cookie settings, please see our
Insurance (marine or war)-Stranding of requisitioned vessel admittedly engaged on warlike operation-Damage to vessels- Vessel in convoy following zigzag course ordered by commodore-Alteration of course (to avoid what was thought to be enemy submarine) under orders of commodore-Position in convoy lost- Stranding-Claim against Crown (which assumed risks excluded by f.c. & s. clause)-Onus of proof-Finding of arbitrator that the course set for the convoy appeared to be a safe one and was accurately followed by the vessel but that there was an unexpected and unexplained tidal set carrying vessel some miles off her course; and that the stranding was not due to negligence of those on board- Award that damage was a direct consequence of the warlike operation on which the vessel was engaged-Case stated.
Motor insurance - Garage - Meaning- Insurance of claimants' furs, etc.-Cover not to apply to theft of property in cars while such cars were not individually attended "even whilst in garage"- Indorsement of policy providing that insurance company would not repudiate liability in respect of property up to certain amount "in the insured's Bedford van whilst left in a garage," subject to van being fitted with various locks and bolts- Car garaged in yard surrounded by buildings and wall (12 ft. 6 in. high) but without roof-Theft of furs from van- Right of recovery under policy-Whether open yard a garage within meaning of policy-Arbitration-Award that yard was not a garage and that therefore the claimants were not entitled to recover- Case stated.
Docks and ports-Wreck-marking-Alleged negligent failure by P.L.A. to mark sunken wreck-Damage to plaintiffs' motor vessel Jersey caused by striking wreck of vessel sunk in River Thames- No warning given of wreck-Dan-buoy, originally marking wreck, not in position at material time-Whether Jersey was anchored in improper position-Extent of jurisdiction of P.L.A. -Whether wreck within limits of port of London-Relationship between P.L.A. and ships using port-Invitor and invitee -Duty of P.L.A. to use reasonable care to ensure that port was reasonably safe for vessels-Normal obligations of P.L.A. to give warning or to buoy any sunken wreck within their jurisdiction- Exigencies of war-Special arrangements made by P.L.A. with Naval Control Service that latter should give warning of or mark sunken wrecks-Whether arrangements reasonable-Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, Sects. 197, 199, 215, 216, 431, Schedule 1.
Collision - Helm action - Speed - Collision between steamships Anthea and Maasdam in Atlantic-Anthea, in convoy, on course of N. 35 E.; Maasdam on course of 238 deg.-Maasdam seen by Anthea about point on starboard bow-Hard-a-port helm action immediately taken by Anthea, vessel sounding her whistle and switching on her lights-Port helm action taken by Maasdam, followed soon afterwards by hard-a-starboard helm action at speed-Whistle signals sounded-Contact between port bow of Maasdam and starboard side of Anthea at angle of about four points leading forward on Anthea-Anthea sunk.
Bank-Letter of credit-Refusal by bank to accept documents not following exact wording of letter of credit-Sale by first plaintiffs (as agents for second plaintiffs) of parcels of Coromandel groundnut kernels to Danish company-Payment to be made by irrevocable credit, opened with approved London bank, available in London at sight against first presentation of bills of lading-Credit opened by Danish bank (on behalf of buyers) with defendant bank in London "against invoice, full set clean straight bills of lading to buyers . . . about 1400 tons Coromandel groundnuts . . ." - Letter of credit issued by defendants to plaintiffs providing for tender of invoice, insurance, and "Bills of lading in complete set issued to the buyers . . . covering a shipment of about 1400 tons Coromandel groundnuts . . ."-Tender of bills of lading describing goods shipped as "machine shelled groundnut kernels," with marginal marks: "O.T.C./C.R.S./Aarhus" - Clause 15: "Weight, measurement, quality, contents and value, although mentioned in the bill of lading, to be considered as unknown to the master unless expressly recognised and agreed to the contrary. Simple signature not to be considered as such agreement" -Payment refused on tender of documents-Precise description of goods sold not followed by bills of lading- Documents re-presented with authoritative certificates that goods shipped were Coromandel groundnuts-Further refusal -Evidence as to custom of trade and as to normal description of Coromandel groundnuts.
Contract-Frustration-Impossibility of performance -Illegality-Right of recovery back of sum paid in advance-Rule in Chandler v. Webster,  1 K.B. 493 -Total failure of consideration-Sale of machinery in July, 1939, by defendants (English company) to plaintiffs (Polish company)-Machinery to be delivered c.i.f. Polish port-Outbreak of war between England and Germany-Poland occupied by Germany - Contract repudiated by sellers-£1000 (part of purchase price) paid by buyers in advance-Clause 7 of contract providing that "Should the despatch be hindered or delayed . . . by any cause whatsoever beyond our reasonable control, including . . . war . . . a reasonable extension of time shall be granted"- Claim by buyers for damages for breach of contract; alternatively, for specific performance-Right of buyers to return of £1000 paid.
Salvage-War-Fire due to enemy air attack -Services rendered by crew of Norwegian steamship Sollund to Greek steamship Moscha D. Kydoniefs in Harrington Dock, Liverpool-Upper structure of M. D. K. badly on fire-Rope taken from M. D. K. to safer side of dock-M. D. K. boarded and fires got under control-Danger to M. D. K.-Risk of bunker coal becoming seriously on fire-Right of owners of Sollund to claim salvage-Use of ship's boat-Risk to appliances-Nature of service.
Collision - Crossing courses - Respective duties - Collision between steamships Georgios P. (in port column of convoy) and Pink Rose-Georgios P. sailing with dimmed lights-Vessels originally on courses requiring Pink Rose to keep out of way of Georgios P.-Course of Pink Rose maintained until she found herself ahead of Georgios P.-Starboarding by Pink Rose-Porting by Georgios P.- Contact between stem of Georgios P. and port bow of Pink Rose-Pink Rose sunk.
Collision-Convoy-Vessels coming to anchor in fog-Collision in North Sea between steamship Vestanvik and steamships Quaysider and Suntrap-Vessels, proceeding south in same convoy, ordered by commodore to anchor-Manoeuvre completed by Quaysider and Suntrap, vessels heading to northward-Vestanvik preparing to anchor-Contact between starboard side of Vestanvik and stem of Quaysider followed by contact between stem of Vestanvik and port side of Suntrap-Whether facts raised prima facie case against Vestanvik-Special circumstances to be taken into consideration -Inevitable accident.
Charter-party-Demurrage-Delay in discharging -Exceptions clause-Ejusdem generis rule-Charter of vessel for voyage from British Columbia to Taku Bar- Normal place of discharge from ocean steamers for cargo destined for Tientsin, about 40 miles up River Peiping- Clause 10: "Charterers shall not be responsible for any delay if the cargo intended for shipment under this charter-party cannot be provided, delivered, loaded, or discharged by reason of riots strikes or lock-outs of any class of workmen or stoppage of labour connected in any way with, or essential to the providing, delivery, loading or discharging of the cargo, or by reason of floods, fire, ice, frosts, fogs, bad weather, and all accidents or hindrances or other cause or causes beyond the control of shippers or receivers which may prevent or delay the providing, delivery, loading, or discharging of the cargo, including all accidents to piers, mines, mills, factories, or machinery, railway and canal stoppages and hindrances, political disturbances, insurrections or interventions of constituted authorities"-Transhipment by lighters from Taku Bar to Tientsin within contemplation of parties, and only reasonable and possible course for lighters to take-Shortage of lighters owing to (a) abnormal congestion of vessels at Taku Bar; (b) strong wind and current retarding passage of lighters up river; (c) commandeering by Japanese military authorities of Chinese and Japanese owned lighters; (d) interference by Japanese military authorities with passage of British owned lighters up and down river-"Other cause or causes beyond the control of shippers or receivers" - Construction - Meaning of "discharge"-Shortage of lighters contributed to by reason that they were sent to Tientsin-Whether a hindrance or delay within Clause 10-Assessment of length of delay due to shortage of lighters -Award that charterers had failed to prove that the delay in discharging was due to any cause set out in Clause 10 and that the shipowners were entitled to demurrage-Case stated.
Dock authority-Negligence of stevedores- Damage to plaintiffs' steamship Monkleigh during unloading - Defendant railway company (dock authority at Swansea) employed to unload plaintiffs' ship of cargo of scrap iron- Damage to vessel discovered when discharge completed-Whether done in course of unloading or at some time previous-Evidence of method of discharge; of complaints made during discharge; and of damage actually seen to have occurred-Defence: that such damage was avoidable with care and did not occur during discharge.
Insurance brokers-Negligence-Lack of due care in advising upon insurability of clients' goods under War Risk (Commodities) Scheme-Plaintiffs carrying on business as machine tool pattern-makers -Proposal to insure timber used in manufacture-Informed by defendants (insurance brokers and consultants) that such timber was uninsurable under Scheme - Subsequent destruction by enemy action-Timber in fact insurable when proposal made - Liability of defendants - War Risk Insurance Act, 1939, Sect. 11.
Practice-Discovery of documents-Privilege -Public interest-Claim by dependants of deceased members of crew of submarine Thetis sunk during trials-Action brought against shipbuilders and others- Objection by shipbuilders to produce documents-Affidavit by Minister of Crown that disclosure would be against public interest-Practice of Court in such circumstances-Appeal against order upholding objection-R.S.C., Order 31, rr. 14, 19
Collision-Anchored vessel-Anchor lights not showing - Risk of collision - Collision between steamship Duke of York and Icelandic trawler Bragi in Morecambe Bay-Bragi at anchor-Knowledge of master of Duke of York that vessels were likely to lie at anchor in that position- Duke of York proceeding at speed increasing from half speed of about 15 knots-Whether excessive-Duke of York seen by Bragi to be approaching- Anchor lights not switched on.
Collision-Anchorage-Vessel preparing to anchor - Collision between steamship Earlspark and Italian steamship Zeffiro in Downs-Earlspark anchored stern to tide-Engines put slow ahead and wheel hard-a-port to assist swing to starboard- Zeffiro approaching on starboard bow- Contact between starboard side of Zeffiro and starboard quarter of Earlspark- Whether Earlspark negligent in anchoring stern to tide-Allegation by Zeffiro that Earlspark did not ring her bell to indicate what she was doing-Counterclaim by Zeffiro-Italy an alien enemy at date of trial-Discussion on course which should be adopted.
Sale of goods (f.o.b.)-Freight-Purchase by defendants of cases of sardines-Shipment from Portugal in plaintiffs' steamer- Freight "payable upon shipment and to be paid ship or goods lost or not lost and if not paid upon shipment shipper's consignees and the goods to remain liable therefor"-Freight not paid on shipment -Goods insured by defendants for £4500, subsequently increased to £6500- Sale by defendants to third party-Payment: Net cash against documents, less allowances for import duty and landing charges-Part price paid by third party- Ship and cargo sunk-Agreement between defendants and third party that latter should claim under policy and that he should pay defendants balance of price, less certain allowances-Dispute as to whether third party agreed to pay freight-Claim by plaintiffs for freight admitted by defendants - Right of defendants to indemnity from third party-Subsequent discovery that vessel was sunk before contract with third party was entered into-Avoidance of contract-Effect- Restitutio - Judgment for defendants against third party for agreed sum- Defendants' costs in third-party proceedings -Failure to establish right to indemnity-Refusal by learned Judge to award costs incurred by defendants in defending plaintiffs' claim.
Solicitor - Negligence - Motor insurance - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in motor accident-Plaintiff, a passenger, and driver in same employ-Negligence of driver-Driver covered under policy issued to employer-Policy covering (inter alia) third-party liability - "Provided always that the [insurance company] shall not be liable in respect of . . . (b) Death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment. (c) Death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from such vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises" -Claim put in hands of defendant solicitor-Advice given by defendant's clerk that the policy did not provide indemnity for a common law claim brought by the plaintiff and that plaintiff should accept damages on a workmen's compensation basis - Claim against insurance company settled on that basis-Action for damages brought by plaintiff against defendant, alleging that plaintiff was negligently advised in the proper action to take-Construction of policy.
Negligence-"Owners' risk and responsibility" -Damage to plaintiffs' mobile welding plant while on defendant railway company's premises - Damage due to collapse of crane on defendants' premises -Claim by plaintiffs, alleging negligence and/or breach of duty-Defence (inter alia) that the railway company were exempted from liability for negligence by reason of the terms of an agreement between the parties by which, for an annual rental, the plaintiffs were permitted to bring their apparatus on to the company's premises, and providing that "The apparatus whilst on the company's premises will be at the owners' risk and responsibility"-Preliminary point of law for the Court-Protection provided by the terms of agreement - Whether plaintiffs licensees or invitees.
Collision - Look-out - Convoy - Collision between steamship Celtic Star and motor vessel British Resource, following on collision between Celtic Star and steamship Afric Star-Action brought by Celtic Star against British Resource- Counterclaim by British Resource against Celtic Star and Afric Star-British Resource and Afric Star in same convoy; Celtic Star on almost opposite course- Vessels navigating without lights under Admiralty instructions - Opinions of assessors as to distances at which vessels should have been visible to each other- Decision ofBucknill, J., that the second collision between the Celtic Star and the British Resource occurred as the natural consequence of the first collision between the Celtic Star and the Afric Star and without any intervening act of negligence by either vessel; and that the first collision occurred without negligence-Claim and counterclaim dismissed-Decision upheld by C.A. (Goddardanddu Parcq, L.JJ., Scott, L.J., dissenting)-Appeal by British Resource-No appeal against finding that the British Resource was in no way to blame.
Collision-Damages-Death of sixth engineer of steamship Manchester Regiment- Claim by plaintiffs (1) as dependants under Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908; (2) as administrators of estate of deceased engineer, for loss of expectation of life under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 - Collision action between steamships Manchester Regiment and Oropesa-Present plaintiffs joined as plaintiffs in collision action against Oropesa, claiming for loss of effects- Blame apportioned: Manchester Regiment, four-fifths; Oropesa, one-fifth- Right of plaintiffs to bring present action-Res judicata-Whether death of engineer due to collision-Novus actus interveniens-Evidence that deceased, with other members of crew, under master's orders, put to sea in one of the ship's lifeboats after collision in order to board Oropesa; that the decision of the master to leave by boat was taken voluntarily; and that the lifeboat capsized owing to an unexpected cross sea, nine of the lifeboat crew being drowned-Burden of proof-Whether upon plaintiffs or defendants.
Salvage - Pumping services - Motion for judgment in default of appearance- French tug Eclair found derelict in Solent-Taken to port by plaintiffs' tugs- Claim brought in County Court by plaintiffs-No appearance by owners- Plaintiffs awarded £200-Vessel sold by Admiralty Marshal - Further claim brought for pumping services rendered by plaintiffs over period of twelve months- Award of £105-Costs on High Court scale.
Salvage-Damage incurred by salvors in performance of services-Services rendered by tugs Blazer and Standard Rose to motor vessel Scheldt off Barry-Scheldt seriously damaged by enemy action-Not under control -Beached by tugs-Damage sustained by Blazer in performing services.
Collision-Seamanship-Collision in Ismail Basin, Port Said, between steamships City of Adelaide and Benmohr-City of Adelaide, homeward bound, coming from entrance to Suez Canal; Benmohr outward bound, manoeuvring from anchorage in basin - Speed of City of Adelaide - Benmohr aware that City of Adelaide was leaving canal-Dispute as to locus of collision-Contact between port bow of City of Adelaide and port bow of Benmohr.
Insurance (Marine or War) - Collision - "Hostilities or warlike operations"- Collision in fog between plaintiffs' steamship Clan Stuart and steamship Orlock Head in English Channel-Clan Stuart sunk-Vessels equally to blame-Orlock Head, on voyage from England to Rouen and Dunkirk, carrying steel rounds intended for French Ministry of Munitions -Claim brought by owners of the Clan Stuart against defendants (war risk underwriters), alleging that the Orlock Head was engaged on a warlike operation and that therefore the collision arose as a consequence of that warlike operation- Meaning of "warlike operation"- Evidence that Rouen and Dunkirk were being used mainly for ordinary commercial purposes, but to a limited extent for military purposes.
Negligent navigation-Damage to barge and cargo-Use of ship's propeller in shallow water-Collision between barge Cigogne and defendants' motor vessel Bintang off jetty at Zighinkor-Barge sunk, damaging plaintiffs' cargo-Bintang moored with port side abreast of jetty-Water too shallow to permit mooring alongside- Barge, lying with her port side to the port side of the Bintang, made fast by her stern to the jetty and with an anchor out ahead-Bintang moved ahead without warning by hauling and use of port propeller -Swing to port by head of barge- Whether barge properly anchored- Respective duties.
Collision-River-Lights-Locus of collision- Collision between steam tug Crested Cock and Diesel-electric tug Robertsbridge in Limehouse Reach, River Thames-Crested Cock bound up; Robertsbridge, having left Chalkstone Buoys on north side, bound down for Jacob's Tier on south side- Contact between port bow of Crested Cock and port quarter of Robertsbridge at about right angle-Whether collision occurred to northward or southward of mid-channel-Range of visibility of lights -Whether proper lights being exhibited.
Collision-Convoy-Vessels in same column- Collision between steamships Chelwood and Penestin in North Sea in north-bound convoy-Penestin following Chelwood on her starboard quarter-Escort vessel on starboard side of Chelwood-Porting by escort vessel, necessitating porting by Chelwood-Starboarding by both vessels to get back to convoy course-Penestin proceeding at full speed and catching up on Chelwood-Porting by Penestin in endeavour to avoid Chelwood when she starboarded to resume her convoy course- Contact between port bow of Penestin and starboard side aft of Chelwood.
Salvage-Stranding on sandbank-Services rendered by tugs Brockenhurst, Herculaneum, Standard Rose, H.M. tug Victor, H.M. trawler Montano, and T. (naval officer in charge of Victor) to motor vessel Hopecrest aground on Scarweather Sands, Bristol Channel-Towed off by Brockenhurst, Herculaneum, Victor and Montano-Major services by Brockenhurst and Herculaneum-Standard Rose engaged during tow and employed to assist Hopecrest into dock-T. in charge of operations-Salved values (excluding Government cargo): £125,000-Awards: Brockenhurst, £5000; Herculaneum, £4500; Standard Rose, £500; Government group of salvors, £2000.
Collision - Damages-Assessment-Objection to Registrar's report-Plaintiffs' oil jetty at Abadan seriously damaged by defendants' vessel-Claim by plaintiffs for (1) permanent repairs (including interest and depreciation amounting to £1838): £7375; (2) Loss of hire of vessels time-chartered: £2316; (3) Bunkers consumed: £157-Claim for general damages by way of interest and depreciation disallowed by learned Registrar on ground that restitutio in integrum was effected by recovery of specific loss under Items (2) and (3)- Consideration of facts-Evidence that plaintiffs' potential oil sales were unlimited, but were restricted by reason of loss of use of jetty.
Practice-Trial of action-Adjournment- War risk policy taken out with Lloyd's underwriters by managing owners of Estonian steamship owning shares in vessel - Vessel sunk by submarine -Insurance moneys paid into Court- Claims to proceeds by seamen also holding shares in vessel and by managing owners- Issue ordered to be tried between parties -Originating summons before Master- Managing owners unable to obtain necessary evidence on which to base their claim-Occupation of Estonia by enemies -Claimants now enemy aliens-Issue adjourned by Master sine die-Discretion of Master-Appeal by seamen.
Collision - Appeals - Question of fact - Jurisdiction of appellate Court-Onus of proof-Collision between motor vessels British Reliance and Eurymedon in English Channel-Vessels in same convoy, with Eurymedon on starboard side of British Reliance-Zig-zag courses-Convoy, having been on port leg of course, due to starboard two points to regain mean course-Contact between port bow of Eurymedon and starboard side of British Reliance-Whether collision due to over-starboarding by British Reliance or to porting by Eurymedon-Decision of C.A., upholdingLangton, J., that collision was solely due to the negligence of Eurymedon in allowing her head to go off to port.
Collision - Lights - Seamanship - Collision between steamship Fairwater and motor vessel Dominion Monarch in English Channel-Fairwater on course of 259 deg.; Dominion Monarch on course of 74 deg.- Both vessels sailing without lights- Dominion Monarch seen by Fairwater at distance of about one mile-Fairwater seen by Dominion Monarch at distance of about half a mile-Starboarding by Fairwater-Porting by Dominion Monarch -Lights not immediately switched on by either vessel-Contact between starboard side of Dominion Monarch and port bow of Fairwater at angle leading forward on Dominion Monarch-Vessels' courses determined by Admiralty routeing instructions - Whether Dominion Monarch entitled to assume that Fairwater was proceeding in same direction-Applicability of Collision Regulations in time of war-Navigation and Anchor Lights Order, 1939.
Collision-Convoy-Lights-Crossing courses- Collision between steamship Winga, in northbound convoy, and Norwegian steamship Jernland, in southbound convoy, in North Sea-Winga showing dimmed navigation lights; Jernland showing only screened stern light-Green of Winga open on port bow of Jernland- Course and speed kept by Jernland-Port helm action taken by Winga without reducing speed-Lights not switched on by Jernland-Contact between stem of Jernland and starboard side of Winga at about right angle-Winga sunk-Decision ofBucknill, J., that Winga was to blame for porting at speed across the bows of the Jernland; and that the Jernland was also to blame for not switching on her lights immediately she saw that the Winga was shaping to cross her bows-Apportionment: Winga two-thirds; Jernland, one-third -Appeal by Jernland - Whether there was a duty on the Jernland to switch on her lights; if so, whether her failure to do so contributed to the casualty- Navigation and Anchor Lights Order, 1939.
Negligence-Damage to barges-Barges safely moored at berth (River Thames)-Steamship bound for same berth-Arrival off berth-Barges unattended-Barges shifted under orders of pilot of steamship to another position in berth farther up river -New position unsafe for barges to lie in-Damage incurred in taking ground- Claim by bargeowners against shipowners -Allegation by shipowners of negligence against wharfowners-Wharfowners joined as second defendants-Knowledge of wharfowners that barges had been re-moored in an unsafe position-Duty of wharfowners - Whether shipowners entitled to assume that whole frontage of wharf was safe to lie in.
Collision - Dragging collision - Look-out- Motor vessels Korshamn and Taranger and steamship Edam at anchor in River Mersey, heading to ebb tide-Edam off starboard quarter of Taranger, Korshamn astern of both vessels-Collision between Edam and Taranger, Taranger subsequently colliding with Korshamn-Action brought by Korshamn against Edam and Taranger-Dispute as to distances between vessels-Possibility of contact by sheering -Responsibility for first collision- Whether second collision inevitable result of first collision-Taranger's engines not immediately available.
Collision-Convoy-Courses-Collision in fog between motor vessels Armadale and Robert F. Hand in Atlantic-Vessels in same convoy, with Robert F. Hand the leading vessel in one column, and the Armadale the second vessel in the next column on the port side-Alteration of course to port under orders of commodore -Contact between starboard bow of Armadale and port quarter of Robert F. Hand-Look-out.
Salvage-Anchored vessels-Anchor chains fouled - Risk of grounding - Services rendered by tugs East Cock and South Cock to motor vessel Brisbane Star- Anchor cable fouled by Atlantian, Brisbane Star falling down upon Norse King, very close to buoys-Anchor cable of Norse King under bottom of Brisbane Star and foul of her port anchor-Brisbane Star towed apart from Norse King by plaintiff tugs and held in position until anchor cable cut -Danger to Brisbane Star-Risk of grounding-Whether Brisbane Star could have extricated herself from her dangerous position without the tugs' assistance-Use of engines.
Salvage-Anchored vessels-Anchor chains fouled - Risk of collision - Services rendered by tug Crosby to steamship Norse King in River Mersey-Norse King, short of fuel, at anchor-Collision with motor vessel Brisbane Star-Starboard anchor cable of Norse King under bottom of Brisbane Star and foul of her port anchor -Propeller of Norse King foul of buoy- Crosby employed to hold Norse King which other tugs employed to move Brisbane Star-Norse King subsequently held in position against the tide and prevented from further collisions.
Bill of lading-Damage to cargo (flour)- Timber-taint-Bad stowage-Shipment in apparent good order and condition of 7120 sacks of flour in defendants' steamship from Vancouver to London-Large parcels of timber also carried-3800 sacks on delivery found to be timber-tainted- Liability of shipowners-Clause 1 of bill of lading: "Carrier . . . shall not be liable for any loss of, or damage to, any of the said merchandise resulting from . . . sweat, smell, taint . . ."-Clause 7: "The shipowner . . . shall not be liable . . . for any claim, notice of which is not given within 10 days after discharge . . ."- Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1936, Art. III (2), (6), (8), Art. IV (2) (q)- Repugnancy of bill of lading clauses- Notice of damage not given within three days-Onus of proof-Evidence of stowage and survey.
Motor insurance - Misrepresentation - Non-disclosure -Age stated in proposal form to be 21 years-Age, in fact, 1912 years- Misstatement of driving experience- Cover note issued to assured on understanding that it did not apply if the assured was under 21 years of age-Action for rescission brought by underwriters, it being alleged that they were entitled to avoid the contract of insurance on the ground of misrepresentation and non-disclosure -Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10 (3).