We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

Lloyd's Law Reports RSS feed


Insurance-Marine or war insurance-Warlike operations-Damage to plaintiffs' ship by sea perils - Proximate cause - Plaintiffs insured by defendant association against "consequences of hostilities or warlike operations"-Ship loaded with war stores for carriage from Liverpool to Alexandria -Circuitous route via Cape of Good Hope -Urgency of operations necessitating carriage of heavy deck cargo (which was unusual on such voyage)-Very heavy weather experienced on voyage, resulting in deck cargo breaking adrift, tearing tarpaulins and smashing hatch covers- Entry of sea water into hold, causing ship to be down by head-Speed maintained in spite of change of trim-Damage to ship (1) in way of No. 2 hold, directly attributable to deck cargo coming adrift; (2) in way of forepeak; (3) in way of after well deck and poop-Whether total damage recoverable under policy as a consequence of warlike operations-Onus of proof-Meaning of "consequences."

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 1


Negligence - Safe means of access - Contributory negligence - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff (engine-room attendant) on board ship-Fall down ventilator shaft-Plaintiff instructed to carry out certain maintenance tasks in fan room - Plaintiff unfamiliar with equipment-Stepping on to wire grid for purpose of doing particular job-Collapse of grid - Alleged absence of lights - Appeal by employers against judgment of Stable, J., in favour of plaintiff.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 16


Collision-Canal-Restricted channel-Sheer- Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Radstock and defendants' hopper No. 5 (in tow of tug Mayflower) in Gloucester and Berkeley Canal - Radstock bound down; Mayflower (towing No. 5) bound up and intending to pick up another hopper (No. 3) astern of No. 5-No. 3 lying moored on north bank and restricting width of canal-Vessels sighted by each other across land at bend in canal- Porting by each vessel in compliance with local by-laws - Speeds maintained - Radstock by reason of her draught unable to navigate close to canal bank and in fact proceeding down with her port bilge keel in intermittent contact with bed of canal -Collision abreast of No. 3-Strong wind blowing astern of tug and tow-Dispute as to which vessel sheered.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 20


Salvage - River - Anchor chains fouled - Services rendered by tugs Trafalgar, Morpeth, Crosby, Egerton, Nelson, Holm Cock and Storm Cock to steamship Empress of Australia and motor vessel Debrett in River Mersey - Empress of Australia bound up; Debrett at anchor- Failure by Empress of Australia to answer helm-Starboard anchor let go-Slight impact between port bow of Empress of Australia and port quarter of Debrett- Anchors and anchor chains found to be foul of each other, both vessels drifting up river and towards west bank - Vessels pushed and held by tugs until clear of each other and Debrett able to slip her anchor - Whether Empress of Australia was aground aft - Risk of grounding-Danger to other craft.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 24


Negligence - System of working - Personal injuries sustained by diver - Plaintiff diver engaged in salving of cargo from sunken wreck-Salvage operations being carried out by O. Co (plaintiff's employers) and W.-Practice for diver to place wire strop round piece of cargo and to attach strop to hook of hoisting wire-Signal then made to surface craft to hoist - Strop attached round wooden case and hoisting signal given - Case jammed-Sudden freeing of case, injuring plaintiff - Action brought against employers alleging breach of duty and against W. alleging negligence-Dispute as to cause of accident-Whether due to plaintiff's own negligence in prising the case free while the hoisting wire was taut or to rising and falling of salvage vessel in swell-Duty of salvage vessel to warn divers below of deteriorating conditions above.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 30


Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff seaman on board ship - Dismantling of torpedo net defence installation -Supporting guy attached to bottle screw - Screw insufficiently threaded - Sudden collapse of guy owing to screw coming apart, causing plaintiff to fall from platform 16 ft. above deck-Evidence that installation had been serviced and overhauled by naval personnel at Birkenhead just before she sailed on her voyage to St. John (N.B.) - Naval personnel under control of leading seaman (R.N.) - "N.D. Training Certificate" signed by naval officer and by master of ship certifying that installation was in efficient working order and that ship's company had received adequate training in its use-Duty of shipowners to inspect-Extent of duty-Action brought against leading seaman (R.N.) (first defendant) and against shipowners (second defendants)-Whether plaintiff precluded from recovering by reason of provisions of Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Act, 1942-Minister of Pensions empowered to make awards in respect of war injuries to seamen "which are not war injuries as defined by" the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939-Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Act, 1942, Sect. 1: (2) The injuries falling within this section are physical injuries sustained on or after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, at sea or in any other tidal water or in the waters of any harbour, and attributable to- (a) the taking of measures with a view to avoiding, preventing or hindering enemy action action ships, or as a precaution in anticipation of enemy action against ships, or for rescue or salvage purposes in consequence of enemy action against ships; (d) the existence on board ship of any other conditions arising out of any such war as aforesaid which would be abnormal in time of peace . . . . . . (3) For the purposes of this section an injury or any loss or damage shall be treated as being attributable to the matters specified in paragraph (a) . . or in paragraph (d) of the last preceding sub-section if, but only if, they substantially increased the risk of the peril occurring which caused the injury, loss or damage.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 39


Collision-Fog-Convoy-Single ship meeting fast two-ship convoy with escort-Escort vessels fitted with radar - Collision in English Channel between French steamship Espérance and Polish motor vessel Sobieski - Sobieski, commodore vessel of two-ship convoy travelling at speed, escorted by naval vessels, and subject to "Coastal Convoy Cruising Order and Instructions"-L., on board H.M. Canadian ship Loch Alvie, acting as senior officer in charge of escorting flotilla - Espérance inward bound for Solent and sounding pilot signal "G" (in the hope of obtaining directional guidance)-Ship being navigated at very slow speed to maintain northerly heading-Signal "Q" faintly heard from time to time on port bow-Espérance unaware that "Q" was recognized signal of south-bound convoys -Explosions heard on starboard quarter -Engines put slow ahead, helm being ported-"G" signal heard by Sobieski fine on starboard bow-Inquiry made to senior escort officer as to significance of "G" signal-"G" signal heard close to by Sobieski before inquiry answered- Engines immediately stopped and navigation lights switched on-Impact between port bow of Sobieski and port quarter of Espérance-Loch Alvie aware by radar of presence of surface vessel (which turned out to be Espérance), then some considerable distance away-Duty of L. to advise convoy commodore as to changes of course and speed deemed necessary-Presence of enemy submarine detected by Asdic before L. thought it necessary to advise convoy commodore as to change of course and speed-Depth charges dropped by Loch Alvie-Radar put out of action, making it impossible to ascertain later bearing of Espérance-Respective duties- Whether L. failed in his duty to warn commodore of presence of Espérance or to instruct her to alter course-Collision Regulations, Arts. 16, 27-Costs.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 51


Salvage-Services rendered by tugs Alfred and Wapping to steamship Tudor Prince in Irish Sea-Engines broken down-Request to ship's agents for tug assistance-Tugs Alfred and Wapping sent out from Liverpool, Tudor Prince being found and taken in tow about 11 hours later-Towage to Point Lynas (where Mersey pilot was picked up) and thence to Gladstone Dock (after a short delay owing to bad weather) -Services involving towage of about 70 miles and occupying about 26 hours - Weather worsening - Danger of drifting ashore - Meritorious service - Salved values: Ship, £150,000; Cargo, £220,000 -Awards: £1100 each tug.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 62


Collision - Convoy - Lights - Look-out - Collision between steamships Sylvia Beale and Yewkyle in North Sea-Both vessels originally in port column of south-bound convoy, with Yewkyle some way astern of Sylvia Beale-Yewkyle first seen by Sylvia Beale close to on a course crossing the Sylvia Beale's bows from port to starboard - Impact between stem of Sylvia Beale and starboard side aft of Yewkyle- Yewkyle sunk-Duty to keep station and course-Whether Sylvia Beale was keeping a good look-out-Dispute as to lights shown by Yewkyle and as to angle of blow.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 65


Bad berth-Damage to barge-Duty of berth-owners -Onus of proof-Claim by plaintiffs (owners of barge Nubia and of her cargo) against defendants (berth-owners) -Barge first made fast for four days to mooring chains off defendants' berth and then put on defendants' berth, where she took the ground on every tide-Discharge commenced three days later, when barge was found to be leaking-Dispute as to cause of leakage-Evidence of survey of berth made soon after leakage was discovered - Inference to be drawn from nature of damage to barge - Suggested possibility that damage was incurred at mooring chains-Probabilities.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 69


Repairs to ship-Breach of contract to repair - Subsequent leakage - Defective workmanship - Heavy weather - Collision repairs effected at Greenock by defenders to pursuers' ship in accordance with surveyors' recommendations-Leakage on voyage to St. John (N.B.) - Leaks repaired at St. John-Further leakage on voyage from St. John to Halifax-Further repairs carried out at Halifax-Leakages both within and outside the area of Greenock repairs - Evidence as to the nature and extent of repairs at Greenock -Whether defects discovered at St. John and Halifax due to effect of heavy weather on an old ship - Proof of heavy weather-Admissibility of logs-Whether statements in log admissible against ship -Alternative explanations of leakage - Probabilities.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 76


Collision - Crossing vessels - Stand-on ship (unlighted) under escort-Escort equipped with radar-Give-way ship also equipped with radar and showing her navigation lights-Respective duties under crossing rule - Obligation of escort - Collision between steamships Hindoo and Australia Star in Caribbean Sea-Ships on crossing courses with Hindoo as stand-on ship- Hindoo escorted by PC-616 (U.S. naval craft)-Australia Star aware (by radar) of presence of Hindoo 28 minutes before collision at distance of over 14,000 yards - Further radar readings indicating continued presence of Hindoo on narrowing bearing, last report (about 10 minutes before collision) recording Hindoo at distance of about 4000 yards-Lights of Australia Star switched on-No request by master of Australia Star for further radar reports-Green of Australia Star not recognized by Hindoo as starboard navigation light until just before collision, when Hindoo's lights switched on-PC-616 navigating on zigzag course ahead of Hindoo and aware (by her radar) of the presence of Australia Star - Unsuccessful attempt made by PC-616 to send visual warning signal to Australia Star - Whether Australia Star, as the lighted ship, entitled to expect Hindoo (unlighted) to keep out of her way-Duty of Australia Star to make full use of her radar equipment as a means of safety-Scope of duty owed by PC-616 to Hindoo and to Australia Star - Discontinuance of gratuitous service-Collision Regulations, Arts. 19, 29.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 85


Charter-party - Hire - Cesser of hire - War risk insurance premiums-War bonus to crew-Liability of charterers during off-hire period-Plaintiffs' steamship Kul time-chartered to Ministry of Shipping- Hire (payable monthly in advance) to cease when accident prevented working of vessel for more than 72 consecutive hours -War risk premiums and war bonus to crew to be for charterers' account- Charter-party modified by inclusion of following addendum: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this charter-party, in the event of loss of time arising from collision, neither hire nor war risk insurance premiums nor such war bonus to crew as would otherwise be payable by the charterer under this charter-party shall be payable by the charterer to the extent to which the owners would have a right to recover on the basis of cross-liabilities from the other colliding vessel loss of hire and the cost of war risk insurance premiums, and the cost of such war bonus to crew, as part of their damages if under this charter-party the charterer's liability for hire and war risk insurance premium and such war bonus to crews ceased at the commencement of and during such loss of time"-Kul in collision with steamship Mergus-Kul detained less than 72 hours for collision repairs - Admission of liability by Mergus-Collision damages- Reference to Registrar-Repayment by owners of Kul to charterers of sum covering hire, war risk insurance premiums and war bonus to crew during period of detention - Whether recoverable by owners of Kul from owners of Mergus as part of damages sustained by collision- Construction of addendum.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 91


Ship - Master - Wages - Disbursements - "Short hand money"-Alleged misconduct of master - Dismissal - Ship's articles-Plaintiff employed by shipowners (acting through their managers) as master of small steamer which was to undertake round voyage to Mediterranean - Insufficient accommodation on board for full complement of officers - Difficulty experienced by master in obtaining full complement-Less than full complement engaged by master under "gentlemen's agreement" that they should be paid "short hand money"-Portage accounts (which included payments of "short hand money") rendered by master at end of voyage-Refusal by managers to sanction payments of "short hand money"- Termination of plaintiff's employment- Claim by master for wages and disbursements and for damages for wrongful dismissal-Action in rem brought against ship and in personam against shipowners and managers-Money paid into Court by defendants generally in lieu of bail to release ship-Dispute as to whether shipowners and/or managers had agreed to pay "short hand money" - Ship's articles made and signed without reference to "short hand money"-Contention by plaintiff that managers had agreed that the matter of "short hand money" should be referred to principal director of shipowners (C.) resident in Oran and that C. had subsequently authorized such payments - Enforceability of oral agreement varying articles -Evidence as to dismissal of master- Whether master dismissed and, if so, whether such dismissal was justified - Reasonable notice-Alleged irregularities by master: personal cheques drawn for disbursements; failure to report and insert in log grounding and damage on voyage; failure to keep fair log; failure to keep proper accounts - Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sects. 113, 114, 122, 123, 155, 156-Amendment of pleadings- Costs-R.S.C., Order 28, r. 1.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 96


Collision - Damages - Life claims - Foreign merchant seamen-Long delay in hearing claims-Increase in comparable earnings- Alteration in rate of exchange-Collision in 1939 between British steamship Swynfleet and French steamship Dinard- Dinard sunk, with loss of P. (chief engineer) and R. (stoker)-Admission of liability by Swynfleet-Limitation decree granted - Claims by dependants of deceased seamen under Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846-1908, and under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1943 - Reference as to life claims not heard until 1947-Right of Registrar to take into account events occurring since date of collision - Awards of learned Assistant Registrar based on estimation of probable earnings of seamen in 1947-Motion and cross-motion in objection-Power of Court to interfere with mere question of quantum.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 116


Ship - Ownership - Registered owners - Ship requisitioned by Crown-Failure by Crown to redeliver-Petition of right brought by registered owners claiming damages for non-delivery and detention-Settlement of claim, subject to proof of ownership- Evidence that ownership was transferred by C. (Greek subject with holding in suppliant company) to suppliants in 1933 -Allegation of adverse claim pending in Greek Courts brought by V. contesting C.'s ownership-Notice given to V. of petition of right, opportunity being given to V. to substantiate claim-No real steps taken by V.-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sects. 56, 57.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 122


Practice-Writ-Service out of the jurisdiction - Action "properly brought" - Conflict of laws-Carriage of goods by sea -Shipment of cargo in Danish ship from Brazil "to Haifa in transit to Beirut"- Bill of lading for most part in English headed "Scandinavian-South America- Mediterranean Line" and containing clause paramount providing: All the terms, provisions and conditions of the Act of the Kingdom of Norway dated the 4th February, 1938, relating to the enforcement of the International Convention concerning Bills of Lading of 25th August, 1924, are to apply to the contract contained in this bill of lading, and the carriers are to be entitled to the benefit of all privileges, rights and immunities contained in such Act as if the same were herein specifically set out. If, or to the extent that, any term of this bill of lading is repugnant to or inconsistent with anything in such Act it shall be void.

Freight expressed in U.S. currency-Cargo transhipped at Alexandria and carried direct to Beirut-Writ issued by plaintiffs against first defendants (ship's agents at Alexandria) alleging negligence as bailees; against second defendants (Danish shipowners) alleging breach of contract of carriage; and against both defendants alleging breach of contract and/or duty in and about carriage, storage, etc., of plaintiffs' cargo - Granting of ex parte application by plaintiffs for leave to serve writ upon second defendants-Motion by second defendants to set aside order- R.S.C., Order 11:

1. Service out of the jurisdiction of a writ of summons or notice of a writ of summons may be allowed by the Court or a Judge whenever . . . (e) The action is one brought against a defendant not domiciled or ordinarily resident in Scotland to enforce, rescind, dissolve, annul or otherwise affect a contract or to recover damages or other relief for or in respect of the breach of a contract . . . (iii) by its terms or by implication to be governed by English law . . . (g) Any person out of the jurisdiction necessary or proper party to an The "Stensby." K.B. 125 action properly brought against some other person duly served within the jurisdiction.

Proper law of contract-Principles to be applied-Inherent nature of contract- Intention of parties-Whether action was properly brought against first defendants -Discretion of Court.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 124


Collision-Convoy-Fog-Alteration of course - "Mersigs" - Signals - Look-out - Negligence of master of ship acting as commodore-Liability of shipowners-Collision in fog between motor vessel Macuba and steamship Glaucus while in convoy off Malta-Master of Glaucus acting as commodore of convoy consisting of six vessels in three columns, with Macuba at head of port column, with Glaucus at head of centre column, and with City of Florence at head of starboard column-Decision by commodore that convoy should alter course 20 deg. to starboard to avoid reef- Turning signal sounded and repeated by Glaucus but not acknowledged by City of Florence - Starboarding by Glaucus after sounding executive signal - Starboarding by Macuba after hearing executive signal of Glaucus - City of Florence sighted on starboard beam - Porting and hard-a-porting by Glaucus- Macuba then sighted by Glaucus on port beam - Impact between port bow of Glaucus and starboard quarter of Macuba -Action brought by Macuba against Glaucus-Counterclaim by Glaucus against Macuba and City of Florence - Further claim by Macuba against City of Florence - Whether negligence alleged against master of Glaucus referable to him as commodore - Subsequent negligence of Glaucus - Whether City of Florence negligent in failing to hear turning signal and executive signal.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 131


Collision - Convoy - Duty to keep course - Faulty compass - Look-out - Collision between motor vessels Dunera and Staffordshire in Mediterranean - Vessels in port column of convoy, with Dunera originally immediately astern of Staffordshire - Falling off to starboard by Staffordshire, taking her in close proximity to vessel in next column to starboard - Porting and hard-a-porting by Staffordshire in an endeavour to regain her convoy position, taking her across course of Dunera-Impact between stem of Dunera and port bow of Staffordshire- Evidence that steering compass of Staffordshire, which had previously shown itself to be defective and had had to be repaired by the ship's electrical engineer, again broke down-Obligation on master of Staffordshire to ensure that special watch was kept on steering compass and to issue instructions as to the precautions to be taken should the compass again break down-Duty of vessels in convoy to keep good look-out on their next astern - Whether Staffordshire should have switched on her navigation lights or her "not under command" lights-Criticism of action taken by Dunera (port wheel and full astern) which, Staffordshire alleged, should have been taken sooner and was the wrong action (It was submitted that she should have used her twin screws to accentuate her swing to port).

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 141


Practice - Writ in rem - Motion to set aside - Admiralty jurisdiction - Amendment of writ - Writ in rem issued by plaintiffs against defendant ship claiming damages for breach of contract of carriage -Motion by defendant shipowners to set aside-Shipowners domiciled in England- Application by plaintiffs for leave to amend writ by striking out "in rem" and substituting shipowners as defendants - Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 22 (1) (a) (xii).

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 148


Negligence - Concealed trap - Repairs to ship in wet dock - Occupier of dock - Factory - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff boiler scaler - Fall through unguarded opening in floor of engine-room -Liability of independent contractors; of dockowners; of shipowners - Opening made by first defendants (under contract with shipowners to execute repairs) - Ship in dock belonging to second defendants - Plaintiff in employ of T., Ltd., who were also under contract with shipowners to execute repairs-Action brought by plaintiff (1) against first defendants, alleging negligence in creating a concealed trap, in failing to guard or give warning of opening in engine-room floor, and in failing to provide adequate lighting; (2) against second defendants, alleging breach of statutory duty under Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931, in (a) failing to provide safe means of access, (b) failing to guard opening, (c) failing to provide adequate lighting; (3) against shipowners, alleging negligence in failing to guard or give warning of opening in engine-room floor, and in failing to provide adequate lighting - Dispute as to lighting - Contributory negligence-Obligation of shipowners where their ship was in hands of repairers-Reliance upon repairers to take reasonable care-Lability of dockowners- Applicability of Shipbuilding Regulations -"For the purpose of such provisions" [i.e., provisions with respect to special regulations for safety relating to ship repair work carried out in a harbour or wet dock] "the ship shall be deemed to be a factory, and any person undertaking such work shall be deemed to be the occupier of a factory"-Factory & Workshop Act, 1901, Schedule VI, Part II, No. 25- Factories Act, 1937, Sects. 60, 106, 159- Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931, Regulations 1, 10, 42.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 149


Practice-Award-Enforcement of award- Appeal-Extension of time-Arbitration following dispute between shipowner and charterers - Award in favour of charterers (French company) awarding damages-Case stated-Award affirmed- Order of Master dated March, 1942, granting French company leave to enforce award as a judgment - French company unable to proceed in accordance with order -Proceedings brought by French company in United States during war but dismissed by United States Court on ground that French company were enemy aliens-New proceedings in United States after war, when shipowner took point that French company hud no existence under French law and therefore could not maintain suit -New action in English Courts commenced after war by shipowner against French company, its liquidator and the solicitors acting on its behalf in the arbitration, claiming declaration that charter-party and orders subsequently made were null and void-Present application, arising out of previous proceedings by shipowner, asking for extension of time to appeal from order of Master-Application refused by Lynskey, J.-Discretion of Judge- Appeal.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 165


Collision-Crossing rule-Narrow channel rule -Look-out - Contributory negligence - Apportionment of blame - Collision between steamship British Hussar and motor vessel Taiwan in Suez Bay-British Hussar originally at anchor to westward of dredged channel leading to Suez Canal entrance-Outward-bound voyage continued, ship making her way across edge of dredged channel and thence direct between buoys marking southern entrance to channel - Taiwan originally at anchor to south-west of southern entrance to channel -Inward-bound voyage continued, ship being manoeuvred to pass between buoys marking southern entrance to channel- Ships first sighted by each other on crossing courses, with the British Hussar as the give-way ship-Duty of British Hussar directly she entered channel - Helm ported, taking her over to east side of channel-Ineffective astern action taken just before collision-Bad look-out on Taiwan-Engines put full speed ahead on direct course for entrance between buoys- Impact on east side of channel between stem of British Hussar and port side of Taiwan.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 168


Towage - Contract - "Whilst towing" - United Kingdom Standard Towage Conditions-Construction-Tug engaged to reader towage assistance to ship - Arrival of tug off ship, which was at anchor-Tug ready to receive orders-Ship not ready, tug being hailed to keep away -Ship again approached by tug when ship seen to be under way-Tug again told to keep away, as ship not yet ready-Later approach to ship, tug then being given message to convey to dockmaster that ship had developed windlass trouble and would not dock on that tide-Impact between tug and ship, tug receiving damage - Liability of ship.

1. "Whilst towing" shall be deemed to cover the period commencing when the tug is in a position to receive orders direct from the hirer's vessel to pick up ropes or lines, or when the tow rope has been passed to or by the tug, whichever is the sooner . . .

3. The tugowner shall not, whilst towing, bear or be liable for damage of any description done by or to the tug . . .

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 174


Salvage - Derelict - Services rendered by fishery patrol vessel Charles Maciver to steamship Firethorn in Morecambe Bay -Firethorn found abandoned, with a list to starboard and with seas breaking over her hatches-Boarded with difficulty by members of crew of Charles Maciver - Towage connection established between vessels, tow being commenced towards Fleetwood-Parting of tow ropes during towage - Steam raised on Firethorn by crew from Charles Maciver-Trimming of cargo of asbestos sheeting, which had shifted bodily to starboard - Heavy weather - Grave risk of capsizing or of being driven ashore-Services lasting 20 hours-Apportionment of award.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 178


Collision-Convoy-Ships forming convoy- Alteration of course - Fog - Look-out - Signals-Engine action-Collision between motor vessels Katendrecht and Estrella off Halifax in fog-Ships under orders to proceed in single line ahead and to alter course about six points to port on arriving at certain geographical position-Katendrecht following Estrella-Alteration of course by Estrella in accordance with orders-Estrella and Katendrecht sighted by each other close to, with Estrella on starboard bow of Katendrecht and angled across her course-Impact between stem of Katendrecht and port side aft of Estrella -Evidence of fog signals being sounded, at regulation intervals by Katendrecht and irregularly by Estrella-Alleged negligence of Estrella in failing to take proper account of the fog signals sounded by Katendrecht; in failing to sound fog signals more frequently; and in failing to sound her helm signal when she altered course-Alleged negligence of Katendrecht in failing to hear fog signals sounded by Estrella; in proceeding at excessive speed and so running up on Estrella at her turning point; and in failing to put her engines astern immediately she sighted loom of Estrella on starboard bow.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 183


Collision - Anchored vessel - Fog - Ships in process of making up convoy formation- Collision in approaches to New York Harbour between motor vessel Rippingham Grange and steamship Edam - Ships in single line outward bound down swept channel with Rippingham Grange (commodore ship) next ahead of Edam-Convoy still under command of naval shore authorities, communications from commodore ship to rest of convoy ships having to be made by wireless signal via naval authorities- Ships under instructions to listen in on their wireless sets on certain wave length -Descent of fog-Rippingham Grange anchored with assent of commodore - Failure by commodore to communicate to naval authorities decision to anchor owing to defect in wireless transmitter on board Rippingham Grange-Way of Rippingham Grange run off, ship being swung head to tide and anchored just outside swept channel on a heading athwart convoy course - Anchor lights exhibited and bell sounded at regulation intervals- Bearing of fog signals of Edam indicating that she was approaching on port side- Bell rung continuously and fog signals (for ships under way) sounded by Rippingham Grange-Engines of Edam stopped and later put full astern-Helm starboarded and later hard-a-starboarded - Impact between stem of Edam and port side aft of Rippingham Grange - Prima facie responsibility of Edam-Alleged negligence of Rippingham Grange in anchoring without obtaining sanction of naval authorities; in failing to warn rest of convoy of her intention to anchor; in failing to maintain wireless transmitter in serviceable condition; in anchoring where she did, and athwart the convoy course; and in sounding misleading signals - Whether Edam negligent in failing to take sufficient, or sufficiently early, steps to take off her way and in taking violent helm action before the position and course of the Rippingham Grange was identified.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 187


Negligence - System of working - Breach of common law duty by employers-Contributory negligence by employee - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff plumber, in employ of defendant ship-repairers, engaged in repair work in engine-room of ship-Use of oxy-acetylene apparatus to cut hole in pipe-Fire originating in fan-casing which was situated 5 or 6 ft. below pipe - Burning of rubber tube leading from gas cylinders resulting in release of gases and causing serious fire -Plaintiff and other employees injured- Duty of employers-Evidence as to origin of fire - Probability that spark entered opening in fan-casing (the grating cover having been removed for purposes of repair work) and ignited waste or dirt inside- Plaintiff working with mate - Whether defendants under duty to provide a third man to act as fireman - No instructions given by defendants to plaintiff as to precautions to be taken, nor was material supplied by them to enable him to take precautions.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 194


Practice-Costs-Joinder of parties-Action against two defendants-Liability of unsuccessful defendants to pay costs of successful defendants-"Discretion of Court or Judge" - Appeal - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff workmen while employed in ship repairs -Action brought jointly or in alternative against employers (first defendants) and shipowners (second defendants) - Judgment entered for plaintiffs against second defendants, with costs, and for first defendants, with costs against plaintiffs-Appeal by plaintiffs on question of costs, without leave of Judge-Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 31: (1) No appeal shall lie- . . . (h) without the leave of the Court or Judge making the order, from an order of the High Court or any Judge thereof made with the consent of the parties or as to costs only which by law ore left to the discretion of the Court . . .

Contention by plaintiffs that they had reasonably exercised their rights under R.S.C., Order 16, r. 7, in bringing their action against both first and second defendants, and that having reasonably exercised that right they were entitled to a Bullock Order; alternatively, that the learned Judge failed properly to exercise his discretion in refusing to make such Order.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 199


Collision-Convoy-Fog-Breaking up of convoy -Approaching position for picking up pilot - Look-out - Speeds - Collision between steamships Stad Arnhem and Empire Opossum off Chebucto Head (N.S.) -Both vessels part of westbound convoy which had broken off from main body to proceed into Halifax Harbour-Fog signals of Empire Opossum heard ahead by Stad Arnhem-Engines of Stad Arnhem stopped when signals of Empire Opossum became more distinct-Vessels sighted by each other about a ship's length away, Empire Opossum seen by Stad Arnhem to he lying athwart channel-Engines of Stad Arnhem put full astern-Engines of Empire Opossum (alleged to be then "lying stopped") first put full astern and then full ahead-Impact between stem of Stad Arnhem and starboard side of Empire Opossum - Whether Empire Opossum negligent in allowing herself to get athwart channel - Empire Opossum aware that other vessels were astern of her -Evidence that Empire Opossum had arrived at place where it was known she would be expected to pick up pilot- Allegation that Stad Arnhem approached such position at excessive speed.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 204


Salvage-Misconduct by salvors-Reduction of award-Services rendered by salvage tug Salvonia to steamship Kedah off Cornish Coast-Kedah, without steam, in tow of tug Empire Silas-Parting of tow rope in bad weather off St. Agnes Head-Anchors of Kedah dropped-Failure of anchors to hold, Kedah dragging towards shore-Inability of Empire Silas to make fast again owing to prevailing weather-Shortage of bunkers preventing further towage-Crew of Kedah taken off by Padstow lifeboat- Kedah subsequently taken in tow by Salvonia, which put out from Falmouth in response to distress signals by Kedah- Risk to Kedah-Evidence that dragging had stopped when Salvonia arrived-Towage to Falmouth - Attempt by crew of Kedah to reboard their vessel during tow frustrated by boarding party from Salvonia-Evidence of pilferage of articles from Kedah by members of boarding party -Negligent supervision by chief officer.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 217


Collision - Snow showers - Look-out - Speed -Seamanship - Collision between steamships Lord Byron and Pencarrow in North Atlantic-Ships in same west-bound convoy, but out of position owing to heavy snow squalls-Ships sighted by each other some considerable time before collision, with Pencarrow on starboard quarter of Lord Byron and Lord Byron on port bow of Pencarrow - Signals exchanged, as a result of which it was arranged that Pencarrow should continue her convoy course of 180 deg. and that Lord Byron (on course of 220 deg.) should steer the convoy course and fall in behind Pencarrow - Engines of Lord Byron reduced to half speed - Heavy snow squalls causing ships to lose sight of each other-Masthead and green lights of Lord Byron subsequently seen by Pencarrow bearing about three points forward of her port beam and with Lord Byron angled about three points across her course - Starboarding by Pencarrow - Pencarrow not seen by Lord Byron until close to.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 225


Arbitration - Award - Remission - Mistake by arbitrator - Services rendered under Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement by Swiss steamship St. Cergue to steamships Mello and Nereus-Forms signed by master of St. Cergue for and on behalf of Contractor - Agreement at preliminary hearing before arbitrator that arbitration should be held on basis that owners, master and crew of St. Cergue were parties thereto-Direction by arbitrator in award that sums awarded should be paid to Contractor-Intention that such sums should be awarded to owners, master and crew of St. Cergue-Mistake admitted by arbitrator-Motion at request of arbitrator that awards be remitted to him for rectification - Arbitration Act, 1889, Sect. 10-Motion upheld by learned Judge.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 230


Sale of ship-Fraudulent misrepresentation- Breach of warranty - Purchase of trawler by plaintiff from defendants-Representation by defendants that ship was "at present fishing. Full fishing gear. Engine just overhauled and in good order" - "Price £290" - Journey by plaintiff from Holyhead to Bristol to view ship - Plaintiff there informed that ship was out fishing in Swansea Bay-Other representations reaffirmed by defendants - £240 paid on account by plaintiff-Delivery promised at Holyhead-Ship subsequently picked up by plaintiff at Aberystwyth, where it was found to be high and dry on the beach- Evidence that it had not been out fishing, that it was in a leaky condition; and that the engine was in a very poor condition and required overhauling-Offer of repayment by defendants - Ship retained by plaintiff, remedy being sought in damages for fraud and for breach of warranty- Measure of damages-Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sect. 53 (2).

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 232


Collision - River - Fog - Anchored vessel - Double collision-Excessive speed-Signals -Look-out-Collision in Woolwich Reach, River Thames, between motor vessel Sagacity and steamship Icemaid followed by collision between Sagacity and motor vessel Novian Coast-Action brought by Novian Coast against Sagacity and Icemaid -Action (by counterclaim) brought by Sagacity against Novian Coast and Icemaid -Sagacity bound up; Icemaid bound down-Vessels sighted by each other close to-Collision in spite of astern and starboard helm action by each vessel-Dispute as to place of collision-Subsequent collision between Sagacity and Novian Coast, which, bound down astern of Icemaid, had dropped anchor in vicinity and on the ebb tide was heading up river-Novus actus interveniens.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 237


Salvage-River-Fire-Services rendered by tugs Crown Diamond, Racia, Vincia, Sun V, Sun XI and New Stormcock to steamship Ferriby in River Thames - Cargo of "paperside runs" and sulphide pulp on fire in No. 1 hold-Water pumped into hold by tugs-Hoses played on decks and plating - Fire-fighting operations taken over by firefloats-Useful though small services - Salved values: Ship, £107,000; freight, £20,400 - Government cargo: £93,000-Awards: Crown Diamond, £1000; Racia, £750; Vincia, £400; Sun V, £350; Sun XI, £650; New Stormcock, £600-Intimation that award would not have been increased had Government cargo been taken into account.

-Costs-Admission of facts-Facts in issue-Duty of parties to avoid unnecessary costs.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 246


Salvage - Award - Apportionment between crew-Arbitrator's award of £1400 to crew of motor vessel Empire Gulf in respect of services rendered to motor vessel Palmyre - Whether division among members of crew to be based on basic pay or on basic pay plus war bonus-War bonus paid at flat rate regardless of rank.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 255

THE "M.F.V 1506."

Collision-Crossing rule-Portsmouth Harbour -Ferry emerging from landing stage preparatory to crossing channel-Vessel bound up channel-Look-out-Seamanship -Collision between steam ferry launch Varos and motor ferry launch M.F.V. 1506 -Varos, having just left Portsea, proceeding down channel before rounding under starboard wheel across channel to Gosport -M.F.V. 1506, having left Vernon Pier (down channel of Portsea), proceeding up channel-Vessels sighted by each other a short distance away, red of Varos being open to green of M.F.V. 1506-Port helm action taken by Varos, signal being sounded and repeated - Starboard helm action taken by M.F.V. 1506 - Impact between stem of M.F.V. 1506 and starboard bow of Varos-Whether Varos, as a vessel intending to cross the channel, was under a duty to give way-Applicability of crossing rule.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 257


Salvage - Towage or salvage - Services rendered by steamships Rhesus and Antenor to steamship Glaucus in Indian Ocean-Boiler trouble-Glaucus towed by Rhesus to Aden (occupying six days) and thence by Antenor to Suez (occupying eight days), where necessary repairs could be carried out-Salvage services by Rhesus admitted-Whether services rendered by Antenor were mere towage services- Meaning of "towage services"-Expenses incurred by Rhesus in rendering services -Running costs of Rhesus for 17 days (time lost in rendering services)-Agreement by owners of Antenor that their claim would be limited to £5000 payable and paid by them under charter-party in respect of the extra expenses incurred by charterers.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 262


Charter-party - Demurrage-Dead freight- Exceptions clause - Frosts - Provision of cargo-Charter by defendants of plaintiffs' steamship to load at Erith, River Thames, full and complete cargo (630 tons) of loam for carriage to Middlesbrough. Cargo to be loaded and discharged in 78 running hours, weather permitting (Sundays and holidays excepted), any time lost through . . . frosts . . . or any cause not directly under charterers' personal control preventing the loading or unloading or provision of cargo not to count as lay-days or demurrage days.

Arrival at loading port on Jan. 29-Inability to load cargo at normal rate owing to severe frost, which had already set in when ship ready to load, and which persisted throughout loading-Instructions given by owners on Feb. 12 that ship should sail, even though only 388 tons had been loaded-Claim by owners for demurrage and dead freight-Plea by charterers that they were protected by exceptions clause - Whether charterers entitled to rely on excepted causes which were already operating when the charterers' obligation under the charter-party commenced - Meaning of "provision of cargo."

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 268


Wharfingers - Negligence - Loss of goods - Agreement made (by telephone) between plaintiff and defendants whereby defendants agreed to store plaintiff's goods (cigarette lighters in cartons) in their bonded warehouse-Advice note sent by defendants to plaintiff informing him that his goods had been warehoused-Advice note containing defendants' adaptation of London Wharfingers Clause-Loss of plaintiff's goods while in defendants' custody- Alleged negligence of defendants - Evidence of precautions taken-Whether defendants protected by London Wharfingers Clause in that (a) it was incorporated in contract between parties; or (b) it was impliedly included by custom or usage of the trade-Reasonableness.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 274


Palestine-Illegal immigration-Forfeiture of vessel in accordance with Immigration Ordinance - Legality - Repugnancy to Palestine Mandate-Ship with illegal immigrants on board sighted by British naval vessel outside Palestinian territorial waters -Ship flying no flag when sighted- Turkish flag hoisted later but hauled down when boarding party approached, when Zionist flag was hoisted-Ship escorted to Palestinian port, where passengers were landed and sent to clearance camp-Application for forfeiture of ship granted by District Court of Haifa-Decision upheld by Supreme Court of Palestine-Appeal by owner-Validity of Ordinance under which application for forfeiture was granted-Whether repugnant to Mandate -Owner not a Palestinian subject nor resident in Palestine - Immigration Ordinance, No. 5 of 1941 (as amended by Defence Regulations, 1945), Sect. 12: (3) (i) for the purposes of this subsection- (b) . . . the master, owner and agent of a vessel . . . are all deemed to have abetted the unlawful immigration of any person . . . who is proved to have been on board the vessel . . . in Palestine or the territorial waters thereof, whether that person or the vessel . . . came there voluntarily or not, unless it is proved- (1) that that person did not enter or attempt to enter Palestine and did not intend so to do. . . .

Whether Ordinance offended against established principles of international law -"Freedom of the open sea"-Penalty imposed upon persons neither Palestinian subjects nor resident in Palestine.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 277


Collision-Routeing instructions - Look-out -Use of detection apparatus-Helm action-Failure to take off way-Collision between H.M.S. St. Cathan (converted trawler) and Dutch steamship Hebe off South Carolina-Ships sighted by each other close to-Lights of St. Cathan switched on just before collision-Porting by St. Cathan-Impact between stem of Hebe and starboard side of St. Cathan- Both ships sunk-Whether Hebe failed to comply with routeing instructions-Alleged negligence of St. Cathan in failing to make proper use of her detection apparatus; in porting before the position and course of Hebe was ascertained; and in failing to take off her way immediately she became aware of presence of Hebe-Action brought by St. Cathan against Hebe-No counterclaim by Hebe-Arrangement between parties that Hebe should be treated as though she had counterclaimed-Costs -Discretion of Court.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 285


Collision-River-Narrow channel rule- Look-out - Helm action - Signals - Collision between motor vessel Mavis and motor barge Link Light in Greenwich Reach, River Thames - Mavis bound up; Link Light bound down-Ebb tide-Dispute as to place of collision - Helm of Mavis steadied after rounding bend under starboard helm-Vessels originally in safety red to red-Allegation by Mavis that Link Light ported, and then, having reached a position of green to green, starboarded- Contention by Link Light that green of Mavis suddenly opened at short distance -Probabilities-Whether Mavis took seamanlike action to avoid collision-Duty under Port of London River By-laws, 1938-Rules 38, 42 (a)-Unsatisfactory nature of evidence given by Mavis-Costs.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 291


Collision - Sailing vessel and motor vessel - Lights - Look-out - Collision between sailing yacht Scorpion and motor vessel Ragnhild off Cape St. Vincent-Scorpion on course of S. (mag.); Ragnhild on course of 347 deg. (true)-Lights of Ragnhild seen by Scorpion four or five miles away on port bow; "white light" and red light exhibited by Scorpion not seen by Ragnhild until close to - Evidence that portable lamp was used by Scorpion to shine on her sails, so that she could be better seen by Ragnhild-Change over of deck personnel of Ragnhild at critical period.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 297


Collision-River-Turning in river-Signals- Look-out-Collision between motor vessel Scottish Co-operator and steamship Fulham in Upper Pool, River Thames- Scottish Co-operator, having just left wharf on south side where she was lying head up river, turning under port helm and with engines astern preparatory to her passage down river-Fulham bound up river on flood tide - Turning signals sounded by Scottish Co-operator-Impact between stem of Fulham and port quarter of Scottish Co-operator - Dispute as to distance away of Fulham when Scottish Co-operator commenced her turning movement -Respective duties to avoid collision -Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rule 30.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 301


Collision - River - Narrow channel rule - Crossing rule - Collision between steamships Stormont and Empire Brent in River Mersey-Stormont bound up; Empire Brent bound down-Green of Empire Brent seen by Stormont approximately ahead-Porting by Stormont (no signal being sounded)-Green of Stormont seen by Empire Brent (according to her witnesses) on her port bow-Vessels then three-quarters of a mile apart-Starboarding by Empire Brent, signal being sounded -Further porting by Stormont, signal then being sounded-Further cross-signals exchanged-Engines of Empire Brent then put astern-Impact between stem of Empire Brent and starboard side aft of Stormont - Stormont beached, subsequently becoming total loss-Whether (1) assuming the green of the Stormont was open on the port bow of the Empire Brent, the Empire Brent was in breach of the crossing rule in starboarding; (2) assuming the vessels were green to green and in safety, the Empire Brent was to blame for starboarding-Collision Regulations, Art. 25.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 306


Palestine-Ship-Requisition of Panamanian ship-Loss during requisition-Compensation - Interest - Panamanian steamship Urania requisitioned by High Commissioner for Palestine - Ship sunk by enemy action about two months later- Evidence as to date of commencement and termination of hire, as to rate of hire, and as to valuation of ship-Effect of requisition on value of ship-Right to interest -Palestine Compensation (Defence) Ordinance, 1940.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 314


Negligence - Duty to take care - Shunting operations on quayside-Alleged breach of by-laws by railway servants - Whistling -Duty to warn - Fatal accident to dredging-master (R.) in employ of Clyde Navigation Trustees - Shunting operations being carried out by servants of L.M.S. (now Railway Executive) on quayside (Glasgow) in occupation of Trustees-R. walking towards his ship by way of level crossing - Level crossing partly obstructed by stationary engine (with wagons attached) - Gap between attached wagons and other wagons which had been uncoupled - Movement of engine and wagons as R. passed through gap-R. knocked down-Claim by R.'s dependants against railway company-Duty of railway company's servants-Clyde Navigation Trustees By-laws (concerning use of harbour tramways): 5. Every engine shall whistle as a warning before starting. 6. Every locomotive or train shall, besides the driver and fireman, be attended by two men, one of whom shall act as pilotman and be in advance, and it shall be his duty to warn all persons to keep out of danger . . . and no movement of the locomotive or train shall be made until the pilotman shall give the "all right" signal. When wagons are propelled, the second man shall walk alongside the train, or ride on it in such position as to be able to transmit signals from the pilotman to the engine-driver . . .

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 317


Negligence - Repairs to ship in dry dock - Staging-Design-Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931-Fall from staging-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff engaged in welding work to hull of ship in dry dock at Woolwich-Staging (planks on trestles) erected by defendant ship-repairers (plaintiff's employers) - Whether defendants negligent (1) in erecting staging so that the planks overlapped; (2) in failing to provide handrail or lifeline to staging-Contributory negligence- Regulations 1, 11.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 321


Contract - Offer and acceptance - Insurance assessors - Stolen property - Reward - Newspaper report-Theft of insured fur coat-Matter put in hands of insurance assessor (defendant)-Theft reported by defendant upon inquiry by Press reporter, defendant indicating that customary reward based on 10 per cent. of insured value (in this case, a reward of £150) would be offered-Report of theft inserted in news item in Press, which also stated that reward of £150 was offered-Report seen by plaintiff, who had come into possession of stolen coat-Coat taken to police and information given sufficient to lead to apprehension of thief-Information also given to police by two other persons-Evidence that it was the practice for assessors to publicize loss of property by means of advertisement in the Press, such advertisement setting out the conditions upon which a reward would be paid-Coat recovered and thief apprehended before advertisement appeared - Right of plaintiff to claim reward.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 325


Negligence - Shunting operations in docks - Duty to take care - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer on premises occupied by defendants - Plaintiff, having registered for employment at Liverpool Docks, making his way with other men across railway lines towards exit from docks - Shunting in progress - Route followed through gap between stationary railway wagons-Sudden coming together of wagons, plaintiff being caught between buffers-Alleged negligence of shunter (in employ of defendants)-Evidence of warning bell-Whether adequate-Contributory negligence.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 329


Negligence-Safe system of working-Loading of chemicals into ship-Contraction of skin disease-Plaintiff dock labourer, employed by defendants, engaged in loading bags of ammonium chloride into ship at Birkenhead Docks-Evidence that plaintiff had previously contracted dermatitis when loading aniline dyes and that he was off work for a year, and that there was a recurrence of the disease after handling the cargo of ammonium chloride-Alleged duty upon employers to give special warning of care to be taken in handling such cargo-Onus of proof.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 332


Negligence-Duty to take care-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff-Plaintiff employed in scaling tank of ship in Toxteth Dock, Liverpool-Scene of work left by plaintiff for purpose of having "breather" -Crossing of dock avenue in order to reach river bank-Dock avenue (in occupation of defendants) almost entirely occupied by moving gantry and piles of logs-Plaintiff's foot crushed by wheel of gantry as he was crossing rails-Whether defendants' servants guilty of negligence -Look-out.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 335


Bill of lading-Damage to cargo during unloading - Negligence of stevedores - Liability-Limitation of value clause- Cargo shipped under bill of lading incorporating Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924-Defendant stevedores, independent contractors, employed by shipowners to discharge ship-Plaintiffs' cargo damaged during discharge owing to negligence of stevedores - Claim in tort brought by cargo-owners against stevedores-Right of stevedores to invoke clause in bill of lading (corresponding with Art. IV r. 5, of Schedule to Act of 1924) limiting liability of carrier for loss or damage to goods from any cause to a maximum amount of £100 per package, unless an increased value should have been declared before shipment.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 337


Collision - Starboard-hand rule - Swept channel-Look-out-Helm action-Speed -Collision in Downs between Admiralty trawler La Nantaise and steamship Helencrest -La Nantaise (towing small fishing coble) hound up swept channel; Helencrest bound down-Other vessels in vicinity also bound up - Porting by Helencrest in mistaken belief that vessels bound up (including La Nantaise) formed part of same flotilla-Continued porting by Helencrest after she realized that La Nantaise was pursuing an independent course - Speed maintained-Starboarding by La Nantaise-Impact between stem of Helencrest and port quarter of La Nantaise- La Nantaise sunk.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 345


Collision - River - Starboard-hand rule - Turning - Look-out - Collision between steamships Yewpark and Spero in Erith Beach, River Thames-Yewpark bound down; Spero rounding under starboard wheel from a down-river to an up-river heading - Stern light of Spero seen by Yewpark ahead-Turning signal sounded by Spero (signal subsequently being repeated) not heard by Yewpark - Mistaken belief that Spero was making for Erith Buoys - Spero in fact moving astern to assist in her suing-Porting by Yewpark-Third turning signal sounded by Spero heard by Yewpark - Further porting by Yewpark, signal being sounded -Duty of Spero-Impact between starboard side of Yewpark and stern of Spero.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 350


Charter-party-Hire-Cesser of hire- "Deficiency of men . . . or other accident"- "Inability to get or to complete a crew"- Time charter of ship-Ship ready to sail- Full complement of officers and crew- Refusal to sail except in convoy-Delay- Liability of charterer for hire during delay. 11 (A). In the event of drydocking or other necessary measures to maintain the efficiency of the vessel, deficiency of men or owners' stores, breakdown of machinery, damage to hull or other accident, either hindering or preventing the working of the vessel and continuing for more than twenty-four consecutive hours, no hire to be paid in respect of any time lost thereby during the period in which the vessel is unable to perform the service immediately required. 13. . . . The owners not to be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from strikes, lock-outs or stoppage or restraint of labour (including the master, officers or crew) whether partial or general. Subject to Clause 11 (A) and Addendum thereto. . . 34. Addendum to Clause 11 (A). Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 11 (A) it is agreed that in the event of loss of time due solely to inability to get or to complete a crew (a) full hire will be paid for the first seventy-two hours of such loss of time and (b) in the event of such loss of time taking place at a port in the United Kingdom or in ports in the British Empire overseas and continuing beyond such seventy-two hours, half hire will be paid for a further period of seventy-two hours, but thereafter hire shall cease until the vessel is again ready to resume her service. . . .

Arbitration-Award that Clause 11 (A) and its Addendum did not relieve the charterer in whole or in part from his obligation to pay hire - Case stated - Meaning of "deficiency of men"-"Or other accident."

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 355


Negligence-Common employment-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer in London dock-Plaintiff a member of gang employed in removing boxes from shed and stacking them outside preparatory to being lifted by stationary mobile crane on to lorry-Plaintiff injured by near rear wheel of another mobile crane just after it had passed lorry and stationary mobile crane - Cranes belonging to P.L.A. and driven by their servants - Action brought by plaintiff against P.L.A. alleging (1) that they were negligent in that (a) the crane was without means of giving adequate warning of its approach; (b) there was no look-out man in advance of the crane; (c) the look-out afforded to G., the driver of their crane, was by reason of its construction, inadequate; (2) that the driver G. was negligent in various particulars - Denial of negligence by P.L.A.-Further pleas that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, in that he stepped back into the crane; alternatively, that accident was due to negligence of S., driver of stationary mobile crane, in signalling the mobile crane driven by G. to pass when it was unsafe to do so and without giving proper warning to plaintiff and his gang, and that, both G. and S. being in common employment with plaintiff, there was no right of recovery- Whether plaintiff employed by P.L.A.- Plaintiff allocated to particular job by local Dock Labour Board-Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Order, [1947] S.R. & O., No. 1189-Construction.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 360


Charter-party-Demurrage - Stowage - Bulk cargo-Bagging of part cargo required by local regulations and for reasons of safety - Time occupied - Charter of Canadian ship to Ministry of Food-Ship to load at named Canadian ports (one port only) full and complete cargo of wheat in bulk - "Steamer to be loaded according to berth terms, with customary berth dispatch . . . charterer to pay demurrage . . . provided such detention shall occur by default of charterer"-Loading subject to local port regulations permitting ship to carry bulk grain to the full capacity of all lower holds, provided properly constructed feeders were fitted in the hatches and trunked in the 'tween decks-"All other grain in the 'tween decks . . . must be in bags" - Bagging also necessary for safety of ship- Loading commenced on Oct. 11, full amount of bulk cargo permitted by regulations being put on board by 8 45 a.m. on Oct. 17, when ship was already on demurrage -Further wheat loaded for purpose of bagging, ship being down to her marks by 1 p.m.-Bagging completed by stevedores (employed by shipowners) by 3 p.m.- Whether shipowners entitled to demurrage for both periods between 8 45 a.m. and 3 p.m.-Time of completion of loading.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 371


Negligence-Safe system of working- Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff boilermaker employed by defendants-Removal of gun platform from ship-Platform cut section by section by means of oxy-acetylene apparatus-Crane normally used to assist in operation - No crane available - Collapse of section on which plaintiff was standing - Concussion followed by functional nervous disturbance - Assessment of damages - Matters to be taker into account.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 378


Docks Regulations, 1934 - Breach of statutory duty-Contributory negligence - Covering of hatches - Lighting - Personal injuries sustained by pursuer (dock labourer) working on 'tween deck of first defenders' ship-Second defenders' (ship - repairers') men working in lower holds-Number of 'tween deck hatch covers removed to enable repair work to be carried out-Upper deck hatch covers on, necessitating use of artificial light supplied by three clusters-Break for lunch by pursuer and his mates, second defenders' men remaining at their work - 'Tween decks found in darkness by pursuer and his mates upon their return, second defenders' men having by then finished their work- Cluster of lights detected face down on other side of hold-Attempt by pursuer to reach lights by proceeding direct across hatch-Hatch uncovered-Fall down hold -Claim brought by pursuer against defenders alleging common law negligence and breach of statutory duty under Docks Regulations, 1934 - Defenders' plea of contributory negligence-Regulations 12, 37 (a), 45.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 383


Collision-River-Turning in river-Look-out -Collision in Gravesend Reach, River Thames, between steam hopper Prince's Channel and steamship Portslade - Hopper, originally headed down river, manoeuvring to cross river from south to north; Portslade bound up-Green of hopper sighted by Portslade about three points on port bow and about three cables distant-Starboarding by Portslade, signal being sounded-Port helm signal sounded by hopper, but no helm action taken until collision seemed inevitable, when wheel was put hard-a-port and engines full ahead- Engines of Portslade put full astern just before collision-Impact between stem of Portslade and starboard side of hopper at about a right angle-Respective duties of vessels in such circumstances - Whether Portslade should have taken earlier action to avoid collision-Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rule 39.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 395


Arbitration-Arbitrator-Misconduct-Motion to set aside award-Jurisdiction of arbitrator -Sale of textile goods-Refusal by buyers to accept goods on the ground that they were not of merchantable quality or in accordance with contract-Dispute referred to arbitration of Manchester Chamber of Commerce-Provision in Rules of Tribunal of Arbitration that (1) The object of the Tribunal of Arbitration . . . shall be the determination and settlement by commercial men of experience and special knowledge of the subject-matter in dispute or difference of any dispute or difference relating to trade, manufactures and commerce (including customs of trade) by whomsoever submitted.

Appointment of sole arbitrator by Chamber of Commerce-Claim by sellers for price-Award of damages for breach of contract-Motion by buyers to set aside award-Jurisdiction of arbitrator to assess quantum.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 401


Barge - Overloading - Instability - Fatal accident to stevedore - Liability of employers and/or lightermen - Barge loaded with timber from steamship in London dock-Stevedore engaged in stacking timber on barge in charge of lighterman-Loading continued under instructions of lighterman despite protests by stevedores that further cargo would make barge unstable - Fall from stack overside into dock, stevedore being drowned-Dispute as to cause of fall- Action brought by administratrix against stevedores and lightermen - Respective duties.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 404


Docks Regulations, 1934-Breach of statutory duty-Invitors (shipowners) - Duty to invitees (stevedores) - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff stevedores during loading of ship-Unsecured beam pulled out of place by fall of crane used in loading -Practice of port (Middlesbrough) for shipowners to undertake responsibility for securing beams-Claim brought by plaintiffs against employers (defendants), who brought in shipowners as third parties- Docks Regulations, 1934: It shall be the duty of every person who by himself, his agents, or workmen carries on the processes, and of all agents, workmen, and persons employed by him in the processes, to comply with Part IV of these Regulations. 42. The beams of any hatch in use for the processes shall, if not removed, be adequately secured to prevent their displacement.

Respective duties under Regulations- Evidence that defendants' foreman had requested ship's officer to see that beams were secured and that plaintiffs and defendants had relied on officer's assurance that Regulations had been complied with -Alleged contributory negligence of plaintiffs.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 412


Employers' Liability Insurance-Premiums- Account - Action brought by Lloyd's underwriters against assured claiming that an account be taken and payment be made of any sum found to be due-Policy issued by plaintiffs after negotiations between insurance brokers and defendant - Condition of policy providing: The first premium and all renewal premiums that may be accepted are to be regulated by the amount of wages and salaries and other earnings paid to employees by the assured during each period of insurance. . . . The assured . . . shall supply the underwriters with a correct account of all such wages, salaries and other earnings paid during any period of insurance during one month from the expiry of such period of insurance, and if the total amount so paid shall differ from the amount on which premium has been paid the difference in premium shall be met by a further proportionate payment to the underwriters or by a refund by the underwriters as the case may be.

No account supplied to underwriters- Defendant's allegation that account was sent to brokers (as underwriters' agents).

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 417


Docks, Harbours, etc.-Approaches to port- Duty of harbour authority to maintain in safe condition or to give warning of obstructions-Ship in charge of compulsory pilot-Grounding in 1941 of plaintiffs' steamship Tower Field on bank of silt in entrance channel to Workington Harbour -Damage to ship-Claim by shipowners against harbour authority-Denial of liability by harbour authority-Counterclaim for damages resulting from obstruction -Alleged contributory negligence of pilot-Inaccurate and misleading inset on Admiralty Chart of Solway Firth-Inset based on plan supplied by harbour authority-Statement on inset that certain depth and width were maintained by dredging-Evidence that such depth and width of entrance channel were not maintained -Leading beacons indicating centre of channel inaccurately placed-Harbour authority aware of serious encroachments into entrance channel caused by development of banks of silt on each side - Evidence of periodical personal inspections of channel by local pilots- Pilot aware of encroachments into channel and of misleading character of leading beacons-Reliance upon own judgment- Attempt to bring in ship without reference to the line of leading beacons, but using a beacon on the northern side of the channel as a guide.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 419


Negligent navigation - Inevitable accident - Sudden peril-Alternative courses of action to avoid peril-Reasonableness of action taken - Chain of causation - Whether broken-Plaintiff's motor launch Souvenir and defendants' motor vessel Carrick Coast moored in Poole Harbour- Souvenir heading up river-Carrick Coast heading down river - Carrick Coast up river of Souvenir-Ebb tide-Outbreak of fire on quay close to stern of Carrick Coast -Serious risk to Carrick Coast-Fore and aft moorings cast off and engines put ahead-Collision with Souvenir-Plea by Carrick Coast that collision was due to inevitable accident and that it could not have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and skill on her part- Evidence of alternative courses of action open to Carrick Coast to avoid peril- Whether action taken was reasonable and such as not to break the chain of causation.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 447


Salvage - Servants of public authority as salvors-Right to award-Extent of normal duties-Services rendered by plaintiffs (crew of motor patrol vessel Boy Mark owned by Port of London Authority) to 11 barges adrift in River Thames-Barges boarded, ropes renewed and barges made fast to Boy Mark-Boy Mark unable to tow-Barges handed over to tug-Statutory duty of P.L.A. to remove obstructions impeding navigation of river-Right of P.L.A. to recover expense of such removal -Such expense in fact paid by barge-owners -Whether servants of P.L.A. precluded from claiming salvage award - Consideration of duties imposed on servants of P.L.A.-Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, Sect. 431 (2).

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 452


Charter-party - Freight - Demurrage - "Centrocon" Charter-party-Ship to load wheat and/or maize and/or rye-Ship fully loaded at Buenos Aires partly with specified cargo and partly with optional cargo, but short of her deadweight capacity for wheat in bags-Cargo discharged at Liverpool and Avonmouth-Cargo not weighed on discharge at Avonmouth-Provisions in charter: 6. Charterers have the option of shipping other lawful merchandise, cotton, sugar, quebracho wood, quebracho extract and distillery residue excluded, in which case freight to be paid on steamer's deadweight capacity for wheat in bags on this voyage at the rate above agreed on for heavy grain, but steamer not to earn more freight than she would if loaded with a full cargo of wheat in bags. This option can only be used if the quantity of other lawful merchandise as above shall amount to not less than 200 tons. All extra expenses in loading and discharging such merchandise over heavy grain to be paid by charterers . . . 13. The steamer shall be loaded at the rate of 500 tons per running day . . . otherwise demurrage shall be paid by the charterers as per clause No. 48 . . . 25. At destination cargo to be received at the average rate of not less than 1000 tons per weather working day . . . for bulk cargo, and at the average rate of not less than 750 tons per weather working day . . . for bagged cargo . . . demurrage, if incurred, to be paid by consignees at the rates stipulated in Clause 48. 48. Demurrage in loading and/or discharging to be at the rate of eightpence per gross registered ton per day, or pro rata for part of a day.

-(1) Computation of freight- Whether, as shipowners contended, freight was to be calculated by applying the rate for heavy grain to the ship's deadweight capacity for wheat in bags, less an allowance for shrinkage; or whether, as Hain Steamship Company, Ltd. v. Minister of Food. K.B. 459 charterer contended, freight was to be calculated at the agreed rate for heavy grain upon the cargo actually delivered, plus dead freight upon the excess of the deadweight capacity for wheat in bags over the weight of cargo actually shipped, but less discharging expenses saved by reason of such excess not having been shipped.

-(2) Computation of demurrage- Whether, as shipowners contended, the lay days should be calculated upon the actual quantities loaded and discharged; or whether, as charterer contended, the lay days should be calculated at the loading port upon the deadweight capacity of the ship for wheat in bags, and, at the discharging ports, upon the aggregate of the outturn weight at Liverpool, the bill of lading weights at Avonmouth (with no allowance for shrinkage), and the weight upon which dead freight was payable.

-Award in shipowners' favour - Case stated.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 458


Charter-party-Breach-Failure to ship- Frustration - Charter by defendants of plaintiffs' ship for carriage of 1800 bales of wool from Goole to Rostock-Lump sum freight-Ship ready to load-Cargo warehoused ready for shipment-Whether specific goods-Destruction by fire of greater part of wool - Substitute cargo unavailable-Shipowners notified by charterers that they were unable to load the ship in accordance with the charter-Plea that charter was frustrated - Claim by shipowners for damages.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 465


Husband and wife-Legal proceedings brought by wife against husband-Tort committed by husband before marriage - Separate property of wife-Thing in action-Test of assignability-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff (passenger) in motor accident -Car driven by defendant-Action for damages brought by plaintiff against defendant - Subsequent marriage between plaintiff and defendant-Right of plaintiff to sue-Married Women's Property Act, 1882, Sects. 1, 2, 12, 24.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 469


Collision - Convoy - Convoy instructions - Anchored vessels-Fog-Speed-Collision off Folkestone between steamship Itinda and motor vessel Sutherland-Ships, in same homeward-bound convoy, boarded by pilots off Dungeness-Master of each ship given sealed instructions for completion of voyage-Conflict of views as to effect of instructions: whether ships to proceed independently or still bound by convoy orders - Voyages continued after pilots taken on board, Itinda being 40 minutes ahead of Sutherland - Descent of fog - Itinda anchored, bell being sounded - Sutherland navigated at convoy speed- Speed reduced to slow when she realized that she was catching up on ships ahead, engines being stopped when she heard two long blasts signal-Anchor light of Itinda sighted by Sutherland close to-Impact between starboard side of Itinda and port side of Sutherland-Admission by Sutherland during hearing that no blame could be imputed to Itinda-Whether Sutherland entitled to continue in fog at convoy speed-Onus of proof that convoy instructions were still binding.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 472


Docks, Harbours, etc. - Unsafe berth-Liability of river commissioners-Negligence -Damage sustained by plaintiffs' ship at moorings provided by Tees Conservancy Commissioners-Propeller fouled by wires and chain-Ship moored to buoys-Line of dolphins inshore of buoys - Wires and chain affixed to certain dolphins and lying on river bed for use of craft belonging to Commissioners - Whether plaintiffs' ship in moving from her moorings was navigated so close to the dolphins that she picked up the wires and chain off the mud -Consideration of obligation of Commissioners towards ships navigating in river.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 479


Salvage - River - Services rendered by tugs Sun XVII, Tanga, Cervia, Kenia, Napia and Contest to motor vessel Freetown in Northfleet Hope, River Thames-Ship inward bound with cargo, aground on south bank at high water during spring tides- Towed off at next high water-Short service -Risk to tugs-Salved values: £461,906- Awards: Sun XVII, £750; Tanga, £1000; Cervia, £1000; Kenia, £850; Napia, £1250 (including £72 damage); Contest, £1300 (including £667 damage)-Discussion concerning alleged excessive bail demand.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 487


Insurance brokers-Breach of duty to insure -Burglary insurance-Alleged failure by brokers to carry out clients' instructions- Duty to clients-Defendants employed by plaintiffs as their brokers to arrange fire and burglary insurances on their goods- Part of plaintiffs' work as blouse manufacturers carried out by outworkers with material supplied by plaintiffs - Outworkers' insurance effected by defendants -Defendants informed by plaintiffs that certain outworkers (T. Ltd.) employed by plaintiffs were moving to new premises- Insurance company notified by defendants of change of address-Request for transfer of risk-Defendants informed by insurance company that immediate cover would be given against fire but that burglary cover must wait until company's surveyor had viewed premises-Plaintiffs' goods stolen from new premises of T. Ltd. before survey -Risk not transferred-Goods uninsured -Whether defendants were in breach of their duty to plaintiffs either in failing to carry out plaintiffs' instructions or in failing to inform the plaintiffs that the risk had not been transferred-Alleged duty in defendants to arrange temporary cover.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 492


Seamen-Discharge-Refusal to leave ship- Trespass-Damages-Wages, etc.-Long service bonus-Greek law-Defendants (Greek seamen) signed on in January, 1948, as members of crew of plaintiffs' steamship at United States port-Dollar advances made to crew-Voyage to Dakar with cargo-Cargo then taken on board at Takoradi for Sauda (Norway)-Request by crew during voyage and at Sauda for advances in dollars for transmission to their families in Greece-Master unable to arrange for dollar remittances- Later demand by crew at Sauda to be paid in sterling wages up to date of completion of discharge at Sauda, advances in respect of the following voyage, and long service bonuses - Refusal by crew to complete discharge and to sail for next loading port (Narvik) unless demands granted-Unsuccessful attempts by master and shipowners to meet crew's demands as to method of payment-Dispute as to terms of service-Crew signed on under articles which incorporated the Greek Collective Agreement (dated 1943) which provided (inter alia): That this agreement is valid for one full round voyage (that is to say, from Britain and return to Britain).

Duration of Engagement.

Seamen will sign on for a full round voyage (e.g., from and back to the United Kingdom), subject to the following conditions and restrictions: (1) At the end of the round voyage seamen shall be entitled to obtain their discharge, if they so desire, provided they inform the master before the ship's arrival to her port of discharge. The signing-off takes effect after the ship has completed her discharge. . . . (2) (b) Those completing six months' continuous service on the ship shall be entitled to a long period service bonus. . . .

Advances, when pay starts,
payment of wages.

(1) Seamen upon signing on are entitled to an advance . . . (2) As regards advances against wages at intermediary ports, it is agreed that seamen are entitled to receive an amount up to half of their earned wages (that is to say, basic wages and war bonus), after deduction, however, of advances already received. Galaxias Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Panagos Christofis and Others. K.B. 500

Whether ship on "round voyage" - Meaning of "intermediary port" - Collective Agreement modified by Supplementary Collective Agreement (dated Nov. 29, 1947) which provided (inter alia):

The payment to the crews of the tramp ships of the [long service bonus] will be continued until the new General Collective Agreement is signed, and not, at any rate, after the 30th November, 1947, after which date they are definitely to be abolished. Greek Commercial Code: 361. . . . Any seaman discharged without just cause shall be entitled to compensation in addition to payment for the services performed by him. 362. The members of the crew shall be entitled to remain and be maintained on board until payment of their wages or the share of profits or freight due to them.

Strike of crew at Sauda causing delay preventing fulfilment of next charter voyage from Narvik to Cardiff - Ship worked to Newcastle-upon-Tyne under promise by master that crew would not be penalized-Inquiry held on board at Newcastle by Greek Government official, as result of which crew were signed off by Greek Consul, their seamen's books were confiscated and sent to Greece, and provision was made for repatriation-Crew paid full wages except in respect of strike period at Sauda-Refusal by crew to leave ship-Claim by shipowners for damages for trespass and for breach of contract- Counterclaim by crew for full wages without deduction, for long service bonuses, and for compensation for "discharge without just cause" - Further counterclaim for damages for detention of seamen's books.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 499


Evidence - Admissibility - Statements by persons proposed to be called as witnesses -"Not reasonably practicable to secure attendance" - "Persons interested" - Outbreak of five on board defendants' steamship Esneh in Taranto Harbour, causing death of purser-Action brought by widow against shipowners - Alleged lack of warning system and fire-fighting system on board - Application by defendants to admit proof of evidence made after issue of writ by master and by second and third officers, whom it was impracticable to call - Whether personal interest limited to financial interest - Evidence Act, 1938, Sect. 1 (1), (2), (3)-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 470.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 515


Negligence-Safe system of working- Precautions against fire on board ship in harbour - Warning of outbreak - Sounding of alarm-Duties of night watchman-Fire drill - Outbreak of fire on board defendants' steamship Esneh in Taranto Harbour, causing death of purser-Action brought by widow against shipowners under Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846-1908, and under Law Reform (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1934-Evidence as to provision of night watchman; as to time of discovery of fire; as to warning system; as to fire-fighting instructions; and as to fire-drill - Merchant Shipping (Fire Appliances) Rules, [1940] S.R. & O. No. 2170.

(1947) 81 Ll.L.Rep. 518