Navigators and General Insurance Company Ltd v Ringrose (Chanticleer.)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HOLROYD PEARCE,LORD JUSTICE WILLMER,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1961 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1961] EWCA Civ J1116-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 16 November 1961 |
[1961] EWCA Civ J1116-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Holroyd Pearce
Lord Justice Willmer and
Lord Justice Davies
Mr R. F. STONE, (instructed by Messrs. Ingledew, Brown, Bennison and Garrett, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Respondents).
THE DEFENDANT (APPELLANT) appeared in person.
: This is an appeal from a Judgment of his honour Judge Block, in favour of the Plaintiffs for £52 15s 8d. The Plaintiffs issued a policy of insurance to the Defendant in respect of his 16 foot catamaran, valued at £200. The Defendant set sail in his catamaran from England bound for the Channel Islands, and in the course of his voyage he suffered a misadventure in respect of which he claims to be covered under the terms of the policy. The policy is headed "Dinghy Insurance Policy" and provides: "The company will at their option pay for replace or make good accidental loss of or damage to the insured craft, her machinery gear and equipment whilst within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat or in transit by road or by rail."
The Plaintiff was dismasted about 26 miles south of Portland Bill. He was rescued by an Italian tramp steamer which took him and his catamaran on board. On arrival at Genoa she laid claim to salvage. The Defendant got in touch with his insurers and ultimately it was agreed that they should pay him the sum now claime without admission of liability, on his promise to repay if on investigation they proved not to be liable. They now sue him on his promise to repay. If his accident was within the terms of the policy this claim for repayment fails. The Defendant claims that his accident occurred "whilst within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat." He bases his argument on two grounds. First he argues that the Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom and that, since he was setting out from England to the Channel Islands, it is reasonable that he should be covered by the insurance policy for the whole of that journey between two places in the United Kingdom. It would he said be artificial to suggest that he was covered for a while when he left England and covered for a while before he arrived at the Channel Islands but was not covered in mid-Channel.
In my view; that first argument cannot stand. A case was very fairly produced by Mr. Stone, who appears for the Plaintiff, in which a Divisional Court hold that the Channel Islands were within the United Kingdom. It is the case of Stoneham v. The Ocean Railway and General Accident Insurance Company ( 19, Queen's Bench Division, page 237). Mr. Justice Mathew said: "I think it is sufficient that the question which the parties intended to leave to the Court as a question of law is whether Jersey is, in popular language, a part of the United Kingdom. I have no hesitation in saying that it is; I can give no other answer to the question." Mr. Justice Cave, at Page 240 said: "As to the first point, I think it is very clear that Jersey is within the United Kingdom within the meaning of the words of this policy". He continues in a sentence which shows that the Court was much influenced in their view of the complete absence of merit in the contrary contention, in the words: "Some light is thrown on this question by one of the conditions endorsed on the policy: 'This policy snail be void if the assured shall travel beyond the limits of Europe, or shall embark in any vessel with the intention of going beyond such limits.' That provision means that the policy shall be in force in Europe, and Jersey is in Europe. In my Judgment it is also within the United Kingdom."
Two years after that case The Interpretation Act of 1889 was passed and section 13 provided that in every act passed after that date "the following expressions shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, namely (i) The expression 'British Islands' shall mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."
The language of that subsection clearly shows that the Act does not include the Channel islands in the United Kingdom. The fact that the Interpretation Act assigns a meaning to a word in Acts of Parliament does not necessarily moan that it has that meaning in commercial documents, nevertheless it is of some guidance in ascertaining their true construction.
In Holsbury's Laws of England, Lord Simmonds' Edition Volume 5, at Page 647 there appears this paragraph: "Constitutional Status. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man occupy an anomalous position, for they are neither parts of the United Kingdom or colonies. They differ considerably from each other in powers and practice With the United Kingdom they make up the British Islands. Citizens of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man arc citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies but may be known if they so desire, as citizens of the United Kingdom, Islands and Colonics. In matters relating to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man the Queen is advised by the Home Secretary." There is no evidence in this case from which we can deduce that there is a special meaning by custom to be given to the words "United Kingdom" in commercial documents of this or any other nature. In my view, therefore, the Channel Islands cannot be said to be covered by the words of this policy, "within the United Kingdom."
Nor do I assent to the second part of the proposition, namely that assuming the Channel Islands to be part of the United Kingdom, the insured is covered for the whole of his journey of 50 miles or so from the coast...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christopher David Partington (Executor of the Will of Nicholas Martin Rossiter) v Olga Rossiter
...Society was correctly decided; and I agree with him. 20 On the other side stands Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd v Ringrose [1962] 1 WLR 173. That was another case of an insurance policy which insured a 16-foot catamaran “whilst within the United Kingdom, ashore or afloat or in tra......