J and J Denholm Ltd v Shipping Controller
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1920 |
| Date | 27 July 1920 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
McCardie, J.
J. and J. Denholm Limited v. Shipping Controller
Hamilton v. PandorfDID=ASPMELR 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 44, 212 57 L. T. Rep. 726 12 App. Cas. 518
Kendall v. London and South-Western RailwayENR 26 L. T. Rep. 735 L. Rep. 7 Ex 373
Fenton v. Thorley (1903) App. Cas., at p. 453
Musgrove v. PandelisELR 120 L. T. Rep. 601 (1919) 2 K. B. 43
The TorbryanDID=ASPMELR 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 358, 450 89 L. T. Rep. 265 (1903) P. 194
Baily v. De Crespigny 19 L. T. Rep. 681 L. Rep. 4 Q. B. 180
Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick, Kerr, and Co.ELR 116 L. T. Rep. 201 (1917) 2 K. B., p. 31
United States Steel Company v Great Western RailwayELR 109 L. T. Rep. 212 (1913) 3 K. B., at p. 365
Radcliffe v. Compagnie Gnrale TransatlantiqueUNK 24 Com. Cas., p.44
Brown v. Turner, Brightman, and Co.DID=ASPM 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 79 105 L. T. Rep. 562 (1912) A. C. 12
Price v. Union Lighterage CompanyDID=ASPMELR 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 398 89 L. T. Rep. 731 (1904) 1 K. B. 412
Nelson Line v. James NelsonDID=ASPM 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 581 97 L. T. Rep. 812 (1908) A. C. 16
Elderslie Steamship Company v. BorthwickDID=ASPM 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 24 1905, A. C. 96
Ship Requisition Charter-party
MARITIME LAW CASES. 141 K.B. Div.] J. and J. Denholm Limited v. Shipping Controller. [K.B. Div. Tuesday, July 27, 1920. (Before McCardie, J.) J. and J. Denholm Limited v. Shipping Controller, (a) Ship - Requisition - Charter-party - Accident -Liability for continuous hire. A ship was requisitioned under charter-perty T. 9!), by which the Shipping C 'droller was entitled to make certain deductions ,"'oo ??mi the freight in the event of the voyage being protracted by the deficiencies of the steamer. The concluding subsection of the clause allowing these deductions provided as follows : " //??through any accident any part of the cargo or bunkers have to be discharged, the time occupied in discharging and reloading same to be deducted from the hire." In the course of the voyage lime was lost in discharging and reloading on account of a fire which broke out in the cargo. The fire could no' be attributed to any particular cause. The Shipping Controller claimed the right to make the deductions. Held, that the meaning of '' accident " depends upon the circumstances and intentions of the parties concerned. An accident may or may not arise from negligent or wilful acts or from causes unconnected with negligence or wrongdoing. In this case there was no accident in the sense contemplated by the parties. Even if the fire had been an accident, the Shipping Controller must still have failed, since it would have been accident to the cargo, not to the ship. In any event the Shipping Controller could not succeed, since hire runs continuously in favour of the shipowner in the absence of clear provisions to the contrary. The provisions relied upon in this case were ambiguous. Award stated in the form of a special case by the arbitrator, Mr. Raeburn, K.C. The claimants were Messrs. Denholm Limited, who were the owners of the steamship Carron Park. The respondent was the Shipping Controller. The Carron Park was requisitioned by the respondent under the ierms of a chartei -party known as T. 99. The question raised in the special case turned upon the construction of clause 25 of the charter-party, which was in the following terms: Clause 25 (a). " If from deficiency of men or stores, breakdown of machinery, or any other cause, the working of the steamer is at any time suspended for a period exceeding twelve running hours, pay shall cease for the whole of such and any subsequent period, of whatever duration, during which the vessel is inefficient." Clause 25 (6). " Partial inefficiency.- Any work that may be done during a period of partial inefficiency of the steamer, except proceeding to a port for repairs, or to replenish bunker coals owing to an accident, shall be paid for on the basis of the time it would have occupied had the steamer remained efficient. If upon tbe voyage her speed (a) Reported by R. F. Blakiston, Esq . Barrister-at-Law. 142 MARITIME LAW CASES. K.B.DIv.] J. and J. Denholm Limited v. Shipping Controller. [K.B. Div-. be reduced by a defect in or breakdown of any part of her machinery, damage to propeller, rudder or by any other mishap of hull or engines or cargo, the time' so loat anc. the cost of any extra coal consumed in consequence thereof shall be deducted from the hire; but should the steamer be driven into port or to anchorage by stress of weather or for coals, such detention or loss of time shall be at the Admiralty expense. In the event, however, of breakdown at sea or other accident necessitating the steamer proceeding to a port of refuge for repairs, or to replace or land crew, hire to cease until the steamer arrives back in a similar position to that in which she was at the time of the breakdown or accident, &c, and any coals used to be replaced or paid for by owners, whichever Admiralty may elect." Sub-clause (c), with the marginal note, " Period of inefficiency not to count," ran as follows : " If through accident any part of the cargo or bunkers have to be discharged, the time occupied in discharging and reloading same to be deducted from the hire. Any time so lost shall count as part of the term of charter named in clauses 2 and 7, but the Admiralty have the option...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J and J Denholm Ltd v Shipping Controller
...Requisitioned ship T. 99 (clause 25) So held by Bankes and Atkin, L.JJ. (Scurtton, L.J. doubting Judgment of McCardie, J. (15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 141; 124 L. T. Rep. 378) reversed. MARITIME LAW CASES. 277 Priv. Co.] Denhoim Limited v. Shipping Controller. [CT. of App. Supreme Court of Judica......