The Umtali
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1938 |
| Date | 15 December 1938 |
| Court | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Lords Atkin, Thankerton, Russell, Wright and Porter
The Umtali
The Homefire 57 Lloyd's List Repotrs, p. 110
The BackworthDID=ASPM 17 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 289 137 L. T. Rep. 653 1927, Prob. p. 256
The HontestroomDID=ASPM 17 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 123 136 L. T. Rep. 33 1927, App. Cas. p. 37
Port of London River By-laws, 1914–1934, by-law 4 (a) and 33.
Collision in St. Clement's Reach, River Thames, just below Stone Ness Point — Down-going vessel and up-coming vessel approaching each other at high speed on the south side of mid-channel — Porting by down-going vessel, starboarding by up-coming vessel
Decision of the Court of Appeal (19 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 176; 159 L.T. Rep. 350) reversed.
Judgement of Bucknill, J. (19 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 133; 158 L. T. Rep. 72) restored.
254 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. H. OF L.] THE UMTALI [H. OF L. November 14, 15; December 15, 1988. (Before Lords ATKIN, THANKERTON, RUSSELL, WRIUHT, and PoRTEn.) The Umtali. (a) ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL. Collision in St. Clement's Reach, River Thames, just below Stone Ness Point-Down-going vessel and up-coming vessel approaching each other at high speed on the south side of mid-channel-Porting by down-going vessel, starboarding by up-coming vessel -Failure by both vessels to pass port-to-port- Failure of up-coming vessel, navigating against the ebb-tide, to " ease her speed or stop on approaching . . . bend . . ."-Port of London River by-laws, 1914-1934, by-laws 4 (a) and 33. This was a claim by the Donaldson South American Line Limited, of Glasgow, owners of the steamship C. (6863 tons gross) against Messrs. Bullard, King, and Co. Limited, of London, owners of the steamship U. (8158 tons gross) for damages in respect of a collision between the C. and the U., which occurred on the morning of the 16th May, 1937, in St. Clement's Reach, River Thames, off Greenhithe, about two cables below Stone Ness Point and to the north of mid-channel. The stem of the U. came into contact with the port side of the C. in the way of the C.'s engine-room and both vessels were so severely damaged that they had to be beached. The damage sustained by the C. and her cargo were, in the neighbourhood of 100,000l. The facts found by Bucknilt, J., as far as the navigation of the vessels was concerned, were as follows: The C. was proceeding up-river to the south of mid-channel and against the tide, which was a quarter ebb and of about one knot's force. The U. was proceeding down-river from the north, in her own water. Each vessel was in charge of a duly licensed Trinity House pilot, and up to within half a mile of the collision, which occurred to the north of mid-channel and about two cables below the bend at Stone Ness Point, was doing about ten knots over the ground. At half a mile apar?? the U. sounded too short blasts, ported her wheel, and put her engines to half-speed ahead, the C. being then fine on the U.'s port bow. The C. replied with one short blast and repeated that signal ten seconds later, indicating that she was directing her course to starboard, but the U. continued to go, to port. The C. subsequently put her wheel hard a-starboard and again sounded one short blast. When the vessels were 1000ft. apart the U. put her engines full speed astern, but at collision her speed was still five knots, whilst the C., although approaching a bend in the river, never reduced her speed at all from the time the U. was first rounding the point up to the actual impact. (a) Reported by EDWARD J. M. CHAPLIN, Esq. Barrister-at-Law. Held, that both vessels were seriously to blame and there was no satisfactory reason for saying tha one was more to blame than the other. Decision of the Court of Appeal (19 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 170 ; 159 L. T. Rep. 350) reversed. Judgment of Bucknill, J. (19 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 133 ; 158 L. T. Rep. 72) restored. APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Appeal (reported 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 176 ; 150 L. T. Rep. 850) (Greer, Slesser, and Scott, L.JJ., sitting with nautical assessors), on appeal from the decision of Bucknill, J. assisted by Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, reported 19 Asp. Mar. Law Caa. 133; 158 L. T. Rep. 72. The facts are fully set out in the headnote. Bucknill, J. had held both vessels to blame in equal degrees. The Court of Appeal held the Umtali alone to blame. The owners of the Umtali appealed. C. St. C. Pitcher, K.C. and Gordon Williams for the appellants. R. F. Hayward. K.C. and Owen L. Baleson for the respondents. The House took time for consideration. Lord Atkin.-In this case I have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Almizar, The (British Destiny., Dunelmia., John C. Pappas, John C. Pappas.)
-
Almizar, The (British Destiny., Dunelmia., John C. Pappas, John C. Pappas.)
...1943 Appeal Cases, at page 197, where at page 199 Lord Wright, concurring, having referred to the decision in The "Testhank", and that in The "Umtali" and that in The "Karamea". at page 200 quoted Lord Sterndale, the Master of the Rolls, in The "Karamea"; "I think it would need a very stron......