MINISTER OF FOOD v. REARDON SMITH LINE, LTD.
[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 265
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
Before Mr. Justice McNair.
Charter-party-Damage to cargo-Liability of shipowners - Exceptions from liability-"Act, neglect, or default in the management of the ship"-Unseaworthiness -Charter of ship to carry full cargo of wheat from Australia to U.K.-Incorporation of provisions of Arts. III (except Rule 8), IV, VIII and IX of Schedule to Australian Sea-Carriage of Goods Act, 1924, which "shall apply to this charter-party and shall be deemed to be inserted in extenso therein"-Damage to cargo due to overflowing of water ballast tanks in course of ship repair survey at port of discharge - Claim against shipowners-Arbitration-Findings by umpire that the tank lids had been removed and replaced during the course of survey; that the chief officer had instructed an employee of the repairers to harden down the tank lids after replacement; and that the chief officer was negligent in pumping up the tanks without ensuring that they had been made watertight-Further finding that the shipowners
failed to exercise due diligence at the beginning of the voyage, pursuant to Art. III of the Schedule to the said Act, to make the No. 2 hold fit and safe for the reception, carriage and preservation of the cargo of wheat loaded and carried therein in that the after 'tween deck scupper pipes were sealed with cement instead of being covered with burlap; but I find that substantial damage to the wheat in the No. 2 lower hold would have occurred even if the scupper pipes had been covered with burlap only, although I am unable to find whether, and, if so, by what amount, the damage would have thereby been decreased.
Award that shipowners were exempted from liability "by reason of
Minister of Food v. Reardon Smith Line, Ltd.
K.B.
266
Art. IV, Rule 2 (a), of the Schedule of the said Act"-Case stated-Question for Court: Whether shipowners exempted from liability by reason of Art. IV, Rule 2 (a), of the Schedule to the Act of 1924-Contentions by charterer: (1) that in view of the umpire's findings that the overflowing of the tanks was in part due to the act (whether negligent or otherwise) of an employee of the repairers, the shipowners had failed to bring themselves within the exception of "act, neglect, or default in the management of the ship"; (2) that, there being a finding of negligence amounting to an "act, neglect, or default" within Art. IV (2) (a) and also a finding that the shipowners failed to exercise due diligence at the beginning of the voyage to make the ship seaworthy pursuant to Art. III, the shipowners were not protected unless there was an affirmative finding by the umpire that the unseaworthiness did not contribute to the loss-Construction of charter-party -Provisions of Act included as a matter of contract.