i-law.com

WILFRED PENDER AND OTHERS v. BULK OIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. [THE "PASS OF LENY."]

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Negligence - Fire in Poole Harbour- Escape of petrol-Consolidated action for damages for personal injuries and for fire damage to yachts and speedboats -Allegation that petrol was permitted to escape from defendants' oil tanker Pass of Leny during discharge at wharf-Onus of proof-Whether fire due to petrol or to a species of heavy oil-Evidence as to flow of tide in vicinity of Pass of Leny and of method of discharge practised on board- Alleged muddled manipulation of valves connected with pumping apparatus -Other possible sources of escape of petrol.

THE "GORSEFIELD."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 6

Salvage-Services rendered by steamship Lady Thomas to steamship Gorsefield on fire in West Bank Dock, Widnes- Fire in store-room constituting loft in engine-room-No one on board-Assistance also given by fire brigade-Fire extinguished after 212 hours-Services admitted-Denial that there was any danger of serious damage-Estimate of possible loss had fire burned itself out -Agreed values: £10,329-Damage: £320.

THE "MANX ADMIRAL."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 11

Collision-Crossing courses-Duty to give way-Collision between steam trawler Rose of England and steam trawler Manx Admiral at entrance to River Humber, near Chequer Shoal Buoy- Rose of England outward bound; Manx Admiral inward bound-Vessels originally on crossing courses, the Manx Admiral being the give way vessel-Red light of Manx Admiral opened on port bow of Rose of England-Hard-a-starboard and full speed ahead by Rose of England-Reopening of green light of Manx Admiral less than a cable away on port bow of Rose of England- Whether Rose of England guilty of contributory negligence.

THE "EL AS."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 18

Salvage-Services rendered by steamship Etrib to Spanish motor trawler El As in Bay of Biscay-El As, having been commandeered by Spanish refugees, adrift without fuel or charts-Vessel towed 480 miles to Bristol, taking three days-Motion for judgment and sale in default of appearance of defendant owner-Vessel now under arrest of Admiralty Marshal.

IRVIN & JOHNSON (SOUTH AFRICA), LTD., AND ANOTHER v. UNILEVER, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 20

Contract-Breach of warranty-Alleged verbal warranty as to term of written contract-Price-Contracts entered into in November, 1934, whereby plaintiffs agreed to sell to defendants the whole of their 1934/1935 and 1935/1936 production of whale oil at £8 10s. per ton- Negotiations leading up to contracts- Contract between defendants and C dated May, 1934, as a basis of negotiation - Terms of contract with C providing (inter alia): "(2) The oil to be of good merchantable quality of the various grades, or a fair allowance to be made . . . (3) The price to be paid . . . £8 10s. per ton . . . (16) If in addition to the above-named quantity buyers purchase prior to the 15th September, 1934, any further whale oil ex season 1934/1935 at any higher price than this contract, then the price of this contract shall be increased accordingly . . . (18) Sellers have the option, to be declared on or before the 21st May, 1934, to renew this contract for same quantities, same agreed prices, and same terms and conditions for the season 1935/1936"- Option to renew exercised by C- Subsequent refusal by C to deliver 1935/1936 season's oil on the ground that his contract was frustrated by reason of Norwegian Government restrictions - Action commenced by defendants against C-Plaintiffs also in some difficulty owing to restrictions - Claim for allowance - Offer by defendants to settle with plaintiffs on basis of the result of the action against C or on basis of £9 per ton for 1934/1935 oil and £11 per ton for 1935/1936 oil-Acceptance by plaintiffs of allowance based on £9 and £11 per ton - Settlement of action between defendants and C on basis of £13 15s. per ton - Claim by plaintiffs for damages for breach of warranty - Allegation that defendants verbally warranted that their contract with plaintiffs would be on the same terms as contract with C-Defence: that there was no warranty; if there was, that there was no breach; further, that there was accord and satisfaction.

THE KING v. JALBERT AND ANOTHER. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEBEC v. THE KING AND ANOTHER.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 33

Canada - Public harbour - Foreshore - Grant in 1907 by Province of Quebec to respondent of beach lot at Chicoutimi, River Saguenay-Taken possession of by Crown through its statutory agent, Chicoutimi Harbour Commission, without expropriation proceedings, for purpose of harbour improvements - Petition of right brought by respondent grantee-Title of grantee to beach lot-Validity of grant-Whether title to beach lot vested in Dominion of Canada under Sect. 108 and Third Schedule of British North America Act, 1867-"Public harbour" -Whether beach lot an integral part of public harbour-Onus of proof- Appeal by Crown against decision of Supreme Court of Canada (reversing Court of Exchequer) in favour of grantee.

PECK v. HULL AND EAST COAST STEVEDORING COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 39

Docks Regulations, 1934-Breach of statutory duty-Discharge of grain in bags -Injuries sustained by plaintiff employed by cargo superintendent to sew up broken bags and bag loose cargo -Fall of beam-Beam not adequately secured-Claim against stevedores- Duty of stevedores-Whether plaintiff employed by a person engaged in the process of unloading the vessel and therefore under a duty of seeing that the beams were adequately secured.

LOW v. JOSEPH.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 41

Sale of ship-Breach of warranty-Sale of houseboat by defendant to plaintiff- Found after sale to be in leaky condition and beyond repair-Claim by plaintiff for damages-Dispute as to terms of sale-Evidence of discussion between parties leading up to sale- Contention by plaintiff that defendant warranted the sound condition of the hull-Questions by plaintiff concerning necessary pumping-Receipt given by defendant acknowledging payment for houseboat and furniture "all in condition as seen and inspected."

CROSS v. BRITISH OAK INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 46

Motor insurance-Third party-Successful counterclaim by third party against assured-Repudiation of liability by insurance company-Action brought by B against assured for damages for negligence-C joined as third party, notice being given to insurance company of issue of third-party notice- Counterclaim by G-No notice of counterclaim given to insurance company - Judgment entered against assured on claim and counterclaim- Counterclaim unsatisfied by assured- Claim by C for declaration that insurance company were liable to him in respect of counterclaim-Liability, of insurance company to C for costs of third-party proceedings - "No sum shall be payable by an insurer . . . (a) in respect of any judgment, unless before or within seven days after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment was given, the insurer had notice of the bringing of the proceedings"-Whether proceedings commenced when third-party notice given to insurance company or when C counterclaimed-Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10 (1), (2), (3).

THE "STRANNA."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 51

Bill of lading-Short delivery-Shipment of timber at Alma, N.B.-Loss of deck cargo while loading, following a list first to port and then to starboard- Unascertained cause - Liability of shipowners-Deck cargo carried "at charterer's risk" - "Perils of the sea . . . and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation wheresoever, including ports of loading . . . of whatever nature and kind soever . . . always mutually excepted, even when occasioned by negligence, default, or error in judgment of the . . . master, mariners, or other servants of the shipowners" -Contentions by shipowners (1) that loss was due to a peril of the sea; (2) that the deck cargo was carried "at charterer's risk" and that as no negligence had been proved against the shipowners they were protected by those words-Onus of proof-Whether a "peril of the sea" or a "peril on the sea."

THE "TENEDOS."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 58

Anchored vessel-Collision between plaintiffs' steam trawler Grackle and defendants' steam trawler Tenedos, in Milford Haven, in broad daylight- Contention by Grackle that, she being at anchor, the Tenedos, which had also been lying at anchor, hauled in her anchor and proceeded across the bows of the Grackle-Contention by Tenedos that she was heaving on her anchor, but was still held by it, when the Grackle ran into her-Inference to be drawn from nature of damage to Grackle-Whether Tenedos guilty of contributory negligence in failing to take action to avoid collision-Lookout.

WELCH v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 63

Fire insurance-Liability of insurers- Non-fulfilment of conditions by assured-Condition precedent-Policy taken out by plaintiff with defendant Corporation-Claim under policy disputed - Arbitration-"The Corporation agrees (subject to the conditions contained herein or endorsed hereon, or otherwise expressed hereon, which conditions shall, so far as the nature of them respectively will permit, be deemed to be conditions precedent to the right of the insured to recover hereunder)" to indemnify the assured in case of damage by fire-"IV. The insured shall also give to the Corporation all such proofs and information with respect to the claim as may reasonably be required, together with (if demanded) a statutory declaration of the truth of the claim and of any matters connected therewith. No claim under this policy shall be payable unless the terms of this condition have been complied with"-Information requested by Corporation as to bank accounts used and controlled by assured for purposes of his business- Failure by assured on making claim to give information of bank accounts (in mother's name) which were used and controlled by him for the purposes of his business-Full information supplied to Corporation by assured during course of arbitration-Amendment of points of defence-Contention by Corporation that assured's failure to disclose information regarding accounts constituted a breach of Condition IV and precluded assured from recovering - Finding by arbitrator that there was no fraudulent concealment and that the accounts, when disclosed, did not contain any material justifying repudiation by the Corporation -Award that Condition IV was a condition precedent to the Corporation's liability; and that the failure by the assured to give the information regarding the accounts was a breach

of that condition and disentitled the assured to recover-Case stated.

KAWASAKI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. BANTHAM STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 70

Charter-party - Withdrawal of vessel by owners from charterers' service-Contention that tender of hire was made out of time-Charter of vessel from time of delivery for 12 calendar months at 3s. 9d. per ton on deadweight "as ascertained on delivery from builders' yard," hire commencing from day of delivery - "5. Payment of said hire to be made in London in cash monthly, in advance, and for the last month or part of same the approximate amount of hire, and should same not cover the actual time, hire is to be paid for the balance day by day, as it becomes due, if so required by owners . . . otherwise failing the punctual and regular payment of the hire . . . the owners shall be at liberty to withdraw the vessel from the service of the charterers . . . Delivery to count from 7 a.m. on the working day following that on which written notice has been given before 4 p.m., but if required by charterers, loading to commence at once, such time used to count as hire" - Delivery of vessel on Apr. 13, 1937, loading being commenced on same day-No notice of readiness given until Apr. 15-Tender of hire on Apr. 15 - Refused by owners, who claimed to withdraw vessel from service - Charterers not informed by owners of vessel's actual deadweight- Whether notice of readiness need be given before period of hire commenced -Applicability of payment in advance to first month's hire - Meaning of "punctual" - Award in favour of charterers that owners were not entitled to withdraw vessel.

HUGHES v. REED & CO.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 81

Workmen's compensation-Partial incapacity -Injury sustained by appellant dock labourer while working in steamer's hold-Appellant employed by defendant stevedores-Compensation, which was paid for three months, terminated by employers-Arbitration -Claim for total incapacity-Plea by employers that appellant "is not now, and has not since June 5 been wholly or partially incapacitated"-Difference of medical opinion as to incapacity -Finding of learned County Court Judge that appellant was not totally incapacitated and that compensation should be terminated by virtue of medical certificate under Sect. 12 of Act of 1925-Whether appellant precluded by his pleadings from an award for partial incapacity.

THE "ROBERTA."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 84

Charter-party-Unseaworthiness-Damage to cargo carried in Dutch motor vessel -Incursion of water into hold owing to negligence of engineer in leaving open cock controlling bilge suction- Vessel under time charter-Claim by cargo-owners against shipowner and against charterers-Liability of shipowner as bailee-Evidence of incompetence of engineer-"Owners only to be responsible for . . . damage to goods on board, if such . . . loss has been caused by want of due diligence on the part of the owners or their manager, in making steamer seaworthy and fitted for the voyage or any other personal act or omission or default of owners or their manager. Owners not to be responsible in any other case nor for damage or delay whatsoever and howsoever caused even if caused by the neglect or default by owners' servants" -Whether shipowner had discharged onus of showing that damage was not caused by want of due diligence on his part-Onus of proof. Evidence-Application to adduce further evidence-Request to recall owner (who was also master) to show that he exercised due diligence in making inquiries about the competence of the engineer.

THE "SCHWAN."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 87

Overtaking collision-Vessel ahead turning in river - Collision between Finnish steamship Savonia and German steamship Schwan in Limehouse Reach, River Thames - Savonia, having left Greenland Dock, straightened in river after turning to proceed down river- Schwan also bound down river-Allegation by Schwan that Savonia came astern and that she should have sounded an astern signal-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934, Rule 23.

BANK OF ATHENS v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE. [THE "EFTYCHIA."]

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 92

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 - Interest on judgment - Claim by mortgagees under policy on ship-Alleged loss by sea perils-Payment on account by insurers in February, 1933-Subsequent refusal to make further payments - Action brought by mortgagees-Decision of learned Judge in February, 1937 (subsequently affirmed by C.A.) that vessel was wilfully stranded at instigation of owner-Consent by mortgagees to judgment in favour of insurers and to repayment of amount paid on account -Claim by insurers to interest under Sect. 3 (1) of Act, which came into force in July, 1934-Whether Act retrospective -"(1) In any proceedings tried in any Court of record for the recovery of any debt or damages, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that there shall be included in the sum for which judgment is given interest at such rate as it thinks fit on the whole or any part of the debt or damages for the whole or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the judgment . . ."

LOUIS DREYFUS & CO. v. LAURO.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 94

Charter-party-Expected ready to load "about 15th/18th November" - Failure of vessel to arrive at port of loading until Dec. 6-Claim by charterers for damages for breach-Arbitration -Award that charterers were entitled to sums for rent charges and cables - Case stated - Whether the words "expected ready to load under this charter-party about 15th/18th November" amounted to a warranty that the vessel would be ready at her loading port at a date between Nov. 15 and Nov. 18-Finding of umpire that the word "about" should in no case extend the date beyond Nov. 22; that the owners were honest but overoptimistic in their calculation of the date of the expected readiness to load; and that Nov. 26 was the earliest reasonable date of readiness to load in the circumstances as they were known by the owners when the charter-party was fixed-Meaning of "about."

THE "NIGERIAN."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 99

Salvage-Services rendered by motor vessel Calabar to steamship Nigerian aground in Calabar River - Agreement by Calabar to render services - Calabar made fast-Anchors laid out-Slack taken up-Steady strain maintained by means of windlass and winches - Nigerian refloated without use of main engines of Calabar-Value of services -Danger to Nigerian.

THE "LUIGI ACCAME."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 106

Salvage-Services rendered by pilot to Italian steamship Luigi Accame - Vessel, refloated by salvors after being ashore near St. Catherine's Point, I.O.W., being towed by tugs to Netley, where it was intended to beach her, preparatory to entering graving dock at Southampton - Vessel in leaky condition, necessitating continuous pumping-Boarded by plaintiff pilot off Needles in ordinary course of duty -Beached in a safe position at Netley -Whether services rendered by pilot were salvage services or were within the scope of his duties as pilot.

THE "UNJA."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 114

Collision-Undocking into River Thames -Collision between barge New Moon (in tow of tug Leo) and Russian steamship Unja, in Lower Pool-Unja, having emerged from Surrey Basin, headed down river-Duty of vessel undocking-Tug and tow bound up- Dispute as to place of collision - Whether to north or south of mid-channel -Duty of tug and tow-Look-out.

LOUIS DREYFUS & CO. v. LAURO.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 120

Charter-party-Breach-Tender of vessel -Charter by claimants from respondent of steamship to be nominated of minimum capacity for cargo of 7200 tons at the rate of 26s. 6d. per ton for shelled groundnuts-"(16) Lay days, at charterers' or their agents' option, not to commence before the 10th December, 1936, and charterers or their agents to have the option of cancelling this agreement should the vessel not be in a seaworthy condition, free of inward cargo, also entered outwards at the Custom House, and ready to load cargo in all holds, and written notice to that effect given by 4 p.m. on the 25th day of December, 1936. (41) Owners to nominate a vessel . . . not less than one month before the date of expected readiness to load . . ."-Tender of steamship Edera on Nov. 13-Rejected by claimants by reason of her size - Request for arbitration as to whether Edera was good tender-Award dated Dec. 10 that Edera was not good tender -Steamship Benmacdhui immediately chartered by claimants in open market at 45s. per ton-Re-tender of Edera by respondent on Dec. 11 in mitigation- Acceptance by claimants-Measure of damages - Claims for extra freight payable in respect of Benmacdhui; cost of storage of groundnuts; loss of weight during storage; loss of interest in respect of delayed payment for cargo -Whether claimants acted reasonably in chartering the Benmacdhui; further, whether they acted reasonably in waiting until Dec. 10 to charter tonnage in the open market-Arbitration -Award that the claimants were entitled to excess freight payable in respect of the Benmacdhui, less the amount saved by them in chartering the Edera upon re-tender; but that the further damages claimed were not the direct or probable consequence of the respondent's breach-Case stated.

KIRK v. PARKER.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 129

Negligence-Running-down case-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff cyclist in collision with defendant's lorry on Kingston Road, Ewell-Lorry being driven round right-hand bend in road; cyclist, following motor van, proceeding in opposite direction-Allegation by plaintiff that lorry went round corner on its wrong side-Contention by defendant that cyclist pulled out from behind the motor van and ran into rear mudguard of lorry-Statements made to police-constable called to scene of accident - Evidence of independent witnesses-Judgment of Greaves-Lord, J., in favour of plaintiff -Reasons for judgment-Appeal by defendant.

FOCKE & CO., LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HECHT & CO.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 135

Sale of goods-Description-Sale of boxes of Australian eggs c.i.f. & e.-Documents to consist of bills of lading, invoices, policy of insurance and/or insurance certificates, Government Inspection Certificates for size and quality and certificates of origin- "Government Grade Certificate shall be accepted as evidence of grading for quality, condition and weight with the exception of manifest errors"-Resale by buyers-Rejection by sub-buyers on ground of quality-Award of damages against buyers - Claim by buyers against sellers-Arbitration-Findings of umpire (inter alia) that the defects complained of by the sub-buyers existed when the eggs were delivered in Australia for examination by the Government inspector and when they were put on board ship; that the shipments contained an unusual and abnormal number of defective eggs and that the grading for quality, condition and weight was badly done; that they did not come up to the standard which buyers would expect for boxes of eggs accompanied by Australian Government Grading Certificates and apart from possessing that certificate were not in fact merchantable as boxes of eggs of the quality, condition and weight prescribed by the Australian Commerce (Export Dairy Produce) Regulations, (1930) S.R. & O. No. 132; but that, the sellers having delivered the contractual eggs (i.e., Australian eggs packed by a named packer and with a Government Grade certificate), the buyers could not complain as to their quality, condition or weight- Case stated - Whether Government Grade Certificate conclusive as to condition.

HERBERT v. RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE COMPANY.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 143

Motor insurance-Third-party liability- W's motor-cycle and sidecar insured with defendant company - Accident with lorry, in which plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured-Motor-cycle being driven by P, W being in sidecar- Action brought by plaintiff against W and lorry driver-Judgment recovered against W-Judgment unsatisfied- Claim against defendant company under Sect. 10 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934-"The company shall not be liable in respect of any accident incurred while any motor-cycle is being driven by or is for the purpose of being driven by him in the charge of any person other than the insured"-Construction - Whether proper notice given to defendant company under Sect. 10 (2)-"Commencement of proceedings" -Contention that notice was indirectly given by W to defendant company through agent who effected insurance.

THE "CRISTINA."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 147

International law - Ship - Arrest of Spanish steamship Cristina by owners -Writ in rem issued against the Cristina "and all persons claiming an interest therein"-Motion by Spanish Government to set aside writ and arrest-Plea by Spanish Government that vessel was requisitioned by decree; that they were in de facto possession and control of the vessel; and that the present proceedings (1) impleaded them, a foreign Sovereign State recognised as such by his Majesty's Government; (2) purported to interfere with property which was under their control-Vessel outside Spanish territorial waters at time of decree and subsequently-Extra-territorial effect of decree - Whether Spanish Government impleaded by writ in rem-Immunity of State-owned trading ships.

BOWERS AND ANOTHER v. GROVE.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 172

Sale of ship-Breach of warranty-Innocent misrepresentation-Hire-purchase agreement entered into between plaintiff buyers and defendant seller in respect of defendant's steamship Jubilee-Jubilee intended by plaintiffs for passenger excursions on tidal reaches of River Thames-Defendant informed by plaintiffs that vessel should have certain power and speed and be suitable for use on the tidal reaches of River Thames-Affirmations by defendant and subsequently by defendant's foreman and engineer upon inspection by plaintiffs-Vessel found on delivery to be unsuitable in respect of both power and speed-Misrepresentation of particulars of vessel - No reference to power, speed or suitability in agreement, which was accepted by plaintiffs as incorporating the agreed terms-Whether the affirmations by the defendant and his representatives amounted to a collateral warranty as to vessel's speed, power and suitability -Animus contrahendi.

J. L. KIER & CO., LTD. v. WHITEHEAD IRON & STEEL COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 177

Sale of goods-Delivery-"Buyers' total requirements up to 8000 tons" - Contract by defendants to supply plaintiffs with mild steel reinforcing bars-Requisition by plaintiffs for supply of 4000 tons-Contention by defendants that they were under no obligation to deliver as the steel was not required in respect of works which the plaintiffs were executing or had contracted to execute-Meaning of "requirements"- "Demands" or "needs"-Custom of trade.

NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA v. RAMJIBAN SEROWJEE.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 181

Bill of lading-Mate's receipts-Issue of bills of lading without production of mate's receipts-Purchase of gunnies by respondents from mills-Resale by respondents to Export Company - Delivery free alongside export vessel -"3. Payments to be made in cash in exchange for . . . mate's receipts (which . . . mate's receipts are to be handed by . . . ship's officer to the sellers' representatives). 4. The buyers hereby acknowledge that so long as such . . . mate's receipts (whether in sellers' or buyers' name) are in possession of the sellers, the lien of the sellers, as unpaid vendors, subsists both on such . . . mate's receipts and the goods they represent until payment in full" - Freight engaged by Export Company with appellant steamship company and shipping instructions given by Export Company to respondents-Instructions passed on by respondents to mills - Goods tendered by mills to ship with request: "Please receive on board from the above mills the undernoted goods shipping documents for which have been taken out in the name of [Export Company] and hand the mate's receipts to our sircar"-Mate's receipts handed to mills' representatives

in following terms: "Received on board . . . for conveyance to Kobe from [Export Company] the undermentioned goods subject to the terms and conditions of the company's bills of lading"-Bills of lading issued by appellants to Export Company in exchange for letter of indemnity - Tender of mate's receipts by respondents to Export Company-Default in payment by Export Company - Notification immediately given by respondents to appellants that they (respondents) had an unsatisfied lien for the price and that bills of lading must not be issued by appellants until mate's receipts were handed to them (appellants)-Goods by that time resold by Export Company to Japanese purchasers, delivery having been given by appellants to bill of lading holders-Claim by respondents against appellants-Liability of shipowners to holders of mate's receipts- Conversion-Passing of property.

E. TIMM & SON, LTD. v. NORTHUMBRIAN SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 191

Bill of lading-Unseaworthiness-Bunkers -"Faults or errors in navigation" -Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners for loss of cargo shipped at Vancouver for Hull - Vessel, having left Colon, bound for St. Thomas to bunker-Inadequacy of bunkers-Decision of captain to deviate to Port Royal, Jamaica, for bunkers-Stranding of vessel on the Morant Cays in normal weather-Total loss of vessel and cargo-Evidence as to navigation of vessel prior to stranding-Whether shipowners had failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy in regard to her bunkers - Plaintiffs' contention that insufficient bunkers were carried for stage of voyage from Vancouver to St. Thomas, or, assuming a fresh stage commenced at Colon, for voyage from Colon to St. Thomas - Dispute as to bunker requirements for such a voyage-Seaworthiness by stages -Incorporation in bill of lading of Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1910-Sects. 4, 6, 7.

F. M. PHILIPPSON & CO. v. IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 195

Carriage by air-"International carriage" as defined by Convention of Warsaw of Oct. 12, 1929-General Conditions of Carriage of Goods (I.A.T.A.)-High Contracting Parties to Convention of Warsaw-Contract made in England for carriage of gold from London to Brussels-Stolen from Croydon Aerodrome -Claim by consignees-Consignment note based upon Convention (given force of law in England by Carriage by Air Act, 1932)-Preliminary questions for Court - "Whether the carriage covered by the consignment note was 'international carriage' as defined by Art. 1 (2) of the General Conditions of Carriage of Goods"-Carriage by Air Act, 1932, Sect. 1 (2), Sched. 1.

STANDARD MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 202

War risk insurance - Recovery of losses from enemy-Award by United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission - Right of British reinsurers to share in recovery - Plaintiffs (British underwriters) and defendants (American underwriters) mutually interested in same risks (as insurers, reinsurers or co-insurers) during Great War - Setting up of Commission, after signing of Treaty of Berlin between United States and Germany, to adjudicate upon claims for war losses by American nationals against Germany-Claim by defendants-Character of claims to be presented-Commission's decision that "no underwriters, other than corporations incorporated under the laws of the United States or any State thereof . . . and partnerships and/or individuals other than such as owe permanent allegiance to the United States, are to share in any manner whatsoever in the distribution of the awards involved in this settlement"-Award of actual out-of-pocket losses - Effect of Commission's decision - Whether intended to abrogate plaintiffs' derivative rights-Jurisdiction of Commission- Nature of award-Contention by plaintiffs that award should be regarded as salvage in diminution of losses sustained and that therefore they were entitled to share-Reparation received by British Government from Germany in respect of war losses to nationals, but no distribution made to plaintiffs.

WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK BOARD v. TRADE INDEMNITY COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 209

Contract-Breach - Res judicata - Surety bond guaranteeing performance of contract -Construction of works by K & R on plaintiffs' dock premises at Workington -Instructions to persons tendering that contractor must make his own independent inquiries as to the site and the water therein, and that the plaintiffs would not be bound by any representation that their engineers or their employees or the plaintiffs' employees might make to the contractors, unless in writing by the clerk to the plaintiffs -Tender by K & R-K & R notified that tender would be accepted if they provided guarantee-Surety bond for £50,000 entered into by defendants guaranteeing K & R's performance of contract-Failure of K & R to complete contract-Work completed by plaintiffs -Claim under bond - Evidence of agreements for loans made by plaintiffs to K & R during course of contract work-Indebtedness of K & R to plaintiffs denoted by final certificate issued by plaintiffs' engineers, certifying that £78,785 was due - Sum including balance due upon loans for principal and interest-Decision of H.L. that the loan agreements were outside the original contract and did not come

within the defendants' obligations under their bond, and that therefore the engineers' certificate, which included unknown sums due under the loan agreements, was not binding on the defendants-Further action brought by plaintiffs on bond, plaintiffs alleging that by reason of the breach of the general undertaking by K & R to carry out the terms and obligations of the contract, they (the plaintiffs) had suffered loss and damage-Plea by defendants of res judicata-Correct procedure upon such a plea-Order of C.A. (Greer and Slesser, L.JJ., MacKinnon, L.J., dissenting), reversing Lewis, J., and affirming Master, that proceedings must be stayed.

NAAMLOOZE VENNOOTSCHAP HANDELS-EN-TRANSPORT MAATSCHAPPIJ "VULCAAN" v. J. LUDWIG MOWINCKELS REDERI A/S.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 217

SOCIETE BELGE DES BETONS, SOCIETE ANONYME; SOCIETE COLONIALE DE CONSTRUCTION, SOCIETE ANONYME; AND SOCIEDAD IBERICA DE CONSTRUCCIONES Y OBRAS PUBLICAS v. LONDON & LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 225

Marine insurance - "Restraints and detainments of all kings, princes and peoples" - Insurance of plaintiff companies' vessels and appurtenances used in connection with construction of harbour works at Valencia (Spain) -Outbreak of civil war-Unauthorized incautacion of plaintiffs' property by committee composed of plaintiffs' workmen -Meaning of "incautacion"- Committee of workmen supported in incautacion by Popular Executive Committee, the de facto and de jure Government of Valencia at the time- Subsequent decree of incautacion by Popular Executive Committee entered in Spanish Government records- Claim by plaintiffs for total loss.

COMPANIA NAVIERA BACHI v. HENRY HOSEGOOD & SON, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 236

Charter-party-Barratry of the crew-Discharge of bulk maize cargo at Sharpness from plaintiffs' steamship-Delivery to defendants (receivers under bills of lading)-Refusal by crew to permit stevedores to discharge-Dispute between plaintiffs and crew over wages, upon confiscation of vessel by Spanish Government - Negotiations between master, ship's agent and crew -Injunction obtained by defendants against master (erroneously) and crew -Extra cost of discharge-Claim by defendants to deduct costs of injunction and extra discharging costs from balance of freight admittedly due- Contention by plaintiffs that they were protected by the charter-party terms (incorporated in bill of lading) providing (inter alia): "(29) The steamer shall not be liable for loss or damage occasioned by . . . barratry of the master or crew . . . by riots, strikes or stoppages of labour . . . (30) If the cargo . . . cannot be discharged by reason of riots, civil commotions, or of a strike or lock-out of any class of workmen essential to the discharge, the time for . . . discharging . . . shall not count during the continuance of such causes . . . In case of any delay by reason of the before-mentioned causes, no claim for damages or demurrage, shall be made by the charterers, receivers of the cargo, or owners of the steamer. War Risks Clause: . . . (2) The ship shall have liberty to comply with any orders or directions as to . . . delivery or otherwise howsoever given by the Government of the Nation under whose flag the vessel sails or any department thereof, or any person acting or purporting to act with the authority of such Government or of any department thereof . . . and delivery in accordance with such orders or directions shall be a fulfilment of the contract voyage and the freight shall be payable accordingly"-

"Barratry of the master or crew" -"Strikes or stoppages of labour" -Whether action by crew taken in compliance with orders of Spanish Government authorities-Submission by defendants that plaintiffs were in fault (1) in not paying the crew at proper time; (2) in not taking steps either to arrest crew or obtain an injunction-Construction of charter-party -Meaning of "loss or damage."

MAIDMENT v. GEORGE COHEN, SONS & CO., LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 245

Negligence - Contributory negligence - Independent contractor-Common employment -Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while assisting in operation of lowering launch from defendants' steamship Reclaimer-Reclaimer bought by defendants for breaking up and resale of material-Plaintiff, independent contractor, employed by defendants to remove pump from below deck-Necessity first to remove launch from deck and lower it overside-Use of winch operated by hand-Voluntary assistance by plaintiff-Plaintiff struck by winch handle and seriously injured -Dispute as to person in charge of operations - Questions to jury and answers: "(1) Was plaintiff in charge of operation of putting launch into water? No. (2) Was H [defendants' employee] in charge on defendants' behalf? Yes. (3) as accident caused by any act or default or direction given by H? Yes. (4) Was winch in reasonably fit condition for job? Yes. (5) Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence? No"-Damages: £5000- Appeal by defendants - Contentions that there was no evidence on which the jury could find that H was in charge, or, assuming he was in charge, that it was within the scope of his duties to

take charge; that there was no evidence that H was negligent; that the accident was in part due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence; and that the doctrine of common employment applied.

PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL BANK v. PRICE.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 257

Insurance - Forged securities policy - Fraud of customer of bank-Advances made in good faith by bank upon fictitious invoices deposited by customer- Advances made and invoices (Some fictitious) deposited daily over a period during currency of policy-Daily advances never more than 25,000 dols.- Bank's losses during currency of policy amounting to over 400,000 dols.-Claim by bank under policy-"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained this insurance is only to pay claims for the excess of 25,000 dols., ultimate net loss, by each and every loss or occurrence" - Whether the numerous fraudulent transactions were so inter-related as to amount to one ultimate net loss or whether each day's loss was a separate loss or occurrence.

DENNEHY v. BELLAMY.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 269

Insurance-Practice-Stay of action-Employers' liability policy taken out by B with defendant underwriter - Accident sustained by plaintiff while employed in B's service-Action brought by plaintiff against B-Liability of defendant underwriter under policy - Liability repudiated - Arbitration under clause in Scott v. Avery form - Adjournment of proceedings - Judgment for £2480 recovered by plaintiff against B - Bankruptcy of B-Claim by plaintiff to be indemnified under policy - Application by defendant to stay action- Order of Wrottesley J., (reversing Master), staying action - Appeal by plaintiff-Discretion of learned Judge -Arbitration Act, 1934, Sect. 3 (4).

IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION v. SAMUEL WEST, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 273

Costs-Wreck-Public authority-Sinking of defendants' barge by collision in River Orwell - Statutory powers of plaintiff Dock Commission under Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, Sect. 56-Wreck lighted by plaintiffs -Agreement between plaintiffs and defendants that plaintiffs would raise the wreck and restore her to defendants at their expense - Wreck raised by plaintiffs and shifted to position nearer bank-Light removed-Wreck run into by steamship Oxbird, further damage being sustained-Wreck again raised by plaintiffs-Claim by plaintiffs to total cost incurred in raising wreck-Tender by defendants of £250 as cost of first raising-Judgment for defendants on counterclaim in respect of second raising-Reference to assess damages-Amount found due as cost of first raising: £300-Costs of claim and counterclaim.

MICELI v. UNION MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 275

Marine insurance-Perils of the sea- Damage by sea water to cargo of wet salted and dried codfish - Cargo shipped at Faroe Islands for Italian ports-Heavy weather experienced on voyage-Claim by cargo-owner-Onus of proof of damage by sea water- Evidence of condition of other cargo.

THE "MANCHESTER REGIMENT."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 279

Collision-Crossing or overtaking courses -Collision between steamships Clan Mackenzie and Manchester Regiment in Liverpool Bay in broad daylight- Clan Mackenzie bound westward; Manchester Regiment flying "J.I." signal, indicating that she was adjusting her compasses-Contention by Clan Mackenzie that the vessels were on crossing courses and that she was the stand-on ship; by Manchester Regiment, that the vessels were on overtaking courses and that she was the stand-on ship-Duty of other vessels towards ship flying "J.I." signal- Obligation upon stand-on ship-Look-out - Speed - Collision Regulations, Arts. 19, 21, 24.

GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE AND LIFE, ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD. v. SHUTTLEWORTH AND ANOTHER.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 301

Motor insurance-Avoidance of policy- Third party injured-Judgment recovered against assured-Declaration claimed by insurance company that they were entitled to avoid policy (and/or cover subsequently granted to assured upon substitution of car) on ground of fraudulent misrepresentation of fact; further, on ground that the insurance company were never on risk-Evidence that before the substituted cover was issued the assured had been convicted of driving a motor cycle without a certificate of insurance being in force, that he had been fined, and that he had been disqualified from driving for 12 months-Condition of policy providing that company should not be liable while any car was being driven by the policy holder unless he held a licence to drive such car-Effect of Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10 (1), (3), (5)-"Liability covered by the terms of the policy"-Whether policy of no effect-Non-compliance by company with Sect. 36 (5) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930-Policy sent direct to finance corporation, with whom assured had hire-purchase agreement- Right of defendants (the assured and the third party being joined) to rely on cover note-Provision of cover note that risk was covered "in terms of the [company's] usual form of policy applicable thereto."

PETERS v. GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 311

Motor insurance-Accident-Liability of insurers-Policy taken out by C with defendant company-Sale of car by C to P-Plaintiff injured by reason of negligent driving of P- Judgment recovered against P-Judgment unsatisfied-Claim by plaintiff against defendant company under Sect. 10 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934-Extension clause of policy covering "any person who is driving such vehicle on the policyholder's order or with his permission" - Whether C retained any interest in car-Passing of property-Right of assignment of policy by assured to buyer of car.

THE "VALONIA."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 314

Negligent navigation-Vessels on overtaking courses in River Thames, rounding Crayford Ness-Plaintiff steamship Granta and defendant auxiliary sailing barge Valonia bound up river-Granta overtaking Valonia - Allegation by Granta that she was obliged to take excessive port helm action by reason of the failure of the Valonia to keep her course, with the result that she (the Granta) went ashore on the south side of the river-Duty of overtaking vessel -Look-out.

THE "HAVNIA."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 321

Collision-Helm action-Whistle signals- Vessels meeting at entrance to narrow channel-Collision between German steamship Ernst L. M. Russ and Finnish steamship Havnia in Archangel Roads-Havnia emerging from and Ernst L. M. Russ intending to enter Kegostrov channel-Necessity for the vessels to make right-angle turn -Duty to signal when and what helm action was being taken-Look-out.

THE "BRABANT."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 323

Negligent navigation-Anchored vessel- Collision between Russian motor vessel Felix Dzerjinsky and craft in barge roads in Woolwich Reach, River Thames -Allegation by Russian vessel, bound up river, that Dutch motor vessel Brabant, lying at anchor, came ahead and forced her (the Russian vessel) to take sudden port helm action, and that the subsequent collision was a direct consequence-Contention by Brabant that the Russian vessel passed too close at speed and caused the Brabant to drag her anchor and move across the river-Onus of proof-Look-out.

ELOF HANSSON AGENCY, LTD. v. VICTORIA MOTOR HAULAGE COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 332

Lighterage-Damage to consignment of bales of paper shipped in barge in Surrey Commercial Docks-Contract by defendants (haulage, wharfage and lighterage contractors) to collect on plaintiffs' behalf bales of paper from steamship Regulus and deliver as directed-Condition on defendants' accounts providing: "Not responsible for strikes, lockouts, or labour disturbances of any kind"-Sub-contract entered into by defendants with lighterage company to provide barge-Barge part loaded-Sinking of barge overnight -Alleged unseaworthiness-Liability of defendants-Contract of affreightment-Warranty of seaworthiness -Contention by defendants that plaintiffs were impliedly bound by subcontract conditions; alternatively, by terms of London Lighterage Clause, as recently amended, which amendment provided that carriers were not responsible for unseaworthiness of craft- Custom.

SMITH v. CAMMELL LAIRD & CO., LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 345

Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931-Breach of statutory duty-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while working in hold of vessel in wet dock, part of defendants' shipbuilding yard-Defect in staying erected by defendants- Vessel, having undergone trials, re-docked for completion-Cork Insulation Company employed by prospective owners of vessel to carry out certain insulation work-Cork Insulation Company permitted by defendants to use staging-Plaintiff a servant of Cork Insulation Company-Responsibility of occupier-Whether defendants occupiers of locus-Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931-Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, Sects. 79, 82, 104, Sixth Schedule, Part II, No. 25.

REARDON SMITH LINE, LTD. v. BLACK SEA & BALTIC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 353

Charter-party - General average - Deviation -Vessel bound from Poti to Baltimore-Customary route-Call at Constantza for bunker fuel-"20. Steamer has liberty to call at any port or ports, in any order, or places, to bunker"-Stranding at Constantza- Part cargo jettisoned-General average expenses incurred-Cargo lien released by plaintiff shipowners on guarantee given by cargo underwriters-Claim by plaintiffs for declaration that cargo underwriters were liable to pay to them the contribution due from cargo towards general average loss and expenditure, and that underwriters should concur in releasing to plaintiffs the sum deposited in bank in joint names to cover balance of freight (withheld from payment by consignees of jettisoned cargo)-Whether route taken was the ordinary commercial route for such a vessel-Trade custom or usage -Ambiguity-Waiver.

MARSH v. LENSEN SHIPPING, LTD. [THE "TERNEUZEN."]

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 368

Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act, 1925-Wreck-Claim for wages-Vessel stranded at Setubal on Jan. 27, 1937-Efforts made by shipowners to refloat-Decision on May 5 to abandon as total loss-Plaintiff (chief officer) paid off, being paid wage. up to May 5-Articles terminating on June 30-Right of plaintiff to two months' wages from May 5-Sect. 1: "(1) Where by reason of the wreck or loss of a ship on which a seaman is employed his service terminates before the date contemplated in the agreement, he shall, notwithstanding anything in Sect. 158 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled, in respect of each day on which he is in fact unemployed during a period of two months from the date of the termination of the service, to receive wages at the rate to which he was entitled at that date"-Date from which period of two months should run-Meaning of "wreck"-Whether wreck occurred when vessel stranded or when abandoned -Contention by shipowners that plaintiff's services under articles terminated by reason of wreck on Jan. 27 and that plaintiff's further services were rendered under an agreement to be implied, not from the articles, out from the relationship which those articles created.

THE "LONDON."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 373

Collision-Fog-Collision between steamships Rayford and London in North Sea - Rayford sunk - Vessels on opposite courses-Rayford navigating in fog; London just entered fog bank -Contention by Rayford that she had stopped on hearing the fog signal of the London ahead; that she went slow ahead and starboarded on hearing the "lying stopped" signal of the London; and that then, seeing the bow wave of the London very close forward of her port beam, she went full ahead and hard-a-ported her helm in an attempt to swing her stern clear-Contention by London that, having taken action for the Rayford, she (the London) was lying stopped just before the collision and that she went full astern upon becoming aware of the Rayford fine on her starboard bow and swinging to starboard-Angle of blow -Speeds-Engine movements-Alteration of course.

THE "HENRIK IBSEN" AND THE "MARY MILLER."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 380

Collision-Anchored vessels-Dragging- Norwegian steamship Henrik Ibsen, auxiliary motor schooner Happy Harry and schooner Mary Miller at anchor in the Sloyne, River Mersey-Vessels lying to flood tide-Wind of gale force- Collisions between Henrik Ibsen and Happy Harry and between Mary Miller and Happy Harry in swinging to ebb tide-Look-out-Scope of anchor chains-Foul berth-Duty of vessels with engine power.

AUNE v. CAUWENBERGHE & FILS.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 389

Sale of goods (c.i.f.)-Declaration of shipment -Sale of palm kernels c.i.f. Marseilles, March/April shipment from port of origin-Incorporation of terms of Liverpool Seed, Oil, Cake and General Produce Association Contract, No. 22a-"8. Particulars of the kernels, namely, quantity, port of shipment and ship's name, must be duly declared"- First declaration admittedly bad- Second declaration made by sellers including port of shipment but stating ship's name with reservations-Third declaration including ship's name without reservations but omitting port of shipment-Whether second and third declarations together constituted a valid declaration.

GROOM v. CROCKER.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 393

Solicitor and client-Motor insurance- Running-down action-Duty of solicitors and insurance company-Breach of duty-Libel-Plaintiff insured with defendant insurance company-"The [insurance company] shall if and so long as it so desires have absolute conduct and control of all or any proceedings against the insured . . ." Collision between plaintiff's car and lorry belonging to T-Plaintiff and passenger (plaintiff's brother) injured-Lorry driver convicted of dangerous driving- Claim by plaintiff against T settled- Writ issued by passenger against plaintiff and T as joint defendants- Writ handed to defendant company -Papers passed on by company to defendant solicitors-Arrangement between defendant insurance company and T's insurers that each should pay half damages awarded- Delivery of defence by defendant solicitors, acting on plaintiff's behalf, wherein plaintiff was made to admit that the collision occurred solely by reason of his negligence, with a covering letter saying that their client (the plaintiff) "admits that he was negligent on the occasion referred to in the statement of claim" - Defence put in by T denying negligence-Protest by plaintiff to defendant company upon learning of admission of negligence in defence-Letter written by defendant company to sub-agent: "You state that [the plaintiff] is very cross that, without his consent, negligence should be admitted when, in fact, no one seriously suggests that he was negligent. That may be the view of our insured, but nevertheless if we had repudiated liability we ran a very serious risk of the Court holding a different view and giving a decision against us" - Trial of action-Damages and costs awarded against plaintiff (in fact paid by defendant company)-Claim brought by plaintiff against defendant solicitors and defendant company for breach of contract, negligence and libel-Duty of solicitors and insurance company in such circumstances - Whether letters were defamatory - Plea by solicitors that letter was written on privileged occasion-Proof of malice-Measure of damages - Questions to jury, with answers: (1) Were the defendants, Messrs. Crocker, guilty of negligence or breach of duty?-Yes. (2) If yes, what damages?-£1000. (3) Libel as to Messrs. Crocker; Are the words defamatory in their ordinary meaning?-Yes. (4) Do they bear the meaning alleged in the innuendo, and if so are they defamatory in that sense?-Yes. (5) Were the defendants guilty of malice in sending the said letter?- Yes, indirect motive. (6) Was the letter of Mar. 26 written with the leave and licence of the plaintiff?-No. (7) Damages for libel against Messrs. Crocker?-£1000. (8) As to the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society, Ltd.: Were these defendants guilty of negligence or breach of duty?- Yes. (9) If yes, what damages?-£1000. (10) As to the libel: Are the words defamatory in their ordinary meaning? -Yes. (11) Do they bear the meaning alleged in the innuendo, and if so are they defamatory in that sense?- Yes. (12) Damages for libel against the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society, Ltd.?-£1000.

THE "INNA."

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 414

Admiralty practice-Maritime liens- Priorities-Damage-Subsequent salvage -Explosion on board vessel in Poole Harbour, causing damage to adjacent premises-Vessel sunk-Salvage agreement entered into with owners of vessel-Vessel refloated by salvors-Writ and arrest by damage claimants-Writ issued by salvors upon completion of salvage operations- Judgment by default-Sale of ship by order of the Court-Proceeds of sale less than agreed salvage remuneration- Motion by salvors for payment out- Intervention by damage claimants- Whether Court entitled to review agreed salvage remuneration by reason of fact that it exceeded salved value- Principle on which Court acts- Reasonableness of agreement.

C. H. SMITH & SONS FELLMONGERY PROPRIETARY, LTD., AND OTHERS v. PENINSULAR & ORIENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 419

Bill of lading - Unseaworthiness - Damage to cargo - Plaintiff's cargo carried in 'tween deck and lower hold of defendants' steamship from Australia to United Kingdom - Received for shipment in apparent good order and condition - Delivered damaged by sea water-Cause of entry of sea water - Repairs to ship before commencement of voyage - Replacement of hood over discharge pipe by ship repairers - Bolt holding hood found missing upon arrival in United Kingdom - Evidence that upon conversion of vessel from coal-burning to oil-burning, certain scuppers in the 'tween deck were blanked out, reducing provision for drainage - Discovery of water in 'tween deck during voyage - Duty of ship's officers in such circumstances - Neglect or default in the management of the ship - Australian Sea Carriage of Goods Act, 1924, Schedule, Art. III, r. 1, 2, Art. IV, r. 2 (a), (c), (q).

Lloyd's Law Reports