The Danube II
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 1921 |
| Date | 16 February 1921 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Lord Sterndale, M.R., Scrutton and Younger, L.JJ.
The Danube II
Benny v. FitzgeraldUNK unreported, June 27, 1918
Sexty v. WellsUNK unreported, June 14, 1917
The CaliphDID=ASPMELR 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 244 107 L. T. Rep. 274 (1912) P. 213
Wilson v. 1st Edinburgh City R.G.A. VolunteersSC 7 F 168
Bradford Corporation v. Myers 114 L. T. Rep. 83 (1916) A. C. 242
Flanagan v. ShawELR 122 L. T. Rep. 177 (1920, 3 K. B. 105)
Kutner v. PhillipsELR 64 L. T. Rep. 628 (1891) 2 Q. B. 271
Limitation of actions Servant of the Crown Negligence in the performance of a public duty
Decision of Hill, J. (infr) affirmed.
The Caliph (12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 244; 107 L. T. Rep. 274; (1912) P. 213) considered.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 187 CT. OF APP.] THE DANUBE II. [CT. OF APP. Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1921. (Before Lord STERNDALE, M.R., SCRUTTON and YOUNGER, L.JJ.) THE DANUBE II. (a) APPEAL FROM THE ADMIRALTY DIVISION. Limitation of actions-Servant of the Crown- Negligence in the performance of a pullic duty- Implied repeal of a statute by a subsequent statute- Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 (56 "fc 57 Viet. c. 51)- Maritime Contentions Act 1911 (1$2 Geo. 5, c. 57). The Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 protects servants of the Crown in the performance of a public, duty in the same manner as it protects the servants of public authorities who can themselves be sued. In an action to which the Maritime Contentions Act 1911 applies, sect. 8 of that Act, which limits the period for commencing an action to two years, does not repeal the Public Authorities Protection Act by implication. Thus a party whose vessel has suffered damage from the negligent navigation of a Government tug by an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve acting in the course of his duty must commence an action against the officer within six months of the day upon which the cause of action arose. Consideration of the circumstances under which the provisions of one stutute may by implication repeal the provisions of another. The Caliph (12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 244 ; 107 L. T, Rep. 274 ; (1912) P. 213) considered. Decision of Hill, J. (infra) affirmed. ACTION for damage by collision. The facts fully appear in Hill, J??s judgment. Sieptens, K.C. and Dumas for the plaintiffs. Sir Gordon Heioart (A.-G.) and Dunlop, K.C. for the defendants. In addition to the cases cited in the judgment, the following cases also were cited in the argument: Wilton v. ??3t Edinburgh City Royal Garrison Artillery Volunteers, 1904, 7 F. 168 ; McTernan v. Bennett, 1898, 1 F. 333 ; Salisbury v. Gould, 1904, 68 J. P. 158 ; Parker v. The London County Council, 90 L. T. Rep. 415 (1904) 2 K.B. 501. HILL, J.-In this case a further question has been raised for argument based upon a paragraph in the defence that the defendant is entitled to the protection of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893. The circumstances are these: The claim having been intimated to the Admiralty, the Admiralty offered to accept liability upon the basis that they should compensate as if they were entitled to limit their liability to the tonnage of the tug as ascertained in accordance with the provisions for limitation of liability contained in sect 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. They were willing to pay that amount The plaintiffs were not satisfied with that, and issued their writ on the 17th Dec. 1018 against Mr. Harry Jewiss, the master of the tug Danube 11., whom I have found to have brought about the collision with the steamship by reason of his negligence. I have to decide whether that action ought to have been brought within six months from the 8th Dec. 1917 when the collision happened. It was not brought until rather more than one year after. The defendants' counsel say that they are entitled to the protection of the Act, because the action, being against the master of the tug, is an action against a person in respect of neglect in the execution of a public duty. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, say, first, that the Public Authorities Protection Act does not apply at all to servants of the Crown, but only to public authorities other than the Crown and to servants of such public authorities. Secondly, they say that, if it does not apply to servants of the Crown, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Wilhelmina
...The ZamoraDID=ASPMECASECAS 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 330 114 L. T. Rep. 626 (1916) 2 A. C. 77 (1916) 2 A. C. 77, 91 The Danube II 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 187ELR 125 L. T. Rep. 156 (1921) P. 183 The Oscar IIDID=ASPM 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 14 123 L. T. Rep. 474 (1920) A. C. 740 The MentorENR 1 C. Ro......