i-law

Lloyd's Law Reports

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

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1
Practice - Costs - Apportionment - Three similar actions - Actions set down and called on together - No consolidation or agreement between parties that first action should be test case - Same solicitors acting for plaintiffs in each case - Agreement between parties that evidence in first action should be deemed to be taken in second and third actions - Actions listed as part heard - Adjournment by consent of second and third actions - Judgment entered for plaintiffs in respect of first action - Appeal by defendants dismissed by C.A. - Taxation of costs - Objection raised by defendants that certain of costs, in particular the brief fees and costs of witnesses, should be apportioned between the three actions - Refusal by Taxing Master to apportion costs - Decision overruled by learned Judge on appeal on ground that relationship so closely approximated consolidation that apportionment should be made - Appeal by plaintiffs.

W. BRUCE, LTD. v. J. STRONG (KIRIL MISCHEFF, LTD., THIRD PARTIES; F. ABRAHAM & CO., FOURTH PARTIES; BAKIRZIS & CO. LTD., FIFTH PARTIES.)

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 5
Arbitration - Stay of action - Scott v. Avery clause - Sale of goods - Chain contracts for bale of figs - Breach - Deficiency in weights - Action brought by ultimate buyer against his seller - Notices served by defendant seller upon third party, by third party upon fourth party, and by fourth party upon fifth party - Sale by fifth party to fourth party under conditions and rules of London Dried Fruit Trade Association - Rules providing that disputes should be referred to arbitration and that

the obtaining of an award . . . shall be a condition precedent to the right of either contracting party to sue the other or take any other legal proceedings in respect of any claim arising out of such contract.

Any demand for arbitration . . . shall be made in writing within two months . . . Should the demand not be so made, the same shall be considered to be waived and absolutely barred.

Writ issued by plaintiff after two months had expired - Application for stay brought by fifth party - Order of Master refusing stay upheld by Parker, J. - Further order of Master, made under Sect. 25 (4) of Arbitration Act, 1950, that the provision making an award a condition precedent to the hearing of the action should be treated as of no effect, upheld by Slade, J. - Appeal by fifth party - Arbitration Act, 1950, Sects. 4, 25 (4), 27.

THE "GRANHILL."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 13
Salvage - Professional salvors - Basis of remuneration - Grounding in river - Risks involved - Services rendered by salvage tugs Elsfleth and Rechtenfleth to steamship Granhill aground in River Weser - Risk of hogging strain - Granhill refloated on next flood tide, without appreciable risk to tugs, services occupying about eight hours - Claim by salvors to special degree of remuneration, on ground that they were professional salvors - Evidence that salvors maintained salvage appliances in permanent readiness, but that such appliances were not used exclusively for salvage purposes.

THE "NIVERNAIS."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 20
Collision - River - Lights - Vessel moored - Seamanship - Look-out - Collision between motor vessel Nivernais and barges British Army and Antelope in Lower Pool, River Thames - Nivernais bound down; British Army secured by headrope to lighter at barge roads, Antelope being secured by headrope to stern of British Army - No riding lights exhibited on barges - Starboard helm action taken by Nivernais for white light seen on port bow - Astern action taken immediately she saw loom of barges close ahead - Collision between Nivernais and British Army followed immediately afterwards by collision between Nivernais and Antelope - Action brought against Nivernais - Dispute as to position of barges - Whether lying athwart navigable channel - Obligation as to lights - "Lighters moored or berthed or secured whether directly or by means of another lighter to a lighter moored or berthed shall not be required to exhibit the riding light" - Meaning of "moored" - Allegation that Nivernais was guilty of bad look-out and that she was navigated too close to barge roads - Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rules 5, 8, 16, 49.

BUNTEN & LANCASTER, LTD. v. WILTS QUALITY PRODUCTS (LONDON), LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 30
Sale of goods - Non-delivery - Failure of crop - Force majeure - Sale by defendants to plaintiffs of 10 tons of Kerasund hazelnut kernels at £265 per ton - Shipment to be during September/October, 1950 - 1950 crop - Condition in contract providing that Notwithstanding anything already stated in this contract sellers reserve the right to delay delivery or shipment and/or cancel without claim on either side the unshipped and/or undelivered portion of this contract in the event of their seller, failing to ship or deliver on account of strikes, civil commotions, war, civil war, failure of crops, force majeure, etc. and/or contributory causes.

Goods bought by defendants from J. - Failure by J. to make full delivery - Default by defendants - Purchase of goods by plaintiffs at enhanced market price - Difference in price claimed by plaintiffs as damages - Plea by defendants that 1950 crop was so subnormal as to entitle them to cancel under force majeure clause - Evidence as to average crop.

JONES v. SHAW SAVILL & ALBION COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 33
Negligence - Safe means of access - Ship's hold - Provision of ladders from deck to deck - Proximity to open hatchway - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer engaged in discharge of meat from refrigerated hold of ship - Descent of ship's ladder in order to reach hold - Base of ladder close to open hatchway leading to hold belong - Fall across coamings of hatchway in stepping off ladder - Claim against shipowners alleging common law negligence and/or breach of statutory duty - Duty to provide guard rail or to warn - Contributory negligence - Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulation 37 (a).

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY v. UNITED STATES. [THE "JOHN WORTHINGTON."]*

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 36
Insurance - Marine or war - Warlike operations - Negligent navigation - Collision between U.S. steamship John Worthington (under charter to U.S. Government) and U.S. mine-sweeper YMS-12 in approaches to New York Harbour - Damage to mine-sweeper - Collision admittedly due to negligent navigation by both vessels - Provision in charter-party that United States should provide a "standard hull war risk policy of the War Shipping Administration" and that shipowners should assume or insure against all other risks - Claim for half damages brought by U.S. against owners of John Worthington - Cross-claim by owners of John Worthington alleging that collision was a consequence of hostilities or warlike operations and that they were accordingly entitled to recover from U.S. as war risk insurer the amount recoverable from them by U.S. as owner of mine-sweeper - Dominant and effective cause - Onus of proof - American and British cases reviewed - "Rule of conformity."

FALMOUTH BOAT CONSTRUCTION, LTD. v. HOWELL.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 45
Repairs to ship - Illegality - Emergency legislation - Ambiguity - Licence - Authority of licensing officer - Oral permission - Retrospective effect of licence in writing-Omnia pr‘sumuntur rite esse acta-Repairs executed by plaintiffs to defendant's ship-Claim for balance for cost of repairs alleged to be due-Necessity for licence to execute repairs-Application made by plaintiffs for licence "to complete B.O.T. requirements, for modified Steam 3 Certificate"-Licensing officers authorized to sign licences-Licensing officers instructed by Admiralty that they "ought not to delay the putting in hand of obvious repairs merely pending the actual issue of a licence"-Work commenced by plaintiffs upon receiving oral permission of local licensing officer -Written licence subsequently issued authorizing the carrying out of repairs, alterations and drydocking-Provision in licence that it "shall automatically determine if any unauthorized repairs, alterations or drydocking are carried out"-Whether licence retrospective - Preliminary questions submitted to Official Referee - Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939-Defence Regulations, 1939 (as amended up to 1947), Nos. 55, 92-Restriction of Repairs of Ships Order, 1940.

TIERNEY v. A. J. GUPWELL (TRANSPORT), LTD., AND T. & J. HARRISON.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 55
Negligence - System of working - Proper equipment - Breach of statutory duty - Appeal from decision of trial Judge - Findings of fact - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff lorry driver - Lorry wed for transport of iron pipes to Brunswick Dock, Liverpool - Pipes consigned to second defendants (stevedores), who supplied mobile crane for purpose of unloading - Plaintiff and fellow lorry driver engaged in unloading operation - Plaintiff struck by pipe which slipped from snotter at commencement of lift by crane - Action brought by plaintiff against employers (first defendants), alleging that system of unloading was unsafe and that proper equipment was not supplied; against second defendants, alleging that equipment supplied was inadequate and unsafe and that their crane driver was negligent; and against both defendants, alleging that they were in breach of Regulation 41 of the Docks Regulations, 1934 - Appeal by plaintiff against decision of Gorman, J., dismissing claim-Onus of proof.

THE "BRIGHTON."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 65
Alien enemy-Right to sue-Licence issued by virtue of Royal Warrant-Jurisdiction of Court-Salvage claims brought by owners of German tugs in respect of services admittedly rendered to British steamship aground in River Weser-Preliminary objection taken by defendants that licence was invalid in that the Royal Warrant under which it was issued, having regard to its date, could not be taken to have contemplated proceedings by alien enemies who at that time were also enemy belligerents -Trading wth the Enemy Act, 1939, Sect. 2.

THE "PALACIO."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 68
Salvage - River - Grounding - Services rendered by plaintiffs' tug Danube VI to motor vessel Palacio aground in River Thames-Breakdown of engines of Palacio while proceeding down river -Grounding by stern on north side just before high tide, heading substantially down river-Tugs Musca and Tayra engaged to tow her off-Head of Palacio towed to southward so that she lay, with her stern still aground, heading athwart river-Tugs unable to tow her clear-Additional assistance by Danube VI offered and accepted - Parting of tow rope of Danube VI on first making fast-Connection re-established, Palacio then being towed clear by efforts of all three tugs-Services of Danube VI occupying about 25 min.- Risk to Palacio-Evidence that structure of Palacio was already weakened by previous grounding damage which had not been repaired-Criticism of handling of Danube VI-Risk to tugs- Salved value: £65,627.

COLEMAN v. HARLAND & WOLFF, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 76
Negligence-Safe system-Protection of workmen against occupational disease - Employers' duty of care - Washing facilities-Protective ointment-Dermatitis contracted by plaintiff boiler-maker employed by defendant ship-repairers in replacement of ship's boiler tubes - Conditions of work admittedly more strenuous and dirtier than usual - Action brought against employers - Alleged failure to take adequate precautions to protect workmen, in that better washing facilities and/or protective ointment should have been provided-Medical evidence that incidence of dermatitis among boiler-makers was very low-No evidence that any special precautions were normally taken in such circumstances.

MAHONEY v. W. H. COCKERLINE & CO., LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 76
Damages-Measure of damages-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff stevedore - Faulty ship's ladder - Claim against shipowners.

MURRIN v. CONVOYS, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 82
Negligence - Safe system - Lighting - Breach of statutory duty - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock Labourer-Plaintiff, employed by defendants in their warehouse, engaged in stacking barrels of lard in tiers-Fall from stack while manoeuvring barrel into position on fifth tier - Barrels lifted by crane from floor level and then manhandled by plaintiff into position- Allegations by plaintiff: that lighting was inadequate in breach of Regulation 3 of the Docks Regulations, 1934; that he was required to work at an unsafe height, having regard to the headroom and to the fact that the crane could not properly be operated so as to place the barrels in position in the fifth tier; and that there was lack of proper supervision by defendants of the method and siting of the stacking.

PARTABMULL RAMESHWAR v. K. C. SETHIA (1944), LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 89
Contract-Implied term-Non-delivery- Restriction on exports imposed by government - Insufficiency of quota allocation - Alleged implied term in contract excusing consequent non-performance - "Clean contract" - London Jute Association conditions- C.i.f. contracts entered into between appellant sellers and respondent buyers in July and September, 1947, for sale of 3500 bales of jute to be shipped from Calcutta and/or Chittagong to Genoa -Export of jute from Calcutta or Chittagong only permitted under government quota system - Quantity and destinations of each exporter's quota based on trade of one particular year chosen by exporter-No jute shipped to Italy by sellers in year chosen by them - Division of India in August, 1947 - Exports still restricted from Calcutta (India) on quota system already existing - Exports not restricted from Chittagong (Pakistan) until about February, 1948 - No application by sellers to ship jute from Calcutta to Italy until February, 1948 - 150 tons (about 850 bales), part of quota for Italy subsequently received, shipped to buyers from Calcutta-Application by sellers in September, 1948, to ship jute to Italy from Chittagong-Shipping dates extended by buyers at sellers' request until end of September, 1948 (one month's additional time also being allowed by contract terms) - Failure by sellers to ship contract quantity in time-Claim by buyers for damages - Contention by sellers that term should be implied in contracts that they were to be excused from performance if sufficient quota not obtained - Arbitration - Award in favour of sellers reversed by Appeal Committee of London Jute Association -Case stated - Award of Appeal Committee upheld by Lord Goddard, C.J., and C.A.-Appeal by sellers.

KYLE SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. WM. CORY & SON, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 98
Negligence - Discharge of vessel - Use of mechanical grabs - Damage to tank margin plates - Unusual grab damage - Onus of proof - Charter of plaintiffs' vessel by defendants to carry cargo of coal from Barry to London - Defendants to "discharge the cargo free of expense to the vessel" - Complaint by master during discharge of negligent use of grabs by defendants - Damage to limber boards and cement caps (usual damage during discharge by grabs) - Damage to tank margin plates (causing leal age from tank) - Claim by plaintiffs for damages - Offer by defendants to pay for "usual damage"-Allegation that grabs were dropped and swung at excessive speed- Evidence that speed was electrically controlled-Unlikelihood of grabs causing the damage to margin plates- Contention by defendants that such damage was due to heavy weather -Probabilities.

THE "AFRICA OCIDENTAL."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 107
Salvage - Stranding - Lifeboatmen as salvors-Services rendered by plaintiff crew of motor lifeboat Prudential to defendant Portuguese motor vessel Africa Ocidental, in charge of Trinity House pilot, aground on Goodwin Sands-Grounding at night, three hours before high water, in bad weather -Three of crew of Prudential put on board Africa Ocidental to help pilot- Soundings taken by Prudential to find safe course-Africa Ocidental refloated by own efforts, and brought to anchor in the Downs-Dispute as to place of grounding - Danger to Africa Ocidental-Claim by plaintiffs that success was due to their guidance- Denial by defendants of any assistance by plaintiffs.

GLENNISTER v. CONDON AND EASTERN GAS BOARD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 115
Negligence-Gas undertaking-Leakage of gas-Faulty supply pipes-Duties of occupier of premises and of Gas Board -Plaintiff injured in explosion upon first defendant's premises due to gas leakage-Premises fitted out by first defendant as refreshment bar-Installation of additional service pipe to gas equipment-Old domestic supply pipe in existence for very long time-Geyser connected to domestic supply pipe- Failure of geyser to work-Investigation by Gas Board (second defendants) -Recommendation by P. (Gas Board official) to occupier that new and larger supply pipe should be installed-No request by first defendant that such work should be carried out-Private contractor (E., a brass turner) subsequently employed by occupier to alter layout of pipes running from domestic supply pipe-Completion of work by 2 30 p.m. on day of explosion-Persistent smell of gas throughout following eight hours-Gas Board not informed- Explosion at about 10 20 p.m.-Claim by plaintiff against occupier and against Gas Board-Whether statutory duty of Gas Board to keep service pipes in proper and safe condition and to inspect old supply pipes-Whether P. should reasonably have concluded from his investigation that the domestic supply pipe was in such an unsatisfactory condition, and a consequent source of danger, that he should have warned occupier.

McLEOD v. BAUER.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 125
Negligence - Seamanship - Casting off of vessel from quay-Release of moorings - Use of fender - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff seaman while putting out fender on defendant's motor vessel Empire Fabric-Empire Fabric manoeuvring to leave quay with vessels moored ahead and astern - Setting of Empire Fabric towards moored vessel-Putting out of fender by plaintiff on order of mate-Plaintiff's arm crushed between vessels- Claim by plaintiff, alleging breach of duty of care by defendant-Allegation that order of mate was given too late- Plea by defendant that the accident was solely due to plaintiff's own negligence in the manner in which he held out fender.

JURGENSEN AND ANOTHER v. F. E. HOOKWAY & CO., LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 129
Sale of goods-Deceit-Fraudulent misrepresentation - Sale by sample - Breach of warranty-Sale of coffee by defendants to plaintiffs by sample- Contract in terms incorporating rules of General Produce Brokers' Association of London providing: 7. There is an implied condition that all goods contracted for are sound unless it is stated to the contrary at the time of entering into the contract or shown to the contrary in the sale sample.

Coffee bought by plaintiffs against sample tendered by defendants-Plaintiffs' belief that coffee was superior grade Santos from one shipper - Coffee, in fact, salved and damaged, rebagged and shipped from Cape Verde Islands - Claim by plaintiffs for damages, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit and breach of warranty-Further allegation by plaintiffs that defendants, knowing that plaintiffs were under a misapprehension as to quality, source, etc., of coffee, fraudulently allowed plaintiffs to continue in that belief-Evidence as to alleged misrepresentations-Plea by plaintiffs that sample was too small to show defects and that they were not informed that coffee was damaged- Contention by defendants that, in a sale by sample, any reference to the condition of the subject-matter was not necessary.

CHAPPELL v. SILVERTOWN SERVICES, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 150
Lightermen-Wages-Plaintiff lighterman, defendants' employee, instructed by W. R. (defendants' assistant labour master) to go to dock and pick up barge to be towed to refinery down river - Doubt expressed by plaintiff as to whether job could be finished by midnight -Obligation to employ men on "long night" rota if job necessitated working after midnight-S. R. (shift foreman at refinery) informed by plaintiff at 8 p.m. of his inability to finish job by midnight and that he would be leaving barge - Acceptance of position by S. R. and orders given to plaintiff by S. R. for following day-No wages paid in respect of plaintiff's attendance upon job - Contention by defendants that plaintiff should have stayed on barge and completed job as instructed by W.R.-Claim by plaintiff for wages stopped.

BLANE STEAMSHIPS, LTD. v. MINISTER OF TRANSPORT.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 155
Charter-party-Frustration-Implied term -Constructive total loss-Cesser of hire -Option to purchase-Ship under time-charter from M.O.T.-Obligation upon charterers to insure-Policy moneys recoverable to be assigned to owner - Charterers given option to purchase- Grounding of ship eventually resulting in total loss-Effect upon option to purchase exercised by charterers after grounding-Provisions of charter: 7. . . . The charterers shall throughout this charter-party insure the ship and keep her insured at the charterers' own expense against all the usual marine and war risks for and on a valuation of £130,000 sterling . . . and shall assign to the owner the current policies of insurance and all moneys insured by or to become payable under the said policies and the full benefit thereof . . . 8. If the ship be lost, hire shall be paid up to and inclusive of the day of loss, or, if missing, up to and inclusive of the day last reported. Should the ship become a constructive total loss, such loss shall be deemed to have occurred on and hire under this charter-party shall cease as from the day of the casualty resulting in such loss . . . 11. . . . The charterers shall have the option to be exercised by notice in writing given to the owner not later than three months before the expiration of this charter-party to purchase the ship as she then lies for the sum of £130,000 (basic price for purchase) less depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum for the period between the date of delivery hereunder and the date of transfer of the ship to the charterers.

Grounding of ship on Sept. 5, 1950- Notice of abandonment given to underwriters by charterers on Sept. 6, notice being confirmed by M.O.T. on Sept. 8-Abandonment not accepted-Option to purchase exercised by charterers on Sept. 7-Subsequent payment by underwriters on basis of total loss-Claim by charterers for declaration that they were entitled to benefit of policy moneys-Contention by M.O.T. that option was not validly exercised by charterers in that at the time it was exercised (1) the ship was a constructive total loss; (2) the ship being to all intents and purposes incapable of further use as a ship, and the commercial purpose of the charter-party being thereby frustrated, it was to be implied that the charter-party automatically terminated - Plea by charterers that the express terms of the charter-party excluded the implication that the commercial impossibility of the further performance of the purposes of the charter-party should put an end to it-Construction of charter-party- Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 60, 61.

THE "PAUST."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 171
Salvage - Loss of propeller - Services rendered by plaintiffs' motor trawler Bonnybridge to defendants' motor tanker Paust in Atlantic Ocean - -Paust adrift off Cape Farewell, Greenland, after losing propeller - Request for assistance answered by Bonnybridge-Towage in good weather 425 miles to depot ship at Faeringehavn -Two intermediate havens passed at request of Paust-Potential risk of fog and ice in midsummer - Dangerous coast-Services lasting 212 to 3 days- Loss of fishing-Salved value, £46,059; Award, £9000.

THE "AID."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 172
Collision-Dock-Moored barge-Alleged collision between plaintiffs' tug Gondia and barge Aid in possession of defendants, in Royal Albert Dock, London- Aid moored to other barges-Allegation by plaintiffs that Aid swung out, obstructing passage of Gondia-Denial of collision by defendants - Evidence of damage to vessels and of moorings of Aid.

FRASER & WHITE, LTD. v. VERNON.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 175
Towage - Contract - Towage conditions -Towage services or services of specific tugs - Contract by plaintiff tugowners "for the services of our two tugs the F.W. No. 23 and Eclair to take over from a sea tug a Floating Dock . . . and then tow the Dock to Birdham Pool (Chichester Harbour]. This tow, of course, is collected subject to [United Kingdom Standard Towage Conditions], also subject to the tugs being able to get to Birdham Pool with the dock" - Clause 6 of Conditions providing: The tugowner will not be responsible for the consequences of war, strikes, lock-outs, riots, civil commotions, disputes or labour disturbances (whether they be parties thereto or not) or anything done in contemplation or furtherance thereof, or delays of any description, however caused, including negligence of their servants or agents.

Arrival of dock in tow of sea tug off Chichester Harbour - Decision of master of F.W. No. 23 that plaintiffs' two tugs would not be able to tow dock into Birdham Pool - Towing of dock into Birdham Pool by F.W. No. 23 and Eclair with assistance of additional tug on following day-Detention of sea tug - Claim by plaintiffs for towage services - Counterclaim by defendant for demurrage for detention of sea tug -Plea by plaintiffs that Clause 6 of Conditions excepted liability for any delay - Contention by defendant that contract was one for towage services and not for specific tugs, and that plaintiffs' tugs were not fit for the purpose.

VON TRAUBENBERG v. DAVIES, TURNER & CO., LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 179
Forwarding agents - Insurance during transit - Valuable goods - Agreement by defendant forwarding agents to send on plaintiff's suitcase upon arrival in United Kingdom - Case containing valuable silver heirlooms- Customs documents handled by defendants detailing contents of case - Account rendered by defendants to plaintiff itemizing charges-No mention of insurance - Case dispatched by defendants from London to Liverpool by passenger train at "Company's risk" rates-No special declaration of value made under Carriers Act - -Loss of case and contents-Claim by plaintiff-Contention that defendants were aware that the contents of the case were valuable and that they were consequently under an obligation to insure the goods or warn plaintiff; alternatively, that defendants as forwarding agents were under a duty to inquire whether the goods were insured in transit-Reference in defendants' account to conditions under which work was undertaken-Effect.

EDMONDS v. CUNARD WHITE STAR, LTD.+

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 185
Damages-Assessment-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff maintenance engineer while leaving defendants' ship by means of a rope ladder-Snapping of rope-Fall, resulting in injuries to right hip and right elbow, and loss of sight in right eye-Claim by plaintiff for damages-Admission of liability by defendants-Matters to be taken into consideration - Continuance in same employment-Risk of unemployment- Award of £2765 7s. 4d. damages (including £15 7s. 4d. special damages).

SHANKLIN PIER, LTD. v. DETEL PRODUCTS, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 187
Sale of goods-Breach of warranty- Consideration for warranty - Third party caused to enter into contract with warrantor-Cause of action-Consideration - Contract entered into between plaintiffs and C. Ltd. by which C. Ltd. undertook to repair and paint with bituminous paint plaintiffs' seaside pier - Representations made by defendants to plaintiffs that defendants' D.M.U. paint was more suitable for purpose - Instructions accordingly given by plaintiffs to contractors that D.M.U. paint should be used-D.M.U. paint purchased by C. Ltd.-D.M.U. paint in fact unsuitable -Pier subsequently painted by C. Ltd. with bituminous paint at further cost to plaintiffs - Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for damages for breach of warranty that paint supplied to C. Ltd. was suitable for purpose- Denial by defendants that any such warranty was given - Further contention that no cause of action lay against defendants as they were not parties to contract between plaintiffs and C. Ltd.

COOK v. R. & H. GREEN AND SILLEY WEIR, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 194
Negligence-Safe plant and appliances- System of working-Failure to warn- Contributory negligence - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, a plater's helper, employed by defendant ship-repairers-Defendants engaged in repair to steamship in London wet dock -Plaintiff assisting in replacement of plating in ship's side-Use of ship's winch to lower plates into position- Plate caught up, lifting wire being close to taffrail-Attempt made by plaintiff to release plate by grasping wire-Plate suddenly released, causing wire to tighten and resulting in crushing of plaintiff's hand between wire and taffrail - Plea by plaintiff that defendants were negligent in that the proper plant to use was a block and tackle; in that defendants failed to warn plaintiff that it was dangerous for him to stand where he was; and in that defendants had failed to provide a safe system of working - Onus of proof.

D. H. BROAD, LTD. v. GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 201
Contract - Breach - Exceptions clause - Expert examination of motor vehicle to be purchased-Failure by examiner to use care and skill - Liability - Proposed purchase of bulldozer by plaintiffs - Contract entered into between plaintiffs and defendant insurance company whereby company agreed to carry out an expert examination on plaintiffs' behalf-Term of contract that The report to be furnished does not imply any warranty of condition or description of the plant examined, nor is the [insurance company] in any way liable in case any dispute shall arise as to such condition or description.

Purchase made by plaintiffs following upon defendants' expert's report - Allegation by plaintiffs that bulldozer was defective - Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for damages on ground that defendants had failed to exercise care and skill in the examination -Denial of negligence-Further plea by defendants that they were in any case protected by contractual terms -Construction-Preliminary point of law.

THE "FIREDOG."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 205
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.

ALLMANNA SVENSKA ELEKTRISKA AKTIEBOLAGET v. BURNTISLAND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 211
Patent - Ship propulsion - High speed diesel engines - Electro-magnetic coupling - Infringement - Novelty - Non-utility-Action brought by plaintiffs (Swedish company) seeking an injunction restraining defendants (British shipbuilding company) from supplying and installing in ships a diesel power unit which included a particular form of electro-magnetic coupling between the engine and the mechanical reduction gear - Alleged infringement of plaintiffs' letters patent published in United Kingdom in 1936-Claim for damages-Plea by defendants that plaintiffs' letters patent were invalid by reason of (a) prior publication; (b) prior common general knowledge-Counterclaim by defendants for revocation-Evidence of British and foreign letters patent published before 1936-Consideration of specifications therein contained.

THE "PUNTA MESCO."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 230
Negligent navigation - Canal - Leaving dock - Right of way - Look-out - Plaintiffs' steamship Audun under way down Manchester Ship Canal, having just left No. 6 Dock, Manchester- Defendants' steamship Punta Mesco, in tow of head and stern tugs, leaving Dock No. 9 stern first-Each vessel in charge of pilot - Signals sounded by each vessel-Lights of Punta Mesco and steam tug sighted by Audun overland on starboard bow at distance of about 1000 ft.-Porting by Audun- Astern action maintained by Punta Mesco-Full ahead action by Punta Mesco at last moment, causing stern of Audun to sheer to port-Full ahead and hard-a-port action by Audun to correct sheer-Collision between stem of Audun and port quarter of tug Pomona, lying at Salford Quay - Admission of liability for collision by Audun - Right of recovery against Punta Mesco-Each pilot aware that the other vessel was due to leave dock-Whether either vessel had right of way.

COLLINS v. HARLAND & WOLFF, LTD., AND STAFF CATERERS, LTD

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 235
Negligence - Safe premises - Canteen floor - Spilt food - Slipperiness - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when, after collecting his meal, he slipped on floor of canteen provided by first defendants and operated by second defendant caterers-Dispute as to cause of accident-Whether due to presence of food spilt on floor or to plaintiff's worn footwear - Proof - Alleged obligation upon defendants to keep floor clean and free from danger.

RAILWAY EXECUTIVE v. ESTRADES, LTD., AND COWAN.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 239
Sale of goods (c.i.f.)-Conversion-Detinue - Bailment - Delivery by bailees to buyers without presentation of bill of lading-Mistake-Claim by bailees- Alleged variation of contract terms by sellers-Right of buyers to possession- Sale of tinned ham by French sellers to defendants-Payment to be effected by defendants by irrevocable letter of credit on London, payable against presentation of clean bill of lading, invoice, certificate of insurance and sanitary certificate-Goods consigned by sellers through French carriers and D. (British shipping and forwarding agents) to London depot of [British] Railway Executive (plaintiffs)-Consignment notes and invoices sent by French carriers to plaintiffs indicating that goods were consigned to defendants, and indorsed "Special bill of lading issued"-Practice for plaintiffs to enter invoice details on to detention sheet, which governed plaintiffs' subsequent actions-Note that "Special bill of lading issued" not inserted in detention sheet-Goods delivered by plaintiffs to defendants against delivery order issued by D.-Claim by plaintiffs against defendants alleging conversion and/or detinue of goods delivered by mistake, of which, plaintiffs contended, defendants were well aware-Plea by defendants that, by subsequent agreement with sellers, defendants were entitled to delivery without production of bills of lading.

DRINKWATER AND ANOTHER v. KIMBER.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 255
Husband and wife-Contribution between joint tortfeasors-Injuries sustained by wife (plaintiff) in motor accident - Wife travelling as passenger in car driven by husband-Collision with defendant's car-Negligence of both husband (one-third) and defendant (two-thirds)-Admitted liability of defendant in claim brought by wife- Counterclaim by defendant against husband alleging that, as joint tortfeasor, he was liable to contribute towards damages payable by defendant to wife - Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, Sect. 6 (1): Where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort . . . any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage may recover contribution from any other tortfeasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage. . . . Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945, Sect. 1: (1) Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage. . . (3) Sect. 6 of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935 (which relates to proceedings against, and contribution between, joint and several tortfeasors), shall apply in any case where two or more persons are liable or would, if they had all been sued, be liable by virtue of sub-s. (1) of this section in respect of the damage suffered by any person.

Scope of Act of 1945-Reliance upon Sect. 1 (1)-Suggested superfluity of Sect. 1 (3)-Definition of "damage."

BOARD OF TRADE v. STEEL BROTHERS & CO., LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259
Sale of goods (f.o.b.)-Quality-Sale of rubber-Defective packing causing damage-Time limit for claims on quality-Sale of 912 tons R.M.A. 2 ribbed smoked sheet rubber in bales -Incorporation of terms of F.O.B. Contract for Eastern Ports adopted by Rubber Trade Association of London -Provisions in contract that "in the case of ribbed smoked sheets each package of rubber shall be completely wrapped on all sides with equal quality sheet"; that "buyer shall be entitled to claim an allowance if it is proved that the contents have deteriorated owing to defective packing"; and that claims in respect of inferior quality, "to be as described above," must be made "not later than 60 days after discharge of goods . . . into recognized warehouse" - Rubber damaged by hessian coverings impregnated with colouring matter-Notice of claim given to sellers by buyers 85 days after discharge into warehouse-Plea by sellers that claim was one as to quality and so, under the "Quality Clause," out of time-Contention by buyers that claim, although relating to physical condition of the rubber, was not an objection as to quality - Arbitration- Award in favour of sellers-Appeal- Case stated.

MINISTER OF FOOD v. REARDON SMITH LINE, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 265
Charter-party-Damage to cargo-Liability of shipowners - Exceptions from liability-"Act, neglect, or default in the management of the ship"-Unseaworthiness -Charter of ship to carry full cargo of wheat from Australia to U.K.-Incorporation of provisions of Arts. III (except Rule 8), IV, VIII and IX of Schedule to Australian Sea-Carriage of Goods Act, 1924, which "shall apply to this charter-party and shall be deemed to be inserted in extenso therein"-Damage to cargo due to overflowing of water ballast tanks in course of ship repair survey at port of discharge - Claim against shipowners-Arbitration-Findings by umpire that the tank lids had been removed and replaced during the course of survey; that the chief officer had instructed an employee of the repairers to harden down the tank lids after replacement; and that the chief officer was negligent in pumping up the tanks without ensuring that they had been made watertight-Further finding that the shipowners

failed to exercise due diligence at the beginning of the voyage, pursuant to Art. III of the Schedule to the said Act, to make the No. 2 hold fit and safe for the reception, carriage and preservation of the cargo of wheat loaded and carried therein in that the after 'tween deck scupper pipes were sealed with cement instead of being covered with burlap; but I find that substantial damage to the wheat in the No. 2 lower hold would have occurred even if the scupper pipes had been covered with burlap only, although I am unable to find whether, and, if so, by what amount, the damage would have thereby been decreased.

Award that shipowners were exempted from liability "by reason of Minister of Food v. Reardon Smith Line, Ltd. K.B. 266 Art. IV, Rule 2 (a), of the Schedule of the said Act"-Case stated-Question for Court: Whether shipowners exempted from liability by reason of Art. IV, Rule 2 (a), of the Schedule to the Act of 1924-Contentions by charterer: (1) that in view of the umpire's findings that the overflowing of the tanks was in part due to the act (whether negligent or otherwise) of an employee of the repairers, the shipowners had failed to bring themselves within the exception of "act, neglect, or default in the management of the ship"; (2) that, there being a finding of negligence amounting to an "act, neglect, or default" within Art. IV (2) (a) and also a finding that the shipowners failed to exercise due diligence at the beginning of the voyage to make the ship seaworthy pursuant to Art. III, the shipowners were not protected unless there was an affirmative finding by the umpire that the unseaworthiness did not contribute to the loss-Construction of charter-party -Provisions of Act included as a matter of contract.

WASHBOURN v. SCOTTISH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 273
Negligence-Safe means of access on board ship-Open hatch-Absence of lights- Sphere of employment - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff apprentice electrician employed by contractors engaged on repair work to defendants' motor vessel in London dry dock-Ship recently fumigated, traces of gas remaining in forepeak-Forepeak hatch left open for purpose of ventilation- Plaintiff instructed by charge-hand to proceed to electricians' store in forecastle for purposes in connection with his work-Fall down forepeak hatch situated at rear of electricians' store- Forepeak without lights - Danger notice ["Danger, Forepeak hatch open"] displayed at entrances to alleyways leading past electricians' store to forepeak-Claim against shipowners alleging common law negligence and/or breach of statutory duty-Dispute as to manner in which plaintiff sustained his injury - Circumstantial evidence - Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931, Regulations 10, 42 (b).

ANGLO-SWEDISH ELECTRIC WELDING COMPANY, LTD. v. BROWN.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279
Repairs to ship-Contract-Dispute as to items - Proof - Plaintiffs' case incorrectly pleaded - Defendant misled - Alleged delay in effecting repairs - Counterclaim for detention - Costs - Repairs to defendant's tug effected by plaintiffs-Writ issued by plaintiffs claiming £142 for work done, which included £99 for hull and deck repairs and a further £43 for ventilator repairs -Denial by defendant that he authorized any work to be performed in excess of a cost of £99-Plaintiffs' case argued on footing that £99 was incurred in respect of repairs to hull and that further £43 was mainly incurred in respect of deck repairs and the remainder (approximately £10) in respect of ventilator repairs - Counterclaim by defendant for detention of tug on ground that repairs were to be effected in "about seven days" and that repairs in fact took nearly three weeks.

PARDOE v. NEW ZEALAND SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283
Negligence-System of working-Stowage of cargo (drums of cable) in ship's hold -"Reasonable measures to guard against accident"-Use of piece of dunnage to move drums-Plaintiff, defendants' employee, in charge of gang stowing drums of cable in hold of defendants' vessel-Plaintiff working under supervision of K., also defendants' employee-Piece of dunnage used as lever to direct course of drum-Breakage of piece of dunnage, resulting in drum rolling over plaintiff's toe-Alleged failure by defendants to provide safe system of working- Contributory negligence-Practice of Port of London-Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulation 41.

ACCINANTO, LTD., AND OTHERS v. A/S J. LUDWIG MOWINCKELS AND ANOTHER. [THE "OCEAN LIBERTY."]*

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 285
Bill of lading-Loss of cargo-Fire and explosion-Lack of adequate ventilation of dangerous cargo-Knowledge of carriers-Seaworthiness-Due diligence -Deviation owing to strike at unloading port-Cargo of ammonium nitrate fertilizer loaded at Baltimore in lower holds of defendants' ship- Plaintiffs' general cargo loaded at Baltimore and New York for Antwerp and Le Havre-Scheduled voyage for Antwerp, Cherbourg, Le Havre and Boulogne - Strike of stevedores at Antwerp-Ship diverted by defendants to Brest-Fire discovered in fertilizer a few days after arrival at Brest, followed by explosion which completely destroyed ship and cargo-Claim by plaintiffs for damages, alleging (1) failure to deliver; (2) deviation-Plea by defendants that they were protected by Sect. 4 (2) of the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936, which provided that the carrier should not be responsible for loss or damage resulting from "(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier"; further, that the deviation was reasonable under Sect. 4 (4) of the Act - Dangerous characteristics of fertilizer as cargo-Evidence that two months before the present loading there had occurred in Texas City a catastrophic fire and explosion in a ship loaded with a similar cargo-Duty of defendants to make proper inquiry as to precautions necessary to be taken in the carriage of such cargo-Susceptibility to spontaneous combustion - Necessity to provide adequate ventilation-Meaning of "reasonable deviation"-Onus of proof.

D. H. BROAD, LTD. v. GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 295
Contract - Breach - Exceptions clause - Expert examination of motor vehicle to be purchased-Failure by examiner to use care and skill-Liability- Proposed purchase of bulldozer by plaintiffs - Contract entered into between plaintiffs and defendant insurance company whereby company agreed to carry out an expert examination on plaintiffs' behalf - Term of contract that The report to be furnished does not imply any warranty of condition or description of the plant examined, nor is the insurance company in any way liable in case any dispute shall arise as to such condition or description.

Purchase made by plaintiffs following upon defendants' expert's report- Allegation by plaintiffs that bulldozer was defective - Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for damages on ground that defendants had failed to exercise care and skill in the examination - Denial of negligence - Further plea by defendants that they were in any case protected by contractual terms -Construction-Preliminary point of law

FAWCETT v. SMITH'S DOCK COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 299
Factories Act, 1937-Safe means of access- Floor of workshop - Maintenance - Obstruction of floor of plumbers' shop by pipes-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff plumber's mate, employed in defendants' plumbers' shop-Plaintiff, in course of employment, required to go to piece office in ship-Alternative means of access-Short route obstructed by welder at work-Longer route taken by plaintiff-Many pipes lying on floor of that part of shop-Fall while stepping over pipes-Evidence as to condition of floor-Claim dismissed by Stable, J., on ground that floor was properly maintained; that there was a safe means of access; and that accident was due to plaintiff's own negligence - Appeal by plaintiff - Whether learned Judge had come to a wrong decision in law in that it was to be inferred from his judgment that he had found that, although the means of access was obstructed, it was a complete answer to plaintiff's claim that he was aware of such obstruction- Sects. 25 (1), 26 (1).

H.M.S. "TRUCULENT."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 308
Limitation of liability-H.M. ships-Collision - Misleading lights - Duty to issue warning-"Actual fault or privity of owner"-Collision between H.M. submarine Truculent and Swedish steamship Divina in Thames Estuary-Truculent sunk-Admitted negligence of both ships-Agreed apportionment of blame: Truculent, 75 per cent.; Divina, 25 per cent. -Life claims brought against Admiralty - Action brought by Admiralty for limitation of liability- Evidence that Divina was exhibiting red light of ship carrying petroleum and that lights of Truculent did not comply with Art. 2 (a) of Collision Regulations (which by Admiralty Instructions were made applicable to H.M. ships)-Plea by life claimants in objection to limitation action that there was fault or privity on part of Admiralty in that no notice was given by Admiralty that at the particular time the Truculent or other submarines would be navigating on surface at night in Thames Estuary; that Truculent in the particular area should have carried compulsory pilot or have been in charge of an officer with full knowledge of local rules relating to exhibition of lights on petroleum ships; that lights exhibited by Truculent did not comply with Collision Regulations and were so placed that they were liable to mislead, and did in fact mislead, those in charge of Divina; and that no notice was issued warning mariners that H.M. submarines might be found navigating on surface at night with lights which did not comply with Collision Regulations -Evidence that it was impracticable for submarines to comply with requirements of Collision Regulations as to positioning of lights-Whether exhibition of misleading lights on Truculent was a fault on part of person or persons whose fault or privity would defeat Admiralty's limitation claim- H.M.S. "Truculent." Adm. 309 Statutory duty upon Admiralty to equip ships with proper lights- Whether mere proof of defective lights was sufficient to preclude Admiralty from establishing absence of "fault or privity"-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sects. 419, 503, 741-Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, Sect. 5.

FAIRFLIGHT, LTD. v. HANDFORD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 321
Air Navigation Order, 1949-Certificate of airworthiness - Distribution of load - Proof of weights-Centre of gravity- Breach by owners - Conviction - Case stated - Loss of aircraft with 75 passengers and 8 crew - Three survivors - Inquiry by Ministry of Civil Aviation - Absence of load sheets-No evidence of actual loaded weights- Estimation of load - Adoption by Ministry of notional weights specified in Air Navigation (General) Regulations, 1949-Calculation by Ministry that aircraft was so loaded that centre of gravity was aft of permitted limits- Conviction by Justices on information preferred by Ministry-Imposition of fine-Appeal by owners against conviction - Whether evidence justifying findings of Justices-Air Navigation Order, 1949, Arts. 10 (1) (b), 16 (5) (iii), 26 (4) (d), 65-Air Navigation (General) Regulations, 1949, Regulations 37, 38 (3).

PAVIA & CO., S.P.A. v. THURMANN-NIELSEN.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 328
Sale of goods (c. & f.)-Payment-Confirmed credit to be opened by buyers- Time for opening-Sale of 3000 tons of Brazilian groundnuts c. & f. Genoa- Shipment of 1500 tons in February and/or March and/or April, 1949; of further 1500 tons in March and/or April and/or May, 1949-Brazilian export licence to be obtained by sellers; Italian import licence to be obtained by buyers -Confirmed credit to be opened by buyers in favour of sellers and to be utilizable by sellers against delivery of documents-Buyers notified by sellers on Feb. 9 that export licence had been obtained - Request to buyers to open credit-Credit not made available to sellers until Apr. 22, 1949-Claim by sellers for damages - Arbitration - Dispute as to time when credit should be made available to sellers-Contention by sellers that credit should be made available to them as far as reasonably practicable throughout shipping period -Contention by buyers that there was no obligation on their part to open credit in sellers' favour until sellers were themselves ready to tender the documents or had taken steps to ship the goods-Award in favour of sellers- Appeal by buyers-Consultative case stated by appeal arbitrators.

T. F. MALTBY, LTD. v. PELTON STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 332
Contract-Indemnity-Stevedores-Claims relating to personal injuries - Stevedores to take "reasonable precautions to prevent accidents" and not to use "improper or inadequate gear"-Discharge of defendants' ship by plaintiff stevedores - "Tripping line" rigged by foreman stevedore - Block and pulley (part of apparatus) fixed to lampholder-Foreman warned by chief officer that lampholder was unsuitable for purpose-Collapse of lampholder, block falling and injuring employee of plaintiffs - Liability for personal injuries claim admitted by plaintiffs- Settlement of claim-Right of plaintiffs to indemnity by shipowners - Agreement by shipowners to indemnify plaintiffs

in respect of all claims relating to personal injury by accident to your employees . . . arising out of and in the course of the work of discharging the said vessel by ship's or stevedore's gear . . . it being stipulated and agreed that you shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and to comply with all statutory requirements, also have your gear regularly and properly tested and not use improper or inadequate gear.

Use of "improper or inadequate gear" - Meaning of "gear" - Distinction between use by employers in business sense and use by employee in physical sense.

DAVIES v. SHAW SAVILL & ALBION COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 338
Negligence-System of working-Loading bank in docks-Necessity for guard rail - Supervision - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer engaged in loading cases of butter from bogie to lorry-Lorry backed with tailboard projecting over side and end of loading bank - Bogie loaded from defendants' ship at dockside and wheeled into position on bank by plaintiff and his mates - Plaintiff carrying out his work in awkward and dangerous position on bank - Fall off end of bank (which was about 3 ft. above ground) - Claim against shipowners -Contentions by plaintiff that shipowners had failed to provide safe system of working; that they should have provided a guard rail at the end of bank; and that they had failed to exercise proper supervision in the unloading operation - Evidence of supervision exercised by defendants.

TRUCKS & SPARES, LTD. v. MARITIME AGENCIES (SOUTHAMPTON), LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 345
Detinue-Title to goods-Sale of goods- Shipment - Delivery by carrier to purchasers at destination - Right of purchasers to delivery without production of bills of lading-Proof of title- Sale of goods by H. to plaintiffs (Canadian company) - Goods shipped by H. to Canada in defendants' ship- Freight prepaid - Shipping charges owing by H. to defendants in respect of previous shipments-Refusal by defendants to issue original bills of lading to H. until outstanding account settled- H. supplied with copies of bills of lading-Delivery of goods demanded by plaintiffs at destination-Refusal by defendants to deliver without production of bills of lading-Title to goods- Passing of property - Mandatory injunction granted by Devlin, J., on an interim application by plaintiffs, ordering that defendants should deliver up goods to plaintiffs-Appeal by defendants.

HEAD & CO., LTD. v. ROPNER HOLDINGS, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 348
Companies - Share premium account - Amalgamation of shipping companies in holding company - Issue of shares pound for pound - Excess value of assets over nominal issued capital- Balance sheet - Method of showing accounts - Issue of shares "at a premium, whether for cash or otherwise" -Formation of holding company to acquire, for purpose of amalgamation, whole of issued capital of A and B Companies - Distribution of capital profit dividend to shareholders of A Company (having the larger assets) to permit pound for pound issue of shares of holding company to shareholders of A and B Companies-Real value of assets in excess of nominal share value -Excess value of assets over nominal share value set out in balance sheet of holding company under "Capital Reserve, Share Premium Account"- Motion by shareholders in objection - Companies Act, 1948, Sect. 56 (1).

THE "WIRRAL BANK."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 352
Collision - River Thames - Look-out - Starboard-hand rule-Vessel approaching sharp bend-Navigation against the tidal stream - Crossing vessel navigating against tide-Vessel towing more than 150 ft. in length-Lights- Seamanship - Navigation single-handed - Collision between steam hopper King's Channel (with hopper Irk in tow alongside) and steamship Wirral Bank in Gallions Reach, River Thames, near Tripcock Point-King's Channel bound up river, rounding Point on south (her wrong) side - Wirral Bank, having cast off from jetty on north side, crossing diagonally across river preparatory to proceeding down-Flood tide-Vessels sighted by each other when half a mile apart- Red light of Wirral Bank open on starboard bow of King's Channel; green light of King's Channel open on port bow of Wirral Bank-Collision in southern half of mid-channel between port bow of Wirral Bank and starboard bow of King's Channel - Allegations against King's Channel: that she was improperly navigating on her wrong side of the river and that, as a ship over 150 ft. in length, she was not carrying the second masthead light required by the Thames Rules- Obligation to show such additional masthead light where ship was also required to show towing lights - Allegations against Wirral Bank: that being aware of the position of King's Channel she (Wirral Bank) crossed at an improper time (in breach of Rule 39) and was also in breach of her duty under Rule 42 (a) in failing to "ease her speed or stop"-Applicability of both Rules-Criticism of single-handed navigation-Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rules 8 (b), 14 (a), 38, 39, 42 (a). Collision - Navigation single-handed - Justification-Matters to be considered. Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rules 8 (b), 14 (a)-Lights to be exhibited by vessel over 150 ft. in length which is towing. Port of London River By-Laws, 1938, Rules 38, 39, 42 (a)-Respective duties of vessels. Port of London River By-Laws, 1938, Rules 39, 42 (a)-Applicability of both Rules.

LOWTHER v. GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 363
Negligence-Safe means of access-Ship's gangway - Method of securing - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff stevedore engaged in unloading defendants' ship in London dock-Fall down gangway alleged to be due to tripping over rope which secured gangway to ship - Claim alleging common law negligence and/or breach of statutory duty - Onus of proof - Evidence as to method of securing gangway to ship- Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulation 9.

BANK MELLI IRAN v. BARCLAYS BANK (DOMINION, COLONIAL & OVERSEAS).

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 367
Banking-Documentary credits-Payment against documents-Confirmed credit opened by British bank under instructions of foreign bank-Need for strict conformity with mandate-Principal and agent-Ratification-Purchase by E. Ltd. on behalf of K. (Persian national) of 100 new Chevrolet trucks, part of surplus stores being disposed of by U.S. Foreign Liquidation Commissioner -Instructions given by Persian bank to British bank to open confirmed credit for £45,000 in favour of E. Ltd.- Payment of £40,000 authorized against presentation of delivery order, invoice, policies in name of Persian bank, and U.S. Government undertaking confirming that trucks were new-Payment of balance of £5000 (on account of freight, insurances, etc.) authorized against on board bills of lading (indorsed to order of Persian bank), freight, insurance, etc.-Invoices tendered in respect of 100 Chevrolet trucks "in new condition" -Certificate issued by U.S. Government official that purchase had been made of 100 "new, good" Chevrolet trucks- Delivery order describing trucks as "new-good"-Payment of £40,000 made by British bank against documents tendered - Action brought by Persian bank alleging that payments had not been made in accordance with their instructions and claiming a declaration that British bank were not entitled to debit Persian bank with sums paid-Plea by British bank that payments had been made in accordance with the instructions of the Persian bank; further, that Persian bank had ratified such payments-Relationship between Persian and British banks considered - Evidence of course of action taken by Persian bank after receipt of documents against which British bank had paid.

PERHAM v. EASTERN & AUSTRALIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 379
Negligence - Safe means of access - Obstruction upon deck - Unusual danger - Proof - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer in May, 1948, on leaving defendants' vessel - Alleged trip over eye-plate while walking along narrow deck space - Claim by plaintiff against defendant shipowners - Amendment of plaintiff's case during hearing- New allegation by plaintiff that dunnage was negligently allowed to remain on the deck, obstructing his way and causing him to fall - Responsibility of hatchwayman (plaintiff's fellow workman) for dunnage being on deck-Common employment.

WATERS TRADING COMPANY, LTD. v. DALGETY & CO., LTD.*

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 385
Bill of lading - Damage to cargo after discharge by stevedores - Liability of stevedores to consignees - Conditions protecting "carrier," which included "the master and the agents of the carrier" - Shipment of goods (coir yarn) in Dutch motor vessel from India to Australia-Incorporation of Hague Rules-Goods to be delivered to consignees on presentation of bill of lading or delivery order-Contract entered into between shipowners and defendants (stevedores) whereby defendants agreed to do the work of discharging, stacking and storing of cargo-Cargo damaged by rainwater after discharge but before delivery to plaintiffs (consignees) - Claim in tort brought against stevedores -Provisions in bill of lading: Period of responsibility. The responsibility of the carrier shall commence only when the tackle of the carrier's ship is hooked onto the cargo for loading and cease absolutely when such tackle is unhooked in the process of discharging. Goods in the custody of the carrier or his servants before loading and after discharge whether being forwarded to or from the ship or whether awaiting shipment, landed, or stored, or put into hulk or craft belonging to the carrier or not, or pending transhipment at any stage of the whole transport, are in such custody at the sole risk of the shipper and the carrier shall not be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from any cause whatsoever.

Whether defendants entitled to benefit of protection or immunity afforded by bill of lading to shipowners or their agents; and, if so, whether provisions of bill of lading afforded defendants a valid defence to plaintiffs' claim-Case stated by Commercial Court Judge for opinion of full Court.

FLAHERTY v. SMITH COGGINS, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 397
Negligence - Onus of proof - Accident - Possible cause-Reasonable inference- Probabilities - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer, in defendants' employ, while loading ship in Liverpool dock-Plaintiff and three fellow workmen engaged in shifting heavy wooden cases into wings of hold -Use of hooks to roll over cases-Fall of case on to plaintiff's foot - Admission by plaintiff that hooks might slip without negligence-Finding of learned Judge in plaintiff's favour that the slipping of the hooks was the most likely explanation of the accident; and that accident occurred owing to negligent failure by plaintiff's fellow workmen properly to insert their hooks -Appeal by defendants.

HUTCHISON v. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 401
Negligence - Safe system - Precautions against accident on board river firefloat -Fall overboard-Man drowned- Rescue system - Claim brought by widow of deceased electrician employed by defendant county council on their firefloat in River Thames-Firefloat being used for special purposes in connection with civic festivities-Deceased required to see to floodlighting of water jets-Fall overboard while proceeding forward to change slides of floodlights -Unsuccessful rescue operation - Whether defendants (1) failed to take adequate precautions (by erection of guard-rail, etc.) to provide against accident; (2) failed to provide proper rescue system-Evidence that deceased was an ex-naval rating, and used to making his way about ships.

THE "VICTORIA."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 410
Collision-River Thames-Narrow channel rule-Vessel approaching point in river while navigating against tidal stream - Look-out - Failure to exhibit additional masthead light-Collision between plaintiff motor vessel B.P. Spirit and defendant steamship Victoria in Northfleet Hope, River Thames-Flood tide-B.P. Spirit, inward bound, rounding Tilbury Ness -Victoria proceeding down Northfleet Hope, approaching Tilbury Ness- Plaintiffs' case that both side lights and masthead lights of Victoria were sighted by B.P. Spirit fine on starboard bow, and, after rounding Tilbury Ness, fine on port bow; that B.P. Spirit starboarded; and that collision occurred on north side of channel- Defendants' case that B.P. Spirit crossed river ahead of Victoria, reaching position of safety, green to green; that Victoria ported; that B.P. Spirit starboarded across bows of Victoria; and that collision occurred on south side of channel-Probabilities -Evidence that B.P. Spirit had passed two vessels ahead of Victoria port to port-Grounding of B.P. Spirit on north side as consequence of collision- Failure by B.P. Spirit (157 ft. 6 in. in length) to exhibit second masthead light-Whether contributing to collision -Alleged duty upon B.P. Spirit to reverse her engines immediately danger of collision arose-Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rules 8, 38, 42 (a).

THE "JAPOS."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 420
Collision-River Humber-Narrow channel. -Invitation to pass starboard to starboard-Signals-Collision between plaintiff steamship Tasso and defendant motor vessel Japos in River Humber-Ebb tide-Fresh to strong south-west wind-Tasso, having left her anchorage, proceeding down river on north side-Japos, shallow-draughted, bound up on south side to avoid lee shore - Unrestricted channel - Two-short-blast signal and porting by Japos-Alleged two-short-blast reply by Tasso-Starboarding by Tasso- Two-short-blast signal repeated by Japos-One-short-blast signal reply by Tasso-Continued porting by Japos out of channel-Starboard helm maintained by Tasso-Impact between starboard side of Japos and stem of Tasso at angle of about two points leading forward on Japos- Dispute as to place of collision- Whether Tasso accepted invitation to pass starboard to starboard-Alleged duty of Japos to reduce speed on hearing contrary signal - Narrow channel rule.

WILLIAM BROWN & CO., OF LIVERPOOL, LTD. v. A. ELMASSIAN (UNITED KINGDOM), LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 428
Contract-Repudiation-Conduct of sellers -Presumed intention not to perform- Sale of cartons of butter beans in tins -Shipment to be made during December, 1950/January, 1951-Agreed extension of dates for shipment: one-third during March, one-third during April, and balance during May - Buyers informed by sellers on Mar. 30, 1951, that goods were in transit and that their suppliers were insisting on premium payment per dozen tins- Suggestion by sellers that goods should be accepted by buyers subject to additional payment of premium demanded by sellers' suppliers, and that sellers should take steps to recover such payment from their suppliers, thus enabling sellers to make a refund to buyers-Tender rejected by buyers- Arbitration-Award that buyers were entitled to reject - Case stated - Whether "sellers' tenders or any other conduct of theirs" amounted to repudiation.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FARR SUGAR CORPORATION AND OTHERS.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 432
Bill of lading-"Both-to-Blame" Collision Clause - Validity in United States - Damage to cargo shipped under bills of lading containing "Both-to-Blame" clause-Claim by cargo-owners against non-carrying ship - Recovery by non-carrying ship against carrier in respect of payments made to cargo-Right of carrier to indemnity by cargo-owners under "Both-to-Blame" clause - Appeal by cargo-owners against decision of District Court holding that cargo-owners were liable to indemnify carrier - Plea that "Both-to-Blame" clause was invalid and that it was contrary to public policy in United States -Alleged unreasonableness of provision limiting carrier's liability and restricting cargo-owners' rights-Harter Act, 1893, Sect. 3-U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936, Sects. 3 (8), 4 (2) (a).

THE "CARSLOGIE."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 441
Collision-Damages-Detention for repairs -Loss of profits-Collision repairs deferred at owners' convenience- Necessity for machinery overhaul- Heavy weather damage sustained on voyage to repair port, rendering ship unseaworthy-Three types of repair effected concurrently at repair port- Dock dues - Collision between plaintiffs' motor vessel 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 - Detention of vessel for purpose of carrying out heavy weather damage repairs (which alone would have occupied 30 days), during which time collision repairs (which alone would have occupied 10 days) and machinery overhaul were also carried out-Total detention for 50 days-Claim by plaintiffs for 10 days' detention for collision repairs allowed by learned Registrar - Motion in objection by defendants upheld by Willmer, J.- Appeal by plaintiffs allowed by Court of Appeal and Registrar's report restored-Appeal by defendants.

ATHEL LINE, LTD. v. MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD. (THE "ATHELQUEEN.")

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 454
Docks, Harbours, etc.-Obstruction in dock -Damage to ship-Duty of dock board -Standard of care-Exceptional circumstances (war conditions)-Duty to warn - Claim brought by shipowners against dock board in respect of bottom damage to ship sustained during period of war - Allegation that damage resulted from striking submerged object in dock and occurred during ship's passage through - Onus of proof - Nature of damage - Probabilities- Evidence of periodical and systematic sweeping operations carried out by dock board and of particular sweeping operations carried out after air raid "incidents" were reported-Further sweeping operation carried out immediately damage to plaintiffs' ship was reported - No obstruction found.

VON TRAUBENBERG v. DAVIES, TURNER & CO., LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 462
Forwarding agents - Insurance during transit-Valuable goods-Agreement by defendant forwarding agents to send on plaintiff's suitcase upon arrival in United Kingdom - Case containing valuable silver heirlooms-Customs documents handled by defendants detailing contents of case-Account rendered by defendants to plaintiff itemizing charges-No mention of insurance-Case dispatched by defendants from London to Liverpool by passenger train at "Company's risk" rates-No special declaration of value made under Carriers Act-Loss of case and contents-Claim by plaintiff- Contention that defendants were aware that the contents of the case were valuable and that they were consequently under an obligation to insure the goods or warn plaintiff; alternatively, that defendants as forwarding agents were under a duty to inquire whether the goods were insured in transit-Reference in defendants' account to conditions under which work was undertaken-Effect.

THE "ALBLASSERDIJK."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 471
Negligence-Sinking of barge in dock -Barge moored close to ship's propeller -Disputed cause of damage-Look-out -Contributory negligence-Onus of proof-Plaintiffs' barge Gowrie moored and left unattended in broad daylight in close proximity to propeller of defendants' steamship Alblasserdijk in Royal Victoria Dock, London-Ship's propeller admittedly moving very slowly, due to the admission of steam to the turbines for the purpose of warming them-Warning notices displayed at stern-Barge shortly afterwards found in sinking condition -Whether due to contact with propeller -Probabilities-Prima facie negligence of plaintiffs in permitting barge to come into contact with propeller-Onus of rebuttal-Evidence as to mooring of barge - "Working the propelling engines of a ship in dock"-Port of London Dock By-laws, Rule 19.

THE "DELTA."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 480
Collision-River Thames-Starboard-hand rule - Look-out - Speed - Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Colonel Crompton and defendants' motor vessel Delta in Upper Pool-Colonel Crompton, having just passed under Tower Bridge, bound down; Delta bound up- Plaintiffs' case that Colonel Crompton was proceeding down on her proper side; that she successfully passed motor vessel Hebe Nobel port to port; that she then sighted Delta ahead at a distance of about a cable; and that although Colonel Crompton starboarded she was unable to avoid Delta -Defendants' case that Delta was proceeding up on her own proper side and that Colonel Crompton ported into her-Dispute as to place of collision- Probabilities - Speed of Colonel Crompton considered-Inability to pull up.

BOSTON DEEP SEA FISHING & ICE COMPANY, LTD. v. DEEP SEA FISHERIES, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 489
Repairs to ship - Agency - Account - Authority of managing agents to order repairs to be carried out-Extent of authority-Plaintiff company acting as managers of steam trawlers owned by defendant company, defendant company receiving net profits after deduction by plaintiff company of management expenses and commission -Damage to defendants' trawler- Mutual agreement that trawler should be repaired and that at same time ship should undergo her Lloyd's Register survey and her necessary survey repairs also be carried out-Total repairs estimated at £5800 and admittedly authorized by defendants-Final bill of £8629 paid by plaintiffs-Excess over £5800 part paid by deduction from profits of subsequent voyages-Change of control of defendant company- No immediate complaint made by defendants as to method adopted by plaintiffs for payment of repair account outstanding-Termination of agency- Claim by plaintiffs for balance unpaid -Contention by defendants that additional repairs were not authorized.

ALLMANNA SVENSKA ELEKTRISKA AKTIEBOLAGET v. BURNTISLAND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 493
Patent - Ship propulsion - High speed diesel engines - Electro-dynamic coupling - Infringement - Lack of novelty (or anticipation)-Obviousness -Action brought by plaintiffs (Swedish company) seeking an injunction restraining defendants (British shipbuilding company) from supplying and installing in ships a diesel power unit which included a particular form of electro-dynamic coupling between the engine and the mechanical reduction gear-Alleged infringement of plaintiffs' letters patent published in United Kingdom in 1936-Claim for damages- -Plea by defendants that plaintiffs' letters patent were invalid by reason of (a) prior publication; (b) prior common general knowledge-Counterclaim by defendants for revocation-Evidence of British and foreign letters patent published before 1936 - Consideration of specifications therein contained - Whether plaintiffs' specification disclosed any inventiveness-Proof of defendants' allegation of obviousness- Matters to be taken into account- Patents Act, 1949, Sect. 32 (1) (e), (f).

"JESSMORE" (OWNERS) v. MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL COMPANY.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 512
Docks, Harbours, etc.-Canal-Approaches to docks-Obstruction-Mudbank on bed of canal-Failure by canal company to maintain advertised depth-Danger to shipping-Duty of canal company as invitors-Negligent navigation of ship-Damage to ship and to pier in dock basin-Ship and canal company both at fault-Claim and counterclaim -Right of recovery-Effect of "exemption from liability" notice issued by canal company - "All craft . . . at the sole risk of the owners, who alone are responsible . . ."-Plaintiffs' motor vessel Jessmore, deep-draughted, with head and stern tugs, proceeding with engines at dead slow up Salford Basin of Manchester Ship Canal, preparatory to swinging to port into No. 7 dock- Ship in charge of pilot employed by Manchester Ship Canal Company (defendants)-Swing checked owing to an alleged obstruction on bed of canal -Loss of headway-Momentary full ahead engine action to free ship from obstruction - Collision with pier - Claim by plaintiffs alleging that defendants were in breach of their duty as invitors in failing to keep canal in safe condition for passage of ships and/or in failing to issue a warning that they had not maintained the advertised depth - Evidence as to soundings - Counterclaim by canal company in respect of damage to pier-Right to recover even though negligent-Effect of notice issued by defendants providing: The Manchester Ship Canal Company do not take any charge of or assume any responsibility whatever in respect of any vessel . . . navigating the Canal, all craft under such circumstances being at the sole risk of the owners, who alone are responsible for the safety and security of their vessels . . . and also for any damage done by their vessels . . . to the premises or property of the Company. . . .

Whether such notice relieved defendants from liability, notwithstanding defendants' negligence - Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, Sect. 74.

THE "CARGILL."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 527
Negligent navigation-Dock-Sinking of moored barge left unattended-Inadequacy of moorings - Barge struck by stationary propeller of ship moving in dock - Look-out - Barge in breach of local Act-"Defaulting vessel"-Effect upon right of recovery - Plaintiffs' barge Medina moored on outside of other barges lying alongside vessel at quay on north side of Royal Albert Dock, London-Medina made fast by head ropes alone-Defendants' motor vessel Cargill, with tug ahead and astern, moving stern first from berth on south side to more easterly berth- Passage restricted by large vessels with attendant lighters on each side of dock -Impact between propeller of Cargill and port side of Medina-Medina sunk -Claim by owners of Medina-Contention by defendants that Medina, by reason of the inadequacy of her mooring ropes, swung out across path of Cargill; further, that Medina was not "properly secured" and therefore a "defaulting vessel" under local Act, and accordingly liable for her own damage and damage to her cargo-Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, Sects. 149, 150, 155.

THE "SLANEY."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 538
Salvage - Towage or salvage - Towage contract - Unexpected difficulties - Deterioration of weather-Defendants' motor vessel Slaney, having developed engine trouble, anchored about four miles south-east of Lowestoft Lighthouse -Owners communicated with by radio-telephone, an estimated position being given-Towage contract made by defendants with plaintiff tugowners, whereby plaintiffs agreed to pick up Slaney on the following day and tow her to Yarmouth for an agreed sum of £70-Ship found on following day in position 3.7 miles from Lowestoft Lighthouse on a bearing of 145 deg.- -Suggestion that ship had dragged in worsening weather - Ship taken to another anchorage in Yarmouth Roads, whence she was taken on the next day, with the assistance of another of defendants' tugs, into Yarmouth Harbour-Claim for salvage services. Practice - Salvage - Tender - Non-disclosure of payment into Court- R.S.C., Order 22, r. 6.

COGOS v. LEANDROS SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 545
Master and servant-Contract of service- Termination-Claim by ship's steward for damages for wrongful dismissal- Plaintiff engaged by defendants as chief steward of steamship Leandros for a period of two years-Complaints as to lack of variety of food made to master by crew-Plaintiff ordered to prepare menus drawn up by master-Arrangement accepted by plaintiff under protest-Alleged request to be paid off- End of voyage-New chief steward appointed-Contention by defendants that plaintiff refused to sign articles for next voyage and that he was then paid off.

AKAST v. ARGO REEDEREI RICHARD ADLER COMPANY.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 549
Negligence-Means of access on board ship -"Unusual danger" - Duty of occupiers-Obligation towards invitee- Duty of invitee to take reasonable care for his own safety-Breach of statutory duty under Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulation 9-Shipowners required to provide "safe means of access for the use of persons employed at such times as they have to pass from the ship to the shore" and vice versa-Extent of such obligation- Plaintiff, foreman stevedore, engaged in loading rubber tyres into forward hold of defendants' vessel-Vessel berthed at angle, with starboard quarter close to quay - Ladder from after end of vessel to quay safely used several times during day by plaintiff as means of access to and from the vessel- Attempt by plaintiff, on leaving ship at end of day, to reach ladder by clambering from top of rubber tyres to bridge deck and then to boat deck on starboard side of vessel-Collapse of handhold- Fall-Claim by plaintiff for personal injuries, alleging common law negligence and/or breach of Docks Regulations by defendants in failing to provide safe means of access-Evidence that at time of accident ladder was no longer in position-Plaintiff aware of risk in making his way along starboard side - Evidence that port side would have provided a safe, though longer, route.

DANIELS v. UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 553
Sale of ship-Breach of contract-Injurious falsehood-Sale of yacht by mortgagees in possession - Equipment and accessories excluded from sale - Disputed ownership-Damages-Yacht mortgaged to defendants by owner (C.) - Mortgage expressed to charge yacht and (inter alia) her appurtenances - Default by mortgagor - Court order authorizing sale by mortgagees - Purported charter of yacht by C. to M. -Removal by M. of certain equipment when he entered into possession - Bankruptcy of C. and M., charter being disclaimed by M.'s trustee in bankruptcy-Sale of yacht by defendants to plaintiff, it being agreed that "the vendors are not to be liable to get in or in any way in respect of the goods or property formerly on the boat which have been removed, or for any expenses or claims which may arise by reason of the sale of the boat after this date"-Offer by plaintiff to purchase equipment from M.'s trustee.-Letter from defendants to M.'s trustee objecting to his parting with equipment on ground that they had an interest in the property - Consequent refusal by M.'s trustee to sell equipment to plaintiff -Defendants' claim to equipment subsequently abandoned - Claim by plaintiff for damages, it being alleged that by reason of defendants' action in claiming equipment, plaintiff was thereby prevented from fixing a profitable charter which he was negotiating-Plaintiff's claim brought on alternative grounds: (a) for damages for breach of contract, in that defendants had orally agreed at the time of sale to abandon any further claim to the equipment; (b) for damages resulting from defendants' injurious falsehood in informing M.'s trustee that they had evidence, "after many inquiries, that certain of this equipment" was part of their security -Onus of proof.

F. T. FAULCONBRIDGE (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v. THOMAS PINKNEY & SONS, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 563
Revenue-Income tax-Assessment-Profits of company-Computation-Deduction of remuneration paid to former directors - Services rendered to company after retirement-Proof-P. & Song incorporated in 1937 to carry on business of shipbroking-Issued capital of £1000 divided into 1000 £1 shares- Shares taken up by following directors: S.P. and D.P. (brothers), 499 shares each; H., one share; K., one share- Decision by brothers to retire from active participation - Discussion between directors as to means whereby H. and K. should acquire share capital and carry on business of P. & Sons- Agreement drawn up between directors whereby the brothers were to sell their 998 shares to H. and K., at a price of £2 per share and H. and K. were to pay to the brothers jointly "50 per cent. of all commissions on new contracts, sales, charters, options, auctions, and valuation fees received by the company" in excess of £3000 during each of the five years ended Oct. 31, 1946, to Oct. 31, 1950, inclusive - Supplemental agreement drawn up between parties in 1947 whereby it was declared "for the sake of clarity" that payments of commissions, etc., were to be made by company-Sums paid to brothers by company and debited in company's profit and loss account as remuneration for services rendered- Claim by company that such payments were an admissible deduction in computing profits for purpose of income tax assessment-Evidence that since retirement the brothers had rendered valuable services to company.

ABBOTT v. SULLIVAN AND ISETT (CORNPORTERS COMMITTEE MEMBERS); TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION; PLATT; AND PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 573
Trade union-Voluntary association of union members - Cornporters - Suspension of comporter-Removal from Cornporters Register by committee exercising disciplinary powers - Jurisdiction of Cornporters Committee -Resolution of committee ultra vires- Right of comporter to damages - Breach of contract-Plaintiff employed as ganger comporter in Port of London - Complaint made against plaintiff alleging breach of working rule - Routine meeting of Cornporters Committee (of which plaintiff was member and at which plaintiff was present) at which complaint was investigated-Fine impose on plaintiff - Special meeting of committee subsequently called by P. (union representative attending committee)- Members not notified of real purpose of meeting, which was in fact to investigate an alleged assault made by plaintiff upon P. at conclusion of previous meeting-Plaintiff notified though he did not attend-Decision of committee that plaintiff's name be removed from Cornporters Register- Port of London Authority informed to that effect - National Dock Labour Board notified by Port of London Authority that plaintiff should not be directed to them for employment as comporter - Complaint subsequently made by plaintiff to union, it eventually being agreed that appeal should be heard by Area Emergency and General Purposes Committee of union-Decision of union appeal committee that

period of suspension from Cornporters Register already sustained by [plaintiff] is a sufficient penalty and that he be reinstated on the Cornporters Register with an opportunity to regain his former position as ganger in accordance with the normal procedure within the industry.

Decision of appeal committee accepted by Cornporters Committee "provided a satisfactory undertaking is received from [plaintiff] that he will abide by the regulations of the cornporters industry and constitution of the Cornporters Committee" - Right to impose special conditions for reinstatement - Action brought by plaintiff against two members of Cornporters Committee (first and second defendants), against trade union (third defendants), and against P. (fourth defendant), claiming a declaration that the resolutions of the committee suspending plaintiff were ultra vires, and damages - Decision of Croom-Johnson, J., that plaintiff was entitled to declaration claimed; that the union had at no time committed any wrongful action; and that plaintiff had not established any such cause of action as would entitle him to damages against the first, second or fourth defendants-Appeal and cross-appeal.

MOODIE v. FURNESS SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 600
Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931 - Safe means of access - Absolute duty of occupiers-Fatal accident in boiler-room of ship under construction in defendants' shipbuilding yard - Stagings erected at various levels for work being carried out by tradesmen- Top staging, also used as means of access to deck, reached by means of ladder from floor-Ladder mounted by electrician (M.) in order to reach deck - Evidence that headroom on top staging was such that it necessitated stooping to negotiate the exit; that that headroom had recently been further restricted by the fitting of brackets to the wall; and that M. struck his head on stepping on to the top staging, fell to floor 40 ft. below, and was killed- Claim by widow alleging negligence and/or breach of Shipbuilding Regulations by defendants in that they failed to provide safe means of access. Regulation 1: Safe means of access shall be provided to all parts of the ship to which persons employed may be required to proceed in the course of their employment.

Appeal by widow against decision of Jones, J., dismissing claim-Duty of shipbuilders under Regulations - Factories Act, 1937, Sect. 26 (1).

THE "EASTWAVE."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 608
Collision-River Thames-Turning in river - Vessel approaching - Look-out - Collision between steamships Ingerois and Eastwave in Gravesend Reach, River Thames, in daylight-Ingerois bound up on north side, intending to turn to port to make for wharf on south side-Eastwave, in tow of tug, bound down, having just left new entrance to Tilbury Docks-Turning signal sounded by Ingerois, her speed being reduced- Signal repeated by Ingerois, she having in the meantime been overtaken and passed on port side by steamship Highland Queen - Helm signals exchanged between Highland Queen and Eastwave, vessels passing port to port-Impact between starboard side of Ingerois (when about athwart river) and port bow of Eastwave-Respective duties.

THE "BRITISH CONFIDENCE."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 615
Collision-River Humber-Anchored vessel -Lights-Look-out-Collision between plaintiffs' steam trawler St. Apollo and defendants' motor vessel British Confidence in River Humber - St. Apollo inward bound; British Confidence, also inward bound, at anchor, heading up river in mid-channel, without lights, about one mile to the eastward of Upper Burcom Buoy-Failure of lights on British Confidence five minutes before collision -Emergency oil riding light ordered to be exhibited forward to warn vessel seen to be approaching from about two miles up river-Impact between stem of St. Apollo and stern of British Confidence - either vessel sighted by the other before collision- Evidence that lighting system of British Confidence had previously broken down on the voyage and had been temporarily repaired; that although it was known that the lighting system was defective, no emergency plan had been worked out in anticipation of a further breakdown; that the ship's engineers were aware, at least 15 minutes before the event happened when British Confidence was anchored, that the lights would again fail, but that no warning was given to the officer of the watch- British Confidence admittedly to blame for her failure to show anchor lights- Whether St. Apollo was also at fault in failing to observe unlighted British Confidence ahead-Humber Rules, 1910, Rule 19.

GILLINGHAM v. ELDER DEMPSTER LINES, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 623
Negligence-Means of access to ship's hold - Slippery ladder - Proof - Plaintiff docker engaged in stowing boxes of cargo in hold of defendants' vessel- Constructing of flooring of dunnage to separate cargo-Fall of plaintiff from ship's ladder while leaving hold for more dunnage - Claim against shipowners, alleging that ladder was slippery by reason of grease and oil from dunnage-Conflicting evidence as to condition of ladder.

BAYLIS v. BLACKWELL AND OTHERS.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 625
Husband and wife-Legal proceedings- Tort committed by wife before marriage -Right of husband to sue-Public policy-Plaintiff (B.), passenger in car driven by Lady T., injured in collision with lorry-B. and Lady T. subsequently married-Action brought by B. against driver and owners of lorry (first and second defendants)-Liability denied by defendants, it being further averred that collision was due to negligence of Lady T.-Lady T. (B.'s wife) joined by B. as third defendant- Plea by third defendant that if plaintiff ever had any cause of action against third defendant, such cause of action had abated in consequence of her marriage to plaintiff-Question tried as preliminary point of law-Effect of legislation upon common law rule- Married Women's Property Act, 1882, Sects. 1, 12-Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, Sect. 1.

UNITED MILLS AGENCIES, LTD. v. HARVEY, BRAY & CO.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 631
Insurance brokers - Breach of duty to insure goods for ex port-Negligence- Alleged failure by brokers to carry out clients' instructions-Delay in sending cover note-Loss while in packers' store not covered-Claim against brokers- Duty of brokers-Plaintiffs engaged in export business - Goods insured at Lloyd's through H. & Co. (brokers) under open marine export cover which included "with packers" clause- Refusal by underwriters to renew at similar premium-Defendant brokers (H. B. & Co.) approached by plaintiffs with view to effecting cover-Dispute as to purport of conversations between parties-Cover incorporating Institute Cargo Clauses (All Risks) placed by defendants-"With packers" clause not included-Slight delay in sending cover note to plaintiffs, cover note reaching plaintiffs contemporaneously with notification of fire destroying plaintiffs' goods in store - Claim brought by plaintiffs against defendant brokers alleging (a) failure to effect cover in accordance with plaintiffs' instructions; (b) breach of duty by defendants in failing to warn plaintiffs that goods were not covered while in store; (c) breach of duty by defendants in failing promptly to notify plaintiffs of the cover effected.

TRANS TRUST S.P.R.L. v. DANUBIAN TRADING COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 644
Contract-Breach by buyers-Measure of damages-Chain contracts-Failure by buyers to procure letter of credit in favour of sellers' suppliers-Liability of sellers to suppliers-Sellers' right of recovery from buyers-Impecuniosity of sellers-Contemplation of parties- Chain contracts for sale of steel-Firm contract entered into between manufacturers and F. (first buyers) providing for payment against irrevocable confirmed letter of credit to be put up at same time-Resale by F. to A.-Negotiations entered into between A. and plaintiffs - Offer made by plaintiffs to defendants - Negotiations entered into between defendants and L. (American corporation), L. to put up letter of credit in favour of A.-Plaintiffs informed by defendants that they had received firm acceptance from L. - Firm order placed by plaintiffs with A. -Failure by L. to provide letter of credit in favour of A., sale by plaintiffs to defendants accordingly falling through-Claim by plaintiffs to recover from defendants loss of profit on resale and to be indemnified against their (plaintiffs') liability to A. - Rising market-Measure of damages recoverable-Defence: that contract between plaintiffs and defendants was conditional upon L. providing letter of credit; further, that plaintiffs' loss was solely due to their financial position and was too remote to recover as a head of damage.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.