Lyle Shipping Company v Cardiff Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1899 |
| Date | 05 December 1899 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Bigham, J.
Lyle Shipping Company Limited v. Corporation of Cardiff and Churchill and Sim, Third parties
Wright v. New Zealand Shipping CompanyDID=ASPM 40 L. T. Rep. 413 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 118 4 Ex. Div. 165
Hick v. Raymond and ReidDID=ASPM 68 L. T. Rep. 175 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 233 (1893) A. C. 22
Postlethwaite v. FreelandDID=ASPMELR 40 L. T. Rep. 601 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 302 4 Ex. Div. 155, affirmed in H.L. 42 L. T. Rep. 845 5 App. Cas. 599
Charter-party Construction of Demurrage
MARITIME LAW CASES. 23 Q.B. DIV.] LYLE SHIPPING CO. v. CORPORATION OF CARDIFF & CHURCHILL & SIM. [Q.B. DIV Tuesday, Dec. 5, 1899. (Before BIGHAM, J.) LYLE SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED V. CORPORATION OF CARDIFF AND CHURCHILL AND SIM, Third parties. (a) Charter-party - Construction of - Demurrage - Discharge of cargo " with all despatch as customary " - Contract by charterers with railway company for supply of trucks for discharge - Insufficient supply of trucks by company - Liability of charterers. A charter-party provided that " the ship is to be discharged with all despatch as customary." The custom and practice of the port of discharge was to discharge the cargo into railway trucks, and to procure such trucks from one railway company. For the discharge of the cargo the consignees, in accordance with the custom, had contracted with a railway company for the supply of trucks to receive the cargo. A delay in the discharge of the ship was caused by the railway company not providing a sufficient supply of railway trucks alongside to receive the cargo; but the consignees had not been guilty of any personal neglect, and had done their best to get the customary appliances for the discharge of the ship, and had used such appliances, when obtained, with proper despatch. In an action by the shipowners against the consignees for demurrage or damages for the detention of the vessel: Held, that the consignees, having done their best to get the customary appliances for the discharge of the ship, and having used the same with proper despatch, had discharged the ship "with all despatch as customary," and were therefore not liable for the delay of the vessel caused by the insufficient supply of trucks. COMMERCIAL ACTION tried before Bigham, J. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, as owners of the ship Cape Wrath, against the defendants as indorsees (to whom the property in the goods passed) of a bill of lading for the cargo of the ship, dared the 6th June 1899, and the plaintiffs claimed to recover demurrage or damages for detention of the ship at Cardiff, her port of discharge. (a) Reported by W. W. ORR, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 24 MARITIME LAW CASES. Q.B. DIV.] LYLE SHIPPING CO. v. CORPORATION OF CARDIFF & CHURCHILL & SIM. [Q.B. DIV The bill of lading incorporated the terms and conditions of a charter-party, dated the 14th Dee. 1898, which provided (inter cilia) that" the ship is to be discharged with all despatch as customary, weather permitting." The defendants (the Corporation of Cardiff) had bought a quantity of jarrah wood from Messrs. Churchill and Sim (brought in by the defendants as third parties), of which the cargo now in question was a part, and by the contract of sale the vendors contracted to indemnify the defendants against all claims and demands in respect of demurrage; and the defendants claimed under this indemnity to be indemnified by the third parties against any sums which the plaintiffs might recover in the action. The ship was loaded with a cargo of the jarrah wood at Freemantle, and sailed for Cardiff, her port of discharge. She arrived and was berthed at Cardiff on the 2nd Oct., and the discharge began on the following day, the 3rd Oct. The discharge was not completed until the 23rd Nov., and occupied forty - five working days. The plaintiffs alleged that if the defendants had taken delivery " with all despatch," as provided by the charter-party, the Cape Wrath would have completed the discharge on the 27th Oct., and they claimed damages for each day's detention of the ship since the 2?th Oct. at the charter-party rate of 24l. 19s. 6d. per day. For the discharge of the cargo at Cardiff the defendants had contracted with the Great Western Railway Company for the supply of trucks to receive the cargo, and the usual practice of the port of Cardiff was to discharge the cargo into railway wagons, and to procure such wagons from one railway company. The delay in the discharge was caused by there being an insufficient supply of railway trucks alongside the vessel to receive the cargo, and this insufficiency of trucks was owing to a pressure of work on the railway at the time. The learned judge found as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Company Ltd
...storage costs fails. 85 Ms Blanchard QC sought to support her argument by reference to two authorities in particular. In Lyle Shipping Co v Corporation of Cardiff (1899) Com. Cas. 87 the plaintiff shipowners sued the defendant indorsees of the bill of lading for damages for detention of the......
-
Alval Ltd v Attorney General of Jamaica
...contractor to perform and the time which a reasonable diligent contractor of the same class as the contractor would take. See Lyle Shipping Co. v Cardiff Corp (1900) 2 QB 638. 37 As a matter of evidence and based on the pleadings there are four sub-issues that need to be resolved before th......
-
Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Company Ltd
...a shipowner did enforce a lien, on the ground that the shipping contract there allowed for demurrage: see, for instance, Lyle Shipping Co v. Corporation of Cardiff (1899) Com Cas 87 (Bigham J) and Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd v. Huddart Parker Industries Ltd (The Boral Gas) [1988......
-
Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S v Carbofer Maritime Trading ApS [QBD (Comm)]
...claim for damages for breach of a charterparty is capable of being a sum "due" for the purposes of a lien clause. See e.g.: Lyle Shipping Co. v. Cardiff Corporation (1899) 5 Com. Cas. 87 (possessory lien for demurrage); b) The obligation to pay damages for repudiation is a secondary obligat......