Stonedale No 1 (Owners) v Manchester Ship Canal Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON,LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE HODSON |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0413-7 |
| Docket Number | 1952 R. No. 4401. |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 13 April 1954 |
The "Stonedale No. 1." (Limitation).
[1954] EWCA Civ J0413-7
Lord Justice Singleton,
Lord Justice Jenkins, and
Lord Justice Hodson.
In the Supreme Court of Judicature,
Court of Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants: MR K.S. CARPMAEL. Q.C., and MR P. BUCKNILL, instructed by Messrs Batesons & Co., Liverpool.
Counsel for the Respondents: MR J.V. NAISBY. Q.C., and MR H.E.G. BROWNING, instructed by Messrs Hill Dickinson & Co., Liverpool.
On the 14th February, 1952, the "Stonedale No. 1" and other barges of the Plaintiffs were in tow to the Plaintiffs' steam tug "Warrendale" in the Manchester Ship Canal. In the course of the towing the "Stonedale No. 1" grounded in the vicinity of Hooton Wharf, sank and became an obstruction.
Telephone conversations took place between the officers of the Ship Canal Company and the owners of the barge and letters passed on the same day, the 14th February. The letter from the Canal Company, after referring to the telephone conversation, continues: "We will have to look to you for all costs which will be incurred in connection with the marking, raising, or destruction of the wreck, and shall be glad to receive your undertaking that liability is admitted. In accordance with the provisions of the Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1936, I am required to give you notice unless we have received written intimation of your intention to yourselves remove the wreck by mid-day on Saturday, 16th February, 1952, we will take such steps as may be necessary for its removal."
The letter from the owners of the barge, also dated the 14th February, is in these terms: "Further to our telephone conversation regarding barge 'Stonedale No. 1' which lies sunk in the Manchester Ship Canal between Eastham and Ellesmere Port; we confirm having asked you to proceed with the lifting operations as soon as possible."
As a result the barge was raised and removed by the Canal Company, who rendered the owners an account of the expenses incurred amounting to £7,609, 1s. 4d. The owners did not pay the amount claimed, but in turn commenced this Limitation Action.
I refer to the Statement of Claim. Having set out in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 the facts I have mentioned, thePlaintiffs pleaded in Paragraph 4: "On or about the 22nd July, 1952, the Manchester Ship Canal Company made a claim against the Plaintiffs for the said raising of the 'Stonedale No. 1' in the sum of £7,609. 1s. 4d. 5. The said sinking was caused by the improper navigation of the 'Stonedale No. 1' and of the 'Warrendale' by the servants of the Plaintiffs. 6. The said sinking occurred without the actual fault or privity of the Plaintiffs or any one of them."
Paragraph 7 sets out the registered tonnage of the tug and of the barge.
Paragraph 8 says: "The Plaintiffs have reason to believe that the amount they are liable in respect of the said sinking will exceed the limit of their statutory liability calculated at the rate of £8 per ton of the tonnage of the 'Stoncdale No. 1' and of the 'Warrendale' ascertained as aforesaid."
Then Paragraph 9: "The Plaintiffs are willing and hereby offer to pay into Court the sum of £1,681. 2s. 6d., being the aggregate amount of £8 per ton of the tonnage of the 'Stonedale No. 1' and of the 'Warrendale' ascertained as aforesaid together with interest thereon at 4% per annum from the date of the said sinking until such payment", and the Plaintiffs claim a declaration that they are not liable beyond the amount of £8 per ton in respect of the tug and the barge, which amount was the sum of £1,681. 2s. 6d.
There were Further Particulars given to which I need not refer, and the Defence denies thus the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they claim. Paragraph 2 of the Defence is in these terms: "These Defendants say that in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Manchestor Ship Canal Act, 1936, they are entitled to recover from the Plaintiffs all expenses incurred by them under the said section in connection with raising removing, marking, lighting, watching and otherwise controlling thedumb barge 'Stonedale No. 1 and that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to limit their liability under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts or the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1897, in respect of the claim made by these Defendants referred to in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim."
They also plead that by the letter which I have read: "The Plaintiffs requested these Defendants to proceed with the lifting operations of the 'Stonedale No. 1' and thereby impliedly undertook to pay to these Defendants all expenses incurred by them in so complying with their request."
Mr Justice Willmer held that the claim to limit the amount failed. The shipowners appeal to this Court.
The claim of the Ship Canal Company was based on Section 32 of the Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1936, to which I must refer. Sub-Section (1) of Section 32 of that Act provides: "Whenever any vessel is sunk stranded or abandoned in part of – (a) any river canal waterway navigable channel look or dook forming part of the harbour and port of Manchester or of the undertaking; or (b) any area within which the Company are or may hereafter be empowered to dredge the bed banks shores and channels of the River Weaver or the estuary thereof; or (c) any area within which the Company are or may hereafter be empowered to dredge the bed banks shores and channels of the River Mersey or the estuary thereof for the purpose of making accesses to the Manchester Ship Canal; the Company may if they think fit cause the vessel to be raised or removed or (in the case of any vessel which it is not reasonably practicable to remove) to be blown up or otherwise destroyed in such manner as to clear such river canal waterway navigable channel look dook or area there from. (2) The Company may recover from the owner of any such vessel all expenses incurred by theCompany under this section in connection with that vessel or in raising removing or saving any furniture tackle and apparel thereof or any cargo goods chattels and effects raised or saved there from or in marking lighting buying or otherwise controlling such 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 and any furniture tackle apparel cargo goods chattels and effects or any part of the same respectively so raised removed or saved as aforesaid to be sold in such manner as they think fit and out of the proceeds of the sale may after paying any duties of customs or excise which shall be payable in respect of the said cargo goods chattels and effects reimburse themselves for any such expenses and shall held the surplus if any of these 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. (3) The Company shall (except in case of emergency) before raising removing blowing up or destroying any such vessel under the provisions of this section give to the owner of the vessel twenty-four hours' notice of their intention so to do and if within twelve hours after the expiration of such notice the owner gives to the Company notice in writing of his intention himself to raise and remove the vessel he shall be at liberty so to do in lieu of the Company", with a proviso which I need not read.
Then sub-section (6) is in those terms: "In this section the word 'owner' in relation to any vessel sunk stranded or abandoned as aforesaid means the owner of that vessel at the time of the sinking stranding or abandonment thereof.
Then sub-section (7) roads: "The powers conferred on the Company by this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers exercisable by them for or with respect to the removal of wrecks."
It will be seen that the request for payment of the amount is, on the face of it, unanswerable. The barge was stranded. The Canal Company complied with the provisions of Section 32, and, prima facie, they are entitled to be paid. There is no admission that the amount claimed is correct, but no question has been raised upon it.
The claim of the owners in the Limitation Action gives rise to a number of questions. It is common ground that the stranding was due to faulty navigation, and it is not suggested that there was actual fault or privity on the part of the owners. It is said that the amount expended was due to faulty navigation from which damage flowed, and that the owners are entitled to limitation of those damages so that no more than £1,681. 2s. 6d. is recoverable. There are no other persons claiming.
The right of a shipowner to limit damages has existed for very many years. (See Lord Birkenhead in "The Countess", reported in 1923 Appeal Cases at page 352.) It is unnecessary to consider the position before the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Section 503 of that Act provided: "(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 beard 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Putbus
...taken the very words used by Mr. Justice Lawton. 18 We are, therefore, able to answer the question which Viscount Simonds left open in The Stonedale No. 1 (1956 A.C.) at page 9, when he said: "It may have to be decided some day whether a shipowner faced with such a common law claim can succ......
- Bartoline Ltd v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and another
-
The "Seaway"
... ... to plaintiff's wharf limited–Sections 136 (1) (b), (d) Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179, 1996 ... The defendants were the registered owners of the dredger Seaway , which collided with and ... 251 (refd) Great Western Railway Company v Owners of SS Mostyn (“The Mostyn”) [1928] ... (1877) 2 App Cas 743 (folld) Stonedale No 1 v Manchester Ship Canal Co (“The Stonedale ... ...
- Deonarine Singh v Transport & Harbours Department
-
Ethics in the bank internet encounter: an explorative study
...p. 327).and “[...] if it makes a ‘significant’ contribution, either positively or negatively, to thegeneral aim of the activity” (Flanagan, 1954, p. 338). What we have is: an act with apurpose and its effect of that act in a situation. What the CIT wants to do is: “eliciteffective and ineffe......