Singleton Abbey (S.S.) v Paludina (S.S.)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Viscount Dunedin,Lord Sumner,Lord Phillimore,Lord Carson,Lord Blanesburgh,. |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1926 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1926] UKHL J0708-1 |
| Date | 08 July 1926 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1926] UKHL J0708-1
House of Lords
Viscount Dunedin.
Lord Sumner.
Lord Phillimore.
Lord Carson.
Lord Blanesburgh.
After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 20th, as on Thursday the 22d, and Friday the 23d, days of April last (Vice-Admiral C. Greatorex, C.B., M.V.O., and Captain Owen Jones, C.B.E., an Elder Brother of the Trinity Corporation, being present as Nautical Assessors), upon the Petition and Appeal of the Owners of the Steamship "Singleton Abbey," praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 5th of December 1924, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, and that the Petitioners might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal or such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of the Owners of the Steamship "Paludina," 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 His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 5th day of December 1924, 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,
There is only one question in this Appeal, but in order to make that question intelligible it is necessary to tell the story of the circumstances antecedent to the incident which raises the question. As to these preliminary circumstances there were at one time controversies, but these controversies have been quieted by the decision in which the learned President and the Court of Appeal have agreed. The question that remains is alone the point of difference.
On the evening of November 21st, 1922, the following vessels took up their position on the quay in the harbour of Valetta, Malta. Their sterns were secured by moorings attached to bollards on the quay; their stems were secured by anchors. Beginning from left to right as a person standing on the quay would see them they were: the "Paludina," the respondents' steamship; the "Singleton Abbey," the appellants', the "Sara," and then other vessels which do not come into the story. During the night the wind freshened and became very strong—not exactly what by seamen would be called a gale but causing a commotion of waves and what is termed a "scend" in the harbour. The direction of the wind was such as would blow the vessels, supposing them to be free, along the quay and on to a lee shore. At 8 a.m. something went wrong with the moorings of the "Paludina." Her anchors dragged and her moorings to the stern paid out, and she fell with her starboard beam on the port beam of the "Singleton Abbey." The effect of the actual collision was not serious; the "Singleton Abbey" had been securely moored, and she was able not only to maintain her own position but to support the weight of the "Paludina" leaning against her. At 11 a.m., or thereby, the "Paludina" was minded to get out. For that purpose she secured the services of two tugs and got up steam to proceed to go forward. Unfortunately she and the tugs between them made a very bad job of the proceeding; one of the tugs fouled her own propeller with a rope and probably became inefficient; at any rate, the result was that the "Paludina" scraped along the port side of the "Singleton Abbey" without doing much damage, and then getting past her stem trod on the ropes which secured the "Singleton Abbey" to her anchors, shortened them and tore the "Singleton Abbey" away from her shore moorings. The "Paludina" then lumbered out of the way, but remained immediately in proximity to the "Singleton Abbey," and did not finally get off for some time, in the course of her eventual progress fouling another ship. The effect of the tearing away of the shore moorings of the "Singleton Abbey" was that she fell down on her next neighbour, the "Sara." The "Sara" was a small boat, and the impact of the "Singleton Abbey" tore her from her moorings. The actual collision did not do much damage. About 20 minutes passed, and then the "Sara," which had got up steam and was struggling to get out, fell down from her anchors alongside the "Singleton Abbey." The "Singleton Abbey" all this time was using her engines to prevent herself being driven on the lee shore. The "Sara" scraped along her side, and as she passed came into contact with the propeller of the "Singleton Abbey," damaging it by breaking off the points. The propeller avenged itself, for it cut such a hole in the "Sara" that she shortly thereafter sank.
The present action was raised by the "Singleton Abbey" against the "Paludina." The "Paludina" made several defences, such as that the "Singleton Abbey," having come in after her, had given her a foul berth, and also by denying that she had committed any fault in herself breaking away. All these defences were repelled by the learned President, and the Court of Appeal agreed with him. It is therefore no longer in dispute that the "Paludina" was in fault in breaking away from her moorings and causing the first collision with the "Singleton Abbey," that she was also in fault in treading on the moorings of the "Singleton Abbey" and tearing her from her shore moorings and sending her down on the "Sara," thus causing the second collision. The whole trouble is as to the third collision and the damage to the screw.
The learned President held this was the direct consequence of the act of the "Paludina" and held her liable. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that that collision was not due to the original fault of the "Paludina" but was due to a novus actus interveniens. This is the question, and the only question, before your Lordships.
Now Bankes, L.J., states the question very clearly and distinctly:
"Here the case for the plaintiff is this, the chain of causation is quite complete. The 'Singleton Abbey' and the 'Sara' were both turned adrift by the negligence of those in charge of the 'Paludina.' There is no novus actus interveniens; the chain is quite complete, and, therefore, the view taken by the President is right. The suggestion for the defendants, upon the evidence given by the plaintiffs, is this: On your own showing there are two links wanting, and the links are these. True, the 'Sara' was turned adrift by the negligence of the 'Paludina,' our vessel, but, being turned adrift, she was a free agent. That the inference to be drawn from the evidence is that her steam was up and she could have gone to any part of the harbour she liked, and have been quite safe, and altogether out of the way of the 'Singleton Abbey,' and you cannot say that the chain of causation is complete when you find the 'Sara' having this opportunity which, through a want of proper skill and proper seamanship, she did not avail herself of. That, I understand, is the case of the appellants with regard to the 'Sara.'
Then they say: There is another link in the chain missing, and the missing link is to be found—or the place where the link ought to be but is missing from—is found in the action of the master of the 'Singleton Abbey'; because, again, after this interval he was in the position which I have indicated, and he had steam up; he saw, and had an opportunity for 20 minutes of realising, the position in which the 'Sara' was. He realised that the 'Sara' was coming down upon him; he was told by the second officer that the engines ought to be stopped. I had better use his own words about it; he was very frank about it. At page 49 he was asked this question in cross-examination: 'The suggestion is made, as I understand it, that you ought to have stopped your engines, or rung them to stop, before you did so as to avoid hitting the 'Sara' with your propeller—what do you say with regard to that?— A. Well, I had to keep my engines going as long as I could because I did not want the wind to take control of my ship. I wanted to have that in my own hands if I could, so I was going to hang on as long as I could. When I thought she was getting dangerously near I stopped the engines, but it apparently must have been a little too late.'" That is his own version of what happened.
The appellants say that upon that there is a clear break in this chain. They say: The damage of which you complain, was not the result of the original negligence of our vessel, it was due to your captain's own fault. The Respondents answer that by saying: It ought not to be attributed to him as a fault; he was in a position of danger; it was a position in which you had placed him, and it ought not to be attributed to him as a fault or as an act of negligence, and, under those circumstances, the chain is complete.
Now, on both these points upon which it is said the chain is not complete, of course the matter is one very largely of the right and proper thing to do under the particular circumstances; and that is a matter upon which we should naturally take the advice of our assessors. I have asked them the question as to whether, assuming that the 'Sara' had steam up—and I assume that for the purposes of the question—were those in charge of the 'Sara' guilty of a want of reasonable care and good seamanship in not keeping the 'Sara' clear of the 'Singleton Abbey'? They give a reasoned answer, and the result of their reasoning is that they say...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The Margareta
- Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat
-
Guan Ming Hardware & Engineering Pte Ltd v Chong Yeo & Partners and Another
...unsettled law. A number of cases show the uncertainty. In The Paludina; Owners of Steamship Singleton Abbey v Owners of Steamship Paludina [1927] AC 16, the House of Lords took the view that the onus lay on the plaintiffs that there was no intervening cause, while in Philco Radio and Televi......
-
Summers v Salford Corporation
...which I have stated does indeed ignore refinements which may be considered in the authorities, as, for instance, in S.S. Singleton Abbey v. S.S. Paludina (1927) A.C. 16. But I think it is sound so far as it goes and is sufficient for the decision of this appeal. The negligent motorist cann......