Halbauer v Brighton Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON,LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0712-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Docket Number | 1952 H. No. 4401 |
| Date | 12 July 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0712-3
Lord Justice Singleton
Lord Justice Denning, and
Lord Justice Morris.
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant: MR J.P. GRAHAM, Q.C., and MR A.J.D. McCOWAN, instructed by Messrs Woodham Smith, Borradaile & Martin.
Counsel for the Respondents: MR B.E. DUTTON BRIANT, Q.C., and MR J. MacMANUS, instructed by Messrs Sharpe, Pritchard & Co., Agents for Mr J. G. Drew, Town Clerk, Brighton Corporation.
The Defendants, the Brighton Corporation, have a camping ground which is described as "Sheepcote Valley Camping Ground for Holiday-makers." For three or four years prior to March, 1952, the Plaintiff, Mrs Halbauer, bad a caravan on the camping ground. She had a book in which the Camp Regulations appear, and there were copies of the Regulations posted in several places within the camping ground. It must be taken that she was aware of the Regulations and of their terms.
On the night of the 11th March, 1952, the caravan was stolen.
On the 12th March the Entertainments Manager of the Corporation wrote: "Dear Sir, Arrears of Storage Charges for your caravan, which I am informed was removed from the Municipal Camping Ground, Sheepcote Valley, on 11th March, 1952, amounted to £2, 15. 0. Will you kindly remit this amount direct to the above office by return of post. A stamped addressed envelope is enclosed for the purpose." The Plaintiff replied to the effect that she did not know anything about the removal of her caravan; that there must be some mistake.
When evidence was given in regard to the matter, Mr Halbauer, the husband, was asked what the warden had said about the loss of the caravan when he went to see him, and Mr Halbauer replied: "He took me into his office and told me: 'I am very sorry, Mr Halbauer, your caravan was stolen on the 11th March between 7 and 8, I think. It was beautiful moonshine.' I said: 'Did not you hear anything?' He said: 'No, I did not hear anything. We had the wireless on. Everything was inside and we did not hear a thing.'"
Mr Halbauer asked the assistant if that was right, and the assistant, according to Mr Halbauer said: "I am sorry the caravan had gone, and there was a lady onthe ground who saw it pulled out by a very powerful car with no light on, and we did not take any notice."
The Plaintiff brought an action claiming damages for the loss of the caravan and its contents. The total loss was agreed at £343. 17s. 6d. The Corporation denied liability and relied upon one of the Camp Regulations printed in the little book.
The claim was heard by Mr Justice McNair at the Assizes at Lewes on the 12th April, 1954, and he gave judgment for the Defendants, holding that they were protected by the terms of the Regulation upon which they relied. He did not find that there was negligence on the part of the Corporation, though it may be said that his judgment is based on the assumption that there was.
It is necessary that I should say something as to the nature of the camping ground which is described in the little book, and which is shown on a plan. There is an area for the parking of caravans, each site bearing a number; there is an adjoining area for cars and tents, and there is a tarmac area on which there are stores, lavatories, etc.
The book shows that the camp is open from the first Sunday in March until the last Sunday in October, and the charge on the caravan site is 5s. 0d. a night or 25s. 0d. a week. This was the charge paid by the Plaintiff for the parking of her caravan during what may be called the summer season.
On the same page of the book there are shown charges for kit storage, summer and winter, and: "Winter Parking, caravans 12s. 6d. per week (payable in advance)", to which is added: "(Note: Caravans accepted for parking during the winter must be removed to the tarmac for the period)."
During the period from 1948 or 1949 until March,1952, the Plaintiff's caravan had been on the camping ground, Each winter it was placed on/the tarmac area, and winter parking charges were paid from the last Sunday in October until the first Sunday in March.
A letter in common form was sent out to caravan owners early in the month of October which was in the nature of a reminder. The one a copy of which is before the Court, is dated the 11th October, 1951, and says: "Dear Madam, Municipal Camping Ground. As you are aware the Municipal Camping Ground at Sheepcote Valley closes for the season on Sunday 28th October, and I shall therefore be obliged if you will remove your caravan from the site before that date. If you are unable to find alternative accommodation, the caravan can be placed on the Tarmac area for the Winter, at a storage charge of 12/6d. per week, but during this period will not be accessible for residential purposes. Yours faithfully (S. Avery) Entertainments Manager."
During October, 1951, the Plaintiff and her husband packed up the things in the caravan, and, as they had not a car themselves, they gave the Camp Warden 5s. 0d. to remove the caravan on to the tarmac in accordance with the requirement. The caravan was on the tarmac until it was stolen on the night of the 11th March.
The Regulation or condition on which reliance is placed by the Corporation is No. 8, and it is in these terms: "Liability. The Corporation will accept no liability for injury to any person using the Camping Ground or for damages to or loss of the property of any such person."
It was not seriously contended that the Regulation would not have protected the Corporation if the caravan had been stolen during the summer when the Plaintiff was using it. The submission on behalf of thePlaintiff was that in the winter there was an entirely different position from that which existed in the summer; that there was a bailment of the caravan on the terms of the letter of the 11th October, 1951, and that Regulation 8 did not apply. And it was further submitted that when the caravan was on the tarmac it was in the exclusive possession of the Corporation; that the Plaintiff could not use it for residential purposes, and she was not a person using the camping ground within the words of Regulation 8.
The Defendants' case was that the Regulation protected them in summer and in winter, and in whichever part of the camping ground the caravan was. They did not agree that there was a bailment. They relied on the fact that the Regulations (see Nos. 15 and 16) described that which was granted as a licence, and contended that there was nothing more than a licence.
of course, there is a considerable difference between summer, when the caravan occupier is using the caravan, and thus in possession of it, and when entry to the camping site is open and unrestricted, and winter, when the place is closed and the gate locked.
I agree with Mr Justice McNair that the winter arrangement was that the Corporation should store the caravan for the Plaintiff; in other words, there was a bailment. Now, a bailee is only responsible for negligence, and thus if Regulation 8 applies to the contract of bailment, it would absolve the Corporation from liability for the negligence of their servants.
It is said on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Regulation does not apply to the winter parking, and that the Plaintiff was not a person using the Camping Ground at the material time. I consider that this is too narrow and too technical a view. If it is right to say that thearrangements set forth in the book contemplate a different legal position as between summer and winter, it is equally right to say that the Regulations are made to cover both, and that both parties to the contract must be assumed to have so intended. The Plaintiff's caravan had been on the camping ground for more than three years, summer and winter. On the ordinary understanding she was using the camping ground for the parking of her caravan in summer and in winter. I do not think that the Court ought to be swayed by refinements such as those put forward by learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, else one would reach a stage of asking whether a caravan owner who left the camping ground for a week, or for a month, was using the site within Regulation 8.
If the Regulation is given its ordinary meaning, and that which the parties understood it to bear, it is sufficient to protect the Corporation from liability on the facts of this case, as the learned Judge held.
Furthermore, the first Sunday in March had passed before the caravan was stolen. It appears to me that, having regard to the arrangement between the parties and to their course of conduct, summer terms applied as from the first Sunday in March both as to the amount payable and otherwise whether the Plaintiff moved the caravan back to the caravan site or not.
I am in favour of dismissing the appeal.
During the summer months, the Corporation gave to each camper a licence to use a caravan site for 25s. 0d. a week, which carried with it the right to use the facilities of the camp. The Corporation did not let the site to him on a tenancy. They only licensed him to use it. They did not take possession of his caravan so as to become bailees of it. The camper remained in possession of it himself, and it was for him to take care for its safety. The Corporation, as the Camp Authority, were, no doubt, undera duty to use reasonable care in their own sphere of operations. If their servants negligently ran into the caravan, they would be liable for the resulting damage. If they negligently allowed the camp to become filthy and insanitary, they would be liable for the resulting disease. But their responsibilities did not extend to looking up the caravans...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Euro Rent A Car Sdn Bhd v Sunway Parking Services Sdn Bhd
-
Rav Bahamas Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc
...v Messier Dowty [2018] UKPC 25 applied Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 considered Halbauer v Brighton Corporation [1954] 1 WLR 1161 applied Hollins v. J. Davy Ltd. [1963] 1 Q.B. 844 considered McGraddie v McGraddie and another [2013] UKSC 58 considered Pratt v Aigaio......
- Hinks v Fleet
-
Brian Stephen Hinks (Respondent (Plaintiff) v E. M. Fleet (trading as Silver Sands Caravan Park) (Appellant
...him and before us Mr. Lamming, on behalf of the defendant, relied specifically on the decision in Halbauer v. Brighton Corporation [1954] 1 WLR 1161. That was a case in which the facts were in many ways very similar to those of the instant case. There the plaintiff owned a caravan. The Brig......
-
Table of Cases
...H & K Packers Ltd v Diamond Cold Storage Ltd, [1980] MJ No 532 (Co Ct) ........ 98–100 Table of Cases • 425 Halbauer v Brighton Corp, [1954] 2 All ER 707 ........................................................... 320 Hall v Hebert, [1991] BCJ No 242 (CA) .........................................
-
Bailees for Reward: Specific Considerations When Assessing the Standard of Care
..., [1975] AJ No 138 at para 11 (Dist Ct). 227 [1983] NBJ No 386 at paras 35–36 (QBTD). 228 See, for example, Halbauer v Brighton Corp , [1954] 2 All ER 707, as cited in British Motor , above note 107. Bailees for Reward: Speciic Considerations When Assessing the Standard of Care • 321 C. CO......