Keynes and City of Waterford sounding regulation fog signals-Marpessa sounding "lying stopped" signals-Engines of City of Waterford stopped when she heard "lying stopped" signals ahead and then put slow ahead when she was satisfied that such signals were being sounded by a ship on port bow-Marpessa passed by Keynes starboard to starboard-Marpessa and City of Waterford sighted by each other close to-Impact between stem of Marpessa and port side of City of Waterford at angle of about six points leading aft on City of Waterford-City of Waterford sunk-Evidence as to speeds of each ship before and at time of collision- Inferences to be drawn from nature of damage to Marpessa-Whether angle of blow due to helm action by either or both vessels-Collision Regulations, Art. 16.

THE "CONAN DOYLE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 374

Collision-Anchored vessel-Anchor light -Whether burning-Collision in River Humber between motor vessel Irene and steam trawler Conan Doyle-Irene at anchor; Conan Doyle outward bound- Liability for collision dependent upon whether Irene was exhibiting her anchor light-Conflict of evidence.

THE "IALINE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 380

Collision-"Under way" -Anchor light exhibited by ship moored at buoy in river-Collision between auxiliary ketch Westward and motor vessel Ialine in Sea Reach, River Thames-Westward emerging from Holehaven Creek, intending to proceed down river- Ialine, moored at buoy, exhibiting all-round white anchor light-Impact between stem of Ialine and port side of Westward-Westward sunk-Plea by Westward that, properly navigating across bows of Ialine, Ialine came ahead-Evidence that Ialine had been hove up close to buoy for purpose of slipping her mooring ropes in order to get under way; that certain of her ropes had been slipped; but that she was still held close by a slip rope- Plea by Ialine that at time of collision she was lying moored with buoy abaft her stem, and that Westward was set down by tide upon Ialine's stem- Probabilities-Onus of proof-Meaning of "under way."

GRAHAM AND OTHERS v. DUNCAN.

(1950) 84 Lloyd's Rep. 386

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894-Passenger steamer-Passengers-B.O.T. survey certificate-Use of ship for particular purpose on particular occasion- Respondents' motor fishing vessels used for pleasure trip-Carriage of more than 12 passengers from Berwick to H.M. cruiser off shore-No fares or wages paid-Ships, normally used for fishing, without B.O.T. survey certificate for carriage of passengers- Owners convicted of offence against Sect. 271 (1)-Conviction quashed by learned Recorder - Case stated - Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sects. 267, 271, 743-Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, Sect. 21.

LEGGATE v. BROWN.

(1950) 84 Lloyd's Rep. 395

Road Traffic Act, 1930-Third-party policy -Use of tractor and two loaded trailers -Illegality-Effect upon policy permitting use of two trailers-Policy issued to appellant in respect of his tractor-Indorsement on policy providing: Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary it is hereby declared and agreed that this policy shall be operative whilst the vehicle described in the within schedule is being used with not more than two trailers attached to it at any one time. It is further agreed that the Society will indemnify the insured in the terms of this policy in respect of such trailers but only whilst such trailers are attached to the said vehicle.

Tractor driven on highway with two loaded trailers in tow, which was an offence under Sect. 18-Criminal proceedings brought by police against appellant, it being alleged that, in so using his tractor, appellant was not covered by his policy in respect of third-party risks-Conviction by Justices- Case stated-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 18, 35 (1).

THE "CARSLOGIE."

(1950) 84 Lloyd's Rep. 399

Collision-Damages-Detention for repairs -Collision repairs deferred at owners' convenience-Necessity for machinery overhaul-Heavy weather damage sustained before collision repairs effected-Three types of repair effected at same time-Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Heimgar and defendants' steamship Carslogie off Oban- Heimgar under time-charter to M.W.T. -Temporary repairs effected at Greenock, seaworthiness certificate being granted subject to permanent repairs being carried out at owners' convenience-Voyage to West Africa cancelled by arrangement between owners and charterers, voyage to New York being substituted for purpose of undergoing permanent collision repairs and also overhaul of machinery- Heavy weather damage sustained on voyage to repair port-Repair of heavy weather damage necessitating detention for 50 days, during which time machinery overhaul and collision repairs were also carried out-Time necessary for effecting collision repairs alone estimated at 10 days-Claim by plaintiffs for 10 days' detention allowed by learned Registrar - Motion in objection by defendants upheld by Willmer, J., on ground that as permanent collision repairs to plaintiffs' ship were not immediately necessary but were deferred to a convenient opportunity, and were in fact carried out during the complete immobilization of the ship during the repair of her heavy weather damage, plaintiffs had failed to prove any loss by detention for the collision repairs-Appeal by plaintiffs.

THE "FORT LIVINGSTONE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 410

Collision - Convoy - Crossing convoys- Detachment of single ship from convoy in altering course-Seamanship - Lights - Look-out - Helm action - Duty to take off way -Collision between steamships G. Harrison Smith and Fort Livingstone in approaches to Firth of Clyde- G. Harrison Smith in convoy on course of 95 deg. (true); Fort Livingstone in convoy on course of 235 deg. (true)- Convoys aware of each other's presence -Ships instructed by leaders to take certain avoiding action-Signals misunderstood by G. Harrison Smith- Starboard helm action by G. Harrison Smith, taking her away from her own convoy and across course of Fort Livingstone's convoy-Duty of G. Harrison Smith as "single ship" -Whether Fort Livingstone was exhibiting navigation lights-Ships on crossing courses, with Fort Livingstone as "give way" ship-Criticism of Fore Livingstone's action in porting and in keeping her speed-Whether Fort Livingstone guilty of breach of good seamanship in failing to "take such action at win best aid to avert collision" -Collision Regulations, Art. 27.

IN RE THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT, 1936. JONES v. MINISTER OF HEALTH.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 417

National Health Insurance Act, 1936- Employment otherwise than by way of manual labour-Rate of remuneration -Matters to be taken into account- Application by widow of deceased ship's officer (J.) that she was entitled to State pension-J. employed in oil tankers engaged in refuelling naval vessels-Evidence of J.'s duties and of sums received by him by way of basic pay, oil bonus, station allowance, and victualling allowance-Application for pension refused by Minister of Health -Appeal by applicant by way of case stated - National Health Insurance Act, 1936, Sect. 161, First Schedule, Part II, par. (k).

CARMEL EXPORTERS & IMPORTERS, LTD. v. FRANCIS HUBER (INDIA), LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 425

Contract - Sale of goods - Consensus ad idem - Alleged breach by sellers in failing to ship-Whether firm contract concluded - Negotiations entered into between plaintiffs (English buyers) and defendants (Indian sellers) for sale of 100 tons Alleppey turmeric fingers c. & f. New York-Shipment April/May -Payment to be made by letter of credit against shipping documents- Proposals and counter-proposals as to terms of credit and as to conditions of sale-Failure by defendants to ship in time-Liability of plaintiffs under sub-sale to American buyers-Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for damages for breach-Denial by defendants that firm contract was concluded - Consideration of correspondence between parties - Whether parties ad idem.

IN RE THE PILOTAGE ACT, 1913. SOANES v. CORPORATION OF TRINITY HOUSE.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 432

Pilot-Revocation of licence-Drunkenness -Appeal-Procedure-Appeal brought by pilot against decision of pilotage authority revoking his licence on the grounds: (1) that he failed in or neglected his duty as a pilot in not piloting a ship when required to do so; also, that he was in such a state of intoxication that he was totally unable to pilot the ship; (2) that he refused or wilfully delayed when not prevented by reasonable cause to pilot the ship; (3) that he failed to act with complete sobriety-Evidence of pilotage instructions received by him and of events leading up to the refusal by the master to permit appellant to pilot his ship- Constitution of Court on appeal- Procedure to be adopted in conduct of appeal - Pilotage Act, 1913, Sects. 26, 28.

THE "ALLIANCE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 438

Salvage - Grounding on rocks - Lifeboat services - Assessment of award - Services rendered by lifeboat Sir Arthur Rose to motor fishing vessel Alliance which had grounded on rocks in Sound of Mull soon after high water -Alliance refloated at next high water -Dispute as to position of Alliance and as to effectiveness of services rendered by lifeboat-Whether Alliance refloated by efforts of her crew - Evidence of weather and of tides.

F. E. HOOKWAY & CO., LTD. v. W. H. HOOPER & CO.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 443

Arbitration-Extension of time-Failure to cain arbitration within prescribed time-Undue hardship-Contract for sale of coffee on standard form of Coffee Trade Federation (London)-Coffee to be shipped from Singapore to Gibraltar-Disputes on quality, failing amicable agreement, to be settled by arbitration in London according to arbitration rules of Coffee Trade Federation-Further provisions of contract: 11. If at ports other than London, samples to be drawn and sealed, at buyers' expense, at the port and time of discharge in the presence of representatives of buyers and sellers or by an independent recognised sampler . . . 13. Failing amicable agreement, both parties to this contract hereby agree to submit any dispute of whatever nature arising out of this contract to arbitration in London according to the rules of the Coffee Trade Federation (of London). Any claim must be made within 14 days after final day of weighing and/or discharge of goods at port of final destination.

Coffee Trade Federation Arbitration Rule No. 2:

All arbitrations must be claimed within 14 days following final day of weighing and/or warehousing of the contract goods at port of final destination.

Coffee delivered into warehouse at Gibraltar-Request by buyers to their agents to take samples-Samples not taken until long after expiry of 14 days after delivery into warehouse-Claim by buyers for arbitration on quality- Failure of arbitrators to agree - Appointment of umpire, who awarded that "as buyers' claim for arbitration was made out of time they have no case against sellers"-Motion brought by buyers for leave to extend time for bringing of arbitration - Arbitration Act, 1934, Sect. 16 (6).

THE "CROUCH."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 447

Negligence-Sinking of plaintiffs' barge at jetty-Defendants' barge moored second bottom out - Res ipsa loquitur - Adequacy of mooring ropes-Onus of proof-Plaintiffs' barge Jack moored alongside Tilbury cargo jetty-Defendants' barge Crouch moored outside Jack - Barges left unattended overnight, taking ground on low tide- Jack found sunk next morning, with Crouch lying partly on top of her- Onus of proof of negligence-Plea by plaintiffs that maxim res ipsa loquitur applied and that onus was on defendants to disprove negligence; alternatively, that defendants were negligent in that Crouch was made fast with an insufficient scope of rope- Probabilities.

JOSEPH THOMAS v. CUNARD WHITE STAR, LTD. (THE "QUEEN MARY.")

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 453

PILBURY v. BRAZIER.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 456

LAWDAY v. WM. FRANCE, FENWICK & CO., LTD., AND L. W. MORLAND & CO., LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 458

AMERICAN FOREIGN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. E. S. DAVIES (H.M. INSPECTOR OF TAXES). AMERICAN FOREIGN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE. DAVIES (H. M. INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. DAVIES (H. M. INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 464

THE "KAJTUM" AND THE "OCEAN VESPER."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 483

Collision-River-Hampering-Local by-laws - Seamanship - Look-out - Poor visibility-Excessive speed-Collision in River Mersey between steamship Harald and motor vessel Kajtum- Both vessels bound down, Kajtum having just before collision overtaken Harald on her port side-Steamship Ocean Vesper bound up on flood tide- Port helm action taken by Ocean Vesper for purpose of crossing river to enter dock-Astern action taken by Kajtum when she became aware of Ocean Vesper crossing ahead, causing Kajtum to fall off to starboard-Port helm action by Harald on hearing whistle signal of two short blasts from Ocean Vesper, erroneously thought to have been sounded by Kajtum-Impact between stem of Harald and starboard side amidships of Kajtum at right angle -Action brought by Harald against Kajtum-Counterclaim by Kajtum against Harald and Ocean Vesper- Ocean Vesper joined by Harald as second defendants-Plea by Kajtum (adopted by Harald) that Ocean Vesper was at fault in hampering their passage down river-Whether Ocean Vesper negligent in commencing and continuing her manoeuvre to cross river at material time-Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Rules, 1924, Rule 12.

THE "FIREDOG."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 496

Collision-River-Anchored vessel-Swinging to anchor-Seamanship-Look-out -Signals-Collision between steamship Lake Cowichan, anchored in Erith Rands, River Thames, and steamship Firedog, bound up-Grounding of stern of Lake Cowichan, while swinging to flood tide-Lake Cowichan then athwart northern half of channel, with stem in southern half-Engines used to assist swing-Lake Cowichan sighted ahead by Firedog-Intention by Firedog to pass to northward of Lake Cowichan- Engines put to slow for three minutes-Realization by Firedog when ships two cables apart that Lake Cowichan was not altering her position - Porting by Firedog in attempt to pass to southward of Lake Cowichan-Movement ahead by Lake Cowichan-Impact between stem of Lake Cowichan and starboard quarter of Firedog - No signals sounded by Firedog-Alleged improper use of engines by Lake Cowichan.

HAYHOW v. STEWART SMITH & CO., LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 504

Insurance brokers-Agreement to insure- Risk not placed with underwriters- Loss-Indemnity-Breach of contract - Broker (director of defendants) approached on aerodrome by plaintiff with request that his aeroplane should be put on full comprehensive cover- Offer of premium ref used by broker- Total loss of aeroplane soon after taking off and before placing of risk was possible-Alleged assurance given by broker that plaintiff was "covered" immediately request for comprehensive insurance was made-Claim by plaintiff for indemnity; alternatively, for damages for breach of contract- Normal practice of Lloyd's insurance brokers.

IN RE ITHACA SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 507

Company-Winding up-Petition by judgment creditors-Petition opposed by majority creditor-Alternative request for adjournment - Special circumstances -Petition for winding up of I. Ltd. brought by judgment creditors -Petition opposed by V., director and majority creditor-Proposed scheme for carring on company and for payment of debts - Unsubstantiated assertions by V. as to future prospects.

WEISSBERG v. LAMB.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 509

Marine insurance - All risks - Sue and labour charges-Transit of furniture- Accident-Damage-Removal contract entered into by plaintiff for carriage of his furniture from Holland to United Kingdom-All risks policy taken out with defendant underwriter-Furniture stowed in lift van-Accident to lift van during loading on board ship, damaging furniture - Loss within policy cover-Measure of indemnity- Payment by plaintiff of further charges made by removal contractors arising out of accident-Right of recovery by plaintiff under sue and labour clause providing that "in case of any loss or misfortune it shall be lawful to the assured . . . to sue, labour, travel for, in and about the defence, safeguard and recovery of the said goods"-Certain items admitted-Dispute as to further items - Items paid by plaintiff to removal contractors to enable him to obtain possession of furniture.

THE "OLEV" AND OTHER ESTONIAN VESSELS.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 513

Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939 - Requisition of Estonian vessels-Period of hire-Total loss-Notice of claim- Extension of tine-Claims brought under Sect. 4 (1) (a) by Estonian shipping associations, by part owners and by "disponents" thereof- Jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain claims under Sect. 4 (1) (d)-Estonian law-Dissolution of shipping association upon loss or disposal of vessel- Alleged transfer to Swedish ownership - Validity - Estonia occupied by U.S.S.R.-Claim to property in vessels asserted by U.S.S.R.-Effect of Soviet decrees-Vessel flying Russian flag- Whether evidence of transfer of ownership -Sects. 4 (1) (a), 4 (1) (d), 11. (a) Olev, Mari, Vilk: Still under requisition - Claims under Sect. 4 (1) (a)-Whether barred by lapse of time-Claim to property in vessels asserted by U.S.S.R.

PARIS v. MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COUNCILLORS OF METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF STEPNEY.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 525

Master and servant-Duty of care towards workmen - One-eyed man - Disability known to employers - Scope of employers' duty-Special and individual risk-Plaintiff employed as garage hand by defendant Corporation -Corporation aware that plaintiff was practically blind in one eye-Plaintiff engaged in dismantling vehicle belonging to defendants-Use of hammer to remove bolt, resulting in metal splinter entering plaintiff's sound eye and destroying sight-Claim for damages brought against Corporation-Alleged failure to provide safe system, in that goggles should have been provided as part of that system-Claim upheld by Lynskey, J., who awarded £5250 damages-Appeal by plaintiff against inadequacy of award and by defendants on question of liability-Defendants' appeal upheld by C.A.-Appeal by plaintiff-Duty of employers where disability suffered by workman increased risk of serious injury- Whether risk of graver injury a relevant consideration in determining precautions to be taken by employer in fulfilment of duty of care owed to individual workman.

THE "SUSAN V. LUCKENBACH."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 538

Salvage-Salving vessels in same ownership as blameworthy colliding vessel- Right of recovery-Circuity of action- Services rendered by H.M. tug Confederate and H.M.S. Arpha to defendants' steamship Susan V. Luckenbach in Gulf of Suez-Susan V. Luckenbach grounded as result of collision with steamship Nea Hellas-Nea Hellas (owned by M.W.T.) solely to blame for collision-Salvage claims brought by Admiralty (as owners of Confederate and Arpha)-Plea by defendants that Crown, in the name of the Admiralty, was disentitled to recover as a salvor owing to the fact that it was also, in the name of M.W.T., owner of Nea Hellas, which vessel had been found solely to blame for the collision making the salvage services necessary-Further plea that a salvage award to the Crown would involve circuity of action- Appeal by defendants against decision of Pilcher, J., that Admiralty were entitled to a salvage award-No appeal against quantum.

THE "ROYAL EAGLE."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 543

Negligent navigation-Excessive speed in River Thames - Wash - Bumping of vessel at berth-Onus of proof-Plaintiffs' steamship Braywood moored at quay in Long Reach-Ebb tide- Braywood taking ground forward- Defendants' paddle steamship Royal Eagle bound up Long Reach-Alleged excessive speed of Royal Eagle, causing wash resulting in bumping of Braywood on ground-No proof of damage to other vessels or moorings- Bottom damage to Braywood discovered two months later upon drydocking for annual survey-Draught of Braywood-Depth of water at quay- Evidence of movement of Braywood- Probable cause.

THE "ROYAL SOVEREIGN."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 549

Negligent navigation-Excessive speed in River Thames - Wash - Moorings -Method of mooring-Effectiveness - Action brought by owners of hulk Pilgrim against owners of motor vessel Royal Sovereign - Pilgrim moored to hulk Flirt on south side of river-Allegation that Royal Sovereign was navigated up river at such excessive speed that her wash caused the moorings of Pilgrim to part, resulting in damage to Pilgrim- Whether wash, if any, due to passing of Royal Sovereign; and, if so, whether such wash would have affected Pilgrim if properly moored-Evidence of moorings and of method of mooring.

THE "AMERICAN MILLER" AND THE "SILVERMARK."

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 555

Collision - Duck - Look-out - Seamanship -Plaintiffs' barge Mountway tied up on north side of Royal Albert Dock - First defendants' steamship American Miller, with tug ahead and astern, proceeding down dock, stern first - Second defendants' tug Silvermark, with six barges (three ranks of two abreast) in tow, proceeding up dock on south side-Starboarding by Silvermark to round drifting barges followed by porting across track of American Miller to resume her course along south side - Action taken by American Miller to avoid Silvermark's barges - Evidence that lightermen in charge of Silvermark's barges cast off certain breast ropes before flotilla came to rest, permitting starboard line of barges to splay out to starboard when Silvermark ported - Collision between Mountway and starboard quarter of American Miller-Mountway broken adrift, subsequently sinking-Mountway admittedly not to blame.

MORRIS v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 564

Negligence - Unsafe premises - Improper system of working-Breach of statutory duty-Gantry-Maintenance of floor- Removal of fencing-Fatal injuries sustained by dock labourer in fall from gantry belonging to defendants - Deceased man employed by defendants in loading bales of paper from gantry into lorry below-Removal of fencing for purpose of work-Faulty floorboard - Action for damages brought by widow (as personal representative) alleging common law negligence; breach of statutory duty under Factories Act, 1937; breach of statutory duty under Docks Regulations, 1934- Duty of employer-Factories Act, 1937, Sects. 14, 16, 25, 26, 105 (3)-Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulations 1, 46.

TAYLOR v. R. & H. GREEN & SILLEY WEIR, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 570

Negligence-Safe means of access-Sound construction - Maintenance - Sill of dry dock-"Gangway" or "floor"- Breach of common law and/or statutory duty - Contributory negligence -Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff riveter employed by defendant ship repairers-Plaintiff engaged in repair of ship in defendants' dry dock-Accident to plaintiff caused by foot slipping on compressed air hoses connected to wall of dock and lying along sill-Evidence that sill was broken away near scene of accident in order to make room for ship-Whether sill a "gangway" or part of "floor" of dock-"Place at which any person has at any time to work"-Defendants' common law duty-Factories Act, 1937, Sects. 25 (1), 26 (1).

WORROW v. GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

(1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 576

Master and servant-Vicarious liability of master-Negligence of servant-Scope of employment-Discharge of ship- Plaintiff lorry driver on quay to receive cargo-Plaintiff struck by case suspended from ship's crane - Evidence that case (which belonged to second engineer) was put ashore by third engineer as personal favour to second engineer; that working of crane by third engineer was unauthorized and outside the scope of his employment; and that some assistance was given by donkeyman- Admitted negligence of third engineer - Claim for damages for personal injuries brought by plaintiff against shipowners - Effect of donkeyman's negligence, if any-Alleged recognized practice for crew to use ship's cranes without permission.

Lloyd's Law Reports