i-law.com

SWIFT v. REARDON SMITH LINE, LTD., AND JOSEPH RANK, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1

Negligence - Safe plant - Faulty derrick -Defective span wire-Duty of inspection -Alleged negligence of stevedores -Fatal accident to dock labourer employed by stevedores (second defendants) engaged in unloading grain in bulk from first defendants' steamship in dock at Birkenhead - Dismantling of partition in feeder box - Use of derrick to remove stiffener - Snapping of span wire when power applied - Collapse of derrick - Action brought by widow against shipowners and against stevedores-Right of stevedores to indemnity -Cause of break in span wire - Evidence of recent statutory inspection and surveying of ship's gear by engineering firm and of condition of span wire at time of accident-Alleged improper jerking of wire by stevedores' winchman - Liability under Docks Regulations, 1934-Regulations 18 (b), 20 (a), 49.

CARMEL EXPORTERS & IMPORTERS, LTD. v. FRANCIS HUBER (INDIA), LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 15

Contract - Sale of goods - Consensus ad idem-Alleged breach by sellers in failing to ship-Whether firm contract concluded - Negotiations entered into between plaintiffs (English buyers) and defendants (Indian sellers) for sale of 100 tons Alleppey turmeric fingers c. & f. New York-Shipment April/May -Payment to be made by letter of credit against shipping documents- Proposals and counter-proposals as to terms of credit and as to conditions of sale-Failure by defendants to ship in time-Liability of plaintiffs under sub-sale to American buyers-Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for damages for breach-Denial by defendants that firm contract was concluded - Consideration of correspondence between parties - Whether parties ad idem.

THE "DURMITOR."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 22

Collision - River - Meeting - Starboardhand rule-Alteration of course- Signals-Look-out-Collision in St. Clement Reach, River Thames, between steamships The Marchioness and Durmitor-The Marchioness bound up, having just rounded Broadness; Durmitor bound down-Dispute as to relative positions when vessels sighted each other-Whether, as The Marchioness contended, vessels were approaching each other end on, or whether, as Durmitor contended, vessels were approaching each other green to green-Intermittent starboard helm action taken by The Marchioness, whistle signals being sounded-Starboarding by Durmitor followed soon afterwards by hard-a-porting and stopping her engines, no whistle signals being sounded-Full astern action taken by Durmitor when situation became dangerous, three-short-blast signal being sounded-Impact between stem of Durmitor and port side of The Marchioness at about right angle-The Marchioness sunk.

FIRESTONE TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY, LTD. v. VOKINS & CO., LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 32

Lighterage - Short delivery - Proof - Liability of lightermen - London Lighterage Clause-Defendant lightermen engaged by plaintiffs to load bales of rubber from quay to barge for carriage from West India Dock to consignees at Isleworth-Tallies prepared by tally clerk acting for plaintiffs and by defendants' lighterman, showing that 225 bales were loaded into barge- Receipt for 225 bales signed by defendants' lighterman - Outturn of 219 bales-Claim by plaintiffs for short delivery-Plea by defendants that tally was incorrect and that all the bales loaded were delivered; also, assuming the receipt of 225 bales, that defendants were protected by London Lighterage Clause - Evidence of tallying and of opinion expressed at time by defendants' lighterman that only 219 bales were loaded into barge-Unlikelihood of loss in transit - Whether evidence sufficient to displace prima facie proof afforded by receipt-Costs-Validity of their own tally contested by defendants -Facts undisclosed-Reasonableness of plaintiffs in pursuing claim.

DELAMAR v. MANNERINGS.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 40

Sale of ship - Fraudulent misrepresentation -Onus of proof-Damages- Agreement between plaintiff and defendant to exchange motor boats- Action brought by plaintiff alleging that agreement was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation of defendant and/or his agent as to the condition of defendant's boat-Proof of fraud- Questions for jury-Verdict in plaintiff's favour-Damages assessed at £225.

HAYGARTH v. GRAYSON, ROLLO & CLOVER DOCKS, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 49

Damages - Assessment - Appeal against quantum-Power of Court of Appeal to interfere - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff lorry driver when delivering stores to ship under repair in dock-Plaintiff struck by piece of metal falling from ship- Eyesight affected-Liability admitted by defendant repairers-Award of £3000 general damages by Pritchard, J. -Appeal by defendants on ground that award was excessive-Consideration of medical evidence-Whether misinterpreted by learned Judge-Factors to be taken into account in assessing general damages.

PHIPPS v. CUNARD WHITE STAR, LTD. (THE "QUEEN MARY".)

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 54

Collision-Damages-Life claims-Children -Seaman separated from wife-Children borne by woman with whom he was living - Naval rating drowned in collision between cruiser and steamship Queen Mary-Queen Mary in part to blame - Claim under Fatal Accidents Acts brought by unmarried mother (suing on behalf of children) against owners of Queen Mary-Awards made by learned Registrar-Motion by plaintiff in objection on ground that awards were inadequate - Principles to be applied - Matters to be taken into account in assessing award-No award to unmarried mother-Benefits lost to children thereby taken into account- Elements of uncertainty-Discretion of learned Judge.

DANIELS v. FREDERICK LEYLAND & CO., LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 59

Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931-Means of access-Staging-Repairs to ship in dry dock-Work on side of ship-Applicability of Regulations - Common law negligence-System of work-Adequate materials-D., employed by defendant ship-repairers, engaged in bolting plates to side of ship-Staging consisting of platforms of planks supported by trestles-Platforms at different levels - Necessity for D. to proceed from one platform to another-No ladder provided-Platforms reached by scrambling up and down rungs of trestles-Fatal injuries sustained by D. -Fall from staging in collecting his coat, which he had hung at top of trestle - Claim by widow - Alleged breach of common law and/or statutory duty - Duty of employers to provide ladder-Evidence that rungs of trestles were slippery with oil-Contributory negligence-Regulations 1, 11 (b).

DALEY v. R. & H. GREEN AND SILLEY WEIR, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 64

Negligence-Means of access-System of working-Repairs to ship-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff boilermaker employed by defendant ship-repairers - Plaintiff working in cofferdam, 3 ft. 6 in. deep and 2 ft. 6 in. wide, between ship's tanks-Attempt to leave cofferdam by standing on tin box -Fall-Injury to back-Claim by plaintiff alleging breach by defendants of their common law duty-Contentions that lighting was inadequate; that a ladder should have been provided for entering and leaving cofferdam; and that planks should have been provided to form a firm foothold on top of the tanks - Denial by defendants that ladder was a necessity, with a further plea that intercostals provided a safe means of access-Dispute as to existence of intercostals - Proof of personal injuries sustained by plaintiff - Medical evidence as to malingering.

WILLIS v. CLAXTON.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 70

Sale of ship-Breach of warranty and/or condition-Damages-Cost of overhaul -Loss of use-Sale of speedboat by defendant to plaintiff, S. acting as intermediary-Boat advertised for sale by defendant and represented as having been "repainted"; as having a Chrysler Imperial 114 h.p. engine; and as having had a "complete overhaul by authorized Chrysler agents"-Plaintiff informed by S. that motor boat was for sale-S. instructed by plaintiff to negotiate with defendant for sale of boat-S. fully aware at time that there had been no "complete overhaul"- Receipt for purchase money given by defendant in respect of sale of "Chriscraft and Chrysler marine engine (rebored and reconditioned) and gear, also spare engine for same"-Boat alleged to be in unsatisfactory condition on delivery-Claim by plaintiff for damages for breach of warranty and/or condition-Engine not in efficient running order-Dispute as to cause-Evidence of sinking at moorings -Relationship between parties and S. considered.

THE "GAMRIE BAY."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 84

Collision-Look-out-Vessels approaching each other - Courses - Helm action - Collision in broad daylight between motor fishing boat Marjory and steam drifter Gamrie Bay in Stornoway Harbour-Marjory, having cast off from coal hulk Portugal (which was on an easterly heading), on a southerly course taking her across bows of coal hulk Cretetree (which was also on a easterly heading and was about three cables south of Portugal)-Gamrie Bay, having cast off from the blind side of Cretetree and rounded her bows, on a northerly course for Stornoway No. 1 pier-Plea by Marjory that vessels were safely approaching port to port, and that Gamrie Bay ported across her bows, making collision inevitable-Plea by Gamrie Bay that vessels were safely approaching starboard to starboard, and that Marjory starboarded-Impact between bow of Gamrie Bay and port side of Marjory, Marjory being sunk- Evidence of Gamrie Bay in conflict with pleaded case, it being stated by her skipper that vessels, on sighting, were on crossing courses.

BOILER INSPECTION & INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY OF CANADA, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 91

Insurance - Explosion - "Loss from an accident as herein defined"-Damage by explosion and fire - Exclusion of fire-Cause of loss-Full claim met by arrangement with fire companies - Right of assured to sue under accident policy - "Signification" - Whether assured had interest in proceedings - Concurrent insurance with fire companies against damage by explosion- Explosion in "pressure containers" excepted-Insurance policy issued by defendants covering plaintiffs against

loss (. . . including loss of the kind described in Sect. IV) from an accident as herein defined to an object described herein.

Agreement by defendant insurers

Sect. I. To pay the assured for loss on the property of the assured directly damaged by such accident . . . excluding (a) loss from fire (or from the use of water or other means to extinguish fire), (b) loss from an accident caused by fire . . . (e) loss from any indirect result of an accident. Sect. IV. To pay . . . such amounts as the assured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the liability of the assured, including liability for loss of services, on account of bodily injuries (including death at any time resulting therefrom) sustained by any person and caused by such accident . . .

"Accident" defined in policy as meaning

a sudden and accidental tearing asunder of the object or any part thereof caused by pressure of steam, air, gas, water or other liquid, therein, or the sudden and accidental crushing inward of the object or any part thereof caused by vacuum therein; and shall also mean a sudden and accidental cracking of any cast iron part of the object, if such cracking permits the leakage of said steam, air, gas, water or other liquid, but leakage at valves, fittings, joints or connections shall not constitute an accident.

"Objects" insured in plaintiffs' mill, including bleacher tank normally used for bleaching linseed oil-Tank used for blenching turpentine-Door of tank blown off by inside pressure of gas which, on admixture with air in room, formed an explosive mixture - Explosion, probably due to presence of naked gas flame or electric spark, followed by fire - Evidence of flash or flame seen just before explosion-Claim brought by plaintiffs against defendants in respect of loss arising from explosion -Full settlement by fire companies both in respect of fire damage and in respect of damage due to explosion, plaintiffs agreeing to assign to fire companies all plaintiffs' "rights, title and interest in and to" plaintiffs' Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. P.C. 92 claim against defendants - Defences: that loss was not caused by "accident" as defined in policy, but by subsequent explosion; that loss was due to fire; that "accident" was not direct cause of loss; that, plaintiffs having received full indemnity from fire companies, the present action was no longer maintainable; and that there was concurrent insurance by the fire companies in respect of loss or damage by explosion entitling defendants to invoke the "Other Property Insurance Clause" of their policy and to apportion their liability with the fire companies- Civil Code of Lower Canada, Sects. 1570, 1571-Code of Civil Procedure of the Province of Quebec, Arts. 77, 81.

THE "CELTIC QUEEN."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 104

Collision - River - Turning - Vessel approaching-Respective duties-Collision in Woolwich Reach, River Thames, between steamships Bergenhus and Celtic Queen-Both vessels bound up, Celtic Queen having passed Bergenhus some time previously-Steps taken by Celtic Queen to round under starboard wheel so as to tie up at North Woolwich Tiers, signals being sounded -Porting by Bergenhus to pass astern of Celtic Queen-Impact between port quarter of Celtic Queen and starboard side of Bergenhus-Dispute as to place of collision, north or south of mid-channel -Whether Celtic Queen came astern-Probabilities-Inference to be drawn from nature of damage-Port of London River By-Laws, 1938, Rule 30.

UNITED BRITISH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. MINISTER OF FOOD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 111

Charter-party - Demurrage - Dispatch money - Two ports of discharge - "Cargo to be discharged at the average rate of"-Calculation of lay days- "Austral" Charter-party (as amended) - Chartered vessel, loaded at Australian port with full cargo of wheat in bulk and in bags, to proceed to U.K. as ordered by charterer and there deliver her cargo "as provided for in Clause 22"-Charterer's option to order vessel to discharge at any two safe ports - Further provisions in charter: 17. Should the vessel not be loaded or discharged at the rate herein stipulated, demurrage shall be paid at the rate of 8d. British Sterling per gross register ton per running day and pro rata for any part of a day. Such demurrage shall be paid day by day, when and where incurred. 22

BRIGHT v. THAMES STEVEDORING COMPANY.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 116

Negligence - Safe premises - Injury to workman - Liability of employer - Employer not in control of premises- Duty-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dockworker employed by defendant stevedoring company to operate electric bogie in London docks -Surface of dock in defective condition -Plaintiff thrown from bogie on journey back to defendants' store at end of day in semi-darkness-Alleged duty upon defendants to have provided light on bogie-Evidence that lights were not normally provided.

BLANE STEAMSHIPS, LTD. v. MINISTER OF TRANSPORT.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 121

Charter-party-Option to purchase-Hire to cease upon constructive total loss- Obligation upon charterers to insure -Policy moneys recoverable to be assigned to owner-Exercise of option by charterers - Grounding of ship resulting in constructive total loss - Effect upon option-Ship under time-charter from M.O.T. - Provisions of charter-party: 7. . . . The charterers shall throughout this charter-party insure the ship and keep her insured at the charterers' own expense against all the usual marine and war risks for and on a valuation of £130,000 sterling . . . and shall assign to the owner the current policies of insurance and all moneys insured by or to become payable under the said policies and the full benefit thereof . . . 8. . . . Should the ship become a constructive total loss, such loss shall be deemed to have occurred on and hire under this charter-party shall cease as from the day of the casualty resulting in such loss . . . 11. . . . The charterers shall have the option to be exercised by notice in writing given to the owner not later than three months before the expiration of this charter-party to purchase the ship as she then lies for the sum of £130,000 (basic price for purchase) less depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum for the period between the date of delivery hereunder and the date of transfer of the ship to the charterers.

Grounding of ship on Sept. 5, 1950- Notice of abandonment given to underwriters by charterers on Sept. 6, notice being confirmed by M.O.T. on Sept. 8- Abandonment not accepted-Option to purchase exercised by charterers on Sept. 7-Whether ship a constructive total loss at time option exercised, resulting in frustration of charter-party and consequently of option as one of its terms-Divisibility of charter-party terms-Subsequent payment by underwriters on basis of total loss- Claim by charterers for declaration that they were entitled to benefit of policy moneys - Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 21-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 60-Law of Property Act, 1925, Sect. 47.

COULAM v. CONSOLIDATED FISHERIES, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 135

Negligence-Safe appliances-Ship's windlass -Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff deckhand on defendants' steam trawler-Windlass faulty in that a pawl was fractured, making it difficult to weigh anchor - Chief engineer informed, but difficulty overcome by third hand before he (chief engineer) arrived on scene-No steps taken to repair defect in windlass, although blacksmith came aboard to do other repair work-Plaintiff injured on next occasion when it became necessary to weigh anchor - Whether defendants negligent in failing to provide adequate guards-Contributory negligence.

SCHOOLMAN v. HALL.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 139

Jewellery insurance - Non-disclosure - Waiver - Proposal form - Limited nature of questions-"It is agreed that this form shall be the basis of the contract"-Duty of full disclosure of material facts-Jewellers' Block Policy issued by defendant underwriter to plaintiff after he had completed proposal form-Questions in proposal form restricted to business matters within the previous five years, those relating to trading character being unlimited in time-Provision in proposal form that "this form shall be the basis of the contract should policy be issued"-Burglary claim under policy-Loss admitted to be genuine -Claim under policy rejected by defendant on ground that plaintiff had failed to disclose that he had a criminal record some years before the policy was issued-Trial before Ormerod, J., and jury-Plea by plaintiff that having regard to the terms of the proposal form defendant had waived his right to full disclosure-Ruling by learned Judge that there was no evidence of waiver to be put to the jury-Finding by jury that criminal record was a material fact which should have been disclosed - Judgment entered for defendant - Appeal by plaintiff - Alleged misdirection as to meaning and effect of proposal form-Whether limiting duty of full disclosure.

THE "GEE-WHIZ."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 145

Ship-Master-Wages and disbursements- National Health Insurance contributions -Agreement by employer to pay- Claim for wages by master of motor yacht-Right to include contributions as part of wages.

THE "HESSELMOOR" AND THE "SERGEANT."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 146

Limitation of action-Extension of time- Discretion of Court-Salvage action- Services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiffs' tug to defendants' dumb barges in River Thames on Oct. 1, 1948 -Salvage denied by defendants- Discussions between parties' solicitors over 14 months, during which time plaintiffs' solicitors were made aware that if an award were made against defendants, defendants would claim indemnity from third parties- Suggestion made by defendants' solicitors in December, 1949, that action should be settled-No further steps taken by plaintiffs' solicitors until November, 1950-Writ issued on Feb. 2, 1951-Motion by defendants to stay proceedings on ground that they were brought out of time-Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, Sect. 8:

No action shall be maintainable to enforce any claim or lien against a vessel or her owners in respect of . . . any salvage services, unless proceedings therein are commenced within two years from the date when the . . . salvage services were rendered . . .

Provided that any Court having jurisdiction to deal with an action to which this section relates may, in accordance with the Rules of the Court, extend any such period, to such extent and on such conditions as it thinks fit. . . .

Whether plaintiffs had shown good reason why the Court should exercise its discretion in allowing the action to proceed.

L. S. HARRIS & CO. v. SANGSTER.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 149

Contract-Breach-Agreement to employ assessors to formulate fire damage claim-Termination of agreement- Alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by assessor' representative inducing making of agreement - Proof - Probabilities-Fire at defendant's premises - Representative of plaintiff fire assessors sent to interview defendant - Memorandum signed by defendant whereby he agreed to employ plaintiffs to act on his behalf and to pay them commission on the settlement with defendant's insurance company- Agreement terminated by defendant on ground that he was induced to enter into agreement by fraud, in that plaintiffs' representative wilfully created in defendant's mind the impression that he (plaintiffs' representative) was acting for defendant's insurers - Onus of proof of fraud - Conflicting evidence of events leading up to signing of memorandum and of subsequent telephone conversations between parties.

WICKENS v. ASSOCIATED PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURERS, LTD., AND GLEN LINE, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 162

Negligence - Bad stowage - Shifting of cargo while unloading barge-Unsafe system of work - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer- Plaintiff, employed by second defendants, in hold of first defendants' barge, unloading cargo of cement in bags - Sudden movement of cargo, trapping plaintiff's leg-Evidence as to method of stowage and discharge - Allegation that cargo was improperly stowed by first defendants' lightermen -Whether second defendants failed in their duty to provide safe system of work - Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulation 41.

INSTONE LINES, LTD. v. BRITISH MEXICAN PETROLEUM CO., LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 167

Sale of goods-Fitness for purpose- Bunker fuel oil-Contamination with water-Damage to engines-Repairs- Detention - Plaintiffs' ship bunkered with fuel oil supplied from defendants' shore tanks - Allegation that oil was not of merchantable quality in that it contained an excessive quantity of water, resulting in damage to the engines and in detention for repairs- Claim for damages for breach of implied warranty and/or condition- Onus of proof-Evidence as to method of bunkering; as to sampling; as to presence of water in fuel oil; as to the draining off of a large quantity of water from the ship's bunkers; and as to damage to engines necessitating repair.

MADDOCK v. SCRUTTONS, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 181

Negligence - Safe system of working - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer on board ship-Plaintiff and other dock labourers, employed by defendants, instructed by foreman to close doors in side of ship and to secure them with steel beams (each weighing 178 lb.), which fitted into slots - Operation carried out by plaintiff and three fellow-workmen, two being stationed at each end of beam-First beam put safely in position - Second beam inserted in slot at one end, when it slipped out, fell, and crushed plaintiff's hand - Alleged duty upon defendants to provide derrick to hold up beam - Whether defendants should have employed someone to supervise the operation-Onus of proof of negligence.

EDWARDS v. FREDERICK LEYLAND & Co., LTD. (SUED AND TRADING AS WEST COAST STEVEDORING COMPANY, A FIRM).

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 184

Neglignece - Safe system of working - Protection of eyes - Provision of goggles - Plaintiff employed by defendants as winchman to unload cargo of seed in bags - Bags rotten and bleeding - Excessive dust - High wind - Infection of plaintiff's eye due to dust - Claim by plaintiff against defendants alleging that bags should have been stitched in ship's hold prior to discharge, and that goggles should have been provided.

THAMES STEAM TUG AND LIGHTERAGE COMPANY, LTD. v. UNIVERSAL PURIFIERS, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 187

Negligence - Dangerous goods - Implied warranty of safety-Res ipsa loquitur- Damage to plaintiffs' steel barge- Plaintiffs under contract with defendants to convey carboys of sulphuric acid by barge for delivery into steamship in London dock-Part of consignment successfully unloaded into steamship -Considerable delay in unloading remainder-Barge found to be damaged by acid from cracked carboy-Cause of defect unknown-Probabilities-Onus of proof.

THE "HERO."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 191

Collision - River - Turning in river - Signals - Collision between plaintiffs' tug Gusty and defendants' tug Hero in Battersea Reach, River Thames - Gusty (with two lighters in tow) turning to port from an up-river course in order to make for wharf on south side-Hero bound down-Dispute as to whether Gusty sounded turning signal -Duty while turning to repeat such signal "to any approaching vessel, which latter vessel shall take action to avoid collision" - Signal admittedly not repeated when Hero was sighted by Gusty - Effect upon onus of proof - Port of London River By-laws, 1938, Rule 30.

THE "READY."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 196

Collision - Crossing vessels - Respective duties - Look-out - Seamanship - Collision between steamship Fulham and Trinity House tender Ready off Tongue Sand Tower, Thames Estuary -Fulham inward bound; Ready on voyage tending to various buoys in vicinity-Vessels sighted by each other on crossing courses at distance of about three miles, starboard side of Fulham being open on port bow of Ready - Duty of Fulham to give way-Course and speed maintained by Fulham-No action taken by Ready until about two minutes before collision (at distance of approximately two cables), when she hard-a-starboarded and stopped her engines and subsequently put them full astern - Movement of both vessels hampered by proximity of Tongue Sand Tower-Impact between stem of Ready and starboard side of Fulham- Whether Ready was negligent in not taking immediate astern action- Collision Regulations, Arts. 19, 21 (and Note), 22, 23.

THEODOROU v. CHESTER.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 204

Marine insurance - All risks - Damage to cargo-Dispute as to cause-Accidental or normal transit risks-Onus of proof - Consecutive "all risks" policies issued by defendant underwriter in respect of plaintiff's consignment of bleached sponges shipped for sale from London to New York in June, 1947, and subsequently (no sale having been effected) from New York to London in April, 1949-Goods covered against "all risks of loss and/or damage however arising, irrespective of percentage . . ." - Meaning of "all risks" - Sponges tightly packed in wooden cases or in bales wrapped in hessian - Inspection made by plaintiff in June, 1949, after return of goods to London - Claim immediately made upon underwriters in respect of shortages and damage - Shortage not disputed - Dispute as to damage and as to its cause-Allegation by plaintiff that goods were stained by water, dirt, paint and other substances penetrating the hessian and the cases-Contention by defendant that damage was due to normal transit risks of dust and dirt combined with atmospheric moisture- Evidence that sponges were in good condition up to the time they left New York-Surveys made on behalf of both parties - Effect of atmospheric humidity-Conflict of expert evidence -Onus upon plaintiff to disprove defendant's theories as to cause of damage-Measure of damage.

R. M. OWEN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v. EDWARD SASSOON.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 266

Revenue - Income tax - Assessment - Lloyd's underwriter not ordinarily resident in United Kingdom - Securities deposited in accordance with Trust Deed-Interest on securities- Exemption under Schedule C - Liability under Schedule D-Trust Deed entered into by respondent whereby, in consideration of his being admitted an underwriting member of Lloyd's and as a guarantee against his default, he was required to deposit securities to be held by Lloyd's as trustees-Deposit of Colonial Stock and Savings Bonds to form Trust Fund- Annual income from securities at free disposal of respondent except in case of default in payment of insurance claims -Premium Trust Deed entered into between respondent and other members of his Lloyd's underwriting syndicate and Lloyd's whereby all premiums, etc., were to be held upon trust and to be exclusively available for the payment of any claims, etc., in his underwriting account-No default by respondent in his underwriting account-Interest received on Colonial Stock and Savings Bonds-Whether forming part of profits of underwriting business and chargeable to tax - Income Tax Act, 1918, Schedule D, Case I-Finance Act, 1940, Sects. 21, 60.

DOOLEY v. CAMMELL LAIRD & CO., LTD., AND MERSEY INSULATION COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 271

Negligence-Joint tortfeasors-Breach of Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931, by occupiers of yard-Common law negligence of sub-contractors-Contribution - Remoteness of damage - Nervous shock - Ship being fitted out in first defendants' shipbuilding yard-Insulation work on board being carried out by second defendants - Plaintiff crane driver in employ of first defendants- Crane and driver (plaintiff) loaned by first defendants to second defendants- Defect in sling supplied by second defendants, resulting in slingload of repairing materials being precipitated into ship's hold in which men were working-No physical injuries in fact caused to workmen by fall and no risk of physical impact upon plaintiff- Claim brought by plaintiff in respect of nervous shock thereby sustained- Alleged failure by first defendants to take "Precautions against injury from falling materials" as required by Shipbuilding Regulations - Regulations re-enacted by Factories Act, 1937- "Risk of bodily injury to persons employed"-Duty of second defendants towards plaintiff-Extent of duty of care - Foreseeable danger - Bodily injury to persons not actually within risk of physical impact - Measure of damages - Third-party indemnity proceedings brought by first defendants against second defendants-Right of first defendants to contribution-Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931, Regulations 33, 36-Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, Sect. 6- Factories Act, 1937, Sect. 60.

HENRY ABBOTT v. WILLIAM SULLIVAN AND HENRY ISETT, CORNPORTERS COMMITTEE MEMBERS; TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION; SAMUEL PLATT; AND THE PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 283

Trade union-Cornporters-Suspension of cornporter-Removal from cornporters register-Powers of Cornporters Committee -Trade union rules-Appeals- Plaintiff employed as ganger cornporter in Port of London-Complaint made against plaintiff alleging breach of working rule-Routine meeting of Cornporters Committee (of which plaintiff was member and at which plaintiff was present) at which complaint was investigated-Fine imposed on plaintiff -Special meeting of committee subsequently called by P. (union representative attending committee) - Members not notified of real purpose of meeting, which was in fact to investigate an alleged assault made by plaintiff upon P. at conclusion of previous committee meeting-Plaintiff notified though he did not attend - Decision of committee that plaintiff's name be removed from cornporters register - Port of London Authority informed to that effect-National Dock Labour Board notified by Port of London Authority that plaintiff should not be directed to them for employment as cornporter- Complaint subsequently made by plaintiff to union, it eventually being agreed that appeal should be heard by area emergency and general purposes committee of union-Decision of appeal committee that

period of suspension from cornporters register already sustained by [plaintiff] is a sufficient penalty and that he be reinstated on the cornporters register with an opportunity to regain his former position as ganger in accordance with the normal procedure within the industry.

- Decision of appeal committee accepted by Cornporters Committee "provided a satisfactory undertaking is received from [plaintiff] that he will abide by the regulations of the cornporters industry and constitution of the Cornporters Committee" - Plaintiff informed that he should get in touch with P. "with a view to giving required undertaking" - Authority of Cornporters Committee as a recognized body of union - Right to impose special conditions for reinstatement - Power of expulsion-Plaintiff not reinstated on cornporters register - Action for damages for loss of earnings brought by plaintiff against certain members of Cornporters Committee; against the union; against P.; and against Port of London Authority.

CLARK v. MARITIME LIGHTERAGE COMPANY, LTD., AND BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 315

Negligence-Loading of barge-Collapse of cargo-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer-Plaintiff, employed by second defendants, engaged with others in second defendants' employ in stowage of bags of oil cake in first defendants' barge-Cargo loaded from ship to barge by derrick, thus limiting the area in which cargo could be deposited-Barge moved by lighterman from time to time to permit suitable distribution of cargo-Fall of bags from stack in centre of barge, resulting in injuries to plaintiff- Evidence as to respective duties of defendants as to distribution and manner of stowage-Action commenced against first defendants-Denial of liability by first defendants with a further allegation that second defendants were responsible-Second defendants joined by plaintiff-Costs.

FERGUSON v. DURASTIC, LTD., AND BEN LINE STEAMERS, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 324

Damages-Assessment-Personal in juries- Permanent incapacity-Matters to be taken into account-Plaintiff labourer injured in accident on board ship- Action brought against employers (shiprepairers) and against shipowners- Liability admitted by both defendants- Evidence that plaintiff was permanently incapacitated for doing his normal work; that he was at present in a neurasthenic condition; and that he would eventually be fitted for light work-Awards in respect of general damages (£1000); loss of earnings (£1422); and loss of earning capacity (£2000)-Total reduced by moiety of sick benefits and other payments (£187) which had accrued "or probably will accrue," in accordance with provisions of Sect. 2 of Law Reform (Personal Injuries Act), 1948 - Net award: £4235.

SHOTTER v. R. & H. GREEN AND SILLEY WEIR, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 329

Negligence - Safe system - Inspection of apparatus - Delegation of duty by employers-Contributory negligence of employee-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff boiler-maker employed by defendant ship-repairers - Plaintiff engaged in repair work to ship in wet dock-Use of oxy-acetylene apparatus- Apparatus drawn from defendants' store by plaintiff and his mate-Defect in rubber tubing-Plaintiff burned- Liability of employers-Alleged custom in shipbuilding trade for inspection of apparatus to be left to workmen who would be operating it - Duty of employers to make periodic inspection -Delegation of such duty to plaintiff's fellow-workmen-Failure by plaintiff to make proper inspection-Liability of defendants at common law and under Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931 - Regulation 25.

TWISS v. W. H. RHODES & SON, LTD., AND MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 333

Negligence - Loading of barge - Bad stowage - Alternative methods of loading - Duty of inspection - Safe system - Novus actus interveniens - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer in unloading bags of grain from barge - Collapse of bags - Claim against employers, alleging breach of statutory duty under Docks Regulations, 1934, and common law negligence - Plea by employers that collapse of bags was due to negligent manner in which they were stowed by Mersey Docks and Harbour Board - Harbour Board joined as defendants- Responsibility of Harbour Board towards plaintiff-Evidence that owing to plaintiff's inexperience cargo was not being unloaded in normal safe way - Contributory negligence - Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulation 41.

TAYLOR v. R. & H. GREEN AND SILLEY WEIR, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 345

Negligence-Safe means of access-Sound construction - Maintenance - Sill of dry dock-"Gangway" or "floor"- Breach of common law and/or statutory duty - Contributory negligence -Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff riveter employed by defendant ship-repairers-Plaintiff engaged in repair of ship in defendants' dry dock-Accident to plaintiff caused by foot slipping on compressed air hoses connected to wall of dock and lying along sill-Evidence that sill was broken away near scene of accident in order to make room for ship-Whether sill a "gangway" or part of "floor" of dock-"Place at which any person has at any time to work"-Defendants' common law duty-Factories Act, 1937, Sects. 25 (1), 26 (1).

CAWOOD, WHARTON & CO., LTD. v. SAMUEL WILLIAMS & SONS, LTD (THE "CAWOOD III.")

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 350

Negligence-Damage to barge-Bad berth - Onus of proof - Contract between barge-owners and wharfingers - Obligation upon barge-owners to have barges available for loading by wharfingers - Implied term - Duty of wharfingers - Warning notice exhibited at wharf - Effect - Contract between defendant wharfingers and plaintiff barge-owners whereby defendants agreed to collect anthracite by rail and tip it into plaintiffs' barges at defendants' jetty - Plaintiffs' barge Cawood III moored against boom at defendants' jetty, part loaded and left unattended over week-end - Barge found sunk - Evidence that hull was pierced - Allegation by plaintiffs that damage was caused by bolts protruding from top side of boom, which by some means had turned over on its side - Probabilities - Printed clause attached to letters forming contract stating that defendants "will not in any circumstances . . . be liable for any loss damage or detention whatsoever howsoever whensoever or wheresoever occasioned in respect of any goods entrusted to or carried or handled by the [defendants] . . ." - Implication that contract was subject to term that jetty was in safe and proper condition for plaintiffs' barges to lie at and that presence of boom liable to cause damage constituted breach of that term - Whether such implied term negatived by warning notice exhibited at jetty and providing: All ships, vessels, barges with or without the cargoes laden therein, are allowed to lie at or off these premises upon the express condition that they do so solely at their own risk and that the company will not be responsible for any damage or loss, loss of life, personal injury or accident howsoever the same may be occasioned and even if so occasioned The "Cawood III." Adm. 351 by the negligence or breach of duty of their servants or agents or other persons for whose acts they might otherwise be responsible and owners of ships, vessels, and barges agree to indemnify the company against any of the foregoing claims including all costs and expenses by whomsoever made.

Contention by defendants that plaintiffs had done business with them for a number of years, that warning notices had habitually been displayed, and that accordingly terms of such notice should be impliedly read into contract -Extent of duty owed by wharfingers - Casualty of an unusual nature - Whether risk should have been foreseen -Effect of warning notice, bearing in mind plaintiffs' obligation under contract to have barge available for loading at defendants' jetty - Nature of warning conveyed by notice.

THE "HARTLEPOOL."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 361

Collision - Dragging - Grounded vessels - Seamanship - Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Sirena and defendants' steamship Hartlepool in Bona Harbour - Ships originally lying safely at anchor - Sudden squalls, causing Sirena to drag her anchor and to be driven aground - Hartlepool also found to be dragging - Unsuccessful attempts made by helm and engine action to weigh anchor and proceed to sea - Grounding close to windward of Sirena - Ranging and rolling by Hartlepool against Sirena, causing damage - Claim and counterclaim.

ATHEL LINE, LTD. v. MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD. (THE "ATHELQUEEN.")

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 369

Docks, Harbours, etc. - Obstruction in dock - Damage to ship - Duty of dock board - Standard of care - Exceptional circumstances - Claim brought by shipowners against dock board in respect of bottom damage to ship sustained during period of war - Allegation that damage resulted from striking submerged object in dock and occurred during ship's passage through - Onus of proof - Nature of damage - Probabilities - Evidence of periodical and systematic sweeping operations carried out by dock board and of particular sweeping operations carried out after air raid "incidents" were reported - Further sweeping operation carried out immediately damage to plaintiffs' ship was reported - No obstruction found.

HATTON v. MILLBURN GARAGE COMPANY AND OTHERS.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 379

Contract - Breach - Non-delivery - Failure of consideration - Measure of damages - American landing craft offered for sale - Offer brought to notice of G. (salvage contractor) by L. & Co., who held themselves out as being in a position to dispose of craft - Craft inspected by C. (of B. & C., marine engineers) at suggestion of G. - Opinion expressed by C. that substantial profit could be made from separate sale of diesel engines from craft - Proposition put by C. and G. to plaintiff, who immediately contracted with L. & Co. for purchase of craft and sent them a banker's draft in payment - Dispute as to relationship between plaintiff and B. & C. in transaction - Evidence that L. & Co. were partners with M.G. in this and other transactions, and that M.G. had in fact paid L. & Co. for the craft - Craft not delivered to plaintiff - Claim brought by plaintiff against M. G., L. & Co., and B. & C. (who refused to be joined as plaintiffs) - Settlement of action against M.G. on terms that M.G. should return purchase price (£9500) plus £500 damages, and contribute £3500 towards plaintiff's costs - Judgment entered for plaintiff against L. & Co. for £25,000, less sum recovered from M.G., with costs, and for B. & C. against plaintiff, with costs.

LLOYDS BANK, LTD. v. EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 385

Accident insurance - Exclusions under policy - "Over the age of 65 years" - Death - Personal injuries - Motor insurance policy issued by defendant company to R. containing "Personal Accidents" clause by which company agreed to pay

If the insured shall sustain any personal injury caused by violent accidental external and visible means whilst mounting into, whilst riding in or whilst alighting from any private motor car whilst such motor car is being used for private or business purposes (as defined in the schedule hereto) and if such injury shall be the sole, direct and immediate cause within ninety days of the occurrence of such injury of:-

(a) death of the insured, the sum of £1000 . . . Provided always that under this clause (No. 4) the company shall not be liable to pay compensation in respect of personal injuries sustained by or happening to the insured if under the age of 16 years or over the age of 65 years . . .

Personal injuries sustained by R. in motor accident, resulting in his death within 90 days - Claim by executors to recover under policy - Whether proviso as to age was confined to liability for personal injuries, or extended to case of death - Meaning of "over the age of 65 years" - Submission that R., not having attained his 66th birthday, was not "over the age of 65 years" - Construction of policy.

HORTON v. LONDON GRAVING DOCK COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 389

Negligence-Dangerous premises-Invitee -Duty of occupier-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff welder while working in fish house of trawler which was being repaired in wet dock-Plaintiff's employers under sub-contract with defendant ship-repairers - Defendants in occupation of ship but not occupiers of dock-Fall from staging erected by defendants - Common law claim brought by plaintiff - Cause of fall - Dangerous nature of staging-Alleged duty upon occupier to give warning of unusual danger-Meaning of "unusual danger"-Evidence that plaintiff had worked on staging for some weeks before accident, and that he had complained of the danger to defendants' charge-hand - Volenti non fit injuria.

O'BRIEN v. "GRANFORD" (OWNERS).

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 414

Docks Regulations, 1934 - Safe means of access - Breach of statutory duty - Ship lying at quay for purpose of coaling - Duty of shipowners - Provision of ladder as means of access from ship to shore - Failure to provide gangway - Whether not reasonably practicable - Onus of proof - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff coal trimmer - Plaintiff in employ of defendant shipowners - Ship bunkering at quay - Duty of shipowners under Regulation 9 to provide as safe means of access "(a) Where reasonably practicable the ship's accommodation ladder or a gangway or a similar construction . . . (b) In other cases a ladder of sound material and adequate length which shall be properly secured to prevent slipping" - Ladder provided by shipowners - Onus of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to comply with Regulation 9 (a) - Whether sufficient answer to plaintiff's claim that ladder provided was reasonably safe - Contributory negligence.

THE "NORDEN."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 420

Collision - Canal - Ship moored at berth - Ranging - Moorings - Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Fort Vermillion and defendants' motor vessel Norden in Manchester Ship Canal - Fort Vermillion moored at berth; Norden bound up canal, having just left lock - Impact between starboard side of Norden and port side of Fort Vermillion - Damage to Fort Vermillion - Whether due to Norden being angled to starboard of her up-canal course or to ranging outwards by Fort Vermillion - Onus of proof - Evidence as to moorings of Fort Vermillion.

THE "QUO VADIS."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 425

Practice - Admiralty Court - Stay of proceedings - Lis alibi pendens - Discretion of Court - Collision between Dutch motor vessel Quo Vadis and Belgian motor vessel Rolla in Dutch territorial waters - Action commenced in Dutch Court against Rolla - Unconditional appearance entered by Rolla - Proceedings subsequently commenced in Admiralty Court by Rolla against Quo Vadis - Conditional appearance entered by Quo Vadis - Motion by Quo Vadis that proceedings in Admiralty Court should be stayed - Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 41 (a).

IN RE AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN FUERST BROS. & CO., LTD., AND R. S. STEPHENSON (CATER, COLLINGS & CO., LTD., INTERVENING).

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 429

Arbitration - Arbitrator - Misconduct of umpire - Arbitrators' arguments concluded before umpire - Subsequent request made by umpire to seller's arbitrator for further evidence - Award made without hearing further argument by buyers' arbitrator - Failure by umpire to advise buyers' arbitrator of the intention to obtain further evidence - Waiver - Alleged practice of commercial arbitrators to keep each other informed in such circumstances - Incorporated Oil Seed Association Contracts (Form No. 41) for sale of Indian groundnuts - "Subject to shippers obtaining export licence" - Failure to ship - Claim by buyers against seller - Arbitrators appointed by each side - Failure to agree - Appointment of umpire - Arguments raised by arbitrators before umpire concerning Indian shippers' inability to obtain export licence - Hearing concluded - Subsequent request made by umpire to seller's arbitrator that he should obtain direct evidence from Indian shippers that licence had been applied for and refused - No communication made by umpire to buyers' arbitrator - Buyers' arbitrator informed by seller's arbitrator of umpire's request and of result of his (seller's arbitrator's) inquiries - Alleged commercial practice for one arbitrator to advise other arbitrator of such requests by umpire for further evidence - Validity - Authority of arbitrator to waive his principal's rights - Award made by umpire without further hearing - Motion by buyers to set aside award.

MEHMET DOGAN BEY v. G. G. ABDENI & CO., LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 433

Charter-party - Breach - Payment of freight - Delay - Devaluation of pound sterling - Loss on conversion into foreign currency - Measure of damages - Remoteness - Whether question of law or fact - Functions of Judge and jury - Power of arbitrator - Charter of Turkish ship to carry full cargo of barley from Lattakia (Syria) to United Kingdom - Freight to be "paid in London in advance, discountless, on signing bills of lading," in sterling to owner's London agents - Loading completed and bills of lading signed on Sept. 3, 1949 - Owner's agents instructed by owner to remit charter freight to Turkey when received - Charterers' London agents notified by their principals (of Beirut) on Sept. 7 that freight was being remitted - Freight not received by charterers' agents until Sept. 13 - Cheque for freight received by owner's agents from charterers' agents on Sept. 15 - No steps to remit freight taken by owner's agents until Sept. 20 -Devaluation of pound sterling on Sept. 18 - Claim by owner against charterers in respect of resultant loss -Arbitration-Award that charterers were in breach in failing to remit the freight on the due date, but that the loss due to devaluation was "not reasonably foreseeable" at the date of the charter and "did not naturally and directly flow from" that breach, and that accordingly the owner was not entitled to recover in respect of the loss sustained-Case stated-Whether question of remoteness was an issue of law (or of mixed fact and law), or an issue of fact.

ARABIAN ECONOMY AND THRIFT TRADING COMPANY v. HUSBANDS' YACHT YARD (CRACKNORE), SOUTHHAMPTON, LTD., AND R. A. LISTER (MARINE SALES), LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 443

Practice - Consent order - Breach of undertaking - Contempt of Court - Remedies - Contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant companies whereby defendants agreed to carry out certain reconstruction work to plaintiffs' landing craft - Payment to be made by plaintiffs against monthly accounts tendered by defendants - Dispute as to certain charges - Delivery of vessel withheld by defendants until charges met - Action brought by plaintiffs claiming delivery and damages for wrongful detention - Settlement of action - Consent order made whereby (1) sum was to be paid into account in joint names of parties' solicitors; (2) plaintiffs undertook to institute arbitration proceedings if unable to agree defendants' accounts - Failure by plaintiffs to agree defendants' accounts or institute arbitration proceedings - Motion brought by defendants that plaintiffs were in breach of the Court order and that sum should be paid to defendants out of joint account - Defendants informed by letter from plaintiffs that in case they had in fact, though unintentionally, committed a breach of order, they were at once instituting arbitration proceedings - Whether defendants had sought proper remedy and/or were justified in proceeding with motion.

THE "BRITISH CONFIDENCE."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 447

Collision - Fog - Signals - "Lying stopped" - Unchanging bearing - Collision between French steamship Joseph Blot and British motor vessel British Confidence off Cape Trafalgar in fog-Vessels on almost opposite courses crossing at fine angle-Both vessels sounding for fog - "Lying stopped" signals sounded by Joseph Blot shortly before collision- Vessels sighted by each other at distance of between 600 and 700 ft.- Impact between port bow of Joseph Blot and port side of British Confidence-Whether Joseph Blot was "lying stopped"-Unsatisfactory nature of contemporary documents -Demeanour of witnesses-Credibility -Decision of Lord Merriman, P., that British Confidence was alone to blame- Judgment varied by C.A.-Apportionment of blame: British Confidence, two-thirds; Joseph Blot, one-third - Appeal by British Confidence; cross-appeal by Joseph Blot-Consideration of circumstances entitling appellate tribunal to differ from conclusions of learned trial Judge based on credibility and demeanour of witnesses-Evidence given by British Confidence rejected by trial Judge as untrustworthy, but vindicated in a material part by assessors on appeal - Essential finding influencing trial Judge's conclusions-Collision Regulations, Arts. 15, 16.

THE "TROILUS."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 467

Salvage - Towage or salvage - Prolonged towage - Alternative arrangements available to owners of salved vessel - Reasonableness - Services rendered by motor vessels Stentor and Glenogle to steamship Troilus - Propeller lost in Indian Ocean while on voyage from Australia to Liverpool - Towage for 1050 miles by Stentor (sister ship) to Aden, where Troilus was only allowed to anchor outside the harbour - Services by Stentor admitted to be salvage services - Troilus subsequently towed by Glenogle 4300 miles to Falmouth (except for towage by canal tug from Suez to Port Said) - Nature of such further services - Whether "from safety to safety" - Aden, Suez and Port Said admittedly safe ports of refuge - Possibility of repairs at Suez, Alexandria or Malta - Availability of ocean-going tug - Risk to cargo - Duty of prudent shipowner - Salved values: Troilus, £193,000; cargo, £888,000; freight, £15,000 - Awards by Lord Merriman, P.: Stentor, £18,000; Glenogle, £22,000 - Appeal by owners of cargo on board Troilus against award made to Glenogle dismissed by C.A. - Further appeal.

WM. CORY & SON, LTD. v. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 475

Contract - Repudiation - Anticipatory breach - Port health authority - Local by-laws - Agreement in 1936 between barge-owners and city corporation (as sanitary authority) providing for collection and removal of refuse - Barges to be "fitted and maintained with temporary coamings and coverings to be secured to the permanent coamings . . ." - Barge-owners to "observe and comply with the by-laws of the port health authority of the Port of London" - Sealing of new by-laws by city corporation (as port health authority) in September, 1948, to take effect in November, 1950, requiring barges removing refuse to have permanent coamings and closefitting hatches capable of completely covering the refuse - Admission that new by-laws would make contract commercially impossible of performance when they came into force -Contention by barge-owners that sealing of new by-laws amounted to an anticipatory breach of agreement by city corporation, entitling barge-owners to treat agreement as having been determined in September, 1948 - Public Health (London) Act, 1936, Sect. 84 (1) (a).

THE "MR. THERM."

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 483

Collision - River - Meeting - Poor visibility - Look-out - Lights - Collision between steamships Axinite and Mr. Therm in Erith Reach, River Thames - Axinite proceeding down river to come to anchor; Mr. Therm bound up - Impact approximately end on, between respective port bows- Dispute as to locus of collision: whether occurring on north or south side of mid-channel - Whether Axinite exhibiting proper navigation lights - Probabilities.

HUTCHINSON v. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 490

Negligence - Safe system - Precautions against accident on board river firefloat -Fall overboard - Man drowned- Rescue system - Claim brought by widow of deceased electrician employed by defendant county council on their firefloat in River Thames - Firefloat being used for special purposes in connection with civic festivities - Deceased required to see to floodlighting of water jets - Fall overboard while proceeding forward to change slides of floodlights -Unsuccessful rescue operation - Whether defendants (1) failed to take adequate precautions (by erection of guard-rail, etc.) to provide against accident; (2) failed to provide proper rescue system-Evidence that deceased was an ex-naval rating, and used to making his way about ships.

BRYAN v. GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

[1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 495

Docks Regulations, 1934-Safe means of access-Ladder in hold of ship-Firm handhold - Common law negligence - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer while leaving hold of defendants' steamship in London dock -Fall from ladder provided as means of access from hold to main deck - Alleged breach of statutory duty by shipowners in failing to provide ladder with firm handhold-Evidence that ladder was of common type and had been in use without complaint for many years-Regulation 11.

Lloyd's Law Reports