Court Line Ltd v Dant & Russell Inc.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1939 |
| Date | 16 June 1939 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
Branson, J.
Court Line Limited v. Dant and Russell Inc.
Re Comptoir Commercial Anversois and Power, Son and Co.ELR 122 L. T. Rep. 567 (1920) 1 K. B. 868
F. A. Tamplin Steamship Company Limited v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Limited 115 L. T. Rep. 315 (1916) 2 A. C. 397
Bank Line Limited v. Capel (A.) and Co.DID=ASPM 14 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 370 120 L. T. Rep. 129 (1919) A. C. 435
Turner v. GoldsmithELR 64 L. T. Rep. 301 (1891) 1 Q. B. 544
W. J. Tatem Limited v. GamboaDID=ASPM 19 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 216 160 L. T. Rep. 159
Hogarth v. Miller, Brother, and Co.DID=ASPM 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 1 64 L. T. Rep. 205 (1891) A. C. 48
Contract Frustration Charter-party
ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 307 ADM.] COURT LINE LTD. v. DANT AND RUSSKLI, INC. [K.B. Div. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. KINGS BENCH DIVISION. Friday, June 10, 1939. (Before BrANSOn., J.) Court Line Limited v. Dant and Russell Inc. (a) Contract - Frustration - Charter-party - Ship detained in river owing to barricade erected by belligerents. A ship was chartered from March, 1937, to January, 1938, at which latter date she was to be re-delivered to her owners. During a voyage pursuant to the charter she arrived at Wuhu, on the Yangtze River, on the 7th August, 1937. Shortly after that date the Chino-Japanese War began and the Chinese forces constructed a barricade of sunken ships across the river. In consequence of that, the ship was detained at Wuhu until December, 1937, when the Japanese broke through the barricade, and she ivas able to proceed down the river. Held, that the closing of the river made performance of the contract impossible, as the result of events which could not have been foreseen by the parties, a??.I that the adventure was frustrated and the contract at an end. SPECIAL case stated by an umpire. By a charter-party dated the 19th March, 1937, the appellants chartered their ship, Errington Court, to the respondents on the terms that she was to be re-delivered to the appellants at a port in Australia between the 15th December, 1937, and the 31st January, 1938. The ship proceeded on a voyage to Wuhu on the Yangtze river, arriving there on the 7th August, 1937. Shortly after that date Ihe Chino-Japanese War started, and the Chinese forces constructed a barricade of sunken ships across the river to prevent the approach of hostile warships. As a result, of that, it became impossible, as from the 16th August, for ships to leave Wuhu. The Errington Court discharged her cargo by the 3rd September, and remained idle at Wuhu until the 17th December. On that date the Japanese forces broke down the barricade, and the ship was able to leave. (a) reported by V. R. ArOnSon, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 308 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. K.B. Div.] COURT LINE LTD. v. DANT AND RUSSELL, INC. [K.B. Div. In the arbitration the appellants claimed damages for alleged repudiation of the charter-party, and the respondents claimed the return of hire paid by them in advance. The umpire found that from the 16th August to the 17th December, it was impossible for the ship to proceed down the river, but that even after that period it would have been possible to re-deliver the ship in Australia within the contract time. He held that on the 3rd September the adventure was frustrated, and the charter-party dissolved, and that neither party could recover anything from the other under it. Sir Robert Aske, K.C. and A. A. Mocatta for the appellants. Willink, K.C. and C. A. Roberts for the charterers. Branson,??.-In this case, a ship, the Errington...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Actis Company Ltdv Sanko Steamship Company Ltd (Aquacharm, Mini Lux)
...a basin. The vessel is still working fully, but she is delayed by the need to unload part of the cargo. It is rather like Court Line Ltd. v. Pant & Russell Inc. (1939) 44 Commercial Cases 345. The vessel was still working fully, but she was delayed by the boom across the Yangtse River. Thi......
- Scanlan's New Neon Ltd v Tooheys Ltd
- Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright (Anita, West Sea.)
-
Venezolana (C.A.) de Navegacion v Bank Line Ltd (Roachbank)
...prevents the full working of a vessel, distinction is drawn between causes which are totally extraneous, such as the boom in Court Line Ltd. v. Dant & Russell Inc., and causes which are attributable to the condition of the ship itself, such as engine breakdown. "(4) Sometimes, however, ther......