Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (Houston City)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1956
Date1956
Year1956
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
26 cases
  • Vardinoyannis v Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (Evaggelos Th.)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
  • Kodros Shipping Corporation v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (No. 2) (Evia)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 February 1982
    ...(1955) 2 Queen's Bench 68. 18 The absence of navigational aids such as a hauling-off buoy or waling-piece, see The Houston City (1956) Appeal Cases 266. 19 The lack of reliable holding ground in the anchorage area, see The Eastern City (1958) 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 127. 20 The absence of an ......
  • Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 6 May 1994
    ...[1895] 2 QB 640. Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co LtdELR [1951] AC 601. Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat BoardELR [1956] AC 266. Rowe v Turner Hopkins & Partners [1980] 2 NZLR 550. Sayers v Harlow Urban District CouncilWLR [1958] 1 WLR 623. Schering Agrochemicals Ltd v ......
  • Aegean Sea Traders Corporation v Repsol Petroleo SA ('The Aegean Sea') [QBD (Admiralty)]
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty)
    • 7 April 1998
    ...[1988] 1 Ll Rep 412 Prometheus, TheUNK [1974] 1 Ll Rep 350 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (“The Houston City”)ELR [1956] AC 266 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & FoodELR [1962] 1 QB 42 Sagona, TheUNK [1984] 1 Ll Rep 194 Sheffield Corp v BarclayEL......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT DAMAGES AND THE PROMISEE'S ROLE IN ITS OWN LOSS.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 42 No. 2, January 2019
    • 1 January 2019
    ...(117) Hadley (n 114) 43 (Winn LJ). (118) The Stork (n 114) 77, cited with approval in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board [1956] AC 266, 282 (Lord Somervell for the Court), Simonius Vischer (n 70) 347 (Samuels JA) and Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd [1995] QB 214, 22......
  • Carriage of Goods by Charterparty
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Maritime Law
    • 27 August 2003
    ...its destination. 131 Usually within a limited range of ports. 132 Rcardon Smith Line v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City), [1956] A.C. 266 (EC.). 133 Or discharging. 134 E.g., GENCON, above note 123, cl.l. 386 MARITIME LAW from the charterer for breach of contract.135 The time at wh......
  • THE SAFE PORT PROMISE OF CHARTERERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...good navigation and seamanship”. 77 The Mary Lou, supra n 5, at 279, per Mustill J; The Eastern City, supra n 38. 78 The Houston City [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1(HL). 79 The Alhambra, supra n 49; Hall Bros Steamship Co Ltd v R & W Paul Ltd, supra n 50. 80 Knutsford (SS) Ltd v Tillmanns & Co [190......
  • NOMINATION OF PORTS BY THE VOYAGE CHARTERER
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1993, December 1993
    • 1 December 1993
    ...port obligation applies in a like manner to voyage charterparties. SeeReardon Smith Line v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City)[1956] A.C. 266, at p. 282; Batis Maritime Corporation v. Petroleos del Mediterraneo S.A. (The Batis)[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 345; see also Baker, “The Safe Port......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT