Asiatic Petroleum Company Ltd v Lennard's Carrying Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 1912 |
| Date | 01 November 1912 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
Bray, J.
Asiatic Petroleum Company Limited v. Lennard's Carrying Company Limited
Virginia Carolina Chemical Company v. Norfolk and North American Steam-Shipping CompanyDID=ASPM 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 82 (1911) 105 L. T. Rep. 810
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 502.
Cargo — Loss by fire — Unseaworthiness of ship
Maritime law cases. 269 K.B. DIV.] Asiatic Petroleum Co. Lim. v. Lennard's Carrying Co. Lim. [K.B. DIV. Friday, Nov. 1, 1912. (Before Beat, J.) Asiatic Petroleum Oompant Limited v. Lennabd's Cabetino Company Limited, (a) Cargo - Loss by fire-Unseaworthiness of ship - Liability - Fault or privities of owners-Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, c 60), 1.502. A cargo of oil carried on board a ship was destroyed by fire, the cause of the loss being the stranding of the ship occasioned by the unseaworthiness of her boilers. Held, that as the owners had mat fulfilled their duty in seeing that the ship tout seaworthy, they were not entitled to the protection of sect. 502 0/ the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, as the loss had not happened without their acted fault or privity. (a) Reported by Leobabs O. Thomas, Esq., Barrister-w Law. 270 MARITIME LAW CASES. K.B. DIV.] Asiatic Petroleum Co. Lim v. Lennard's Carrying Co. Lim. [K.B. Div. COMMERCIAL COURT. Action tried by Bray, J. sitting without a jury. The plaintiffs' claim was for damages for breach of contract and breach of duty on the part of the defendants in and about the carriage of a cargo of benzene on board the defendants' steamship Edward Dawson from Novorossisk to Rotterdam. The facts and arguments are sufficiently stated in the judgment. Atkin, E.G., Maurice Hill, K.C., and Mackinnon for the plaintiffs. Bailhache, K.O. and Roche for the defendants. Bray, J.-This action was brought by the endorsees of certain bills of lading under which benzine oil was to be carried by the defendants on board their tank steamer Edward Dawson from Novorossisk to Rotterdam. The Edward Damon shipped the oil at Nororossisk and sailed on the 7th Sept. 1911. She went ashore near Flushing on Oct 1, and within six hours after the oil tank took fire and was destroyed. The plaintiffs alleged that the Edward Dawton was unseaworthy when she left Novorossisk, owing to defects in the boilers, that she was driven ashore owing to want of steam arising from those defects, and that the fire was caused by the stranding and its consequences. The defendants disputed these allegations, and contended further that they were protected by sect. 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The material part of the section is as follows: The owner of a British seagoing ship or any share therein shall not be liable to make good to any extent whatever an/ loss or damage happening without hi* actual fault or privities in the following oases, namely: (J.) where any goods, merchandise, or other thing* whatsoever taken in or pat on board his ship are lost or damaged by reason of fire on board tin ship. . . . The first question I have to determine is whether the ship was unseaworthy when she left Novorossisk. The Edward Dawton (originally bearing another name) was built in 1890. New boilers were put in in 1896. She was bought by the defendants in 1907 for 75001., and a large sum, about 6550!., was then spent upon her in repairs, which included repairs to the boilers. She arrived in Birkenhead in Jan. 1911, having sustained some damage on her last voyage. She was repaired there, and was then surveyed there on behalf of the Bureau Veritas. Mr. Viehoff, the surveyor, after the survey, endorsed a certificate extending her class (the first division) for another twelve months from March 1911, on condition that the working pressure in the boilers should be reduced from 1601b. to 1301b. She sailed from Birkenhead to Kustendje in ballast on the 20th Jan. 1911 and returned with an oil cargo to Gette. From Gette she sailed again in ballast to Kustendje, and came back to Gette with another oil cargo. She left again for Kustendje in ballast and took oil on board there, and brought her cargo to Thames Haven, where she arrived on the l0th June. After some repairs to her boilers there she left in ballast for New York where she shipped an oil cargo for Spanish ports, the last of which was Barcelona, She left Barcelona b ballast, arrived at Novorossiysk on the 1st Sept., left that port with a cargo of benzine oil on the 7th Sept., and was lost in the North Sea, as I have already stated. A great deal of evidence was given as to the condition of the boilers during these voyages, the second and third engineers and some firemen being called for the plaintiffs, and the captain, the first engineer, and the chief officer for the defendants. A good deal of the evidence of the plaintiffs was not disputed, but Borne was. As regards nearly all these witnesses on both sides, there were some discrepancies between the evidence they gave before me and the evidence they gave at a Board of Trade inquiry held in Dec. 1911, to inquire into the loss. Owing to this, and the absence of any log-books, which were said to have been burnt or lost in the Ship, it was not always easy to arrive at the truth, but as to the main facts I think my findings may be relied on as being correct. In order to explain matters, I should say that there were two boilers, each having three furnaces, a centre furnace and two wing furnaces. It is not, I think, necessary for me to further describe them. Models and drawings were produced, explaining their construction quite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram and Royle Ltd v Services Maritimes Du Treport Ltd
...12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 82, 233 107 L. T. Rep. 320 (1912) 1 K. B. 229 Asiatic Petroleum Company v. Lennard's Carrying CompanyDID=ASPM 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 269 109 L. T. Rep. 433 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s 502 Bill of lading Exemptions from liability Fire. Virginia Ca......
-
Asiatic Petroleum Company Ltd v Lennard's Carrying Company Ltd
...Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 502 Cargo — Loss by fire — Unseaworthiness of ship Decision of Bray, J. (reported 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 269; 107 L. T. Rep. 651) affirmed. MARITIME LAW CASES. 381 CT. of App.] Asiatic Petroleum co. Lim. v. Lennard's carrying co. Lim. [Ct. of App. ......