The Haversham Grange
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1905 |
| Date | 26 June 1905 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Admiralty - Damage by two Collisions - Simultaneous Repairs - Dock Dues - Demurrage - Division between Tortfeasors.
In order to effect repairs necessitated by two collisions for which the owners of two wrong-doing vessels were liable, the plaintiffs, the owners of the damaged vessel, put her into dry dock, and proceeded to repair at the same time the separate damage sustained in each collision; but the defendants, the owners of the wrong-doing vessel in the second collision, objected to pay any portion of the dock dues on the ground that the repair of the damage caused by their vessel occupied a shorter time than that required for the repair of the damage sustained in the first collision, so that the plaintiffs had not been put to any additional expense:—
Held, by the Court of Appeal (Collins M.R. and Romer L.J.), reversing the decision of Sir Gorell Barnes, President, that the principle as to apportionment of expenses between owner and underwriter in respect of dry-docking for simultaneous work on the vessel, laid down in The Vancouver, (
APPEAL by plaintiffs, Samuel J. Ditchfield and others, owners of the Maureen, against a decision of Sir Gorell Barnes, President, in an action of damage by collision, confirming a report of the registrar in favour of the defendants, the owners of the Haversham Grange.
The case is reported on the question whether the principle laid down in The VancouverF1, as to the division of the cost of dry-docking between owner and underwriter, is applicable, after two collisions, to the second wrong-doer so as to render him liable to the owner of the damaged vessel for a proportion of dock dues, though the repairs necessitated by the first collision occupied more than the time required for the repairs for which the second wrong-doer was liable.
On December 25, 1904, the steamship Maureen, from Sunderland to London with a cargo of coals to be discharged at Beckton Jetty, was run into in Gravesend Reach of the river Thames by the steamship Caravellas, and sustained damage forward on the stem and bows. On the following day, when lying off Beckton Jetty, the Maureen was run into by the Haversham Grange and damage done to her starboard side and to the bilge keels. The owners of the Caravellas agreed to a decree of both to blame, and for the repair of the damage caused by their vessel it was necessary for the Maureen to go into dry dock. The owners of the Haversham Grange admitted liability for the damage caused by their vessel, to repair which it was also necessary for the Maureen to go into dry dock. The two sets of repairs were subsequently carried out, the dry dock being engaged for each set of repairs at one and the same time, and the repair of the damage done by the second wrongdoer did not increase either the amount of the dock dues or the length of time during which the repairs were in progress. The owners of the Maureen, however, having recovered only 50 per cent. of their loss from the owners of the Caravellas, sought to charge the owners of the Haversham Grange with the following items as their half-share of dock dues and demurrage:—
£ |
s. |
d. |
|
1. Shifting the Maureen from her discharging berth to dry dock for repairs . . . |
11 |
17 |
6 |
2. Docking and shoring vessel . . . . |
6 |
5 |
0 |
3. Dry dock dues . . . . . . . . |
24 |
0 |
0 |
4. Adjusting compassess . . . . . . |
2 |
0 |
0 |
5. Loss of the use of the Maureen in and about repairs for three days (the time occupied was six days) . . . . . . |
122 |
17 |
3 |
The cost of the repairs to the Maureen, amounting to 198l. 17s. 7d., rendered necessary by the collision with the Haversham Grange, formed a separate item and was not disputed. The above amounts were also admitted to be correct if the owners of the Haversham Grange were liable.
The vessel was in dry dock twenty-two days on account of the damage done by the Caravellas, and the repairs consequent on the collision with the Haversham Grange, which were carried out at the same time, occupied six days.
At the reference, the defendants, the owners of the Haversham Grange, objected to the above items on the ground that, as the collision between the Maureen and the Caravellas happened first and it was necessary for the Maureen to go into dry dock for repairs consequent on that collision, the dry dock dues and other expenses would have been incurred in any event, and, therefore, the owners of the Maureen could not recover any part of them from the owners of the Haversham Grange.
On April 14, 1905, the registrar made his report disallowing the above items of the plaintiffs' claim, and on May 17 Sir Gorell Barnes, President, on motion in objection to the report, upheld the decision of the registrar on the ground that the sole question was: what amount of damage the second wrong-doer had done beyond what had already been done by the first, and that practically the extent of the depreciation of the ship was to be measured by the cost of repair, which cost of repair included dry-docking; but if, for another reason, the ship was being repaired, involving dry-docking, then, as it added nothing to the expense that the repair of the damage occasioned by the second wrong-doer was done whilst doing something it was necessary to do, it followed that no part of the dock dues were an additional expense falling upon the second wrong-doer.
With regard to the demurrage, the learned judge held that, as the vessel was already incapacitated by something which had previously happened before the second wrong-doing ship ran into her, the repair of the damage done by the second collision did not in any way delay her, and therefore the second wrong-doer was not responsible for any part of the delay which he had not in fact caused.
On appeal:—
Laing, K.C., and Dawson Miller, for the appellants (plaintiffs), owners of the Maureen. The items in question should have been allowed, for the ground taken by the defendants, the owners of the Haversham Grange, that they were necessary items resulting from the first collision, and therefore not part of the damage occasioned by the second collision, is untenable. The separate acts of two wrong-doers gave rise to two sets of repairs which had to be done to the hull of the vessel to make her seaworthy, and the owners of the vessel were entitled to judgment against each wrong-doer for the separate damage done by him. There was no obligation on the owner to do the two sets of repairs at the same time, but it was desirable in the interests of all parties that the work should be done together. Neither set of repairs could be carried out without dry-docking, and, in respect of the dock dues so incurred, the principle laid down in The VancouverF2 applies. There the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salcon Ltd v United Cement Pte Ltd
...F. In coming to his decision in favour of UCL’s Claims C, E and F, the arbitrator relied on two English authorities, The Haversham Grange [1905] P 307 and Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. If both cases are examined, it will be found that they do not lend any support to UCL’s 16 The first c......
- Carslogie Steamship Company Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government
-
Carslogie Steamship Company Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government Represented by the Norwegian Shipping and Trade Mission
...vessel for damages due to the detention. In support of this contention they relied upon the rule laid down in the ( Haversham Grange [1905] P. p. 307). 9 My Lords, at the outset I think it is well to bear in mind the elementary principle that it is for the plaintiff in an action of damages ......
-
Baker v Willoughby
...renders the man "unseaworthy" or "not a profit-earning machine". If any assistance is to be got, it is I think from The Haversham Grange [1905] P. 307 where neither collision rendered the vessel unseaworthy. The damage from the first collision took longer to repair than the damage from the ......