Ships in UK Law

It is now well settled that those who plead the section as a defence must discharge the burden of proving that they come within its terms. That is to say, they must show that they were themselves in no way in fault or privy to what occurred; in this case to the failure to render the ship properly seaworthy by taking care that the master was instructed about the special risk arising from its shape.

None the less, not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial judge, and, unless it can be shown that he has failed to use or has palpably misused his advantage, the higher Court ought not to take the responsibility of reversing conclusions so arrived at, merely on the result of their own comparisons and criticisms of the witnesses and of their own view of the probabilities of the case.

State-controlled enterprises, with legal personality, ability to trade and to enter into contracts of private law, though wholly subject to the control of their state, are a well-known feature of the modern commercial scene. The distinction between them, and their governing state, may appear artificial: but it is an accepted distinction in the law of England and other states (see Czarnikow Ltd. v. Rolimpex [1979] A.C. 351).

But these consequences follow inevitably from the entry of states into the trading field. Though, with much hesitation, I feel obliged to differ on this issue from the conclusion of the learned judge, I respectfully think that he well put this ultimate test:

In other words the loss of user for the time of repair, in effect, made the "Prestol's" then capital value infructuous for the time being, even though by special effort more benefit was got out of other ships, in which other capital was invested than would otherwise have been the case.

But the Appellants' actual loss in so far as it was due to their impecuniosity arose from that impecuniosity as a separate and concurrent cause, extraneous to and distinct in character from the tort; the impecuniosity was not traceable to the Respondents' acts, and in my opinion was outside the legal purview of the consequences of these acts.

In these cases the dominant rule of law is the principle of restitutio in integrum, and subsidiary rules can only be justified if they give effect to that rule. The true rule seems to be that the measure of damages in such cases is the value of the ship to her owner as a going concern at the time and place of the loss. In assessing that value regard must naturally be had to her pending engagements, either profitable or the reverse.