‘Vitruvia’ S.S. Company v Ropner Shipping Company (no 1)
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1923 |
| Date | 09 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 60. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Morison, Lord President (Clyde), Lord Skerrington, Lord Cullen, Lord Sands.
ShipCollisionDamagesDetention for repairsDiscovery of serious defect not due to collisionCapacity to earn profits.
The s.s. Vitruvia was damaged in collision with the s.s. Carperby, whose owners admitted liability. She was not rendered unseaworthy, and the damage was not repaired until seven months afterwards. While the vessel was laid up for the purpose of having these repairs executed, a defect in her propeller, unconnected with the collision, was reported by her engineer, which it was thought advisable to have remedied before the vessel again proceeded to sea. It was not until the last day of the repairs to the collision damage that the vessel obtained a berth in a dry dock, and the defect in the propeller was then remedied.
In an action of damages for detention of the Vitruvia during the period necessary to repair the collision damage, brought by her owners against the owners of the Carperby, the defenders maintained that the pursuers had suffered no loss by the detention, in respect that, during that period, the vessel was, owing to the defect in her propeller, incapacitated for earning freight.
Held, after a proof, that, as the vessel had been laid up for the sole purpose of repairing the collision damage, and as it had not been proved that the condition of the propeller would have prevented her from completing her next voyage and earning her freight, the defenders were liable for loss due to the detention of the vessel while the collision damage was being repaired.
ShipCollisionDamagesDetention for repairsLoss of profitsVessel on charter for successive voyagesDetention not frustrating voyages.
The s.s. Vitruvia was damaged in collision with the s.s. Carperby on 25th January 1920, and the owners of the Carperby admitted liability. The Vitruvia was not rendered unseaworthy, and she did not go into dock for repairs until 12th August 1920. She had then just completed the last of a series of voyages under charter, and was due to commence the first of a series of four consecutive voyages under another charter. The repairs occupied twenty-two days, and, thereafter, the Vitruvia duly accomplished these four voyages.
In an action by the owners of the Vitruvia against the owners of the Carperby, for damages for loss of profits due to the detention of their vessel while the repairs were being effected, the parties agreed upon a figure representing her daily rate of profit at the date of the collision. It was also proved that, for a considerable time after the collision, there was a demand for vessels of the type of the Vitruvia, arid that freights were steadily rising.
Held that the fact that the Vitruvia, had been detained for twenty-two days entitled the pursuers to damages at the agreed-on daily rate, although the vessel had been able to complete all the voyages under her charter, and although no specific loss due to the delay had been proved.
ShipCollisionDamagesInterestLiquid claimIlliquid claimRepairsDamages for detentionPractice of English Court of Admiralty.
In an action of damages arising out of a collision between two ships the Lord Ordinary awarded the pursuers damages, which included (1) the cost of the repairs to their vessel (liability for which was not disputed by the defenders), and (2) a sum in name of damages for her detention during the execution of these repairs; together with interest at 5 per cent upon the total sum awarded as from the date on which the repairs (the amount of which had been agreed by the defenders) were paid for.
Held (1) that the pursuers were entitled to interest upon the cost of the repairs as from the date when they were paid for, in respect that, in the circumstances, the amount was of the nature of a liquid debt, payment of which had been wrongfully withheld; but (2) (rev. judgment of Lord Morison) that they were entitled to interest on the sum awarded under the illiquid claim of damages for detention only from the date of the Lord Ordinary's decree, notwithstanding an alleged practice of the English Court of Admiralty by which interest upon demurrage and on the sum paid for repairs ran from the same date.
On 14th November 1921 the Vitruvia S.S. Company, Limited, Glasgow, brought an action against the Ropner Shipping Company, Limited, West Hartlepool, against whom arrestments had been used to found jurisdiction, concluding for payment of the sum of 16,929, 6s. 3d., with interest at the rate of 5 per cent from 25th January 1920, in name of damages for the loss sustained by them in consequence of a collision between the s.s. Vitruvia and the s.s.Carperby belonging to the defenders.
The circumstances of the case were as follows:On 25th January 1920 the Vitruvia, while lying at anchor at the Tail of the Bank, was run into and damaged by the Carperby. The damage was all above the water-line, and did not render the Vitruvia unseaworthy, and, although the vessel was about to go into dock for the purpose of some reconditioning, the collision repairs, owing to scarcity of labour and congestion in the shipyards and the near approach of the cancelling dates of a series of valuable charters on which she was engaged, were not carried out at the time. The vessel duly completed the voyages under these charters, which were all between American and French ports with cargoes of oil, the last voyage finishing at Rouen early in August 1920. Meantime, on 25th June 1920, her owners had entered into a fresh charter-party, under which the vessel was chartered for a further series of four consecutive voyages, between American and French ports, with cargoes of oil for the French Government. It was provided by this charter that the lay-days were not to commence before 20th August 1920, unless with the charterers' consent, and 20th November 1920 was fixed as the cancelling date. On leaving Rouen the vessel, instead of bunkering as usual at an English port and proceeding to America, was brought to Glasgow for the purpose of having the collision damage repaired before proceeding with the first of the four voyages. She arrived at Glasgow on 12th August 1920, and the repairs were completed on 3rd September, thus occupying a period of twenty-two days. Some days after the vessel reached Glasgow her engineer reported that he suspected that there was something wrong with the propeller, and it was resolved to put the vessel into dry dock for examination. A dry dock was not immediately available, and it was not until 2nd September that one was secured. It was then discovered that a nut was loose and required tightening.*
The actual work of tightening occupied only a few hours, and the vessel was able to proceed on her voyage on 8th September 1920.
The principal items of the pursuers' claim consisted of demurrage in respect of the Vitruvia's detention during the twenty-two days while the collision repairs were being carried out, and oncost charges during the same period.
The defenders admitted liability for the collision, but disputed the sum sued for on various grounds. Ultimately the only items of claim upon which the parties were in dispute came to be the sums claimed for demurrage and oncost charges, and the claim for interest.
A proof was allowed and led, in the course of which a figure of 531, 10s. 5d. was adjusted between the parties as the average daily profit of the vessel, on the basis of the profits of the voyage immediately preceding and the voyage immediately succeeding the collision; and the rate of her oncost charges, on the basis of those of the voyage immediately preceding the date when the repairs were carried out, was also agreed at a figure of 127, 10s. per day. At these rates the demurrage claim amounted to 11,693, 8s. 10d., and the claim for oncost charges to 2805.
On 19th July 1922 the Lord Ordinary (Morison) pronounced the following interlocutor: Decerns against the defenders for payment to the pursuers of the sum of 16,030, 13s. 11d. in full
of the conclusions of the summons, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent from 17th February 1921*
Lord Morison'sopinion.The pursuers are the owners of the s.s. Vitruvia. The defenders are the owners of the s.s. Carperby. On 25th January 1920 the Carperby, by reason of the negligence of those in charge, collided with the Vitruvia and caused her damage in the aft portion of the ship. The defenders admit liability for the damage; but they dispute the principles on which the pursuers' claim is assessed, and maintain that the sums claimed are excessive.
The pursuers' schedule of claim is No. 11 of process. The items in it No. 1, No. 4 to the extent of 8, 15s., No. 5 to the extent of 50, No. 6 to the extent of 11, 18s., Nos. 8, 9, 14, and 15, and No. 16 to the extent of 10, 10s. are admitted and not in controversy. A further sum of 30 is adjusted as due by the defenders in connexion with the overhaul of the Vitruvia's cable. The balance of the items in the claim consist of (1) dues and relative outlays paid by the pursuers in connexion with the docking of the Vitruvia, (2) charges for demurrage, and (3) the loss on oncost charges. The defenders dispute their liability for these items in the claim. At the conclusion of the proof it was agreed that the steamer's net profit might be fairly estimated at 531, 10s. 5d. per day, and that the loss on oncost might be taken at 127, 10s. per day. The amount of the charges in the schedule for harbour dues, pilotage, and relative payments was not in dispute.
The admissibility of these claims all depends upon whether the pursuers have shown that the ship was detained for repairs in consequence of the collision, and the large sums claimed under the headings demurrage and oncost charges depend upon whether the period of detention is to be taken at twenty-two days or not. I marked on No. 11 of process at items 12 [daily net profit], 13...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James Buchanan & Company v Stewart Cameron (Drymen) Ltd
...Foundry Co. LtdUNK., (1894) 21 R. 880, The "Olga" v. The "AngliaUNK", (1905) 7 F. 739 and "Vitruvia" S.S. Co. v. Ropner Shipping Co., 1923 S.C. 574. The principles applicable in considering such awards were stated by Lord Atkin in Kolbin & Sons v. Kinnear & CoSC., 1931 S.C. (H.L.) 128 at p.......
-
Clyde Navigation Trustees v Kelvin Shipping Company
...P. D. 48, 6 Asp. M. C. 282. 2 Supra p. 650. 1 13 P. D. 48, 6 Asp. M. C. 282. 2 The case of ‘Vitruvia’ S.S. Co. v. Ropner Shipping Co., 1923 S. C., 574, Lord Skerrington at p. 586, was referred ...
-
Kolbin & Sons v Kinnear & Company S.S. "Altai." Kolbin & Sons v United Shippling Company S.S. "Eduard Woermann."
...[1905] A. C. 392, Lord Halsbury, L.C., at p. 397; Story on Agency, (9th ed.) sec. 264. 3 "Vitruvia" S.S. Co. v. Ropner Shipping Co., 1923 S. C. 574, Lord Skerrington at pp. 586, 587;Callaghan v. Monkland Iron and Steel Co.UNK, (1858) 20 D. 848; Denholm v. London and Edinburgh Shipping Co.UN......
-
Kolbin & Sons v Kinnear & Company S.S. "Altai." Kolbin & Sons v United Shippling Company S.S. "Eduard Woermann."
...Dock Co.,ELR (1882) 7 App. Cas. 591; Dunn & Co. v. Anderston Foundry Co.,UNK (1894) 21 R. 880;"Vitruvia" S.S. Co. v. Ropner Shipping Co., 1923 S. C. 574; Callaghan v. Monkland Iron and Steel Co.,UNK(1858) 20 D. 848; Bannatine's Trustees v. CunninghameUNK,(1872) 10 Macph. 319; Great Central ......