The Gazelle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1844 |
| Date | 09 March 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 166 E.R. 759
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
S. C. 3 Notes of Cas. 75 8 Jur 428. See The "Hebe," p 537, post Referred to, The "Halley," 1867, L R 2 Ad. & Ecc. 7 reversed, 1868, L R 2 P C. 193 The "Argentino," 1888, 13 P. D. 195
the "' gazelle " (a)-(Hurst) March 9, 1844 -Objections to registiai's report - A deduction by the registrar and merchants of one-third for the full amount of the repairs and of the cost of new articles, in consideration of new articles being substituted foi old, not sustained by the Court In fixing the amount of demurrage to be paid for the detention of the vessel during the repairs, a () Videsupia, vol i, p 471 760 THE " GAZELLE " 2 W. BOB. 280. deduction must be made from the gross freight of so much as would in ordinary cases be disbursed on account of the ship's expenses in the earning of the freight. Report sent back to be reconsidered [S. C. 3 Notes of Caa. 75 8 Jur 428. See The " Hebe," p 537, post Referred to, The " Halley" 1867, L R 2 Ad. & Ecc. 7 , reversed, 1868, L R 2 P C. 193 The " Argentina," 1888, 13 P. D. 195 ] In this case, which was originally a cause of damage by collision, promoted by the owners of the brig " Charles," the Court, assisted by Ttinity Masters, pronounced for the damage, and condemned the " Gazelle " in the amount of the same and of the costs. A reference in the usual form was directed to the registrar and merchants, and a report having been brought m, certain items in the report were now objected to on behalf of the owners of the " Charles " The principal and most important of the objections are noticed in detail in the observations of the Court In support of the registrar's repot t, Addains and Harding In support of the objections, Haggard and Jenner Per Cunam-Dr. Lushington Ln this ease, which was originally a, case of collision, the Court pronounced for the damage sued for, and directed the amount to be ascertained in the usual foim, viz by a referent e to the registrar and merchants The registrar having made his report in obedience to the Court's directions, various items in this report have been objected to on behalf of the [280] owners of the vessel proceeding m the cause, and the Court is now called upon to deteiniiiie the validity of the objections which have been thus raised One of the principal and most important objections to the report under consideration is this, that the registrar and merchants, in fixing the amount to be paid for repairs and the supply of new articles in lieu of those which have been damaged or destroyed have deducted one-third from the full amount which such repairs and new articles would cost This deduction, it is said, has been made in consideration of new materials being substituted for old, and is justified upon the principle of a rule which is alleged to be invariably adopted in cases of insurance The first question then which I have to consider is the applicability of the rule m...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bacon v Cooper (Metals) Ltd
- Lee Swee Keat and Another; Lee Tai Hoo and Another
-
Voaden v Champion (Baltic Conveyor, Timbuktu)
...the principle that there should not be a new for old deduction in collision cases where ships have been damaged and can be repaired, as in The Gazelle (1844) 2 W Rob (Adm) 279, for the basis of indemnity is quite different: in the case of a total loss the starting point is the capital value......
-
Lagden v O'Connor
...accident as nearly as possible. 31 Some guidance as to the approach which should be taken to this problem is provided by The Gazelle (1844) 2 W Rob 279. That was a case where a vessel was damaged by collision. The question was as to the amount that was to be paid to the owners of the damage......
-
Compensation for Harm to Property Interests
...harm suffered by the plaintiff, therefore, 181 Ibid at 473. See also The Clyde (1856), SW 23, 166 ER 998; The Gazelle (1844), 2 Wm Rob 279, 166 ER 759; Bacon v Cooper (Metals) Ltd , [1982] 1 All ER 397 (CA). See also Mercury Earth Coring Ltd v Charles Machine Works Inc , 2009 SKQB 428, wher......
-
Table of cases
...(2006), 50 CLR (3d) 129, [2006] OJ No 588 (SCJ) .................................................. 108 Gazelle, The (1844), 2 Wm Rob 279, 166 ER 759, 8 Jur 428 ...............................117 Gemoto v Calgary Regional Hospital (2006), [2007] 2 WWR 243, 67 Alta L R (4th) 226, [2006] AJ No......
-
Compensation for Harm to Property Interests
...note 71 (C.A.). 143 Above note 80. 144 Ibid. at 473. See also The Clyde (1856), S.W. 23, 166 E.R. 998; The Gazelle (1844), 2 Wm. Rob. 279, 166 E.R. 759; Bacon v. Cooper (Metals Ltd.) , [1982] 1 All E.R. 397 (C.A.). Compensation for Harm to Property Interests 103 There is no avoiding the fac......
-
Compensation for Harm to Property Interests
...However, it also recognized that 135 Ibid, at 473. See also The Clyde (1856), S.W. 23,166 E.R. 998; The Gazelle (1844), 2 Wm. Rob. 279, 166 E.R. 759; Bacon v. Cooper (Metals Ltd.), [1982] 1 All E.R. 397. 136 [1962] 1Q.B. 33 (C.A.). 137 See Chapter 11. 138 (1992), 89 D.L.R. (4th) 722. Compen......