Anglo-Northern Trading Company Ltd v Emlyn, Jones, and Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 1917 |
| Date | 26 October 1917 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Pickford and Bankes, L.JJ. and Sargant, J.
Countess of Warwick Steamship Company Limited v. Le Nickel Societe Anonyme; Anglo-Northern Trading Company Limited v. Emlyn, Jones, and Williams
Scottish Navigation Company Limited v. W. A. Souter and Co.DID=ASPMELR 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 539 115 L. T. Rep. 812 (1917) 1 K. B. 222
Andrew Millar and Co. Limited v. Taylor and Co. LimitedELR 114 L. T. Rep. 216 (1916) 1 K. B. 402
Embiricos v. Reid and Co.DID=ASPMELR 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 513 111 L. T. Rep. 291 (1914) 3 K. B. 45
Geipel v. Smith 26 L. T. Rep. 261 L. Rep. 7 Q. B. 404
Tamplin Steamship Company Limited v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Company LimitedDID=ASPM 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 467 115 L. T. Rep. 315 (1916) 2 A. C. 397
Ropner and Co. v. RonnebeckDID=ASPM 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 47 112 L. T. Rep. 723
Dahl v. Nelson, Donkin, and Co.ELR 44 L. T. Rep. 381 6 App. Cas. 38
Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance Company 31 L. T. Rep. 789 L. Rep. 10 C. P. 125
Ship Time charter-party Hire
Tamplin Steamship Company Limited v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Company Limited (13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 467; 115 L. T. Rep. 315; (1916) 2 A. C. 397) discussed.
Decisions of Sankey, J. (infra) and of Bailhache J. (ante, p. 18; 116 L. T. Rep. 414; (1917) 2 K. B. 78) affirmed.
242 MARITIME LAW CASES. App.] Counters of Warwick Steamship Co. Lim. v. Le Nickel Societe Anonyme. [App. Supreme Court of Judicature. COURT OF APPEAL. Oct. 25 and 26,1917. (Before Pickford and Bankes, L.JJ. and Sargant, J.) Countess of Warwick Steamship Company' Limited v. Le Nickel Societe Anonyme. AnGLO-NorTHErN TRADING COMPANY LlMITED v. Ehlyn, Jones, and Williams, (a) APPEALS FROM THE KINO'S BENCH DIVISION. Ship - Time charter-party - Hire - Requisition of ship by Admiralty - Restraint of princes - Frus (ration of commercial adventure. In Tamplin Steamship Company Limited - Apple-Mexican Petroleum Products Company Limited (13 Asp. Mar. Lav Cat. 467; 115 L. T. Rep. 315; (1916) 2 A. C. 397) Lord Loreburn, though agreeing with Lord Buck-master, L.G. and Lord Parker that the charter in that case .[did not determine when the ship teas requisitioned, yet concurred with Lords Atkinson and Saldane (thus making a [majority) in holding that the doctrine of commercial frustration applies to m time charter. The doctrine, therefore, applies to a time charter. In the first appeal, by a time charter-party, dated the 16m March 1915, a vessel was chartered for not less than twelve months from the 29ft March 1956, at a hire payable monthly. The vessel was requisitioned on the 30th Oct. 1915 by the Admiralty. The charterers paid hire up to the 30th Oct. 1915 only. The chartered owners sued to recover hire under the charter-party up to the 29th March 1916, lees hire at a lover rate received by them from the Admiralty. The charterers pleaded that the charter-party had been determined by the requisition. In the second case, by a charter-party, dated the 2nd Oct. 1915, a ship teas let on hire at a monthly rate until the 19th Nov. 1916. There was an exceptions clause which included restraints of princes, but there was no provision for cesser of hire in respect of interruption of service due to that exception. On the 22nd July 1916 the ship was requisitioned by the Admiralty, and the requisition continued until after the 19th Nov. 1916, the rate of hire payable by the Admiralty being/ less than that payable under the charter-party. Held, in both cases, that the requisition had frus-traied the adventure, and the charterers were not liable for the hire after the date of the requisition. Tamplin Steamship Company Limited v. Anglo Mexican Petroleum Products Company Limited (sup.) discussed. Decision of Sankey, J. (infra) and of Bailhache J, (ante, p. 18; 116 L. T. Rep. 414; (1917) 2 K. B. 78)'affirmed. The two appeals raised substantially the same point, and were heard together. CounTis8 of Warwick Steamship Company Limited p. Le Nickel Societe Anonyme. The facts appear sufficiently from the judgment of Sankey, J. March 23, 1917. - Sankbt, J. - T'e plaintiff's claim is for 10,257/. Is. 8J., the balance of hire alleged to be dus in respect of a time charter-party of the steamship south Paeific, dated the 16th March 1915. The charter was for a period of about, but not lest, than twelve calendar months from the date upon which the ressel was placed at the disposal of the defendants, and the rate of hira was 4387/, per month payable in London in advance. The South Pacific was placed at the disposal of the defendants on the 29th March 1915, bat at the beginning of Ootober she was requisitioned by the Admiralty, and was in fart handed orer to them at the end of that month, when, by a document dated the 30th Oct. signed by the master and the defendants' agents, it was mutually agreed that " the steamer South Pacific was re-delivered to owners uuder time charter on this date, and that the amount of bunkers then on board was 45 tons. . . ." It will thus be seen that, at the time of the requisitioning, five (a) Reported by Edward J, M. Chaplin, Esq., Brrister-at-law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 243 APP.] COUNTERS OF WARWICK STEAMSHIP CO. LlM. V. Ls NlCKEL SOCIETE ANONYME. [APP. months were due to run on the charter. The defendants contend (1) that the requisition put an end to the contract, because it frustrated the joint adventure between the parties; (2) iuat in any event the document of the 30th Oct. was a redelivery of the vessel to the owners, and that hire ceased. The plaintiffs contend (1) that the doctrine of frustration of adventure does not apply to a time charter, or at any rate to this time charter, and that, if it does, there was in fact no frustration of the adventure; (2) that there was no redelivery of the vessel. Was there & redelivery of the vest el P I am of opinion that the circumstances do not constitute such a redelivery of the vessel as to enable the defendants to say that hire ceased. The master had no authority to redeliver her so as to deter-mine the contract between the parties, nor do I think that either plaintiffs or defendants under-stood the docament of the 30th Oct. in that light All tbe document intended to do was to fix the amount of bunker coals left on board the vessel for which the plaintiffs were liable under the charter. Next, does the doctrine of frustration of adven-ture apply to a time charter or to this time charter F In my view, after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Beotluh\ Navigation Company Limited v. W. A. Souter and Co. (13 Asp. Mar. Law Gas. 539; 115 L. T. Rep. 812; (1917) 1 K. B. 222), this point is not open in thia court. It was urged for the plaintiffs that the point did not fall for decision in 8outer" - case, because the Court of Appeal held the charter in that case not to be a time charter. It appears to me that Bankes, L.J. did decide that the doctrine was applicable to a time charter, and certainly A. T. Lawrence, J. said bo in so many words. I feel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W. J. Tatem Ltd v Gamboa
...16 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 133 129 L. T. Rep. 65 Countess of Warwick Steamship Company v. Le Nickel Société AnonymeDID=ASPMELR 14 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 242 118 L. T. Rep. 196 (1918) 1 K. B. 372 Bank Line Limited v. Arthur Capel and CompanyDID=ASPM 14 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 370 120 L. T. Rep. 129 (1919)......