The "Master Stelios"
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1983 |
| Date | 01 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 44 of |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1983] SGPC 2
Privy Council
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
,
Lord Scarman
,
Lord Bridge of Harwich
,
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
and
Lord Templeman
Privy Council Appeal No 44 of 1980
A E Diamond QC and S R Croo Kenden (Holman, Fenwick & Willan) for the appellant
Nicholas Phillips QC and Hillary Heilbron (Coward Chance) for the respondent.
Contract–Contractual terms–Express terms–Negotiations through series of telex documents–Telex document indicating that drydock needed for ordinary drydocking and screwshaft survey–Obligation to conduct screwshaft survey–Whether formed express terms of contract concluded–Whether breach of express terms of contract for failing to conduct screwshaft survey–Contract–Formation–Acceptance–Negotiations through series of telex documents–Whether contract concluded
The owner of the ship called the Master Stelios (“the owner?) had, through its agent in London, sent a telex message (“B1?) to the owner of a drydock in Singapore (“the yard?) to inquire if there was a drydock available for the Master Stelios for “ordinary drydocking and screwshaft survey?. The yard subsequently replied in another telex message (“B2?) to offer dockspace around a stipulated time. A third telex message (“B3?) from the owners then requested that the yard stem a drydock for the stipulated period and also requested a quotation for several forms of works in relation to the Master Stelios.
The Master Stelios arrived at the appointed date and entered the yard's drydock where work was carried out on her rudder and other things. However, she was subsequently released without the screwshaft survey having been done. The owner claimed that the yard was in breach of the contract by failing to carry out the work for the screwshaft survey. Whereas the trial judge had decided in favour of the owner and held that there was concluded a contract where the yard undertook to provide a drydock for the specific purpose of a screwshaft survey and such other drydocking work as the owner might subsequently require to be carried out, the Court of Appeal held that no contract was concluded or that, alternatively, even if a contract had been concluded to provide drydock space, there were no grounds for implying a term that the yard would do the work involved in a screwshaft survey. The owner appealed to the Privy Council.
The issues on appeal were thus whether there was a completed contract between the owner and the yard relating to the drydocking of the Master Stelios and, if so, what were the obligations of the yard under the contract.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) As a result of the telex messages B1 to B3, a concluded agreement between the parties came into existence: at [15].
(2) The true position was that there was a contract by which the yard was obligated to provide drydock space for a period long enough to allow a screwshaft survey to be carried out, along with such other ordinary drydock work as could be done simultaneously with the screwshaft survey. The yard was not obliged to do any work at all on the ship, unless and until the owner ordered work to be done, but the yard would become obliged to do the work of all or any of the types specified in the items in B3, if their quotations had been accepted by the owner. The owner on its side was bound to pay for the use of the dock for a period long enough to allow a screwshaft survey to be carried out. In addition, it was obliged at least to offer the yard an opportunity of tendering for the work to be done in the drydock, though it was not obliged to accept any offer made: at [19].
(3) As such, the yard was not in breach of contract merely by failing to do the work required to enable a screwshaft survey to be carried out: at [20].
(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 The appellants were in 1973 the owners of a ship called the Master Stelios. The respondents were owners of a drydock in Singapore. The parties will be referred to hereafter as “the owners? and “the yard? respectively. There are two questions in the appeal. The first is whether there was a completed contract between the owners and the yard relating to the drydocking of the Master Stelios in October 1973. If so, the second question relates to the obligations of the yard under the contract.
2 On 3 October 1973 the owners' agents in London, Phocean Ship Agency Ltd (“Phocean?), sent a telex to the yard in the following terms:
Please advise us whether you have a drydock available for our MV Master Stelios 12,900 tons dw for ordinary drydocking and screwshaft survey your immediate reply will be appreciated …
3 That telex was referred to in the courts below as B1 and will hereafter be so referred to.
4...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter
...2 SLR 663 (refd) Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2008] 1 SLR (R) 663; [2008] 1 SLR 663 (refd) Master Stelios, The [1983-1984] SLR (R) 26; [1982-1983] SLR 39 (refd) Mercantile Investment and General Trust Company v International Company of Mexico [1893] 1 Ch 484 (refd) Mis......