Stonedale No 1 (Owners) v Manchester Ship Canal Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Viscount Simonds,Lord Morton of Henryton,Lord Tucker,Lord Keith of Avonholm,Lord Somervell of Harrow |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1955 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1955] UKHL J0623-2 |
| Date | 23 June 1955 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1955] UKHL J0623-2
Viscount Simonds
Lord Morton of Henryton
Lord Tucker
Lord Keith of Avonholm
Lord Somervell of Harrow
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Monday the 23d, as on Tuesday the 24th days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Richard Abel and Sons Limited, the Owners of the Dumb Barge "Stonedale No. 1", 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 13th of April 1954, 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 the Manchester Ship Canal Company, 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 13th day of April 1954, 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,
On the 14th February, 1952, the "Stonedale No. 1" was in tow of the Appellants' steam tug "Warrendale" in the Manchester Ship Canal and in the course of the towage grounded in the vicinity of Hooton Wharf and sank and became an obstruction in the fairway to vessels navigating therein. It is agreed that the sinking was caused by the improper navigation of the "Stonedale No.1" and of the "Warrendale" by the servants of the Appellants but without the actual fault or privity of the Appellants.
The Appellants at once got into communication with the Respondents, the Manchester Ship Canal Company, as a result of which the Respondents undertook to raise the sunken vessel. I do not think it necessary to consider whether the effect of these communications was to create any contractual liability in the Appellants, though the Respondents rely on this if their other pleas fail.
The Respondents having at their own cost raised the ship made a claim against the Appellants for the expenses they had incurred amounting to £7,609 1s. 4d. This they claimed to be entitled to do under section 32 of the Manchester Ship Canal Act of 1936, which by subsection (1) provides that "Whenever any vessel is sunk stranded or abandoned in part of ( a) any river canal waterway navigable channel lock or dock forming part of the harbour and port of Manchester or of the undertaking … the Company may if they think fit cause the vessel to be raised or removed … in such manner as to clear such river canal waterway navigable channel lock dock or area therefrom" and by subsection (2) "The Company may recover from the owner of any such vessel all expenses incurred by the Company under this section in connection with that vessel … either summarily as a civil debt or as a debt in any court of competent jurisdiction Provided always that the Company may if they think fit and shall if so required by the owner of the vessel cause such vessel … to be sold in such manner as they think fit and out of the proceeds of the sale may … reimburse themselves for any such expenses and shall hold the surplus if any of those proceeds in trust for the persons entitled thereto and in case such proceeds shall be insufficient to reimburse the Company such expenses the deficiency may be recovered by the Company in manner aforesaid".
The Appellants, faced by this claim which they were not prepared to admit, did not await the proceedings which the Respondents might have commenced for recovery of the sum in question as a debt but themselves commenced an action against the Respondents in which they claimed to limit their liability to them and "all persons claiming to have suffered loss or damage by reason of the sinking of the Stonedale No. 1 in the Manchester Ship Canal and the consequences thereof". They founded their claim on the provisions of sections 1 and 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1900, or, alternatively, on those of section 9 of the Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1897. If the claim is well-founded the amount for which the Appellants would be liable based on the combined tonnage of the "Stonedale No. 1" and the "Warrendale" is £1,681 2s. 6d. with some interest. The claim has been rejected by Mr. Justice Willmer, who felt constrained to follow a decision of Mr. Justice Langton in The " Millie" [1940] P. 1, though he clearly doubted its correctness, and by the Court of Appeal who, after a careful review of the relevant law, had no hesitation in affirming it. Your Lordships, I think, will be unanimous in taking the same view.
I will consider in turn the relevant provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1897.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1900, is entitled "An Act to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with respect to the Liability of Shipowners and others" and it is necessary to turn back to the Act of 1894. That Act by Part VIII dealt with the subject of the liability of shipowners, and I pause to observe that the right of a shipowner to limit his liability forms no part of our common law but is entirely the creature of statute and must be found within its four corners.
For our present purpose I need only refer to section 503 which is, so far as is relevant, in these terms:
"503. (1) The owners of a ship, British or foreign, shall not, where all or any of the following occurrences take place without their actual fault or privity; (that is to say,)
( a) Where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to any person being carried in the ship;
( b) Where any damage or loss is caused to any goods, merchandise, or other things whatsoever on board the ship;
( c) Where any loss of life or personal injury is caused to any person carried in any other vessel by reason of the improper navigation of the ship;
( d) Where any loss or damage is caused to any other vessel or to any goods, merchandise, or other things whatsoever on board any other vessel, by reason of the improper navigation of the ship,
be liable to damages beyond the following amounts".
Then the amounts are set out and I need not recite them here.
My Lords, the vital words in this section to which, as it appears to me, insufficient regard was paid in the argument of the Appellants, are "be liable to damages". The relief given to shipowners is in respect of their liability to damages and nothing else.
Part VIII of the Act of 1894 has been from time to time amended but the only material amendment is in the Act of 1900 to which I have referred. That Act by section 1 provided as follows:
"1. The limitation of the liability of the owners of any ship set by section five hundred and three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in respect of loss of or damage to vessels, goods, merchandise, or other things, shall extend and apply to all cases where (without their actual fault or privity) any loss or damage is caused to property or rights of any kind, whether on land or on water, or whether fixed or moveable, by reason of the improper navigation or management of the ship".
Section 3, upon which the Appellants place some reliance, provided that the limitation of liability under the Act should relate to the whole of any losses or damage which might arise upon any one distinct occasion although such losses or damage might be sustained by more than one person and should apply whether the liability arose at common law or under any general or private Act of Parliament and notwithstanding anything contained in such Act.
My Lords, undoubtedly the Act of 1900 provided a large extension of the relief given to shipowners by the Act of 1894 but, until I heard it argued, I did not think it arguable that the relief extended so far as to enable shipowners to limit their liability except where their liability lay in damages. Nor has the argument of counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Putbus
...of all, it isa liability to damages for negligence, and not a liability to pay a debt. Thus, it is quite different 'from ( The Stonedale 1956 A.C. 1), when the liability was in debt, irrespective of negligence. Secondly, it was liability to damages "where rights are infringed": for the righ......
-
The "Seaway"
...Wear Commissioners, The v William Adamson (1877) 2 App Cas 743 (folld) Stonedale No 1 v Manchester Ship Canal Co (“The Stonedale No 1”) [1956] AC 1 (refd) Universal City Studios Incorporated v Gerard Mulligan (No 1) [1999] 3 IR 381 (folld) Yusen Air & Sea Service (S) Pte Ltd v Changi Intern......
- Deonarine Singh v Transport & Harbours Department
-
Ventura Navigation Inc v Port of Singapore Authority and Another
...me to certain authorities, viz The Millie (1939) 64 L1 L Rep 318, Hall Brothers Steamship Co v Young [1939] 1 KB 748; The Stonedale (No 1) [1956] AC 1; The Putbus [1969] 1 Lloyd`s Rep 9 and The Kirknes [1957] P 51 as having established the following principles: (1) a claim for damages depen......
-
Table of Cases
...Wuam v. Ako (1999) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 601) 150…..............................................................………..504 Wurno v. U.A.C. (1956) 1 F.S.C. 33; (1956) S.C.N.L.R. 99…………..............................…..134, 138 Wuyep v. Wuyep (1997) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 523) 154……………............................