Nippon Yusen Kaisha v China Navigation Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 1934 |
| Date | 04 December 1934 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Lords Atkin, Macmillan and Wright, sitting with Nautical Assessors
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. The China Navigation Company Limited
The ArasDID=ASPMELR 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. at p. 360 96 L. T. Rep. 95 (1907) P. 28
Order In Council Consolidating Orders In Council Making Regulations For Preventing Collisions At Sea And Rules As To Signals Of Distress, SI 1910/1113.
Hong Kong — Collision — Fog
ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 533 PRIV. CO.] NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA V. THE CHINA NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED. [PRIV. CO. July 23, 24; Dec. 4, 1934. (Present: Lords ATKIN, MACMILLAN and WRIGHT, sitting with Nautical Assessors.) Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. The China Navigation Company Limited. (a) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION). Hong Kong Collision Fog-Fog signal heard forward of beam Position of other vessel not " ascertained " Engines not slopped Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, art. 16. By art. 16 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea: " A steam vessel hearing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog signal of a vessel, the position of which is not ascertained, shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her engines, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over." The K., belonging to the respondents, was entering the harbour of Hong Kong in a fog, on the northern side of the channel, which was her proper side, when she heard a fog signal some points on her port bow, from a vessel which was invisible in the fog, and which subsequently proved to be the T., outward bound, owned by the appellants. The K. assumed that the vessel from which the signal came was outward bound, and would be keeping to her own, the southern side of the channel, so that the vessels would pass port to port, and did not slop her engines. The T. had in fact crossed to the north of the fairway to make her way to the anchorage for foreign men-of-war. A collision occurred between the two vessels at the time when the T. had reached the area marked as the anchorage. Held, (1) that the T. was at fault in crossing the fairway in fog; (2) that the position of the T. was not " ascertained" by the K. within the meaning of art. 16; it was inferred, not ascertained, and the inference was wrong. The K. was therefore in breach of art. 16 by reason of her failure to slop her engines; and (3) that in the circumstances both vessels must be held equally to blame. APPEAL by Nippon Yusen Kaisha from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong (Appellate Jurisdiction) (Sir Peter Grain, P., Sir Joseph Kemp, C.J., and Wood, J. sitting with two nautical assessors) affirming a judgment of Sir Joseph Kemp, C.J. assisted by a nautical assessor, that the appellants' steamship Toyooka Maru was solely to blame for a collision which took place between her and the steamship Kiangsu, belonging to the respondents in Hong Kong Harbour on the 22nd March, 1931. The facts which are summarised in the head-note are fully stated in their Lordships' judgment. Lewis Noad, K.C. and R. F. Hayward for the appellants. A. T. Miller, K.C. and K. S. Carpmael for the respondents. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Macmillan. On the 22nd March, 1931, a collision occurred in the harbour of Hong Kong between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DF CSE 912 2013
...would take a different position from that taken by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Further, in McPherson v McPherson [1935] A.C. 177, a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta, the question o......
-
Owners of Motorship or Vessel "N.O. Rogenaes" v Owners of Motorship or Vessel "Prins Alexander" et è Contra
...words in the Article was the subject of some observations by Lord Macmillan in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. China Navigation Company Limited, [1935] A.C. 177 at p. 182: "The position of the Toyooka Maru was not, in their Lordships' opinion, 'ascertained' within the meaning of the Regulation. It w......