The Broadmayne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1916 |
| Date | 11 February 1916 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Swinfen Eady, Pickford, and Bankes, L.J.
The Broadmayne
The Parlement BelgeDID=ASPM 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 234 42 L. T. Rep. 273 5 Prob. Div. 197
De Haber v. Queen of Portugal 17 Q. B. 171
The LedaENR Brown & Lush. 19
The GemmaDID=ASPMELR 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 585 81 L. T. Rep. 379 (1899) P. 285
The DictatorDID=ASPMELR 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 251 67 L. T. Rep. 563 (1892) P. 304
The Prins FrederikENR 2 Dods. 451
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 557
Salvage Action in rem Requisitioned ship
356 MARITIME LAW CASES. Priv. Co.] The Broadmayne. [Ct. of App. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATOR. COURT OF APPEAL. Feb. 9,10, and 11,1916. (Before Swinfbw Badt, Pickfobd, and BANKES L.J.) THE BROADMAYNE (a) Salvage - Action in rem - Bequititioned ship - Exemption from arrest-Motion by Crown to stay proceedings-Costs-Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Viet. e. 60), 557-ProciamaUon of the Srd Aug. 1914 (Trantporte and Auxiliaries). An action teas institiited for salvags aersictn rendered by a tug to a ship reqvirAiomd by the Admiralty attd her freight, and the owners of the ship and her freight entered an appearance as defendants and gave the tisual undertalAng in lieu of bail. Under the powzrs conferred by the Boyai Prodama' tion (Transports and AuxiUaries) of the 3rd Aug, 1914, the ship had become a ship belonging to His (a) Reported by h. V. Q. DAkbt, Esq., Barriste-at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 357 Ct. of App.] THE BROADMAYNE [CT.OF.APP. Majesty teithin the meaning of sect, 557 of the Merehaat Shipping Act 1894 Upon an application by the Crown that the writ and all subsequent proceedings in the action be set aside, or (hat the proceedings against the ship and her freight be stayed so long as she remained in the Service of the Crown. Held, that no proceedings ought to be taken with a view to arresting the ship so long as she was in the service of the Crown and under requisition, and thai there would be no order aa to costs as the apjication had been made directly on behalf of the Crown, APPEAL. by the Grown fiom an order of Bargrave Deaue, J. in an action for ealvuge t" rem. On the 30th Jaly 1914 the owners of the tag Revenger received a telegram from "Dockyard Sheerness " for the " Vanquisher or tug of similar description" to be sent, and on the following day they received a farther telegram "Bequest Revenger be sent Sheemess forthwith." In accordance with this telegram the Revenger was employed on Admiralty work. On the 5th Feb. 1915 the tank steamship Broadmayne with a cargo of oil fnel for the nse of the Navy stranded outside Harwich Harbour, and the Revenger was sent to her assistance. On the 3th Feb. 1915 the plaintiffs, the Elliott Steam Tug Company Limited, of London, as the owners, and the master and crew of the Revenger issued a writ in an action in rem against the owners of the Broadmayne, her cargo and freight, for an award in respect of salrege services rendered. On the 11th Feb. the owners of the Broadmayne entered an appearance and gave an undertaking in lieu of bail. The statement of claim wa" delivered on the 22nd Jane, and on the 6th August the defence. On the 3rd. Nov. the plaintiffs gave notice of the abandonment of their claim against the cargo, which was the property of the Crown. On the 24th Nov. the Treasury solicitor, on lebalf of the Crown, gave notice of motion to the piaintiffei for an order that "the writ and all Bubseqaiant proceedings in the action be set eside or that the proceedings against the Broadmayne and her freight be stayed so long an the ship shall remain in the service of the Grown or for such f urib'dr or other order as to tbe Oonrt may seem just." On the 14th Jim. 1916 Bargrave Oeane, J. dismissed the motion with costs to be paid by the Crown. The learned judge held that at the time tbe salvage services were rendered the Broad-mtyne had not been requisitioned by the Admiralty and therefore could not claim immunity as being a King's ship under sect. 557 of tbe Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; that tbe action wb'.ch had been commenced aa an action "n rem had by the fact that the owners of the Broadmayne bad given a personal undertaking in lien of bail been oonveri"d into an action in personam and that tbe Grown had no ground for intervention. The Grown appealed. The Attorney-Oenaral (Sir Frederick Smith, E:.C.). Buikr AspinaU, K.G., and R. H. Balloch for the Crown. Bateson, K.G. and G. R, Dunhp for the plaintiffs. Laing, K.O. and Lewis Noad for tbe defendants the u Auer" of the Broadmayne and freight. The following cases were referred to in argument: Sir John Jackson Limited v. Oumer" of Steamthip Blanche and others, 98 L. T. Bep. 461; (1908) A. G.126; The Gemma, 8 Aep. Mar. Law Cas. 5S5; 81 L. T. Bep. 379; (1899) P. 285; The Dictator, 8 Mp. Mar. Law Cas. 251; 67 L. T. Rep. 563; (1892) P. 304; The Parlement Beige, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Caa. 234; 42 L. T. Eep. 273; 5 Prob. Dir, 197; The Dupleix, 12 Asp. Mar. Law Caa. 122; 106 L. T. Bep. 347; (1912) P. 8; The Constitution, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Caa. 79; 40 L. T. Bep. 219; 4 Prob. Div. 39; Young v. Steamship Bcotia, 9 Asp. Mar. Law Caa. 485; 89 L. T. Bep. 374; (1903) A. C. 501; The Prina Fredenk, 2 Dods. 451; The Five Bteel Barjea, 6 Aap. Mar. Law Caa. 580 63 L. T. Bep. 499; 15 Prob. Div. 142; The Athol, IW.Eob. 374; The Marquis of Buntly, 3 Hagg Adm. 246; The Warnor, 6 L. T. Bep. 133; Luab. 476; The Due D'Aumale (No. 2), 9 Aip. Mar. Law Cas. 602; 89 L. T. Eep. 486; (1901) P. 60; The Bertie, 6 Aap. Mar. Law Ccas. 26 ; 55 L. T. Rep. 520; The Lord Hobart, 2 Dods. 100. De Eaber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171; The Leda, Brown & Lush. 19, The Leon Blum, ante, p. 273; 114 L. T. Rep. 320 J (1915) P. 90-103; Re a Petition of Bight, 113 L. T. Eep. 575 j (1915) 3 K. B. 649 ; Swinfen Eady, L.J.-This is a motion by way of appeal made on behalf of the Orown " that the writ and all subsequent proceedings in this action be set aside, or, in the alternative, that the proceedings against the ship and freight may be stayed so long as the ship shall remain in the service of the Crown." The application was made, in the first instance, to Bargrave Deane, J., and he refused the application and ordered the Grown to pay the costs of the plaintiffs and of the defendants; the present motion is made by way of appeal from that order. Tiie facts arc, shortly, these: Immediately before the outbreak of war-the state of war commenced as from 11 p.m. on the 4th Aug. 1914-a proclamation was issued stating that "a national emergency exists rendering it necessary to take Bveps for preserving and defending national interests " and anthorisicg "the Lords Oommiasioners of the Admiralty ... to requisition and take up . . . any British ship or British vessel as de&ned in the.""lerohant Shipping Act 1891, within the British Isles or the waters adjacent thereto, for such period of time as may be neoes-satT, on condition that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd v the Ship Comandate
-
Burmah Oil Company (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate
...the Admiralty to requisition British ships for war purposes. No statute authorised the making of this Proclamation, and in both The Broadmayne [1916] P. 64 and The Crown of Leon [1921] 1 K.B. 195 it was accepted as an act of prerogative power. It is to be noted that the Proclamation, while......
-
The Deichland
...so the plaintiff has the advantage of being able to obtain a judgment in personam. But in the very exceptional case such as The Broadmayne [1916] P.64 in which the plaintiff could not arrest the ship while it was requisitioned, and thereby belonged to His Majesty, there remained a residual ......
-
Playa Larga (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v I Congreso del Partido (Owners); Marble Islands (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v I Congreso del Partido (Owners); I Congreso del Partido
...248; [1952] 1 All E.R. 314; [1952] 2 All E.R. 956, Devlin J. and C.A. Briggs v. Light Boats (1865) 11 Allen 157 (Mass.). Broadmayne, The [1916] P. 64, C.A. Crimdon, The (1918) 35 T.L.R. 81. Duff Development Co. Ltd. v. Government of Kelantan [1924] A.C. 797, H.L.(E.). Gagara, The [1919] P. ......
-
Law and war: individual rights, executive authority, and judicial power in England during World War I.
...rise to a right of compensation); The Sarpen, [1916-17] All E.R. 1132 (C.A.) (assuming general right to requisition); The Broadmayne, 32 T.L.R. 304 (C.A.) (upholding the common law right of the Crown to requisition). After the establishment of the Ministry of Shipping in December 1916, the ......