Edwards v Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance Society Ltd [Exchequer Chamber]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1876 |
| Date | 26 February 1876 |
| Court | Exchequer |
Exchequer Chamber
Amphlett, B. Pollock. B., Brett J., Kelly, C. B.
Edwards v. Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance Society (Limited)
Scott v. Avery 5 H. L. Cas. 811
Tredwen v. HolmanENR 1 H. & C. 72
Elliott v. Royal Exchange Assurance CompanyENR L. Rep. 2 Ex. 237
Dawson v. FitzgeraldENR L. Rep. 9 Ex. 10
M' Intosh v. Great Western RailwayENRENR 2 De G. & Sm. 758 2 Mac. & G. 74
Kemp v. RoseENR 1 Giff. 264
Hotham v. The East India CompanyENR 1 T. R. 638
Horton v. SayerENR 4 H. & N. 643
Boydell, DrummondENR 11 East, 142
Roper v. LendonENR 1 E. & E. 825
Cooke v. Cooke L. Rep. 4 Eq. 77
Policy of marine insurance — Risk or adventure — Time policy
154 MARITIME LAW CASES. EX. Div] Edwards v. Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance. Society (Limited). [Ex. CH. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Reported by M. W. McKellen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. May 10 and 11, 1875., and Feb. 26,1876. Edwards v. aretayron mutual ship insurance society (limited) APPEAL FROM The court of queens bench. Policy of marina insurance-Risk or adventure,- Time policy-Member of society by estoppel- Agreement to decide desputes condition precedent-30 & 31 vict. C. s. 7 Plaintiff had an ??nultMt interest in a ship, and afterwards received a transfer of the legal interest from the registered owner, ??nw -??nu a member of the defendant's ??twenty. The owner insured the shipwith the defendant's ??Ia the plaintiff's name-by a policy incorporating ??thn ?rnlsa of the so??hlit, and providing among other l??hiiy that every insurance effected should be raliU?? and binding from noon on that day until noon of the 1st January then next following. By the rules persons became members only by signing the, articles, and none but. ??innmbern could insure their ships. The, rules ??aUo required certain notice upon sale of a ship or shares thereof The plaintiff had ??mner signed the articles nor given notice of the transfer to him of the legal interest, but had paid ??etmtHbufi'ms claimed ??frutn him as owner by the society. 1t was ??ahn provided by the rules that the directors should deckle claims and disputes of members, and that aggrieved members might appeal for reconsideration of decisions, first ?? the ??dinctors themselves, and then to the whole ??mcintij; and alto that no member should be ??tltowtdlo bring or have any action, suit, or ??proevedir.fi, ??r other remedy against the society for any claims or demands upon or in respect of the society or the members thereof, ??vxce.pt as therein provided. Upon loss of the ship plaintiff was refused his claim upon this policy by the directors ??Iwies, but made no appeal to the whole society. Held, by the ??Excfaqntr Ohanibur (affirming the Queen's Bench), that the policy incorporated the rules so as to be a sufficient compliance with. sect. ? of the Stamp Act 1867; and that the ??. ??danhto were ??eatopptd from disputing the plaintiff's MARITIME LAW CASES. 155 EX. Ch.] Edwards v. Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance. Society (Limited). [Ex. CH. interest in the policy, and his right as member to claim upon it. Held, also, by the majority of the Exchequer Chamber (overruling the Queen's Bench), that the plaintiff was not bound by, the decision of the directors; but that this action teas ??mnintniyuible. This was an appeal from the unanimous decision in the defendants' favour of Blackburn, M??oilor, and Lush, J..J. on a special case stated by order of Nisi ??'rius. The special case and the exhibits are fully set out in the report of the case before the court, below: (ante, vol. 2, p. 469.) May 10 and 11, 1875.-Cohen, Q.O. (with him Kendm Digby), argued for plaintiff, the appellant. Watkin Williams, Q.C. (with him G. T. Williams), for defendants. The arguments are sufficiently alluded to i& the judgments of the court. Cur. adv. vult. Feb. 26, 1876.-??Ampiubtt, U.-Tho facts are sufficiently stated in the case and exhibits. Two points were relied upon in the argument be-fore us on behalf of the defendants: First, that the plaintiff was insured, if at nil, upon the terms of the articles; secondly, that under articles 39, 83, and 84, it was made a condition precedent to his right to bring an action that the amount of his claim should be determined by the directors. On the first point, in my judgment, the defen-dants are right. The plaintiff ??kievr that ho was ??deitling with a registered society, and the articles are referred to in the contract signed by the directors in a manner which, I think, clearly shows that both parties intended to contract on the footing of the articled. In fact unless the articles are considered (as I think they ought to be) incorporated, the contract would be altogether invalid for (among other reasous??) the omission therein of any enumeration of the perils ??iusurod against. On the second point I think that, upon the true construction of the articles, it must be taken to have been the intention of the parties to give exclusive jurisdiction to the directors to settle all claims between the society and its mem-bers, and the question whether an agreement to that effect is void as being against the policy of the law is in my judgment concluded by the decision in the House of Lords in Scott v. Avery (5 H. L. Cas. 811). It is true that in the present case the directors are to decide not the mere?? amount of the claims, but also any dispute that might arise respecting insurances; but ao they were in Scott v. Avery, and both the learned Lords who decided that case held such extension of the power of the directors to be immaterial. Under these circumstances it is not necessary to consider at length the subsequent decision of tho inferior courts. 1 may, however, refer to Tredwen v. Ho??bnail (1 H. & C. 72), Elliott. Royal Exchange Assurance Company (L. Hep. 2 Ex. 237), and Daw-sonv. Fitzgerald (h. Rep. 9 Ex. 7), the first of which is, in my judgment, ??nndistinguishablo from the present case. I think, therefore, that this action cannot be maintained, unless it can be shown that the conduct of the directors in the (so-called) arbiration has rendered it inequitable to compel the plaintiff to submit; his claim to their determination. Hence the conduct of the directors in this respect hits become very material, and requires a minute examination. The facts are to ha found in paragraphs 11, 12. and 13 of the case, which are as follows: (11) "On the 2nd Dec. 1870, the plaintiff sent in to the defendants a claim for the amount of the insurance or the ??Hurtnione, viz., 1000l., and soon after Daniel Dairies (who was the master of the ship when she was lost) was requested to attend a meeting of the board of directors on the 6th Jan. 1871. He attended accordingly, and was questioned as to the circumstances of the loss of the vessel. The directors expressed to ??Davios their opinion that his account of the wreck way not satisfactory, and that the loss was not shown to have been caused by perils of the seas. When ho had withdrawn from the room, they canto to the resolution ' That the owners of the ??Iformionn had no claim upon the society.' (12.) The plaintiff had no notice of the meeting, and neither ??Davics nor the plaintiff had notice of this resolution, or was required to attend the directors on any subsequent occasion. (13.) On the 6th April 1871 a notice signed by ten members of the association, but not signed by the plaintiff or Davies, was sent to the defendants' office. This notice was submitted to the next quarterly meeting of the directors. No notice to attend was given either to the plaintiff or Davies, and in their absence the directors, without further inquiry, came to the same resolution as before, viz., that the owners of the Uermiom had no claim upon the society." In my opinion, these proceedings of the directors were unjustifiable, and can only be accounted for, consistently with honesty and good faith, by supposing that they had mistaken their real position, and time being agents of the .society, they supposed they had no duty to perform towards the plaintiff. It is beyond doubt, however, that when they undertook the delicate task of adjudicating between their own society and a member, their fuuctions, if not strictly the same, were analogous to those of an arbitrator, and th3y were bound to act judicially and with perfect fairness and impartiality between the parties: ??M'In tosh v. Great Western Railway (2 De G. & Sm. 758). To come '??o a decision, under these circumstances, in favour of their own society and against the plaintiff, without hearing him or giving him an opportunity of being heard, was contrary to every principle of justice, and ought ??not I think to be held by any court of law or equity to be binding upon him. Moreover, 1 think that it would be unreasonable to compel the plaintiff now to submit his claim again to the directors, they having already prejudged the case in bis absence. lt. is hardly likely that, after what has occurred, the directors could now approach the subject with that even and unbiassed mind which is, as the Vice-chancellor said in ??Ktmp v. Hose (1 Giff. 264), "essential to the validity of every judicial proceeding." If the matter had rested only on the first meeting of the directors on the 6th Jan. 1871, it might have boon suggested that the directors, having had no notice of the transfer of the vessel to the plaintiff, considered Davies as the owner, and thought it sufficient to have him before them; but it did not rest there, for no notio??n of that resolution was ever given either to Davies or to the plaintiff, nor was any notice given to either of them of the subsequent quarterly meeting to which the notice signed by ten members was submitted, and at which the same resolution was confirmed in the 156 MARITIME LAW CASES. EX. Ch.] Edwards v. Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance. Society (Limited). [Ex. CH. absence of both. I infer from these facts that the attendance of Davies, who, as I said before, was master of the lost vessel, was requested as a witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Warwick
...the merits of a collision are, assuming there to have been one: Edwards v. Aberayon MutualShip Insurance Society, 1 Q. B. Div. 563; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 154; 34 L. T. Rep. N. S. 457. The plaintiff did not commit a breach of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions. Art. 10 (d), which was a......