Workington Harbour & Dock Board v Towerfield

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Porter,Lord Normand,Lord Oaksey,Lord Morton of Henryton,Lord Radcliffe
Judgment Date30 June 1950
Judgment citation (vLex)[1950] UKHL J0630-1
Date30 June 1950
CourtHouse of Lords

[1950] UKHL J0630-1

House of Lords

Lord Porter

Lord Normand

Lord Oaksey

Lord Morton of Henryton

Lord Radcliffe

Workington Harbour and Dock Board
and
Owners of Steamship or Vessel "Towerfield"

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Workington Harbour and Dock Board against Owners of Steamship or Vessel "Towerfield", that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 13th, as on Tuesday the 14th, Wednesday the 15th, Thursday the 16th, Monday the 20th, Wednesday the 22d, Thursday the 23d, Monday the 27th, Tuesday the 28th, Wednesday the 29th and Thursday the 30th, days of March last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Workington Harbour and Dock Board, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 9th of July 1948, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of the Owners of the Steamship or Vessel "Towerfield", lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 9th day of July 1948, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Discharged, and that the Decree of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice of the 23d day of May 1947, be, and the same is hereby, Set Aside: And it is further Ordered, That the claim of the plaintiffs be dismissed, and that the counterclaim of the defendants be allowed in respect of damage directly caused to the harbour, including the restoration of the channel to the condition in which it was before the stranding of the steamship "Towerfield", but excluding any loss of revenue to which the defendants have been put thereby, and that, save as aforesaid, the counterclaim of the defendants be dismissed: And it is also further Ordered, That each party do bear and pay their own costs of the Appeal to this House and in the Courts below.

Lord Porter

My Lords,

1

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal which by a majority reversed the decision of the learned judge, found in favour of the Respondents on their claim and dismissed the Appellants' counterclaim. Bucknill L.J., who dissented, would also have allowed the Appeal in part, but so far as the claim is concerned he followed the findings of fact and inferences of Willmer J. and differed only in a legal conclusion as to the Counterclaim which had been put forward by the Respondents.

2

The facts set out below are in the main based upon the narrative of the learned Judge and Lord Justice Bucknill. In substance they are not in dispute.

3

The Plaintiffs are the owners of the steamship "Towerfield," and they claim against the Defendants, the Workington Harbour and Dock Board, in respect of damage sustained by the "Towerfield" through grounding in the approaches to Workington Harbour on the 19th October, 1941. The Defendants deny liability, and counterclaim against the Plaintiffs in respect of loss and damage sustained by them through the grounding of that vessel, which they allege was solely due to the negligence of those in charge of her. Alternatively they claim that in the absence of negligence on the part of those in charge of the "Towerfield" the loss and damage sustained by them constituted damage done by the "Towerfield" to the harbour, in respect of which they contend that under Section 74 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, the Plaintiffs as owners are answerable to them as undertakers. The Defendants admit that in consequence of the grounding the "Towerfield" sustained serious damage and the Plaintiffs in their turn concede that the Defendants suffered loss and damage such as would constitute damage done to the harbour within the meaning of the Act of 1847.

4

The Port of Workington is formed by the estuary of the River Derwent, and comprises an entrance channel, a turning basin, the Prince of Wales' Dock, and a tidal dock and harbour. The entrance channel runs in a northwest to south-east direction, and parallel with it on the south side is a pier, known as the south pier, extending some distance into the sea. The turning basin, which lies at the inner end of the entrance channel, is protected on the north by an L-shaped jetty, known as the north jetty. Seaward of the outer end of the north jetty, and on the north side of the entrance channel there were at one time two perches, the outer of which was approximately opposite the end of the south pier and was known as the barrel perch. The inner perch, which is known as the bush perch, is about half-way between the barrel perch and the end of the north jetty. Vesssels proceeding to the Prince of Wales' Dock, where the principal loading and discharging berths are situated, must come up the entrance channel between the perches on the north side and the south pier on the south side, and upon reaching a certain point must make a turn under port wheel into the turning basin, whence access to the dock is obtained. It is common ground that at the time of the casualty in this case the barrel perch was not in place. It is agreed, however, that the bush perch was there, though its precise location has been the subject of some dispute. Two leading beacons, situated on a waste piece of land called the shipbuilding yard, which lies ahead of a vessel proceeding up the entrance channel, are provided, and these when kept in line are supposed to afford a guide for vessels entering the port.

5

In the year 1931, in consequence of representations made to them by the Defendants, the Admiralty agreed to publish, and did publish as an inset on Chart No. 1346, a plan of Workington Harbour. This inset was expressed to be based on a plan supplied by the Defendants and showed the entrance channel as having a width of 250 ft. Furthermore the line of the leading marks, which is stated to be 131 degrees true is shown as following substantially the middle of this 250 ft. channel—if anything it is a little to the southward of the centre line. It is stated on the inset that in the approach channel and turning basin a depth of 4 1/2 ft. at chart datum is maintained by dredging. This depth corresponds to 7 ft. below L.W.O.S.T., and is in fact the same as that over the Prince of Wales' Dock sill.

6

In fact the information given on the Admiralty Chart Inset is inaccurate and misleading. The advertised dredged depth has seldom, if ever, been maintained throughout the whole of the 250 ft. channel. There is a bar abreast of the seaward end of the south jetty where silt tends to accumulate and where depths substantially less than that advertised are habitually to be found. Also on the south side of the channel along the south pier, and also along the northern side opposite to it, banks tend to form and have the effect of constricting the width of the navigable channel to something substantially less than the advertised width of 250 ft. The formation of these banks depends largely on the weather, the prevailing south-west wind having a tendency to cause a littoral drift of slag and rubble which sweeps along the coast and round the end of the south pier, to be deposited along the side of the channel. Floods in the River Derwent also tend to cause a deposit of silt in the channel, particularly on the north side. In consequence of these difficulties it appears that the Defendants have never really succeeded in maintaining their advertised depth throughout the length and breadth of the entrance channel. Moreover, it is not the fact that the line of the leading beacons leads along the centre of the 250 ft. channel, or to the south of it. On the contrary it leads substantially to the north of the centre line. The reason for this, it appears, is that in 1927, when the Prince of Wales' Dock was opened, the entrance channel was originally constructed to a width of 150 ft. only. The leading beacons were then erected to guide an incoming vessel down the centre of this 150 ft. channel. In 1931 it was decided to widen the channel, by dredging a further width of 100 ft. along the south side. The leading beacons were, however, left in their original positions, so that instead of providing a lead along the centre of the channel as it now is they lead approximately 50 ft. to the northward thereof. The Inset was inaccurate in this respect when it was first published and was inaccurate in 1941 at the time of the casualty to the "Towerfield."

7

In addition to the leading beacons, dredging marks are provided to show the northern and southern limits within which dredging is to take place. These marks consist of two pairs of posts erected in the shipbuilding yard, close to the leading marks. The northern pair of posts, known as the north dredging marks, when in line, indicate the northern limit of dredging. The southern pair of posts, called the south dredging marks, similarly indicate the southern limit.

8

The "Towerfield" was a steel screw steamship of 4,241 tons gross register, 373 ft. long and 52.4 ft. beam, and at the time of her stranding was laden with a cargo of manganese ore. Her draft was 23 ft. forward and 24 ft. aft. On the morning of the 19th she anchored outside the port where she was boarded by Trinity House pilot Craig. In her case pilotage into the harbour was compulsory. The weather was clear with a strong southwesterly breeze, and the tides were spring and making. High water was at 11.8 a.m. with a predicted rise of tide producing a depth of 30 ft. 1 in. on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • Maritime Collisions
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Maritime Law. Second Edition Part VI
    • 21 June 2016
    ...57 (HL) [ The Mostyn ]. See also Gault et al, above note 9 at 307. 131 Tower Field (Owners) v Workington Harbour and Dock Board (1950), [1951] AC 112 (HL) [ Workington Harbour ]. However, this case was decided before the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 (UK), 8 & 9 Geo VI, c 2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT