Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of Steamship Blanches and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 1908 |
| Date | 28 February 1908 |
| Court | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, Atkinson, and Collins
Sir John Jackson Limited v. Owners of Steamship Blanches and others
Meiklereid v. WestDID=ASPMELR 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 129 (1876) 34 L. T. Rep. 353 1 Q. B. Div. 428
Fraser v. MarshENR 13 East, 238
Colvin v. NewberryENR 1 Cl. & Fin. 283
Baumvoll v. FurnessDID=ASPM 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 263 63 L. T. Rep. 1 (1893) A. C. 8
Boucher v. Lawson H. 8 Geo. 2
Yates v. HallENR 1 T. R. 73
River Wear Commissioners v. AdamsonDID=ASPMELR 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 521 (1877) 37 L. T. Rep. 543 2 App. Cas. 743
Simpson v. ThomsonDID=ASPMELR 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 567 (1877) 38 L. T. Rep. 1 3 App. Cas. 279
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c, 60), s. 503
Collision Limitation of liability Owners
Judgment of the courts below reversed.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 37 H. OF L.] SIR JOHN JACKSON LIM v. OWNERS OF STEAMSHIP BLANCHE & OTHERS. [H. OF L. HOUSE OF LORDS. Jon. 22,23, and Feb. 28,1908. (Before the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, Ateinson, and Collins.) SIR JOHN JACKSON LIMITED V LIMITED V OWNERS OF STEAMSHIP BLANCHE AND OTHERS.(a) OH APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ??WOLAHD. Collision -Limitation of liability - Ounurt - Bight of charterer by demise to limit - Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (67 & 58 Vist. c. 60), #. 503. Charterer by demise an "owner" within the meaning of teet. 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and therefore tan limit their liability in raped of loee or damage occused bf the improper navigation of the chartered $hip by their tenants. Judgment of the courts below reverted. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Sir J. Genii Barnes, P.,Uoulton and Kennedy, L.JJ.) reported 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 482 (1807); 97 L. T. Hop. 360; (1807) P. 254 under the name of The Hopper No. 66, affirming a judgment of Deane, J. reported 10 Asp. Mar. Lair Cas. 203; 84 L. T. Rep. 344; (1906) P. 34. The action was brought in the Admiralty Division for a declaration of limitation of liability for damages consequent on a collision which occurred in Liverpool Bay between the steam hopper No. 66 and the Blanche on the 30th Nov. 1904. The collision was caused by the negligent navigation of the steam hopper by the appellants' servants, but without the actual fault or privity of the appellants. The appellants were charterers by demise of the steam hopper under an agreement dated the 9th June 1908, made between the London and Tilbury Lighterage Contracting and Dredging Company Limited, the then owners of the hopper, and the appellants, and the ques-tion was whether the appellants were entitled to a declaration limiting their liability under sects. 503 and 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. Deane, J. held that the word "owners" in sect 503 of the Act did not extend to oh - rtert - rs by demise, and his judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal J. A. Hamilton, KO. and Dawton Miller appeared for the appellants, and argued that the object of the ??Htlslaaon was to impose a limitation on the amount which might have to be paid by a person who was not himself actually in fault, and the jrisdpl applied to a charterer by demise as well as to the actual owner. The question of the property in the ship is not the point " Owners is used is the Act in various senses, and the true tost is to be found in looking at the object of the particular part of the Acs under consideration 4o see whether the " owner " in a business sense is intended, or only the owner "in fee" so to speak. In many oases, such as forinstance the sections framed for the protection of seamen,it is evident that the chartered owner must be intended. See Cofofe v. Newberry, 1CL & F. 288 ; ??BaumvoU v. Furness, 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 268; 68 L. T. Rep. 11 (1893) A. 0. 8. In many section "owner" is used in the popular sense not in the strict sense. See Hughs v. Sutherland, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Gas. 459 (1881) 45 L.T.Rep. 287; 7 Q. B. Div. 160; ??MetUereii r. Wed, 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas 189 (1876): 84L.T.Bep.858| 1 Q.B.Div.4885 Wive Sted Botqu, 6 Asp. Mar. Law Oaa. S80 (1890) s 68 L. T. Rsp. 4991 15 P. Div. 148; The Lousia, Br. A L. 50. Limitation of liability was first introduced by the Act 7 Geo. 2, o. 15, but this point appears never to have been raised before, and it is decided for the future by the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c 48). s. 71, whioh makes "owner" include chartered owner. The Regulation of Railway. Act 1871 (34 & 35 Viet a 78), s. 12, does not affect the present question, for in such a case the railway company is not the " owner in any sense. See also The Spirit of the Ocean (2 Mar. Law Cas. C. S. 192 (1865); 12 L. T. Rep. 39; Br.&L.336),Litter r. Lobby (7 A.&E.124), and Chauntler v. Bobineon (4 Ex. 163), which show that "owner" is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial