Renton (G H) & Company Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama (Caspiana)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Chancellor,Lord Morton of Henryton,Lord Tucker,Lord Cohen,Lord Somervell of Harrow |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] UKHL J1205-3 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1956] UKHL J1205-3
Lord Chancellor
Lord Morton of Henryton
Lord Tucker
Lord Cohen
Lord Somervell of Harrow
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 2d, as on Wednesday the 3d, Thursday the 4th and Monday the 8th, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of G. H. Renton & Co. Limited, of 110 Cannon Street, in the City of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 20th of December 1955, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 20th day of December 1955, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords.
This appeal arises out of a claim by the Appellants under four bills of lading in similar form issued by the Respondents as shipowners and providing for the carriage of timber in the vessel "Caspiana" from Canada to (in the case of three bills of lading) London and (in the case of the remaining bill of lading) Hull. The short question raised is whether the Respondents can successfully rely on clause 14 ( c) and ( f) of the bills of lading in finally discharging the timber at Hamburg against payment of freight appropriate for carriage to London and Hull; and thereafter failing to take any steps to have the goods forwarded to these ports. By reason of the final discharge of the goods at that port the Appellants suffered damage. McNair, J., held that in these circumstances the Respondents were liable to the Appellants. The Court of Appeal (Singleton, Jenkins and Hodson, L.JJ.) held that the Respondents were freed from liability by the clause.
As a fair example on all material points I take the first bill of lading, No. LN-4, the material terms of which are:—
On page 2
"Shipped at Vancouver B.C. in apparent good order and condition, weight, measure, marks, numbers, quality, contents and value unknown, … on board the good Vessel called the 'Caspiana' for carriage to London, England or so near thereunto as the Vessel may safely get always afloat, the following goods"(certain quantities of Douglas fir lumber) "… which are to be delivered in the like good order and condition at the aforesaid Port unto Order of Shipper … or his or their Assigns, he or they paying freight plus other charges incurred in accordance with the provisions contained in this Bill of Lading. Freight: collect at destination. … In accepting this Bill of Lading the Merchant expressly accepts and agrees to all its stipulations, whether written, printed, stamped or otherwise incorporated, as fully as if they were all signed by the Merchant."
Stamped across the front of each bill of lading was "Subject to Chamber of Shipping War Risks Clauses Nos. 1 and 2."
These clauses are:—
"(1) No Bills of Lading to be signed for any blockaded port and if the port of discharge be declared blockaded after Bills of Lading have been signed, or if the port to which the ship has been ordered to discharge either on signing Bills of Lading or thereafter be one to which the ship is or shall be prohibited from going by the Government of the Nation under whose flag the ship sails or by any other Government, the owner shall discharge the cargo at any other port covered by this Charterparty as ordered by the Charterers (provided such other port is not a blockaded or prohibited port as above mentioned) and shall be entitled to freight as if the ship had discharged at the port or ports of discharge to which she was originally ordered.
(2) The ship shall have liberty to comply with any orders or directions as to departure, arrival, routes, ports of call, stoppages, destination, delivery or otherwise howsoever given by the Government of the Nation under whose flag the vessel sails or any department thereof, or by any other Government or any department thereof, or any person acting or purporting to act with the authority of such Government or of any department thereof, or by any committee or person having, under the terms of the War Risks Insurance on the ship, the right to give such orders or directions and if by reason of and in compliance with any such orders or directions anything is done or is not done, the same shall not be deemed a deviation, and delivery in accordance with such orders or directions shall be a fulfilment of the contract voyage and the freight shall be payable accordingly."
On page 1
"I. DEFINITION.
Wherever the term 'Merchant' is used in this bill of lading, it shall be deemed to include the Shipper, the Receiver, the Consignee, the Holder of the Bill of Lading and the Owner of the cargo.
II. PARAMOUNT CLAUSE
The Hague Rules contained in the International Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to Bills of Lading, dated Brussels the 25th August 1924, as enacted in the country of shipment shall apply to this contract. When no such enactment is in force in the country of shipment, the corresponding legislation of the country of destination shall apply, but in respect of shipments to which no such enactments are compulsorily applicable, the terms of the said Convention shall apply.
With respect to goods loaded at a Canadian port, the Water Carriage of Goods Act, 1936, of the Dominion of Canada, shall be effective …
III. JURISDICTION.
Any dispute arising under this Bill of Lading shall be decided in the Country where the Carrier has his principal place of business, and the law of such country shall apply.
. . . . . . . . . . .
14. ( c) Should it appear that epidemics, quarantine, ice,—labour troubles, labour obstructions, strikes, lockouts, any of which onboard or on shore—difficulties in loading or discharging would prevent the vessel from leaving the port of loading or reaching or entering the port of discharge or there discharging in the usual manner and leaving again, all of which safely and without delay, the Master may discharge the cargo at port of loading or any other safe and convenient port.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
( f) The discharge of any cargo under the provisions of this clause shall be deemed due fulfilment of the contract. If in connection with the exercise of any liberty under this clause any extra expenses are incurred, they shall be paid by the Merchant in addition to the freight, together with return freight if any and a reasonable compensation for any extra services rendered to the goods."
In the case of one bill of lading (No. LN—78) the Hague Rules did not apply since the goods covered were carried on deck.
At the time of sailing from British Columbia labour relations were tranquil at United Kingdom ports, but at the end of September, 1954, while the vessel was on passage, a strike broke out among dock workers in the port of London. The vessel was due to arrive off Dungeness on 13th October, 1954, and to dock in London the following day. On 13th October the strike continued to prevail in London, and at about 12.15 p.m. on that day the Respondents cabled the Master to proceed to Hamburg. The vessel arrived at Hamburg on 15th October, 1954, and began to discharge the cargo originally destined for London on 16th October, 1954. By 20th October, 1954, the strike had spread to certain other ports, and on that date the strike affected Hull. The Respondents completed the discharge at Hamburg of the London cargo on 26th October, 1954. On that date they also began to discharge at Hamburg the Hull cargo, and completed this on 1st November, 1954. On the same day work was resumed at all United Kingdom ports affected by the strike,and although a smaller strike again broke out that day in London, by 4th November, 1954, there was a full resumption of work. The Respondents took no steps to forward or tranship any part of the cargo discharged at Hamburg to the United Kingdom, nor did they pay for storage costs incurred at Hamburg. They insisted, before releasing the goods to the Appellants at Hamburg, that the full bill of lading freight should be paid; this was done under protest.
The Appellants' submissions fell under two main heads. They contended that the Respondents' action in finally discharging the goods at Hamburg constituted a breach of contract upon the true construction of the bills of lading. This contention was independent of the operation of the Hague Rules. Secondly, they submitted that in relation to the three bills of lading to which the Hague Rules applied the provisions upon which the Respondents relied as excusing them from liability for the final discharge at Hamburg were rendered null and void by the operation of the Rules.
On the first contention it was submitted that in this case the main object and intent of the contract is the carriage of the timber to London or Hull and that Clause 14 ( c) and ( f) do not provide for alternative ports of discharge but seek to exonerate the Respondents from liability for failure to achieve this main object. Mr. Mocatta submitted that, while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jindal Iron and Steel Company Ltd and Others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordon Inc.
...jurisdictions. 12 The judge rejected these submissions for three reasons. First he said he was bound to do so because in G.H. Renton & Co. v Palmyra Trading Corporation (1957) AC 146 the majority had approved Devlin J's. view of Article III r.2. Next he said that the Travaux Preparatoires d......
-
Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA (t/a CSAV)
...of the Article III (2) obligations is necessarily negatived." 16 The judge cited the speech of Viscount Kilmuir L.C. in G.H. Renton v Palmyra Trading Corporation [1957] A.C. 149 at 166 followed in Albacora SRL v Westcott & Laurence Line Limited, for the well-established proposition that "pr......
-
Borgship Tankers Inc. v Product Transport Corporation Ltd (The Casco) [QBD (Comm)]
...from the wording of the clause and of the phrase from which it derives (see G.H. Renton & Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama [1957] AC 149). The last "or" is too far from "claims" for the phrase naturally to include "claim[s]….in connection with cargo", as opposed to (e.g.) "cla......
-
Fimbank Plc v KCH Shipping Company Ltd “Giant Ace”
...and he does perform. Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402; G. H. Renton v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama [1957] AC 149. (iv) The liability of the carrier for loss of or damage to the goods during the sea carriage, as defined in (ii) and (iii) above, is governed ......
-
Carriage of Goods under Bills of Lading and Similar Documents
...and Navigation Co. v. Eisenerz-G.m.b.H. (The Oak Hill), [1974] S.C.R. 1225. 230 G.H. Renton &> Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama, [1957] A.C. 149 (H.L.); Albacora S.R.L. v. Westcott &> Laurance Line Ltd., [1966] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 53 (H.L.); Atlantic Consolidated Foods Ltd. v. Doroty (The)......
-
Carriage of Goods by Charterparty
...performance of the voyage. 191 GENCON, above note 123, cl.16. 192 See Renton (G.H.) &> Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama, [1957] A.C. 149; Luigi Monta of Genoa v. Cechofracht Co., [1956] 2 Q.B. 552. 193 Above note 70. See discussion under section B(4), "Delay in Delivery" in this chapt......
-
Cargo Interests in Australia: Standing on the Edge - Imbalances that Permeate International Sale Contracts, Carriage Contracts and Recovery Rights
...407, 408. 87 Identical to Article 3 rule 2 of the Australian Rules. 88 GH Renton & Co Limited v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama [1957] AC 149; Pyrene Co Limited v Scindia Navigation Co Limited [1954] 2 QB 402; and more recently A/S Iverans Rederei v KG MS Holstencruiser Seeschiffahrts......
-
Comment on the Decision of the Supreme Court in Volcafe Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA [2018] UKSL 61
...issue 5, pages 59-61. 12 Volcafe (QB) [9]-[10]; Volcafe (CA) [107]-[108]. 13 Volcafe (QB) [8]. 14 ibid [9]. 15 [1954] 2 QB 402 (QB). 16 [1957] AC 149 (HL). 17 (n 15). S.S.L.R Vol.10 3. Art III rule 2 of the Hague Rules The obligation under Art III rule 2 is to care for cargo “properly and c......