Maritime Shipping in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo, Mango & Company Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 10 Dec 1931

    It is important to remember that the Act of 1924 was the outcome of an International Conference and that the rules in the Schedule have an international currency. As these rules must come under the consideration of foreign Courts it is desirable in the interests of uniformity that their interpretation should not be rigidly controlled by domestic precedents of antecedent date, but rather that the language of the rules should be construed on broad principles of general acceptation.

  • Hillas & Company Ltd v Arcos Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 05 Jul 1932

    Business men often record the most important agreements in crude and summary fashion: modes of expression sufficient and clear to them in the course of their business may appear to those unfamiliar with the business far from complete or precise. It is accordingly the duty of the Court to construe such documents fairly and broadly, without being too astute or subtle in finding defects, but, on the contrary, the Court should seek to apply the old maxim of English law,

  • Monarch Steamship Company Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B)
    • House of Lords
    • 09 Dec 1948

    It was necessary to lay down principles lest juries should be persuaded to do injustice by imposing an undue, or perhaps an inadequate, liability on a defendant. The Court must be careful, however, to see that the principles laid down are never so narrowly interpreted as to prevent a jury, or judge of fact, from doing justice between the parties.

  • Midland Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 06 Dec 1961

    I can see a possibility of success of the agency argument if (first) the Bill of Lading makes it clear that the stevedore is intended to be protected by the provisions in it which limit liability, (secondly) the Bill of Lading makes it clear that the carrier, in addition to contracting for these provisions on his own behalf, is also contracting as agent for the stevedore that these provisions should apply to the stevedore, (thirdly) the carrier has authority from the stevedore to do that, or perhaps later ratification by the stevedore would suffice, and (fourthly) that any difficulties about consideration moving from the stevedore were overcome.

  • Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Vanden Avenne-Izegem PVBA
    • House of Lords
    • 18 May 1978

    In my opinion the clause may very appropriately and should be regarded as such an intermediate term: to do so would recognise that while in many, possibly most, instances, breach of it can adequately be sanctioned by damages, cases may exist in which, in fairness to the buyer, it would be proper to treat the cancellation as not having effect. On the other hand, always so to treat it may often be unfair to the seller, and unnecessarily rigid.

  • Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company Ltd v Adamastos Shipping Company Ltd (Saxon Star.)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 16 Apr 1957

    This Bill of Lading shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States, approved April 16th, 1936, which shall be deemed to be incorporated herein, and nothing herein contained shall be deemed a surrender by the Carrier of any of Its rights or immunities or an increase of any of its responsibilities or liabilities under said Act.

  • Alma Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Mantovani (Dione)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 20 Nov 1974

    (e) If the charterer sends the vessel on an illegitimate last voyage that is, a voyage which it cannot be expected to complete within the charter period, then the shipowner is entitled to refuse that direction and call for another direction for a legitimate last voyage. If the charterer refuses to give it, the shipowner can accept his conduct as a breach going to the root of the contract, fix a fresh charter for the vessel, and sue for damages.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results