CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. GAUD AND OTHERS.
(1948) 82 Ll.L.Rep. 659
COURT OF APPEAL.
Before Lord Justice Cohen and Lord Justice Singleton.
Seamen-Dismissal from Canadian ship in London Dock-Termination of articles -Refusal by crew (members of Canadian Seamen's Union) to leave ship-Alleged breach of articles by shipowners in commencing negotiations for agreement with rival union- Action brought by shipowners claiming damages for trespass and breach of contract, and an injunction to restrain trespass - Mandatory injunction granted by Judge on an interlocutory application, restraining crew from remaining on or going on board ship- Appeal by crew-Jurisdiction of English Courts to hear dispute- Whether Court in granting injunction was assisting plaintiffs in committing an act illegal under Canadian law- Consideration of Canadian law- Canada Shipping Act, 1934:
Sect. 284. (1) The master of a ship registered in Canada shall not discharge a seaman at any place out of Canada (except at a port in the country in which he was shipped), unless he previously obtains, indorsed on the agreement with the crew, the sanction of the proper authority as defined for the purpose in this Part of this Act, but that sanction shall not be refused where the seaman is discharged on the termination of his service.
(3) If the master of a ship fails to comply with this section, he shall,
in respect of each offence, be guilty of an indictable offence, and in any legal proceeding for the offence it shall lie on the master to prove that the sanction was obtained or could not be obtained or was unreasonably withheld.
Sect. 573. A Court (in this Act called a Naval Court) may be summoned by any officer in command of any ship belonging to His Majesty, on any foreign station, or, in the absence of such an officer, by any British Consular Officer, in the following cases that is to say-
(i) Whenever a complaint which appears to that officer to require immediate investigation is made to him by the master of any ship registered in Canada, by a certified mate, or by any one or more of the seamen belonging to any such ship. . . .
Evidence of steps taken by shipowners to obtain "the sanction of the proper authority"-Right of master to terminate articles-Whether Court entitled to grant mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application- Discretion of learned Judge-Oppression -Alleged alternative remedy in plaintiffs to summon Naval Court in London to deal with dispute-Whether London was a "foreign station" within meaning of Sect. 573-Canada Shipping Act, 1934, Sects. 284, 285, 286, 290, 297, 573.