Atlantic Shipping and Trading Company Ltd v Louis Dreyfus and Company (First Appeal)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 April 1922 |
| Date | 04 April 1922 |
| Court | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Lords Buckmaster, Dunedin, Atkinson, Sumner, and Carson.
Atlantic Shipping and Trading Company Limited v. Louis Dreyfus and Co. (First Appeal)
Scott v. Avery 5 H. L. Cas. 811
Bank of Australasia v. Clan Line of SteamersDID=ASPMELR 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas.99 113 L. T. Rep. 261 (1916) 1 K. B. 39
Tattersall v. National Steamship Company LimitedDID=ASPMELR 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 206 50 L. T. Rep. 299 12 Q. B. Div. 297
Baxter's Leather Company v. Royal Mail Steam Packet CompanyDID=ASPMELR 11 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 98 99 L. T. Rep. 286 (1908) 2 K. B., at p. 632
Wiener and Co. v. Wilson's and Furness Leyland Line LimitedUNK 11 Asp. Mar. Law. Cas. 413 102 L. T. Rep. 716 15 Com. Cas. 294
Elderslie Steamship Company v. BorthwickDID=ASPM 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 24 92 L. T. Rep. 274 (1905) A. C. 93
Charter-party Reference of disputes to arbitration Unseaworthiness at commencement of voyage
Tattersall v. National Steamship Company Limited (5 Asp. Mar. law Cas. 206; 50 L. T. Rep. 299; 12 Q. B. Div. 297) approved and followed.
Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed on other grounds.
566 MARITIME LAW CASES. Adm.] Atlantic Shipping & Trading Co. Lim. v. Louis Dreyfus & Co. (First Appeal.) [H.L. House of Lords. March 7, 9, 10, and April 4, 1922. (Before Lords Buckmaster, Dunedin, Atkinson, Sumner, and Carson.) Atlantic Shipping and Trading Company Limited v. Louis Dreyfus and Co. (First Appeal), (a) on appkal from the court of appeal in ENGLAND. Charter-party-Reference of disputes to arbitration - Unseaworthiness at commencement of voyage-Claim for damage to cargo-Time limit for appointing arbitrator-Effect of arbitration clause. By a charter-party it was provided thai ?? disputes from time to time arising ?? this contract shall, unless the parties agree forthwith on a single arbitrator, be referred to the final arbitrament of two arbitrators . . . one to be appointed by each of the parties, with power to such arbitrators to appoint an umpire. . . . Any claim must be made in writing and claimant's arbitrator appointed within three months of final discharge, and, where this provision is not complied with, the claim shall be deemed to be waived and absolutely barred." Held, that that provision did not exclude the cargo owner from such recourse 19 the courts as was always open, by virtue of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, to a party who had agreed to arbitrate, but that it was unavailable to the shipowner as an answer to a claim for damage caused by unseaworthiness. Tattersall v. National Steamship Company Limited (5 Asp. Mar. Law Cos. 206; 50 L. T. Rep. 299 ; 12 Q. B. Div. 297) approved and followed. Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed on other grounds. Appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal reversing a decision of Rowlatt, J. The appellants were the owners and. the respondents the charterers of the steamship Quantock. By a charter-party dated the 2nd May 1919 it was provided that the vessel should proceed to Rosario, and there load a full and complete cargo of linseed for carriage to Hull. Clause 39 was as follows : " All disputes from time to time arising out of this contract shall, unless the parties agree forthwith, on a single arbitrator, be referred to the final arbitrament of two arbitrators carrying on business in London., who shall be members of the Baltic and engaged in the shipping and (or) grain trades, one to be appointed by each of the parties, with power to such arbitrators to appoint an umpire. Any claim must be made in writing and claimant's (a) Reported by EDWARD J. M. Chaplin. Esq., Barrister-at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 567 H.L.] Atlantic Shipping & Trading Co. Lim. v. Louis Dreyfus & Co. (First Appeal.) [H.L. arbitrator appointed within three months of final discharge, and, where this provision is not complied with, the claim shall be deemed to be waived and absolutely barred." The Quantock duly proceeded with a cargo of linseed to Hull, where she arrived early in. Sept. 1919. Shortly after her arrival the respondents gave notice to the appellants of their intention to put in a claim for damage alleged to have been caused to the linseed during the voyage, and in May 1920 they brought an action against them claiming 22332. d mages. The appellants by their defence referred to clause 39 of the charter-party and said that the charterers, having failed to appoint their arbitrator within three months of the final discharge of the ship, must be deemed to have waived their claim, and that no action could now be brought in respect thereof. The respondents, by their reply, pleaded that the ship was unseaworthy and unfit to receive the said goods on board at the date when the said goods were loaded, and at the date of the commencement of her voyage with the said goods on board and remained in the said condition throughout the said voyage, and that the effect in law of the unseaworthiness was to prevent the operation in favour of the appellants of any of the special clauses of the charter-party. An order having been made after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed & Company v Page, Son & East
...et Cie v. Lupton 1 Mar. Law Cas. (O.S.) 347 8 L. T. Rep. 575 Atlantic Shipping and Trading Company v. Louis Dreyfus and Co.DID=ASPM 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 566 127 L. T. Rep. 411 (1922) 2 A. C. 250 Cohn v. DavidsonDID=ASPMELR 3 Asp. Mar Law Cas. 374 36 L. T. Rep. 244 2 Q. B. Div. 455 Kopitoff......
-
The Christel Vinnen
...Dimitrios N. RalliasDID=ASPM 16 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 62 128 L. T. Rep. 491 Atlantic Trading Company v. Louis Dreyfus and CoDID=ASPM 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 566, at p. 569 127 L. T. Rep. 411, at p. 414 (1922) A. C. 250, at p. 260 Lyon v. MellsENR 1804, 5 East 428 Kopitoff v. WilsonDID=ASPMELR 3 ......
-
Ford & Company v Compagnie Furness (France)
...and Co. Limited v. Compagnie Furness (France) and others Atlantic Shipping and Trading Company v. Louis Dreyfus and Co.DID=ASPM 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 566 127 L. T. Rep. 411 (1922) 2 A. C. 250 Tattersall v. National Shipping Company LimitedDID=ASPMELR 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 206 50 L. T. Rep. 2......