Carriage of Goods by Sea Jhon F. Wilson

‘There really is no comparable book to Carriage “...
deserves a place on the

of Goods by Sea as a student textbook for shelf of every law teacher
carriage… this book is ‘the’ book ...’ Seventh in the subject, and at least
Susan Hawker, London Metropolitan University Edition on the reading lists of all
of its students.”
Carriage of Goods by Sea

Review of a previous edition,
Written by a leading expert in the field, Carriage of Goods by Sea is the definitive
The Cambridge Law Journal
guide to all aspects of this important part of international trade law. Relied upon
by generations of students and practitioners alike, this market leading text is
renowned for combining a critical, in-depth examination of all aspects of the law
relating to the carriage of goods by sea with a highly readable written style, clear
analysis of legal principles and a highly practical approach to the subject making it
eminently suitable for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
NEW TO THIS EDITION

Carriage of Goods by Sea has been fully revised to examine all recent statutory and case law
developments in the law in this area, including:
A dedicated chapter containing full discussion of the wide ranging changes to bill of lading
contracts proposed in the Rotterdam Rules
A new appendix containing the text of the Rotterdam Rules in full
Discussion of significant judicial decisions, including Transfield Shipping Inc. v Mercator
Shipping Inc., Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Co. v Seamar Trading, Mansell Oil v Troon
Storage Tankers, Lansat Shipping Co. v Glencore Grain, Trafigura Beheer v Mediterranean
Shipping Co., The Archimidis, and Fiona Trust and Holding Corp v Privalov
This text is highly suitable for recommendation to students studying international trade law,
maritime and shipping law, and carriage of goods courses. It is also an invaluable source of
reference for legal professionals specialising in this area, and shipbroking and cargo firms.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John F Wilson is a member of the Institute of Maritime Law at the University of Southampton and Seventh Edition
Carriage of
is Emeritus Professor of Law at the University. He has lectured widely on maritime law in the UK,
the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.
Visit www.mylawchamber.co.uk/wilsoncogbs to access regular updates

on recent legal developments in this area and web links to relevant sites of
Goods by Sea
Wilson
further interest.
www.pearson-books.com John F Wilson

Cover © Image Source/CORBIS
CVR_WILS8933_07_SE_CVR.indd 1 19/5/10 09:41:16

A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page i

A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page ii
We work with leading authors to develop the strongest

educational materials in law, bringing cutting-edge thinking
and best learning practice to a global market.
Under a range of well-known imprints, including Longman,

we craft high quality print and electronic publications
which help readers to understand and apply their content,
whether studying or at work.
To find out more about the complete range of our

publishing, please visit us on the World Wide Web at:
www.pearsoned.co.uk
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page iii

Seventh Edition
John F Wilson
Emeritus Professor of Law
at the Institute of Maritime Law
University of Southampton
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page iv
Pearson Education Limited

Edinburgh Gate
Harlow
Essex CM20 2JE
England
and Associated Companies throughout the world
Visit us on the World Wide Web at:

www.pearsoned.co.uk
First published under the Pitman Publishing imprint in Great Britain 1988
Second edition published in 1993
Third edition published in 1998
Fourth edition published in 2001
Fifth edition published in 2004
Sixth edition published in 2008
Seventh edition published in 2010
© John F Wilson 1988, 1993, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010
The right of John F Wilson to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior
written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying
in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
The use of any trademark in this text does not vest in the author or publisher
any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such
trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.
Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of

HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.
Law Commission Reports are reproduced under the terms of the Click-Use Licence.
ISBN: 978-1-4082-1893-8
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wilson, John Furness, 1924–
Carriage of goods by sea / John F. Wilson. – 7th ed.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-1-4082-1893-8 (pbk.)
1. Contracts, Maritime – Great Britain. 2. Freight and freightage – Great Britain.
3. Charter-parties – Great Britain. I. Title.
KD1819.W55 2010
343.4109′6—dc22
2010010961
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
14 13 12 11 10
Typeset in 9/12.5pt Giovanni by 35

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd, Dorchester, Dorset
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page v
Contents
Preface to the first edition xii

Preface xiii
Table of cases xv
Table of statutes xlix
Abbreviated book titles liv
List of abbreviations lv
Acknowledgements lvi
Part I
General introduction 1
1 Introduction 3
1.1 The charterparty 3
1.2 The bill of lading contract 5
1.3 Charterers’ bills of lading 6
1.4 The demise charterparty 7
2 Implied obligations in a contract of affreightment 9

2.1 The undertaking as to seaworthiness 9
2.1.1 Nature of the obligation 9
2.1.2 Incidence of obligation 11
2.1.3 Burden of proof 13
2.1.4 Effect of breach 13
2.2 Obligation of reasonable dispatch 15
2.2.1 Effect of breach 15
2.3 Obligation not to deviate from the agreed route 16
2.3.1 Justifiable deviations 17
2.3.2 Liberty clauses 19
2.3.3 The effect of breach 20
2.4 The obligation to nominate a safe port 25
2.4.1 The period covered by the warranty 26
2.4.2 The nature of the risks covered 27
2.4.3 The nature of the undertaking – remedies available
for breach 28
2.4.4 The scope of the undertaking 30
2.4.5 The safe port/safe berth relationship 32
2.5 The obligation not to ship dangerous goods 33
2.5.1 Meaning of dangerous goods 33
v
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page vi
CONTENTS
2.5.2 Nature of liability 34

2.5.3 Liability under the Hague/Visby Rules 35
2.5.4 Statutory regulation 37
2.6 The effect of frustration 38
2.6.1 Types of frustration 39
2.6.2 Factors to be taken into consideration 42
2.6.3 Effect of frustration 44
Part II
Charterparties 47
3 The voyage charterparty 49

3.1 An overview of the charter 49
3.1.1 Introductory clauses 49
3.1.2 Cargo clauses 50
3.1.3 Freight clauses 50
3.1.4 Laytime provisions 51
3.1.5 Other clauses 52
3.1.6 Performance of the charterparty 53
3.2 The arrived ship 53
3.2.1 Charterparty provisions shifting risk of delay 56
3.2.2 Readiness to load or discharge 58
3.3 The preliminary voyage 62
3.3.1 Nomination of port of loading 62
3.3.2 ‘Or so near thereto as she may safely get’ 63
3.3.3 The voyage to the loading port 64
3.4 The loading operation 68
3.4.1 Division of responsibility 68
3.4.2 Provision of cargo 69
3.4.3 Laytime 72
3.4.4 Demurrage and damages for detention 76
3.5 The carrying voyage 79
3.6 The discharging operation 80
3.6.1 Delivery 81
4 The time charterparty 85

4.1 General legal overview 85
4.1.1 Clause describing vessel 85
4.1.2 The charter period 85
4.1.3 Off-hire 86
4.1.4 Payment of hire – right to withdraw for non-payment 86
4.1.5 Employment and indemnity clause 87
4.1.6 Return of the vessel 88
4.2 Description of the vessel 88
4.3 Period of hire 90
4.3.1 Specific clauses 91
4.3.2 Effect of overlap 92
vi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page vii
CONTENTS
4.4 Payment for hire 94

4.4.1 Payment in cash 94
4.4.2 Payment in advance 95
4.5 The off-hire clause 96
4.5.1 Period of off-hire 97
4.5.2 Effects of the operation of the off-hire clause 99
4.6 Deductions from hire 100
4.7 Right to withdraw vessel for non-payment of hire 102
4.7.1 Requirements for exercise of right of withdrawal 103
4.7.2 Waiver of right to withdraw 103
4.7.3 Possible bars to exercise of the right of withdrawal 105
4.7.4 Effect of exercise of right to withdraw 107
4.8 Employment and agency clause 108
4.9 Redelivery of the vessel 111
Part III
Bills of lading 113
5 Bills of lading and their functions 115

5.1 Historical introduction 115
5.2 Functions of a bill of lading 117
5.2.1 As receipt for goods shipped 118
5.2.2 As evidence of the contract of carriage 129
5.2.3 As a document of title 132
5.3 Bills of lading and third parties 142
5.3.1 Liability in tort 142
5.3.2 Third party reliance on bill of lading terms 144
5.4 Presentation of a bill of lading 154
5.5 Problems in presentation 157
5.5.1 Short form bill of lading 158
5.5.2 The waybill 159
5.5.3 The straight bill of lading 161
5.5.4 A registry system 163
5.5.5 A possible practical solution 165
5.6 Electronic bills of lading 165
5.6.1 Atlantic Container Line datafreight system 166
5.6.2 Electronic data exchange systems 167
5.6.3 Bolero 170
5.6.4 Conclusions 171
5.7 Switch bills 172
6 Application of the Hague/Visby Rules 174

6.1 Application of the Rules 174
6.1.1 Types of carriage covered by the Rules 174
6.1.2 The cargoes excluded 178
6.1.3 Period of coverage of the Rules 181
6.2 Legal effect of the Rules 183
vii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page viii
CONTENTS
6.3 Basic provisions of the Hague/Visby Rules 186

6.3.1 Duties of the carrier 187
6.3.2 Rights and immunities of the carrier 194
6.3.3 Other provisions 208
6.4 Incorporation of the Hague/Visby Rules in charterparties 210
6.4.1 Effect of incorporation 211
7 Bills of lading – the Hamburg Rules 215

7.1 Introduction 215
7.2 Scope of application of the Rules 215
7.3 Basic carrier liability 216
7.4 Limitation of liability 220
7.4.1 Loss of right to limit liability 222
7.5 Other provisions 222
7.6 Prospects for adoption of the Hamburg Rules 226
7.7 Later developments 228
8 Bills of lading – the Rotterdam Rules 230

8.2 Scope of application of the Rules 231
8.3 Basic carrier liability 232
8.4 Special provision for particular cases 233
8.4.1 Carriage of deck cargo 233
8.4.2 Live animals and certain other goods 233
8.4.3 Dangerous goods 234
8.5 Core provisions 234
8.5.1 Definition of ‘carrier’ 234
8.5.2 Documentation 235
8.5.3 Deviation 236
8.5.4 Delay in delivery 236
8.5.5 Limitation of liability 237
8.5.6 Limitation of action 237
8.5.7 Contracting out 238
8.5.8 Volume contracts 238
8.6 Ancillary provisions 239
8.6.1 Delivery of the goods 239
8.6.2 Rights of the controlling party 240
8.6.3 Transfer of rights 241
8.7 Jurisdiction and arbitration 241
8.7.1 Jurisdiction 242
8.7.2 Arbitration 242
9 Bills of lading issued under charterparties 243

9.1 Where bill of lading issued to charterer 243
9.2 Where bill issued to third-party shipper 244
9.2.1 Who is the carrier? 244
9.2.2 What are the terms of the contract? 247
viii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page ix
CONTENTS
9.3 Where bill indorsed by charterer to a third party 251

9.4 Shipowner’s recourse against charterer 252
10 Problems of combined transport 253

10.1 The liability of the carrier 254
10.1.1 Locating damage or loss 255
10.1.2 Limitation of liability 256
10.1.3 Claims in tort 256
10.2 Combined transport and documentary credits 257
10.3 Effect of transhipment 258
10.3.1 Transhipment and documentary credits 258
10.4 Multimodal Convention 1980 259
Part IV
Common aspects of contracts of affreightment 261
11 Exceptions 263
11.1 Common law exceptions 263
11.1.1 Act of God 263
11.1.2 Act of the Queen’s enemies 264
11.1.3 Inherent vice 265
11.2 Contractual exceptions 265
11.2.1 Perils of the sea 266
11.2.2 Collisions – both-to-blame clause 267
11.2.3 Restraint of princes 268
11.2.4 Strikes or lockouts 271
11.2.5 Defective packing 272
11.3 The Hague/Visby exceptions 273
11.3.1 Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or
the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the
management of the ship 273
11.3.2 Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of
the carrier 275
11.3.3 The catch-all exception 277
11.4 Bars to the exceptions 279
11.4.1 Negligence 280
11.4.2 Unseaworthiness 280
11.4.3 Fundamental breach 280
12 Limitation of liability 282

12.2 Merchant Shipping Act 1995 283
12.2.1 Parties covered 283
12.2.2 Types of claim covered 285
12.2.3 Limitation amount 286
12.2.4 Breaking the limits 287
ix
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page x
CONTENTS
13 Freight 289
13.1 The basic obligation 289
13.1.1 Calculation of freight 290
13.1.2 Deductions from freight 290
13.1.3 The effect of deviation 291
13.2 Advance freight 292
13.3 Specialised types of freight 295
13.3.1 Lump sum freight 295
13.3.2 Pro rata freight 296
13.3.3 Back freight 296
13.3.4 Dead freight 297
13.4 Payment of freight 298
13.4.1 Party from whom freight due 298
13.4.2 Party to whom freight payable 300
14 Shipowners’ liens 303

14.1 Liens at common law 303
14.1.1 Requirements for the exercise of the common law
lien for freight 303
14.2 Express contractual liens 304
14.2.1 Characteristics of contractual lien 305
14.2.2 Lien on sub-freights 306
14.3 The cesser clause 308
Part V
Dispute settlement 311
15 Dispute settlement 313

15.1 Problems of conflict of laws 313
15.1.1 Jurisdiction of the English courts 313
15.1.2 Choice of forum 315
15.1.3 Choice of law 323
15.2 Security for claims 330
15.2.1 The action in rem 331
15.2.2 The freezing injunction 332
15.3 Arbitration 335
15.3.1 The Arbitration Act 1996 336
15.3.2 Basic principles 337
15.3.3 Types of arbitration 338
15.3.4 Commencement of arbitration 339
15.3.5 Appeal from arbitration award 339
15.3.6 Other challenges to an award 343
15.3.7 Control by the court of arbitration proceedings 343
15.3.8 Enforcement of arbitration awards 345
16 Breach of contract 346

16.1 Forms of breach 346
16.1.1 Anticipatory breach 346
x
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xi
CONTENTS
16.2 The effects of breach 347

16.2.1 Conditions and warranties 348
16.2.2 Intermediate terms 350
16.2.3 The effects of a repudiatory breach 351
16.3 The action for damages 353
16.3.1 Remoteness of damage 353
16.3.2 Measure of damages 358
16.3.3 Other relevant considerations in assessing damages 361
16.4 Remedies other than damages 363
16.4.1 Specific performance 363
16.4.2 Injunction 364
Appendices 367
Appendix 1 Bills of Lading Act 1855 369
Appendix 2 The Hague Rules 1924 370
Appendix 3 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 377
Appendix 4 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 386
Appendix 5 The Hamburg Rules 1978 390
Appendix 6 The Rotterdam Rules 402
Appendix 7 CMI Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills 438
Appendix 8 CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading 440
Appendix 9 Barecon 2001 Charter 444
Appendix 10 Gencon 94 Charter 456
Appendix 11 Shellvoy 6 Charter 462
Appendix 12 Baltime 1939 Charter (as revised 2001) 482
Appendix 13 New York Produce Exchange (NYPE 46) Charter 487
Appendix 14 New York Produce Exchange (NYPE 93) Charter 491
Appendix 15 Shelltime 4 Charter (as amended 2003) 505
Appendix 16 Conlinebill 1978 522
Appendix 17 Conlinebill 2000 526
Appendix 18 Congenbill 528
Appendix 19 Maersk Line bill 530
Appendix 20 GCBS Short Form Bill 534
Appendix 21 Combiconbill 536
Appendix 22 Maersk Line Waybill 540
Index 541
Visit the Carriage of Goods by Sea, seventh edition

mylawchamber site at www.mylawchamber.co.uk/
wilsoncogbs to access regular updates to help you keep
up to date with important legal developments in this area
and web links to relevant sites of further interest.
xi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xii
Preface to the first edition
The aim of this book is to provide a comprehensive and critical study of the principles of law
governing the carriage of goods by sea in the compass of a medium-sized textbook. The need
for such a book has become apparent with the recent introduction at a number of univer-
sities and polytechnics of courses, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, on various
aspects of maritime law. While the continuing authority of Scrutton and Carver is not open
to challenge, the professionally orientated and encyclopaedic approach of both texts is not
ideally suited to student use, while their respective costs are outside the range of the average
student pocket.
The present volume is hopefully aimed at filling this gap, while also serving as an intro-
ductory work of reference for members of P and I Clubs and legal firms in the City engaged
in cargo claims. It concentrates mainly on an exposition of the law relating to charterparties
and bills of lading, but coverage is also devoted to the development of new forms of docu-
mentation and to problems arising from through and combined transport, in so far as they
relate to the carriage of goods by sea. A final chapter describes the various factors involved in
the prosecution of a cargo claim, ranging from the choice of forum and proper law, arbitra-
tion procedure, to the granting of a Mareva injunction.
The approach throughout is that of the normal textbook designed for use with a degree
course. The legal principles involved are examined critically against a background of current
documentation and contemporary practice in the shipping industry, while attention is paid
to both existing problems and potential developments in the field. The emphasis throughout
is primarily on the English common law approach, although an attempt has been made to
incorporate references to international, Commonwealth and US material wherever appropri-
ate. A more thorough comparative approach had, regretfully, to be abandoned as impractical
when it threatened to run to the length of a second Benedict.
xii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xiii
Preface
The justification for the publication of a seventh edition is provided by the advent of a new
carriage convention with the potential to effect major changes to the bill of lading contract.
After a period of gestation lasting some six years, the UN Convention on Contracts for the
International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea was finally opened for signature at
Rotterdam in September 2009. As its title implies, the new Convention proposes a regime
applicable from door-to-door rather than the port-to-port coverage favoured by previous
carriage conventions. The Convention is drafted in the style adopted for the Hamburg Rules
although providing more detailed coverage of the various aspects of the contract of carriage
and comprising a total of 96 articles. The original objective of the exercise was to provide a
simple updated liability regime designed to resolve the problems arising from the simul-
taneous operation of three different carriage conventions. The obvious danger in that, if the
new convention does not attract the international support necessary to supplant the existing
regimes, the unfortunate result will be to add a forth competing convention to the existing
list. The hope was that in view of the number and range of states participating in the drafting
process, the latter result could be avoided. After six months, however, the convention has only
attracted 21 signatures, although experience with previous carriage conventions has shown
that states are slow to react to proposed changes in the law. Early ratification by a major
shipping nation could make all the difference.
The main characteristics of the Convention (to be known as the Rotterdam Rules) are
discussed in comparison with those of existing carriage regimes, while the full text of the
Rules is included in the Appendix.
The opportunity has also been taken to review some 30 new cases which have been
decided since the appearance of the previous edition. Of these perhaps the most significant
is the decision in The Achilleas where the House of Lords considered the application of the
remoteness rules to a claim for damages for late redelivery of a time chartered vessel. In
limiting recovery to the difference between the charter and market rates of hire for the period
of overrun, their Lordships overruled the respective decisions of the trial judge, and an
unanimous Court of Appeal in favour of the opinion of a minority arbitrator. Other cases
of interest include Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Co. v Seamar Trading where the Court of
Appeal refused to imply a warranty as to the safety of a nominated berth in a port which had
been nominated in the charter but not warranted safe by the charterer; Bunge SA v ADM Do
Brasil Ltda where it was held that cargo cannot be classed as ‘dangerous’ under the Hague
Rules unless it has the potential to cause physical damage to the vessel or other cargo on
board; Fiona Trust and Holding Corp v Privalov which decided that an arbitration agreement
is an agreement separate from the contract of which it forms a part and is not necessarily
invalidated by any deflect in the latter; The Archimidis, a case where liability for dead freight
was held to be based on the quantity of cargo actually loaded on the vessel irrespective of
the quantity made available by the charterer at the port of loading; and Trafigura Beheer v
xiii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xiv
PREFACE
Mediterranean Shipping Co which involved construction of a clause seeking to exempt ship

owners from liability for delivery of goods against forged bills of lading.
In conclusion, I wish as always to express my gratitude to colleagues in the Institute of
Maritime Law for their continuing encouragement and advice, in particular, to David Jackson
for his unfailing help and expert counsel which kept me abreast of development in Conflicts
law; to Yvonne Baatz for her invaluable advice which guided me through the complexities
of the Rotterdam Rules and to Andrew Sandiforth for his generous assistance with the
basic research. Any remaining errors or omissions in the following pages are entirely my
responsibility.
My thanks are also due to Caroline Ciupek for the enthusiastic and highly competent way
in which she has tackled yet another manuscript on Carriage, and to my Publishers for their
much appreciated support and encouragement throughout the entire publication process.
The law is stated in the light of reported cases and material available to me on 1 April 2010.
JFW
Southampton
April 2010
xiv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xv
Table of cases
Visit the Carriage of Goods by Sea, seventh edition mylawchamber site at

www.mylawchamber.co.uk /wilsoncogbs to access regular updates to help you
keep up to date with important legal developments in this area and web links to
relevant sites of further interest.
[Numbers in bold type indicate cases illustrated in the text]
Aaby v States Marine Corp (The Tento) [1950] AMC 947 14

Aaby’s Rederi A/S v Lep Transport (1948) 81 LlLR 465 39
A/B Helsingfors SS Co v Rederiaktiebolaget Rex. The White Rose [1969] 1 WLR 1098; [1969]
2 All ER 374; [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52 110
Ace Imports Pty Ltd v Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro. The Esmeralda I [1988]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 206 119, 122, 200
Ace Insurance v Zurich Insurance [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 618 318
Achilleas, The. See Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc
ACP Capital Ltd v IFR Capital plc [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 653 316
Action SA v Britannic Shipping Corp Ltd [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 119 309
Action Navigation Inc v Bottiglieri di Navigazione. The Kitsa [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432 110
Actis Co Ltd v Sanko Steamship Co. The Aquacharm [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 237; [1982] 1 WLR 119;
[1982] 1 All ER 390; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7 97, 109
Adamastos Shipping Co v Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co [1959] AC 133; [1958] 2 WLR 688; [1958]
1 All ER 725; sub nom Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co v Adamastos Shipping Co [1958] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 73 12, 13, 186, 210, 211, 212, 355
Adelfoi, The [1972] AMC 1742 91
Aditya Vaibhav, The. See Century Textiles v Tomoe Shipping Co
Adler v Dickson (The Himalaya) [1955] 1 QB 158; [1954] 3 WLR 696; [1954] 3 All ER 397;
[1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267 201
Adolf Warski, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 241 316
Aegean Dolphin, The. See Dolphin Hellas Shipping SA v Itemslot
Aegean Sea, The. See Aegean Sea Traders v Repsol Petroleo SA
Aegean Sea Traders v Repsol Petroleo SA. The Aegean Sea [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39 25, 137, 139,
283, 284
Aegis Britannic, The. See Action SA v Britannic Shipping Corp Ltd
Aegis Spirit, The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 93 197, 198, 199
Aegnoussiotis Shipping Corp v Kristian Jebsens Rederi. The Aegnoussiotis [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 268
103, 107, 306
Aello, The. See Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices SA v Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Co
Aeolian, The. See ISS Machinery Services Ltd. v Aeolian Shipping
xv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xvi
TABLE OF CASES
Afovos Shipping Co v Pagnan and Lli. The Afovos [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 469; [1983] 1 WLR 195;
[1983] 1 All ER 449; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 562; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 335 94, 95, 96, 102, 107,
108, 349, 350
Agamemnon, The. See TA Shipping Ltd v Comet Shipping Ltd
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima v Pagnan. The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87 316
Agios Dimitrios, The. See Alphapoint Shipping Ltd v Rotem Amfert Negev Ltd
Agios Giorgis, The. See Steelwood Carriers Inc v Evimeria Compañia Naviera SA
Agios Lazarus, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 47 210, 339
Agrabele, The (1979). See Gebr van Weelde Scheepvaart Kantoor BV v Homeric Marine Services
Ltd
Agrosin Pte Ltd v Highway Shipping Co Ltd. The Mata K [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 614 119, 122
AIG Europe v QBE International Insurance [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 268 322
Airbus Industrie v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 318
Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 90 315
Al Bida, The. See Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Co v Luxor Trading Corp
Al Taha, The. See Lyric Shipping Inc v Intermetals Ltd
Alaskan Trader, The. See Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International Ltd
Albacora SRL v Westcott & Laurance Line [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 53 191, 265
Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero (Owners). The Albazero [1977] AC 774; [1976] 3 WLR 419;
[1976] 3 All ER 129; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 467 144
Albaforth, The. See Cordoba Shipping Co v National State Bank, New Jersey
Albazero, The. See Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero (Owners)
Aldebaran Compania Maritima SA v Aussenhandel AG. The Darrah [1977] AC 157; [1976]
3 WLR 320; [1976] 2 All ER 963; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359 57
Alev, The. See Vantage Navigation v Suhail
Alexandra Towing Co v Millet. The Bramley Moore [1964] P 200 282
Alfa Nord, The. See Gunnstein A/S & Co v Jensen, Krebs & Nielsen
Alhambra, The. (1881) 6 PD 68; [1881–5] All ER 707; 4 Asp MLC 410 26
Aliakmon, The. See Leigh & Sillivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co
Aliakmon Maritime Corp v Transocean Continental Shipping Ltd. The Aliakmon Progress [1978]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 499 101, 274
Aliakmon Progress, The. See Aliakmon Maritime Corp v Transocean Continental Shipping Ltd
Alimport v Soubert Shipping Co [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 447 129, 245
Allianz Spa West Tankers Inc. Case C185/07 [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413 323
Allison v Bristol Marine Ins (1876) 1 App Cas 209; 34 LT 809; 3 Asp MLC 178 293, 295
Alma Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Mantovani. The Dione [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 115 91, 93
Almak, The. See Rudolf A Oetker v IFA Internationale Frachtagentur AG
Almare Seconda, The. See Blackgold Trading Ltd of Monrovia v Almare SpA di Navigazione
Alphapoint Shipping Ltd v Rotem Amfert Negev Ltd. The Agios Dimitrios [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 23
342, 343
Altus, The. See Total Transport Corp v Amoco Trading Co
Alvion Steamship Corp v Galban Lobo Trading Co SA [1955] 1 QB 430; [1955] 2 WLR 543;
[1955] 1 All ER 457; [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 9 73
Amazonia, The. See Furness Withy (Australia) Pty v Metal Distributors Ltd
American International Specialty Lines Ass Co v Abbott Laboratories [2002] EWHC 2714; [2003]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 267 316
American Legion, The. See Cameco Inc v American Legion
American President Lines v USA [1968] AMC 830 29
American Steel Barge Co v Chesapeake Coal Agency Co (1902) 115 Fed Rep (2nd) 281 307
American Union Transport Inc v USA [1976] AMC 1480 268
xvi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xvii
TABLE OF CASES
Amstelmolen, The. See NV Reederij Amsterdam v President of India

Amstelslot, The [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 223 11, 187, 188, 190
Amsterdam, The. See Transfigura Beheer BV v Mediterranean Shipping Co
Anders Maersk, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 483 183
Andersons (Pacific) Trading Co v Karlander [1980] 2 NSWLR 870 246
Andre et Cie v Orient Shipping (Rotterdam) BV. The Laconian Confidence [1997] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 139 97
Angel Bell, The. See Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA
Angelakis Shipping Co SA v Compagnie National Algérienne de Navigation. The Attika Hope
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439 302
Angelic Grace, The. See Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima v Pagnan
Angelos Lusis, The. See Sociedad Carga Oceanica v Idolinoele Vertriebsgesellschaft
Angliss (W) & Co v P & O Steam Navigation Co [1927] 2 KB 457; 32 Com Cas 388; 43 TLR 675;
28 LlLR 202 190
Anglo-Irish Beef Processors v Federated Stevedores [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 207 206
Anglo-Northern Trading Co v Emlyn Jones & Williams [1917] 2 KB 78; 116 LT 414; 33 TLR 302 41
Anita, The [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365; reversed [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 487 270
Anna CH, The. See Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc
Annangel Glory CN v M Golodetz Ltd. The Annangel Glory [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45 308
Annefield, The [1971] P 168; [1971] 2 WLR 320; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 249
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB. The Antaios (No 2) [1985] AC 191; [1984]
3 WLR 592; [1984] 3 All ER 229; [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 235 102, 342
Antares, The. See Kenya Railways v Antares Co Ltd
Antares III, The. See Transpacific Eternity v Kanematsu Corp
Antclizo (No 2), The. See Antclizo Shipping Corp v Food Corp of India
Antclizo Shipping Corp v Food Corp of India. The Antclizo (No 2) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558 62
Antec International v Biosafety USA Inc. [2006] EWHC 47 (Comm) 315
Anticosti Shipping Co v Viateur St-Amand [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 352 175, 176
Antigoni, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 209 190
Antwerp United Diamonds v Air Europe [1995] 3 WLR 396; [1995] 3 All ER 424; [1995]
Antwerpen, The. See Glebe Island Terminals v Continental Seagram
Apex, The. See Phoenix Shipping Corp v Apex Shipping Corp
APJ Priti, The [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37 32
Apollo, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 200 97
Apollonius, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53 96, 98
Apostolis, The. See Meredith Jones & Co v Vangemar Shipping
Apostolis (No 2), The. See Meredith Jones & Co v Vangemar Shipping
Aquacharm, The. See Actis Co Ltd v The Sanko Steamship Co
Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Co v Luxor Trading Corp. The Al Bida [1987] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 124 88, 89
Aramis, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213 141, 142
Aratra Potato Co v Egyptian Navigation Co. The El Amria [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119 316, 317
Archimidis, The [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 597; [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 545 62, 297
Arctic Skou, The. See Ove Skou v Rudolf A Oetker
Ardan Steamship Co v Weir [1905] AC 501; 93 LT 559; 10 Asp MLC 135 69
Ardennes (Owners of Cargo) v Ardennes (Owners) [1951] 1 KB 55; [1950] 2 All ER 517; 84 LlLR
340 129, 131, 132, 220, 247, 358
Argonaut Navigation Co v Ministry of Food [1949] 1 KB 572; [1949] 1 All ER 160;
82 LlLR 223 76
xvii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xviii
TABLE OF CASES
Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport. The Aries [1977] 1 WLR 185; [1977] 1 All ER 398; [1977]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 100, 206, 207, 290, 291
Arild v Hovrani [1923] 2 KB 141; 15 LlLR 50 99
Armement Adolf Deppe v Robinson [1917] 2 KB 204; 116 LT 664; 14 Asp MLC 84 61
Aron & Co v Sterling Navigation Co [1976] AMC 311 206
Arpad, The [1934] P 189; 152 LT 521; 50 TLR 505; 18 Asp MLC 510 359
Arta Shipping Co v Thai Europe Tapioca Shipping Service. The Johnny [1977] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 1 91, 93
A/S Awilco v Fulvia SpA di Navigazione. The Chikuma [1981] 1 WLR 314; [1981] 1 All ER 652;
[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 371 95
A/S Admiral Shipping v Portlink Ferries Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 166 333, 335
A/S Reidar v Arcos [1927] 1 KB 352 76, 77
Ascot Commodities v Northern Pacific Shipping. The Irini (No 2) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 189 108, 172
Asfar v Blundell [1896] 1 QB 123; 73 LT 648; 12 TLR 29; 8 Asp MLC 106 291
Aspa Maria, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 643 91
Asphalt International v Enterprise 667 F 2d 261 (1982) 39
Assios, The. See Negocios del Mare SA v Doric Shipping Corp SA
Associated Bulk Carriers v Shell International Petroleum Co. The Nordic Navigator [1984]
Assunzione, The [1954] P 150; [1954] 2 WLR 234; [1954] 1 All ER 278; [1953] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 716 326
Astro Valiente SA v The Government of Pakistan. The Emmanuel Colocotronis (No 2) [1982]
Athamas, The [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 287 63, 64
Athanasia Comninos, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 277 34, 35, 139
Athinoula, The. See Bravo Maritime (Chartering) Est v Alsayed Abdullah
Athletic Union of Constantinople v National Basketball Assoc [2002] 1 WLR 2863; [2002]
3 All ER 897; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 305 340
Athos, The. See Telfair Shipping Corp v Athos Shipping Co
Atlantic Duchess, The [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55 35
Atlantic Star, The. Atlantic Star (Owners) v Bona Spes (Owners) [1974] AC 436; [1973]
Atlas, The. See Noble Resources Ltd v Cavalier Shipping Corp
Attica Sea Carriers Corp v Ferrostaal. The Puerto Buitrago [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 250 111, 362
Attika Hope, The. See Angelakis Shipping Co SA v Compagnie National Algérienne de Navigation
Attorney General (Ceylon) v Scindia Steam Nav Co Ltd [1962] AC 60; [1961] 3 WLR 936; [1961]
3 All ER 684; [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 173 120, 123
Australian Oil Refining Pty v Miller [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 448 212
Avery v Bowden (1856) 6 E & B 953; 28 LT (OS) 49 72, 352
Azuero, The [1957]. See Compania Naviera Azuero SA v British Oil and Cake Mills
Azuero, The [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 464 81
Azur Gas, The. See SHV Gas Supply & Trading v Naftomar Shipping
Baghlaf Al Zafer v Pakistan National Shipping Co (No 2) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 317
Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Co v Pakistan National Shipping Co [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229 317
Balder London, The. See Gatoil Anstalt v Omennial Ltd
Baleares, The. See Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd
Bamfield v Goole & Sheffield Transport Co [1910] 2 KB 94; 103 LT 201 35
Bangladesh Chemical Industries v Henry Stephens Shipping Co. The SLS Everest [1981] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 389 251
xviii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xix
TABLE OF CASES
Bangladesh Export Import Co v Sucden Kerry [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 43

Bank Line v Capel (Arthur) & Co [1919] AC 435; 120 LT 129; 35 TLR 150; 14 Asp MLC 370 41, 43
Bank of China v NHM LLC [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506 334, 335
Barber v Meyerstein (1870) LR 4 HL 317; 22 LT 808 133
Barker v McAndrew (1865) 18 CB (NS) 759; 12 LT 459; 144 ER 643 16
Baumwoll Manufactur von Carl Scheibler v Furness [1893] AC 8; 68 LT 1; 7 Asp MLC 263 7
Bayoil v Seawind Tankers Corp. The Leonidas [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 533 90, 210, 212
Behn v Burness (1863) 3 B & S 751; 122 ER 281 65
Belleti v Morici [2009] EWHC 2316 (Comm) 333
Bellina Maritime SA v Menorah Insurance Co [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 575 207
Ben Line Steamers Ltd v Pacific Steam Navigation Co. The Benlawers [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 51 187
Ben Shipping Co Ltd v An Bord Bainne. The C Joyce [1986] 2 All ER 177; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 285 245
Benarty, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 50; on appeal [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 185
Benlawers, The. See Ben Line Steamers Ltd v Pacific Steam Navigation Co
Benship International Inc v Deemand Shipping Co (1988) unreported 91
Berge Sisar, The. See Borealis v Stargas Ltd
Berge Sund, The. See Sig Bergesen v Mobil Shipping Co
Berge Tasta, The. See Skibs, Snefonn v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
Bergen, The [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 380 322
Berkshire, The [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 185 245, 246
Beverly Hills National Bank Co v Compania de Navegacion Almirante [1971] AMC 890 304
Biskra, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 59 316
Black Falcon, The. See Shipping Corp of India v NSB Niederelbe
Blackgold Trading Ltd of Monrovia v Almare SpA di Navigazione. The Almare Seconda [1981]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 433 68, 355
Blane Steamships v Minister of Transport [1951] 2 KB 965; [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 155 39
Blue Anchor Line v Alfred C Toepfer International. The Union Amsterdam [1982] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 432 77
Bolton (Engineering) Co v Graham & Sons Ltd [1957] 1 QB 159 276
Borealis v Stargas Ltd. The Berge Sisar [1998] 3 WLR 1353; [1998] 4 All ER 821; [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 475 139, 300
Borgship Tankers Inc v Product Transport Corp. The Casco [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 565 213
Bouccra, The. See L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v Yamashita-Shinnihon
Boukadoura Maritime Corp v SA Marocaine de l’Industrie. The Boukadoura [1989] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 393 193
Bourne v Gatliffe. See Gatliffe v Bourne
Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Co [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 485; [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 461 151, 283
BP Exploration Co v Hunt [1983] 2 AC 352; [1982] 2 WLR 253; [1982] 1 All ER 925 45
Brabant, The [1967] 1 QB 588; [1966] 2 WLR 909; [1966] 1 All ER 961; [1965] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 546 109
Bradley v Goddard (1863) 3 F & F 638 80
Bramley Moore, The. See Alexandra Towing Co v Millet
Brandt v Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co [1924] 1 KB 575; 130 LT 392;
16 Asp MLC 262 124, 140, 141, 299
Brass v Maitland (1856) 6 E & B 470; 26 LJQB 49 34, 35
Bravo Maritime (Chartering) Est v Alsayed Abdullah. The Athinoula [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 481 309
Brede, The. See Henriksens Rederi A/S v Rolimpex
Bremer v Westzucker [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130 340
xix
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xx
TABLE OF CASES
Bremer Vulcan v South India Shipping Corp [1981] AC 909; [1981] 2 WLR 141; [1981] 1 All
ER 289; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 253 344
Breydon Merchant, The [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 373 285
Bridgestone Maru (No 3), The. See Navigas International Ltd v Trans-Offshore Inc
Brightman v Bunge y Born [1924] 2 KB 619 70
Brimnes, The. Tenax Steamship Co v Brimnes (The Owners) [1975] QB 929; [1974] 3 WLR 613;
[1974] 3 All ER 88; [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 241; [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 465 94, 95, 349
Britain Steamship Co v Munson Line (1929) 31 F 2d 530 91, 92
British Columbia Sawmill Co v Nettleship (1868) LR 3 CP 499 357
Brooklyn Maru, The [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 512 197
Brown Boveri Pty v Baltic Shipping Co. The Nadezhda Krupskaya [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 518 196
Brown, Jenkinson & Co v Dalton [1957] 2 QB 621; [1957] 3 WLR 403; [1957] 2 All ER 844;
[1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 126, 223
Browner International Ltd v Monarch Shipping Co. The European Enterprise [1989] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 185 176, 178, 186, 204, 288
BS & N Ltd v Micado Shipping Ltd. The Seaflower [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37 350
BTP Tioxide Ltd v Pioneer Shipping Ltd. The Nema [1982] AC 724; [1981] 3 WLR 292; [1981]
2 All ER 1030; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 239 39, 40, 341, 342
Budgett v Binnington [1891] 1 QB 35; 6 Asp MLC 592 74
Bukhta Russkaya, The. See Lauritzen Reefers v Ocean Reef Transport Ltd
Bulk Oil v Sun International [1984] 1 WLR 147; [1984] 1 All ER 386; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 587 342
Bunga Seroja, The. See Great China Metal Industries v Malaysian International Shipping
Bunge v ADM DO Brasil Ltda [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 175 37
Bunge Corp v Tradax Export [1981] 1 WLR 711; [1981] 2 All ER 513; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 14,
349, 351
Bunge y Born v Brightman [1925] AC 799; 133 LT 738; 16 Asp MLC 545 69
Burns, The [1907] P 137 332
C Inc plc v L [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 459 333
C Joyce, The. See Ben Shipping Co v An Bord Bainne
Calcutta SS Co v Andrew Weir [1910] 1 KB 759 243
Caltex v BP Shipping [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 286 318
Cameco Inc v American Legion [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 295 197, 198
Canada Rice Mills Ltd v Union Marine Ins [1941] AC 55; [1940] 4 All ER 169; [1939] AMC 427;
[1939] 2 DLR 306; 67 LlLR 549 266
Canadian and Dominion Sugar Co v Canadian National Steamships Ltd [1947] AC 46; 88 LlLR
13 125, 126
Canadian Pacific Rly v Board of Trade (1925) 22 LlLR 1 111
Cantieri Navali Riuniti v NV Omne Justitia. The Stolt Marmaro [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428 326
Captain v Far Eastern Steamship Co [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 595 182, 183, 258
Captain George K, The. See Palmco Shipping Inc v Continental Ore Corp
Captain Gregos, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 310 205
Captain Gregos (No 2), The. See Compania Portorafti v Ultramar Panama Inc
Carbopego-Abastecimento de Combustiveis v AMCI Export Corp [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 736 360,
361
Carewins Development (China) Ltd v Bright Fortune Shipping Ltd [2007] 3HKLRD 396 163
Cargill Inc v Rionda de Pass Ltd. The Giannis Xilas [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 73
Cargill International v CPN Tankers (Bermuda) Ltd. The OT Sonya [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 435 205
Cargo ex Argos (1873) LR 5 PC 134; 28 LT 745 297
Cargo ex Galam (1863) 2 Moo PC (NS) 216; 15 ER 883 290
xx
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxi
TABLE OF CASES
Cargo ex Maori King v Hughes. See Maori King (Cargo Owners) v Hughes
Carlton SS Co v Castle Mail Packets Co [1897] 2 Com Cas 173; [1898] AC 486; 8 Asp MLC 402;
78 LT 661 71
Casco, The. See Borgship Tankers Inc v Product Transport Corp
Caspian Sea, The. See Montedison SpA v Icroma SpA
Cebu (No 2), The. See Itex Itagrani Export v Care Shipping Corp
Cellulose Acetate Silk Co v Widnes Foundry [1933] AC 20; 147 LT 401 362
Century Textiles v Tomoe Shipping Co. The Aditya Vaibav [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 573 101
Cero Navigation Corp v Jean Lion. The Solon [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 292 77
Chanda, The [1985]. See Valla Giovanni & C v Gebr van Weelde Scheepvaart Kantoor BV
Chanda, The [1989]. See Wibau Maschinenfabric Hartmann SA v Mackinnon, Mackenzie & Co
Chandris v Isbrandtsen-Moller Co [1951] 1 KB 240; (1950) 83 LlLR 385; [1959] 1 All ER 768
35, 36, 109, 209
Channel Island Ferries v Cenargo Navigation. The Rozel [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 161 111
Chapparal, The [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 158 315
Chartered Bank of India v British India Steam Nav Co [1909] AC 369; 100 LT 661; 11 Asp MLC
245 81, 156
Cheikh Boutros v Ceylon Shipping Lines. The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224 11, 15, 65
Chellaram & Co v China Ocean Shipping Co [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413 197
Chellew Navigation Co v A R Appelquist Kolimport SA (1933) 45 LlLR 190 111
Chikuma, The. See A/S Awilco v Fulvia SpA di Navigazione
Chilewich Partners v MV Alligator Fortune [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 314 154
China National Foreign Trade Corp v Evolgia Shipping Co. The Mihalios Xilas [1979] 1 WLR 1018;
[1979] 2 All ER 1044; [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 303 95, 100, 103, 104, 108
China Ocean Shipping Co v Owners of the Vessel ‘Andros’. The Xingcheng [1987] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 210; [1987] 1 WLR 1213 207
China Offshore Oil v Giant Shipping Ltd. The Posidon [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 697 295
Chiswell Shipping Ltd v National Iranian Tanker Co. The World Symphony [1992] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 115 93
Chitral, The [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 529 132
Cho Yang Shipping Co Ltd v Coral (UK) Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 641 129
Chris, The. SMA No 199 (Arb at New York 1958) 99
Christensen v Hindustan Steel [1971] 1 WLR 1369; [1971] 2 All ER 811; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395
59, 60
Christy v Row (1808) 1 Taunt 300; 127 ER 849 296
Chrysanthi, The. SMA No 1417 (Arb at New York 1980) 99
Chrysovalandou Dyo, The. See Santiren Shipping Ltd v Unimarine
Churcher (John) v Mitsui [1974] 2 NSWLR 179 185
Ciampa v British India Steam Navigation Co [1915] 2 KB 774 270
Citi-March v Neptune Orient Lines [1996] 1 WLR 1367; [1996] 2 All ER 545 319
City of Mecca, The (1881) 5 PD 28; 44 LT 750; 4 Asp MLC 412 331
City of Westminster Properties v Mudd [1959] Ch 129; [1958] 2 All ER 733 131
Civil Service Co-op Society v General SN Co [1903] 2 KB 756; 89 LT 429; 9 Asp MLC 477 44
Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International Ltd. The Alaskan Trader [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 315
361, 362
Clifford Maersk, The [1982] 1 WLR 1292; [1982] 3 All ER 905; [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251 206
Clink v Radford [1891] 1 QB 625; 64 LT 491; 7 Asp MLC 10 309
Clipper Maritime Co v Mineralimportexport. The Marie Leonhardt [1981] 1 WLR 1262; [1981]
3 All ER 664; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 458 335
CMA CGM SA v Classica Shipping Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460 284
xxi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxii
TABLE OF CASES
Coast Lines Ltd v Hudig [1972] 2 QB 34; [1972] 2 WLR 280; [1972] 1 All ER 451; [1972]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 53 252, 326
Cobelfret NV v Cyclades Shipping Co. The Linardos [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 28 61
Cochin Refineries v Triton Shipping [1978] AMC 444 102
Cole v Meek (1864) 15 CB (NS) 795; 9 LT 653 71
Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd. The Dominique [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239;
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215 290, 293, 294
Commercial Marine Piling Ltd v Pierse Contracting Ltd [2009] EWHC 2241 (TCC) 321
Compagnie d’Armement Maritime SA v Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation SA [1971] AC 572;
[1970] 3 WLR 389; [1970] 3 All ER 71; [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 71 325
Compañia Columbiana de Seguros v Pacific SN Co [1965] 1 QB 101; [1964] 2 WLR 484; [1964]
1 All ER 216; [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 479 206
Compania Crystal de Vapores v Herman & Mohatta [1958] 2 QB 196; [1958] 3 WLR 36; [1958]
2 All ER 508; [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 616 73, 74
Compania de Naviera Nedelka v Tradax International. The Tres Flores [1974] QB 264; [1973]
3 WLR 545; [1973] 3 All ER 967; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 247 12, 59, 60, 61, 62
Compania de Navigacion Zita SA v Louis Dreyfus et Cie [1953] 1 WLR 1399; [1953] 2 All
ER 1359; [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 472 74
Compania Naviera Aeolus SA v Union of India [1964] AC 868; [1962] 3 WLR 1123; [1962] 3 All
ER 670; sub nom Union of India v Compañia Naviera Aeolus SA [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 175 77
Compania Naviera Azuero SA v British Oil and Cake Mills [1957] 2 QB 293; [1957] 2 WLR 997;
[1957] 2 All ER 241; [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 312 73
Compania Naviera General SA v Kerametal Ltd. The Lorna I [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 373 292, 293
Compania Naviera Maropan SA v Bowaters Paper Mills. The Stork [1955] 2 QB 68; [1955] 2 WLR
998; [1955] 2 All ER 241; [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 349 27, 29
Compañia Naviera Termar v Tradax Export [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 566 56
Compania Naviera Vascongada v Churchill [1906] 1 KB 237; 94 LT 59; 10 Asp MLC 177 118, 124
Compania Portorafti v Ultramar Panama Inc. The Captain Gregos (No 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 395
141, 142
Compania Sud Americana de Vapores v Sinochem [2009] EWHC 1880 (Comm) 274
Compania Sud American Vapores v MS ER Hamburg [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 66 192
Concordia Fjord, The [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 385 31
Connolly Shaw v Nordenfjeldske SS Co (1934) 50 TLR 418; 49 Ll LR 183 20
Conoco Britannia, The [1972] 2 QB 543; [1972] 2 WLR 1352; [1972] 2 All ER 238; [1972]
Constantine SS Line v Imperial Smelting Corp [1942] AC 154; [1941] 2 All ER 165 43, 44, 192
Continental Bank v Aeakos Compania Naviera [1994] 1 WLR 588; [1994] 2 All ER 540; [1994]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 505 316, 322
Continental Fertiliser Co v Pionier Shipping. The Pionier [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 223 206
Continental Grain Co v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. The Iran Bohonar [1983] 2
Lloyd’s Rep 620 208
Continental Pacific Shipping v Deemand Shipping. The Lendoudis Evangelos II [1997] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 404 91
Continex Inc v SS Flying Independent [1952] AMC 1499 272
Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, New Jersey. The Albaforth [1984] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 91 314
Coreck Maritime v Handelsveem [2000] Case 387/98; [2000] ECRI 9337 322
Cosmar Compania Naviera SA v Total Transport Corp. The Isabelle [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 366 54
Cosmos Bulk Transport Inc v China National Transportation Co [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53 89
Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554; [1947] 1 All ER 103 131
xxii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxiii
TABLE OF CASES
Court Line v Dant [1939] 3 All ER 314; 161 LT 35; 64 LlLR 212; 44 Com Cas 345 41, 97
Court Line v Finelvet [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 683 99
Cox v Bruce (1886) 18 QBD 147; 57 LT 128; 6 Asp MLC 152 128
Crédit Suisse Fides Trust v Cuoghi [1997] 3 All ER 724 333
Cremer v General Carriers [1974] 1 WLR 341; [1974] 1 All ER 1; sub nom. The Dona Mari [1973]
Crooks v Allan (1879) 5 QBD 38; 41 LT 800; 4 Asp MLC 216 129
Cuthbert v Cumming (1855) 11 Ex 405; 25 LT (OS) 234 71
Dadourian Group International v Simms [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 354 334, 335
Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd v Klipriver Shipping. The Kapitan Petko Voivoda [2003] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 1 21, 23, 179, 180, 202, 203, 280
Dagmar, The. See Tage Berglund v Montoro Shipping Corp
Dahl v Nelson (1881) 6 App Cas 38; 44 LT 381; 4 Asp MLC 392 64
Dakin v Oxley (1864) 15 CB (NS) 646; 143 ER 938; 10 LT 268 289, 290
Dampskibsselskabet Botnia A/S v Bell & Co [1932] 2 KB 569; 147 LT 499; 18 Asp MLC 307 73
Darrah, The. See Aldebaran Compañia Maritima SA v Aussenhandel AG
Daval Acier d’Usinor v Armare SRL. The Nerano [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 249
David Agmashenebeli, The [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92 123
Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696; [1956] 3 WLR 37; [1956] 2 All ER 145 38, 42
Deichland, The [1990] 1 QB 361; [1989] 3 WLR 478; [1989] 3 All ER 1066; [1989] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 113 321
Delfini, The. See Enichem Anic SpA v Ampelos Shipping Co
Delian Spirit, The. See Shipping Developments Corp SA v V/O Sojuzneftexport
Delos, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 703 249
De Mattos v Gibson (1858) 4 De G & J 276; 45 ER 108 363, 364
Democritos, The. See Marbienes v Ferrostaal
Denholm Shipping Co v Hedger [1931] AMC 297 89
Denny, Mott & Dickson Ltd v Fraser [1944] AC 265; [1944] 1 All ER 678 38
Derby, The. See Toepfer (Alfred C) v Tossa Marine Co Ltd
Deutsche Bank AG v Asia Broadband Wireless Communications [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 619 315
Deutsche Bank AG v Highland Crusader Offshore Partners [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61 316
Deutsche Ost-Afrika Linie v Legent Maritime Co [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 71 109
Dias Compania Naviera SA v Dreyfus (Louis) Corp; The Dias [1978] 1 WLR 261; [1978] 1 All
ER 724; [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 325 77
Dione, The. See Alma Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Mantovani
Dolphin Hellas Shipping AS v Itemslot Ltd. The Aegean Dolphin [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 178 89
Dominique, The. See Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd
Dona Mari, The. See Cremer v General Carriers
Donald, The [1920] P 56 34
Donohue v Armco Inc [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425 316
Doric Pride, The. See Hyundai Merchant Marine v Furnace Withy (Australia) Ltd
Dornoch v Mauritius Union Assurance [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 385; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 475
315
Dow Europe v Novoklav Inc [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 306 188
Dressler UK Ltd v Falcongate Freight Management Ltd. The Duke of Yare [1992] QB 502; [1992]
2 All ER 450; [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 557 146
Dreyfus (Louis) v Parnaso Cia Naviera SA (The Dominator) [1960] 2 QB 49; [1960] 2 WLR 637;
[1960] 1 All ER 759; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 117 71
Dubai Electricity Co v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. The Iran Vojdan [1984] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 380 325
xxiii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxiv
TABLE OF CASES
Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600 139

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Co [1915] AC 79; 111 LT 862 52, 77, 362
Duthie v Hilton (1868) LR 4 CP 138; 19 LT 285 291
Dynamic, The. See Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc
Eastern City, The. See Leeds Shipping v Société Française Bunge
Eastern Mediterranean Maritime v Unimarine. The Marika M [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 622 99
East West Corp v DKBS 1912 [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239 137, 138, 145, 146, 147
Edmund Fanning, The [1953] AMC 86 196
Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliriss Russ. The Sea Angel [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 517; [2007]
2 All ER (Comm) 634 42
Effort Shipping Co v Linden Management Co. The Giannis NK [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 337 33, 35,
36, 37
El Amria, The. See Aratra Potato Co v Egyptian Navigation Co
El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537 199, 200
Elafi, The. See Karlshamns Olje Fabriker v Eastport Navigation Corp
Elder, Dempster & Co Ltd v Paterson, Zochonis & Co [1924] AC 522; [1924] All ER 135; 16 Asp
MLC 351 13, 149
Elder Dempster Lines v Zaki Ishag. The Lycaon [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 548 172
Eleftheria, The [1970] P 94; [1969] 2 WLR 1073; [1969] 2 All ER 641; [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237
316, 317
Elena D’Amico, The. See Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Società di Navigazione
Eletherios, The. See Galaxia Maritime SA v Mineralimportexport
Ellerman Lines v Lancaster Maritime Co Ltd. The Lancaster [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 497 307
Elli 2, The. See Ilyssia Compañia Naviera v Ahmed Bamaodah
Elliott Steam Tug Co v Admiralty Commissioners [1921] 1 AC 137; 123 LT 754; 15 Asp MLC 81 8
Ellis Shipping Corp v Voest Alpine Intertrading. The Lefthero [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 109 77
Embericos v Reid & Co [1914] 3 KB 45; 111 LT 291; 12 Asp MLC 513 40
Emmanuel Colocotronis (No 2), The. See Astro Valiente SA v The Government of Pakistan
Empresa Cubana de Fletes v Lagonisi Shipping Co. The Georgios C [1971] 1 QB 588; [1971]
2 WLR 221; [1971] All ER 193; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7 94, 103
Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc v Hong Kong Producer [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 536 23, 179, 180, 184,
202
ENE Kos v Petroleo Brasileiro [2009] EWHC 1843 (Comm) 107
Enichem Anic SpA v Ampelos Shipping Co. The Delfini [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 252 138, 139, 157
Enstone Building Products Ltd v Stanger [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 479 328
Epar, The [1985] 2 MLJ 3 185
Epsilon Rosa, The. See Welex v Rosa Maritime Ltd
Erechthion, The. See New A Line v Erechthion Shipping Co
ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee v Chevron USA [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 542 76
Eridania SpA v Rudolf A Oetker. The Fjord Wind [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191 190, 290
Ert Stefanie, The. See Société Anonyme des Minerais v Grant Trading Inc
Esefka International v Central Bank of Nigeria [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 445 334
Esmeralda I, The. See Ace Imports Pty Ltd v Companhia de Navegação Lloyd Brasileiro
Eugenia, The. See Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht
Eurasian Dream, The. See Papera Traders Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine
Europa, The [1908] P 84; 98 LT 246; 11 Asp MLC 19 13
European Enterprise, The. See Browner International Ltd v Monarch Shipping Co
Eurymedon, The. See New Zealand Shipping Line v Satterthwaite
Evaggelos Th, The. See Vardinoyannis v Egyptian General Petroleum Co
Evera SA v North Shipping Co [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 367 68
xxiv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxv
TABLE OF CASES
Evia (No 2), The. See Kodros Shipping Corp v Empresa Cubana de Fletes
Falconbridge Nickel Mines v Chimo Shipping [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 469 181, 196
Farrandoc, The. See Robin Hood Flour Mills v Paterson & Sons
Federal Bulk Carriers Inc v C Itoh & Co. The Federal Bulker [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103 249
Federal Commerce & Navigation Co v Molena Alpha Inc. The Nanfri, The Benfri, The Lorfri [1979]
AC 757; [1978] 3 WLR 991; [1979] 1 All ER 307; [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201; affirming [1978]
QB 927; [1978] 3 WLR 309; [1978] 3 All ER 1006; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132 CA 100, 101,
102, 107, 289, 308, 346
Federal Commerce & Navigation Co v Tradax Export. The Maratha Envoy [1978] AC 1; [1977]
Federal Voyager, The [1955] AMC 880 91
Fehmarn (Cargo Owners) v Fehmarn (Owners). The Fehmarn [1958] 1 WLR 159; [1958] 1 All
ER 333; [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 551 316
Fehmarn, The [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 355 187
Fercometal v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. The Simona [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 171; [1987]
Fetim BV v Oceanspeed Shipping Co. The Flecha [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 612 247
Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson [1943] AC 32; [1942] 2 All ER 122; 73 LlLR 45 40, 43, 44,
45, 293
Fidelitas Shipping Co v V/O Exportchleb [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113 248, 309
Field Line (Cardiff) Ltd v South Atlantic Line 201 F 301 109
Fina Samco, The. See International Fina Services v Katrina Shipping
Finlay v Liverpool & Great Western SS Co (1870) 23 LT 251 270
Finlay (James) & Co Ltd v Kwik Hoo Tong [1929] 1 KB 400; 32 LlLR 245; 17 Asp MLC 566 361
Finnrose, The. See Fort Sterling Ltd v South Atlantic Cargo Shipping
Finska v Westfield Paper Co [1940] 4 All ER 473; 68 LlLR 75 250
Fiona, The. See Mediterranean Freight Services v BP Oil International
Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 254; [2007] 4 All ER 951 335
Fisher Renwick & Co v Calder & Co (1896) 1 Com Cas 456 120
Fjord Wind, The. See Eridania SpA v Rudolf A Oetker
Fjordaas, The. See K/S Arnt J Moerland v Kuwait Petroleum Corp
FKI Engineering Ltd v De Wind Holdings [2008] EWCA Civ 316 322
Flecha, The. See Fetim BV v Oceanspeed Shipping Co
Fletcher v Tayleur (1855) 17 CB 21; 9 LT 88; 139 ER 973 354
Fletcher (W&R) Ltd v Sigurd Haavik Aksjeselskap. The Vikfrost [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 560 245
Fontevivo, The. See Gem Shipping Co v Babanft
Foreman & Ellams v Federal SN Co [1928] 2 KB 424; 30 LlLR 52; 17 Asp MLC 447 20, 209, 275
Forestships International Ltd v Armonia Shipping & Finance Co. The Ira [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103
98
Forsythe International v Silver Shipping Co. The Saetta [1994] 1 WLR 1334; [1994] 1 All ER 851;
[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 268 108
Fort Sterling Ltd v South Atlantic Cargo Shipping. The Finnrose [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 559 204
Forum Craftsman, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 291 150
Forum Craftsman, The (1991). See Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Ierax Shipping Co
Foscolo, Mango v Stag Line see Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango
Framlington Court, The [1934] AMC 272 11
Frances Hammer, The [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 305 268
Frances Salman, The [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 355 274
Frank Pais, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 529 316
Fraser River v Can-Dive Services [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 199 152, 154
xxv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxvi
TABLE OF CASES
Freeman v Taylor (1831) 8 Bing 124 16

French v Newgass (1878) 3 CPD 163; 38 LT 164; 3 Asp MLC 574 89
French Marine v Compagnie Napolitaine [1921] 2 AC 494; 8 LlLR 345; 15 Asp MLC 358 44
Frenkel v MacAndrews [1929] AC 545; 33 LlLR 191; 17 Asp MLC 582 16, 20
Friso, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 469 11, 187
Front Commander, The. See Tidebrook Maritime Corp v Vitol
Frost v Knight (1872) LR 7 Ex 111 346, 347
Furness Withy (Australia) Pty v Metal Distributors. The Amazonia [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 236 185
Furness Withy & Co v Rederiaktiebolaget Banco [1917] 2 KB 873; 117 LT 313; 14 Asp MLC 137 269
Fury Shipping Co v State Trading Corp of India (The Atlantic Sun) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 509 79
Fyffes Group Ltd v Reefer Express Lines Pty. The Kriti Rex [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171 13, 15
Gadsden v Australian Coastal Shipping Commission [1977] 1 NSWLR 575 150, 246
Galatia, The. See Golodetz & Co v Czarnikow-Rionda Co
Galaxia Maritime SA v Mineralimportexport. The Eletherios [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 351 335
Galaxy Energy International v Novorossiysk Shipping. The Petr Schmidt [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 60
Gangway Ltd v Caledonian Park Investments [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 715 333, 335
Garbis Maritime Corp v Philippine National Oil Co (The Garbis) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 283 245,
252
Garcia & Diaz v Maguire Inc [1936] AMC 584 63
Garden City (No 2), The. See Polish Steamship Co v Atlantic Maritime Co
Gardner v Trechman (1884) 15 QBD 154; 5 Asp MLC 558 248, 304
Garnham, Harris & Elton Ltd v Alfred W Ellis (Transport) Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 940; [1967] 2 All ER
940; [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 22 148
Gasser v MISAT [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 222 322
Gatliffe v Bourne (1838) 4 Bing NC 314; affirmed (1841) 133 ER 1298 81
Gatoil Anstalt v Omennial Ltd. The Balder London [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 489 104
Gatoil Anstalt v Omennial Ltd. The Balder London [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 492 364
Gebr Broere v Saras Chemica [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 436 73
Gebr van Weelde Scheepvaart Kantoor BV v Homeric Marine Services Ltd. The Agrabele [1979] 2
Geipel v Smith (1872) LR 7 QB 404; 26 LT 361; 1 Asp MLC 268 269
Gem Shipping Co v Babanft. The Fontevivo [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 339 74
General Electric Co v Lady Sophie [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 173 195
General Star v Stirling Cooke Brown [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 19 318
General Trades Enterprises & Agencies v Consorcio Pesquero Del Peru [1974] AMC 2343 209
Genie, The. See Third Chandris Shipping Corp v Unimarine SA
Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd. The Baleares [1991] 1 WLR 776; [1991] 3 All ER 554; [1991] 2
Georgian Maritime Corp v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd. The North Sea [1999] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 21 67
Georgios C, The. See Empresa Cubana de Fletes v Lagonisi Shipping Co
Gerber & Co Inc v The Sabine Howaldt. The Sabine Howaldt [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 78 266
Giannis NK, The. See Effort Shipping Co v Linden Management
Giannis Xilas, The. See Cargill Inc v Rionda de Pass Ltd
Gilchrist Watt v York Products [1970] 1 WLR 1262; [1970] 3 All ER 825; [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1
149
Giles v Morris [1972] 1 All ER 960 364
Gill & Duffus v Rionda Futures [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 67 60, 248
Gill & Duffus v Scruttons [1953] 1 WLR 1407; [1953] 2 All ER 977; [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 545 83
Gill & Duffus v Société pour L’Exportation des Sucres [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 322 350
xxvi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxvii
TABLE OF CASES
Giovanna, The. See Gulf Interstate Oil Corp v Ant Trade & Transport Ltd
Glaholm v Hays (1841) 2 Man & G 257; 8 LT 93; 133 ER 743 65
Glebe Island Terminals Pty v Continental Seagram Pty. The Antwerpen [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213 156
Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd. The Happy Day [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487 59
Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc. The Mass Glory [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 54, 58, 59
Glendarroch, The [1894] P 226; 70 LT 344; 7 Asp MLC 420 192, 280
Glendevon, The [1893] P 269; 70 LT 416; 7 Asp MLC 439 79
Glenochil, The [1896] P 10; 73 LT 416; 8 Asp MLC 218 274
Glyn, Mills & Co v East & West India Dock Co (1882) 7 App Cas 591; [1881–85] All ER 674; 4
Asp MLC 580 82, 135, 155
Glyn v Margetson [1893] AC 351 19
Golden Fleece Maritime Inc v St Shipping & Transport Corp [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119 11
Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 164 360
Golodetz & Co v Czarnikow-Rionda. The Galatia [1980] 1 WLR 495; [1980] 1 All ER 501; [1980]
Good v Isaacs [1892] 2 QB 555; 67 LT 450; 7 Asp MLC 212 72, 74
Goodwin, Ferreira v Lamport & Holt (1929) 141 LT 494; 34 LlLR 192; 18 Asp MLC 38 181, 195,
278
Gordon Steamship Co v Moxey (1913) 108 LT 808; 12 Asp MLC 339; 18 Com Cas 170 69
Gosse Millerd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1927] 2 KB 432; [1929] AC 223;
[1928] All ER 97; 32 LlLR 91; 17 Asp MLC 549 192, 273, 274
Gould v SE & C Ry [1920] 2 KB 186; 123 LT 256 272
Grace v General SN Co [1950] 2 KB 383; [1950] 1 All ER 201; 83 LlLR 297 26, 110
Grace Line, Complaint of [1974] AMC 1253 274
Grange & Co v Taylor (1904) 90 LT 486; 9 Asp MLC 559; 20 TLR 386 84
Grant v Norway (1851) 10 CB 665; 20 LJCP 93 120, 121, 123, 129
Grant v Coverdale (1884) 9 App Cas 470; 51 LT 472; 5 Asp MLC 353 68, 69
Gray & Co v Christie (1889) 5 TLR 577 91
Great China Metal Industries v Malaysian International Shipping Corp. The Bunga Seroja [1999]
Great Northern Rly Co v LEP Transport [1922] 2 KB 742 34
Greenwich Marine Inc v Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. The Mavro Vetranic [1985] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 580 350
Gregos, The. See Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp
Grimaldi Compagnia di Navigazione v Sekihyo Lines Ltd. The Seki Rolette [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 638; [1998] 2 All ER 943 205, 213, 214
Gudermes, The. See Mitsui & Co v Novorossisk Shipping Co
Guinomar of Conakry v Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance. The Kamsar Voyager [2002] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 57 190
Gulf Azov Shipping Ltd v Idisi [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 727 332
Gulf Interstate Oil Corp v Ant Trade & Transport Ltd. The Giovanna [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 867
333, 334
Gulf Italia v American Export Lines [1958] AMC 439 196
Gulf Steel v Al Khalifa Shipping Co [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 261 245
Gullischen v Stewart (1884) 11 QBD 186; 13 QBD 317 298
Gundulic, The. See Itoh & Co Ltd v Atlantska Plovidba
Gunnstein A/S v Jensen, Krebs & Nielson. The Alfa Nord [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 434 295
Hadji Ali Akbar v Anglo-Arabian SS Co (1906) 11 Com Cas 219; 95 LT 610; 10 Asp
MLC 307 20
Hadjitsakos, The. See Pilgrim Shipping v State Trading Corp of India
xxvii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxviii
TABLE OF CASES
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341 220, 353, 354, 356

Hain SS Co v Sociedad Anonima Commercial (No 2) (1934) 151 LT 305; 49 LlLR 86 72
Hain Steamship Co v Tate & Lyle (1936) 2 All ER 597; 19 Asp MLC 62; 55 LlLR 159; 41 Com
Cas 350 21, 23, 24, 252, 280, 292, 303, 352
Halki, The. See Halki Shipping Corp v Sopex Oils Ltd
Halki Shipping Corp v Sopex Oils Ltd. The Halki [1998] 1 WLR 726; [1998] 2 All ER 23; [1998]
Hamburg Star, The [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 399 143, 318
Hamed el Chiaty & Co v The Thomas Cook Group Ltd. The Nile Rhapsody [1994] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 382 316
Hamilton v Mackie (1889) 5 TLR 677 249
Hamilton Fraser & Co v Pandorf & Co (1887) 12 App Cas 518; 57 LT 726; [1886–90] All ER 220;
6 Asp MLC 212 266, 279
Hand v Baynes (1839) 4 Whart 204 18
Hansen v Harrold Bros [1894] 1 QB 612; 70 LT 475; 7 Asp MLC 464 290
Happy Day, The. See Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd
Happy Ranger, The. See Parsons Corp v CV Scheepvaartonderneming
Harris v Best (1892) 68 LT 76; 7 Asp MLC 272 76
Hartford Fire Insurance v Pacific Far East Line. The Pacific Bear [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 359 198
Havhelt, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 523 317
Heathfield SS Co v Rodenacher (1896) 1 Com Cas 446 71
Hector, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 287 246
Heinrich C Horn v Cia de Navegacion Fruco [1969] AMC 1495 11
Heinrich Horn, The [1971] AMC 362 27
Helle Skou, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 205 60
Hellenic Dolphin, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 336 187, 190, 191, 279
Hellenic Steel Co v Svolamar Shipping Co. The Komninos S [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 371 185
Helvetia-S, The [1960] 3 Lloyd’s Rep 540 66
Henriksens Rederi A/S v Rolimpex. The Brede [1974] QB 233; [1973] 3 WLR 556; [1973] 3 All
ER 589; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 333 100, 207, 290, 291
Herceg Novi, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 454; [1998] 4 All ER 238 283, 319
Hermine, The. See Unitramp v Garnac Grain Co Inc
Hermosa, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638 13, 40, 212
Hermosa, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 570 14
Heron II, The. See Koufos v Czarnikow
Herrroe and Askoe, The [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 120
Heskell v Continental Express (1950) 83 LlLR 438; [1950] 1 All ER 1033 121, 358
Heyman v Darwins [1942] AC 356; [1942] 1 All ER 337; 72 LlLR 65 44, 344, 347, 351, 353
Heyn v Ocean Steamship Co (1927) 137 LT 158; 27 LlLR 334 278
Hick v Raymond [1893] AC 22; 68 LT 175; 7 Asp MLC 233 15, 72, 74
Hicks v Shield (1857) 7 E & B 633; 119 ER 1380 294
Hildebrand v Geneva Mills Co [1929] AMC 971 65
Hill Harmony, The. See Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd
Hingston v Wendt (1876) 1 QBD 367; 34 LT 181; 3 Asp MLC 126 303
Himalaya, The. See Adler v Dickson
Hirji Mulji v Cheong Yue SS Co [1926] AC 497; 134 LT 737; 17 Asp MLC 8 23, 44
Hispanica de Petroleos v Vencedora Oceanica Navegacion. The Kapetan Markos [1986] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 211 206
Hochster v De la Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678; [1843–60] All ER Rep 12; 118 ER 922 346
Hoegh v Green Truck Sales Inc [1962] AMC 431 181
xxviii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxix
TABLE OF CASES
Hogarth v Miller Bros & Co [1891] AC 48; 64 LT 205; 7 Asp MLC 1 98

Hollandia, The. See Morviken, The
Homburg Houtimport v Agrosin Private Ltd. The Starsin [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 85; on appeal
[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437; HL [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571 143, 150, 151, 246, 247
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 2 QB 26; [1962] 2 WLR 474; [1962]
1 All ER 474; [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 478 11, 14, 15, 348, 350, 351
Horn Linie v Panamericana Formas. The Hornbay [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 44; [2006] 2 All
ER (Comm) 924 151, 316, 327
Hornbay, The. See Horn Linie v Panamericana Formas
Horsley v Price (1883) 11 QBD 244; 49 LT 101; 5 Asp MLC 106 64
Horst v Biddell Bros [1912] AC 18 135
Houda, The. See Kuwait Petroleum Corp v I & D Oil Carriers
Houlder v Weir [1905] 2 KB 267; 92 LT 861; 10 Asp MLC 81 73, 74
Hourani v Harrison (1927) 137 LT 549; 28 LlLR 120; 17 Asp MLC 294; 32 Com Cas 305 278
Hoyanger, The. See Westcoast Food Brokers Ltd v The Ship ‘Hoyanger’
HR Macmillan, The [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 98, 99
Hudson v Ede (1868) LR 3 QB 412; 18 LT 764 69
Hunter v Prinsep (1808) 10 East 378; 103 ER 818 290, 296
Hurley Lumber Co v Cia San Gerassimo [1958] AMC 2502 88
Hyundai Merchant Marine v Furnace Withy (Australia) Ltd. The Doric Pride [2006] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 175 97
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co v Gesuri Chartering Co Ltd. The Peonia [1991] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 100 92, 93
Ikariada, The. See Orinoco Navigation Ltd v Ecotrade
Ilyssia Compania Naviera SA v Ahmed Bamaodah. The Elli 2 [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107 141
Imvros, The. See Transocean Liners v Euxine Shipping Ltd
Inca Co Naviera SA v Mofinol Inc. The President Brand [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338 57
Independent Petroleum Group v Seacarriers Ltd [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 72; [2007] 1 All ER
(Comm) 882 26, 28
Indian Grace No 2, The [1998] AC 878; [1997] 3 WLR 818; [1997] 4 All ER 380; [1998] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 1 331
Ines, The. See MB Pyramid Sound v Briese Schiffahrts GmbH
Ingram & Royle v Services Maritime du Treport [1914] 1 KB 541; 109 LT 733; 12 Asp MLC 387 10
Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 272 336
Insurance Company of N America v Blue Star Ltd [1997] AMC 2434 219
Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co. The Vimeira [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 424 342
Interbulk Ltd v Ponte Dei Sospiri Shipping Co. The Standard Ardour [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 159 213
Intercontainer SC v Bulkenende Oosthuiven BV (ECJ) C133/08 – judgment 6 October 2009 327
International Bulk Carriers v Evlogia Shipping Co. The Mihalios Xilas [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 186
107, 306
International Fina Services v Katrina Shipping Ltd. The Fina Samco [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 153 99
International Packers v Ocean Steamship Co [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 218 13
International Produce Inc v Frances Salman [1975] AMC 1521 244
International Sea Tankers Inc v Hemisphere Shipping Co. The Wenjiang [1982] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 128 41
Internationale Guano v MacAndrew [1909] 2 KB 360; 100 LT 850; 11 Asp MLC 271 22, 23
Inverkip SS Co v Bunge y Born [1917] 2 KB 193 76
Ion, The [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 541 207
Ionia (No 2), The (1905) 135 Fed Rep 317 54
Ionian Navigation v Atlantic Shipping. The Loucas N [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215 57
xxix
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxx
TABLE OF CASES
Ira, The. See Forestships International v Armonia Shipping & Finance Corp
Iran Bohonar, The. See Continental Grain Co v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines
Iran Vojdan, The. See Dubai Electricity Co v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines
Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA. The Angel Bell [1981] QB 65; [1980]
Irbenskiy Proliv, The. See Mitsubishi Corp v Eastwind Transport Ltd
Irini A (No 2), The. See Ascot Commodities v Northern Pacific Shipping
Irene’s Success, The. See Schiffahrt und Kohlen GmbH v Chelsea Maritime Ltd
Isabelle, The. See Cosmar Compania Naviera SA v Total Transport Corp
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Ierax Shipping Co. The Forum Craftsman [1991]
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Royal Bank of Scotland. The Anna CH [1987] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 266 77
Island Archon, The. See Triad Shipping v Stellar Chartering
Islander Shipping Enterprises v Empresa Maritime del Estado. The Khian Sea [1979] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 545 27
ISS Machinery Services Ltd v Aeolian Shipping. The Aeolian [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 641 327
Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker Co. The Rio Sun [1982] 1 WLR 158; [1982] 1 All ER 517;
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 404 107
Itex Itagrani Export SA v Care Shipping Corp. The Cebu (No 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 316 306
Itoh & Co Ltd v Atlantska Plovidba. The Gundulic [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 418 10
Jackson v Union Marine Ins Co (1874) LR 10 CP 125; [1874–80] All ER 317; 2 Asp MLC 435 40,
43, 65
Jardine, Matheson & Co v Clyde Shipping Co [1910] 1 KB 627; 102 LT 462; 11 Asp
MLC 384 71
Jarl Tra AB v Convoys Ltd [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 459 147
Jindal Iron & Steel Co Ltd v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co. The Jordan II [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 57
192, 231
Jocelyne, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 121 243
Johanna Oldendorff, The. See Oldendorff & Co v Tradax Export SA
John Michalos, The. See President of India v NG Livanos Maritime Co
Johnny, The. See Arta Shipping v Thai Europe Tapioca Shipping Service
Johnson Matthey & Co v Constantine Terminals [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215 148
Jones v Bencher [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 54 204
Jones v Flying Clipper (1954) 116 Fed Supp 386; [1954] 1 AMC 259 16, 23, 179, 202
Jordan II, The. See Jindal Iron & Steel Ltd v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co
Kaines (UK) Ltd v Osterreichische [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 361
Kalamazoo Paper Co v CPR Co [1950] 2 DLR 369 275
Kalliopi A, The. See Marc Rich & Co v Touloti Compañia Naviera SA
Kalma, The. See Melvin International v Poseidon Schiffahrt
Kamil Export v NPL (Aust) Ltd v NPL (Australia) Ltd (1992) unreported 156
Kamsar Voyager, The. See Guinomar of Conakry v Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance
Kanchenjunga, The. See Motor Oil Hellas Refineries SA v Shipping Corp of India
Kapetan Markos, The. See Hispanica de Petroleos v Vencedora Oceanica Navegacion
Kapitan Petko Voivoda, The. See Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd v Klipriver Shipping Ltd
Kapitan Sakharov, The. See Northern Shipping Co v Deutsche Seereederei
Karlshamns Olje Fabriker v Eastport Navigation Corp. The Elafi [1982] 1 All ER 208; [1981]
Kaukomarkkinat O/Y v Elbe Transport. The Kelo [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 85 141
Kelo, The. See Kaukomarkkinat O/Y v Elbe Transport
xxx
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxi
TABLE OF CASES
Kenya Railways v Antares Co Ltd. The Antares [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 424 21, 23, 157, 180, 185,
203, 204, 205, 244
Keppel Tatlee Bank Ltd v Bandung Shipping [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 619 137, 138
Kerman, The [1982] 2 WLR 166; [1982] 1 All ER 616; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 62 342
KH Enterprise v The Pioneer Container. The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324; [1994] 2 All
ER 250; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 593 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
Khian Sea, The. See Islander Shipping Enterprises v Empresa Maritima Del Estado
Kish v Cory (1875) 10 QB 553; 32 LT 670; 2 Asp MLC 593 308
Kish v Taylor [1912] AC 604; [1911–13] All ER 481; 12 Asp MLC 217 11, 18, 248, 297
Kislovodsk, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 183 317
Kitchener v Venus (1859) 1 Moo PC 361 304
Kitsa, The. See Action Navigation Inc v Bottiglieri Di Navigazione
Kleinwort Sons & Co v Associated Automatic Machines Corp Ltd (1935) 151 LT 1 121
Knutsford SS v Tillmans [1908] AC 406; [1908–10] All ER 549; 11 Asp MLC 105 245
Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Società di Navigazione. The Elena d’Amico [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75
355, 361
Kodros Shipping Corp v Empresa Cubana de Fletes. The Evia (No 2) [1983] 1 AC 736; [1982]
3 WLR 637; [1982] 3 All ER 350; [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 307 26, 28, 30, 31, 41
Komninos S, The. See Hellenic Steel Co v Svolamar Shipping Co
Konkola Copper Mines v Coromin Ltd [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 437; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 410 313
Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 QBD 377; 34 LT 677; 3 Asp MLC 163 9
Kostas Melas, The. See SL Sethia Liners Ltd v Naviagro Maritime Corp
Koufos v Czarnikow [1969] 1 AC 350; [1967] 3 WLR 1491; sub nom Koufos v Czarnikow. The
Heron II [1967] 3 All ER 686; sub nom Czarnikow v Koufos [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 457 354,
355, 358
Kriti Akti Shipping Co v Petroleo Brasiliero [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 396; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 712 93
Kriti Rex, The. See Fyffes Group Ltd v Reefer Express Lines Pty
Kronos Worldwide Ltd v Sempra Oil Trading [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 260 53
Kruger v Moel Tryvan Ship Co Ltd [1907] AC 272; 97 LT 143; 10 Asp MLC 465 109, 110, 245
Kruse v Questier & Co [1953] 1 QB 669; [1953] 2 WLR 850; [1953] 1 All ER 954; [1953]
K/S Arnt J Moerland v Kuwait Petroleum Corp. The Fjordaas [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 336 56, 58
K/S Penta Shipping A/S v Ethiopian Shipping Lines. The Saga Cob [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 545 26
K/S Seateam & Co v Iraq National Oil Co. The Sevonia Team [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 640 251
Kulmerland, The. See Royal Typewriter Co v MV Kulmerland
Kum v Wah Tat Bank Ltd [1971] AC 439 132
Kurt A Becher v Roplak Enterprises. The World Navigator [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 23 75
Kuwait Petroleum Corp v I & D Oil Carriers. The Houda [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541 110, 157
Kuwait Supply Co v Oyster Marine Management Inc. The Safeer [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 637 43, 342
Kyzikos, The. See Seacrystal Shipping Co v Bulk Transport Group Shipping Co
Laconia, The. See Mardorf Peach & Co v Attica Sea Carriers
Laconian Confidence, The. See Andre et Cie v Orient Shipping
Lady Gwendolen, The [1965] P 294; [1965] 3 WLR 91; [1965] 2 All ER 283; [1965] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 335 276, 288
Laemthong Glory No 2, The. See Laemthong International Lines v Artis
Laemthong International Lines v Artis. The Laemthong Glory No. 2 [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 688 153
Laga, The [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 582 271
Lakeport Navigation Co v Anonima Petroli Italiana. The Olympic Brilliance [1982] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 206 291
xxxi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxii
TABLE OF CASES
Lancaster, The. See Ellerman Lines Ltd v Lancaster Maritime Co Ltd

Lansat Shipping Co v Glenmore Grain. The Paragon [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 658; [2009] 2 All
ER (Comm) 12 93, 363
Larrinaga SS Co v R [1945] AC 246; 172 LT 177; [1945] 1 All ER 329 110
Laura Prima, The. See Nereide SpA di Navigazione v Bulk Oil International
Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller. The Super Servant Two [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 43, 44, 346
Lauritzen Reefers v Ocean Reef Transport Ltd. The Bukhta Russkaya [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 744 210
Lauritzencool v Lady Navigation Inc [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 63 365
Lazenby v McNicholas Construction Co [1995] 3 All ER 820; [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 30 345
Leach & Co v Royal Mail Steam Packet Co (1910) 104 LT 319; 11 Asp MLC 587; 16 Com
Cas 143 80
Leduc v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475; 58 LT 908 20, 24, 130, 131, 132
Lee Cooper v Jeakins [1967] 2 QB 1; [1965] 1 All ER 280; [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 300 149
Leeds Shipping Co v Société Française Bunge. The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 26
Leesh River Tea Co v British India SN Co [1967] 2 QB 250; [1966] 3 WLR 642; [1966] 3 All
ER 593; [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 193 188, 195, 278
Lefthero, The. See Ellis Shipping Corp v Voest Alpine Intertrading
Leigh & Sillivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co. The Aliakmon [1986] AC 785; [1986] 2 WLR 902;
[1986] 2 All ER 145; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 143, 144, 299
Lendoudis Evangelos II, The. See Continental Pacific Shipping v Deemand Shipping
Leni, The. See Transworld Oil Inc v Minos CN
Lennard’s Carrying Co v Asiatic Petroleum Co [1915] AC 705; 113 LT 195; 13 Asp MLC 81 276, 288
Lennox Lewis v King [2006] EWCA Civ 1329 319
Lensen Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co (1935) 52 LlLR 141, 40 Com Cas 320 97, 109
Leon, The. See Leon Corporation v Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc
Leon Corporation v Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc. The Leon [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470 101
Leonidas, The. See Bayoil v Seawind Tankers Corp
Leonis SS Co v Rank Ltd (No 1) [1908] 1 KB 499; 13 Com Cas 136 54, 58, 80
Leonis SS Co v Rank Ltd (No 2) (1908) 13 Com Cas 295; 11 Asp MLC 142 271
LEP International v Atlanttrafic Express [1987] 10 NSWLR 614 245
Leval v Colonial Steamships [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 560 275
Li Hai, The. See Western Bulk Carriers v Li Hai Maritime Inc
Libyaville, The [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 537 106
Lilly v Stevenson (1895) 22 Sess Cas (4th Ser) 278 76, 77
Limerick SS Co v Stott [1921] 2 KB 613; 125 LT 516; 15 Asp MLC 323, 7 LlLR 69 26, 111
Linardos, The. See Cobelfret NV v Cyclades Shipping Co
Lindsay v Gibbs (1859) 22 Beav 522; 52 ER 1209 301
Linea Naviera Paramaconi v Abnormal Load Engineering [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 763 205
Liner Shipping Ltd v Vatis. The Sun [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 314 108
Lipa, The. See Losinjska Plovidba Brodarstovo v Valfracht Maritime Ltd
Lips, The. See President of India v Lips Maritime Corp
Lisboa, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 546 316
Livanita, The [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 86 62
Liver Alkali Co v Johnson (1874) LR 9 Ex 338; 31 LT 95; 2 Asp MLC 332 264
Lloyd v Guibert (1865) 39 LJQB 241; LR 1 QB 115; 13 LT 605 326
Loch Dee, The [1949] 2 KB 430; 82 LlLR 430 74, 270
Lodza Compania de Navigacione SA v Government of Ceylon. The Theraios [1971] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 209 72, 73, 75
London Drugs v Kuehne & Nagel (1993) 97 DLR (4th) 261 151
London Explorer, The [1972] AC 1; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 523 91, 92
xxxii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxiii
TABLE OF CASES
Longford, The (1889) 14 PD 34 332

Lord Strathcona Steamship Co v Dominion Coal Co [1926] AC 108; [1925] All ER Rep 87; 134
LT 227; 16 Asp MLC 585 346, 364, 365
Lorentzen v White Shipping Co (1943) 74 LlLR 161 89
Lorna I, The. See Compania Naviera General SA v Kerametal Ltd
Losinjska Plovidba Brodarstovo v Valfracht Maritime Ltd. The Lipa [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 17 88
Lotus Cars v Southampton Cargo Handling plc. The Rigoletto [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 532 151
Loucas N, The. See Ionian Navigation v Atlantic Shipping
Louise, The [1945] AMC 363 18
Love & Stewart Ltd v Rowtor Steamship Co Ltd [1916] 2 AC 527; 115 LT 415; 13 Asp MLC 500 243
Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 319
Lucchese v Malabe Shipping Co [1973] AMC 979 197
Lucille, The. See Uni-Ocean Lines v C-Trade SA
Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 D, M & G 604 365
Lutetian, The. See Tradax Export v Dorada Compañia Naviera
Lycaon, The. See Elder Dempster Lines v Zaki Ishag
Lyderhorn SS Co v Duncan, Fox & Co [1909] 2 KB 929; 101 LT 295; 11 Asp MLC 291 61
Lyric Shipping Inc v Intermetals Ltd. The Al Taha [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 117 208
MacAndrew v Chapple (1866) LR 1 CP 643; 14 LT 556 16
McCarren & Co Ltd v Humber International Transport. The Vechscroon [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 301
185, 186
McCormick v National Motor Insurance (1934) 49 LlLR 361; 40 Com Cas 76 25
McFadden v Blue Star Line [1905] 1 KB 697; 93 LT 52; 10 Asp MLC 55 10, 12
McIver & Co Ltd v Tate Steamers [1903] 1 KB 362; 8 LT 182; 9 Asp MLC 362 11
MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co. The Rafaela S [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 347 161, 163
Madeleine, The. See Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury v Ceylon Shipping Lines
Mahavir Minerals Ltd v Cho Yang Shipping. The MC Pearl [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 566 317, 319
Mahkutai, The [1996] AC 650; [1996] 3 All ER 502; [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 150, 151, 152, 153
Maintop Shipping Co v Bulkindo Lines. The Marinicki [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 655 26
Makedonia, The [1962] P 190; [1962] 3 WLR 343; [1962] 2 All ER 614; [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 316
11, 187
Makefjell, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 29 316
Manifest Shipping Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Ltd. The Star Sea [1997]1 Lloyd’s Rep 360 187
Mansell Oil Ltd v Troon Storage Tankers [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 384; [2009] EWCA Civ 425; [2009]
Maori King (Cargo Owners) v Hughes [1895] 2 QB 550 12
Maratha Envoy, The. See Federal Commerce & Navigation Co v Tradax Export
Marbienes v Ferrostaal. The Democritos [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 386; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 149 15,
66, 90, 91, 92, 93, 99
Marc Rich & Co Ltd v Tourloti Compania Naviera. The Kalliopi A [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 263;
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 101 77, 263
Mardorf Peach & Co v Attica Sea Carriers. The Laconia [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395; [1977] AC 850;
[1977] 2 WLR 286; [1977] 1 All ER 545; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 315 94, 95, 103, 105, 106
Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH. The Mihalis Angelos [1971] 1 QB
164; [1970] 3 WLR 601; [1970] 3 All ER 125; [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 43 66, 348, 351
Mareva AS, The. See Mareva Navigation v Canadria Armadora SA
Mareva Compañia Naviera v International Bulk Carriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509 332
Mareva Navigation v Canadria Armadora SA. The Mareva AS [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368 92, 97
Margarine Union v Cambay Prince SS Co [1969] 1 QB 219; [1967] 3 WLR 1569; [1967] 3 All
ER 775; [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315 143
xxxiii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxiv
TABLE OF CASES
Margaronis Navigation Agency v Peabody [1965] 1 QB 300; [1965] 2 QB 430; [1964] 3 WLR
873; [1964] 3 All ER 333; [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 153 75
Marie Leonhardt, The. See Clipper Maritime Co v Mineralimportexport
Marika M, The. See Eastern Mediterranean Maritime v Unimarine
Marilena P, The. See United States of America v Marilena P
Marinicki, The. See Maintop Shipping Co v Bulkindo Lines
Marinor, The. See Noranda Inc v Barton (Time Charter) Ltd
Marion, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1; sub nom Grand Champion Tankers Ltd v Norpipe A/S [1984]
AC 563; [1984] 2 WLR 942; [1984] 2 All ER 243 275, 276, 288
Maritime Bulk Carriers v Carnac Grain Co [1975] AMC 1826 55
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers [1935] AC 524; 51 LlLR 299; 18 Asp MLC 551 43
Marubeni Corp v Welsh Overseas Freighters Ltd. The Welsh Endeavour [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 400 357
Mary Lou, The. See Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Ltd
Mashiter v Buller (1807) 1 Camp 84 292
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 128; [2008] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 301 322, 331
Mass Glory, The. See Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc
Massalia, The and Massalia (No 2), The. See Société Franco-Tunisienne v Sidermar
Mata K, The. See Agrosin Pty Ltd v Highway Shipping Co Ltd
Mauritius Oil Refineries v Stolt-Neilson. The Stolt Sydness [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 273 206, 212, 213
Mavro Vetranic, The. See Greenwich Marine Inc v Federal Commerce & Navigation Co
Mawson SS Co Ltd v Beyer [1914] 1 KB 304; 109 LT 973; 12 Asp MLC 423 79
Maxine Footwear Co v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1959] AC 589; [1959] 3 WLR
232; [1959] 2 All ER 740; [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 105 12, 187, 277, 280
Mayhew Foods v OCL [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 317 173, 182, 183, 258
MB Pyramid Sound v Briese Schiffahrts GmbH. The Ines [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 144 156, 247
MC Pearl, The. See Mahavir Minerals Ltd v Cho Yang Shipping
Mediterranean Freight Services v BP Oil International. The Fiona [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 506 207, 209
Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 628 25, 32, 63
Meling v Minos Shipping Co [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 458 97
Melvin International v Poseidon Schiffahrt. The Kalma [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 374 90
Mendala III Transport v Total Transport Corp. The Wilomi Tanana [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 41 129
Merak, The [1965] P 223; [1965] 2 WLR 250; [1965] 1 All ER 230; [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 527 206,
212, 249
Mercedes Benz v Leiduck [1995] 3 WLR 718; [1995] 3 All ER 929; [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 417 333
Merchant Shipping Co v Armitage (1873) LR 9 QB 99; 29 LT 809; 2 Asp MLC 185 295
Meredith Jones & Co v Vangemar Shipping. The Apostolis [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 241 190, 277
Meredith Jones & Co v Vangemar Shipping. The Apostolis (No 2) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 292 68
Meridian Global Funds v Securities Commission [1956] 3 All ER 918 276, 288
Metcalfe v Britannia Ironworks Co (1877) 2 QBD 423; 36 LT 451; 3 Asp MLC 407 63, 64, 289,
296
Metula, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 5 290
Mexico 1, The. See Transgrain Shipping v Global Transporte Oceanico
Micada v Texim [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 742 34
Middle East Agency v Waterman [1949] AMC 1403 196
Midwest Shipping Co Ltd v Henry Ltd. The Anastasia [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 375 109
Mihalios Xilas, The (1978). See International Bulk Carriers v Evlogia Shipping Co SA
Mihalios Xilas, The (1979). See China National Foreign Trade Corp v Evlogia Shipping Co SA
Mihalis Angelos, The. See Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel
Milburn v Jamaica Co [1900] 2 QB 540; 83 LT 321; 9 Asp MLC 122 109
xxxiv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxv
TABLE OF CASES
Millar & Co v Freden [1918] 1 KB 611; 118 LT 522; 14 Asp MLC 247 49
Miller v Law Accident Ins Co [1903] 1 KB 712; 88 LT 370; 9 Asp MLC 31 269
Minister of Food v Reardon Smith Line [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 265 191
Ministry of Food v Lamport & Holt [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 371 33
Miramar Maritime Corp v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. The Miramar [1984] 1 AC 676; [1984] 2
Lloyd’s Rep 129 210, 249, 250
Miriam, The [1952] AMC 1625 101
Mitchell (George) v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 803; [1983] 3 WLR 163; [1983] 1 All ER 108;
[1983] 2 All ER 737; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272 22
Mitchell, Cotts & Co v Steel [1916] 2 KB 610; 115 LT 606; 13 Asp MLC 497 34, 35
Mitsubishi Corp v Eastwind Transport Ltd. The Irbenskiy Proliv [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 383 10
Mitsui v American Export Lines [1981] AMC 331 198
Mitsui & Co v Novorossiysk Shipping Co. The Gudermes [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 141
Mitsui Ltd v Flota Mercante [1989] 1 All ER 951; [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 208 135
Mobil Cetro Negro Ltd v Petroleos Venezuela SA [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 684 334
Mobil Courage, The. See Mobil Shipping Co v Shell Eastern Petroleum Ltd
Mobil Shipping Co v Shell Eastern Petroleum Ltd. The Mobil Courage [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 655
165
Moel Tryvan Ship Co v Andrew Weir & Co [1910] 2 KB 844; 103 LT 161; 11 Asp MLC 469 67
Möller v Young (1855) 25 LJQB 94 141, 299
Molthes Rederi v Ellermans Wilson Line (1926) 26 LlLR 259; [1927] 1 KB 710; 136 LT 767; 17
Asp MLC 219 301, 307
Monarch SS Co v Karlshamns Oljefabriker [1949] AC 196; [1949] 1 All ER 1; 82 LlLR 137 44,
357, 358
Monroe Brothers Ltd v Ryan [1935] 2 KB 28; 153 LT 31; 51 LlLR 179 68
Montedison SpA v Icroma SpA. The Caspian Sea [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 91 291
Moorsom v Page (1814) 4 Camp 103 70
More v Demise Charterers of the Ship ‘Jotunheim’ [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 181 106
Mormaclynx, The [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 476 197, 199
Mormacvega, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 267; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 296 180
Morris v Levison (1876) 1 CPD 155; 34 LT 576; 3 Asp MLC 171 71
Morris v CW Martin & Sons [1966] 1 QB 716; [1965] 2 All ER 725; [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 63 147,
148
Morrison & Co Ltd v Shaw, Savill & Co [1916] 2 KB 783; 115 LT 508; 13 Asp MLC 504 22, 280
Morviken, The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1; sub nom The Hollandia [1983] 1 AC 565; [1982] 3 WLR
1111; [1982] 3 All ER 1141 23, 157, 184, 185, 319, 324, 327
Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabat [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 211 155, 156
Motor Oil Hellas Refineries SA v Shipping Corp of India. The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 391 28
Motorola Credit Corp v Uzan [2003] EWCA 752; [2004] 1 WLR 113 333
Mount I, The. See Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich v Five Star General Trading
Mozart, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239 74
Mulvenna v Royal Bank of Scotland [2003] EWCA Civ 1112 356
Muncaster Castle, The. See Riverstone Meat Co v Lancashire Shipping Co
Munson Steamship Line v Rosenthal [1934] AMC 46 291
Nadezhda Krupskaya, The. See Brown Boveri Pty v Baltic Shipping Co
Naiad, The M/V [1978] AMC 2049 26, 62
Nai Matteini, The. See Navigazione Alta Italia v Svenska Petroleum
Nancy Lykes, The. 706 F2d 80 (1983) 20, 21
Nanfri, The. See Federal Commerce and Navigation v Molena Alpha
xxxv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxvi
TABLE OF CASES
National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 666 323

National Rumour Co v Lloyd Libra [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 472 342
Naviera Mogor SA v Société Metallurgique de Normandie. The Nogar Marin [1988] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 412 110, 127
Navigas International Ltd v Trans-Offshore Inc. The Bridgestone Maru No 3 [1985] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 62 98
Navigazione Alta Italia v Svenska Petroleum. The Nai Matteini [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 452 249, 251
Navrom v Callitsis Ship Management SA. The Radauti [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 416 57
NB Three Shipping Ltd v Harebell Shipping Ltd [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 509 336
Nea Agrex SA v Baltic Shipping Co [1976] QB 933; [1976] 2 WLR 925; [1976] 2 All ER 842;
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 47 206
Nea Tyhi, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 606 121, 123, 143
Negocios del Mare SA v Doric Shipping Corp SA. The Assios [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 331 333
Nelson Line v James Nelson [1908] AC 16; [1904–7] All ER 769; 10 Asp MLC 581 10
Nelson Pine Industries v Seatrans New Zealand. The Pembroke [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 290 22, 180,
204
Nema, The. See BTP Tioxide Ltd v Pioneer Shipping Ltd
Nemeth v General Steamship Corp [1983] AMC 885 21
Nerano, The. See Daval Acier d’Usinor v Armare
Nereide SpA di Navigazione v Bulk Oil International. The Laura Prima [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1;
[1981] 3 All ER 737 56
Nesbitt v Lushington (1792) TR 783 270
New A Line v Erechthion Shipping Co. The Erechthion [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 180 109
New Chinese Antimony Co v Ocean Steamship Co [1917] 2 KB 664; 117 LT 297; 14 Asp MLC
131 122
New Horizon, The. See Tramp Shipping v Greenwich Marine
New York Star, The. See Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty v Salmond & Spraggon Australia Pty
New Zealand Shipping Line v Satterthwaite. The Eurymedon [1975] AC 154; [1975] AC 167–9;
[1974] 2 WLR 865; [1974] 1 All ER 1015; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 534 150, 161, 202, 256
Newcastle P & I v Gard [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 387 110
Nichimen Co v M/V Farland [1972] AMC 1573 244
Niedersachsen, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 600 334
Nikmary, The. See Triton Navigation Ltd v Vitol
Nile Rhapsody, The. See Hamel el Chiaty & Co v The Thomas Cook Group Ltd
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v International Import & Export Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 204 257
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 137 332
Nobel’s Explosives Co v Jenkins [1896] 2 QB 326; 75 LT 163; 8 Asp MLC 181 64, 270
Noble Resources Ltd v Cavalier Shipping Corp. The Atlas [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 642 118, 119, 122,
123, 172
Noemijulia SS Co v Minister of Food [1951] 1 KB 223; [1950] 2 All ER 699; 84 LlLR 354 61
Nogar Marin, The. See Naviera Mogor SA v Société Metallurgique de Normandie
Nolisement (Owners) v Bunge y Born [1917] 1 KB 160; 115 LT 732; 13 Asp MLC 524 75
Noranda Inc v Barton (Time Charters) Ltd. The Marinor [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 301 205, 213
Nordic Navigator, The. See Associated Bulk Carriers v Shell International Petroleum Co
North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corp. The Western Triumph [2002] 4 All ER 390;
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 340
North Sea, The. See Georgian Maritime Corp v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd
Northern Shipping Co v Deutsche Seereederei. The Kapitan Sakharov [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255 209
Northumbrian Shipping Co v Timm & Son Ltd [1939] AC 397; 160 LT 573; 64 LlLR 33; [1939]
2 All ER 658; 19 Asp MLC 290 11, 187
xxxvi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxvii
TABLE OF CASES
Norway, The (1865) 13 LT 50; 16 ER 92 295

Notara v Henderson (1870) LR 5 QB 346; (1872) LR 5 QB 346, LR 7 QB 255 17, 19, 279, 280
Noto, The [1979] AMC 116 101, 103
Notos, The. See Société Maritime Marocaine v Notos Maritime Corp
Nourse v Elder, Dempster (1922) 13 LlLR 197 97
Novorossisk Shipping Co v Neopetro Co. The Ulyanovsk [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425 75
Novus Aviation Ltd v Onur Air Tasimalik [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 576 315
Nugent v Smith (1876) 1 CPD 423; 34 LT 827; 3 Asp MLC 198 263
Nugent & Killick v Michael Goss Aviation Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 222 204
Nussberger v Symes [2006] 3 All ER 838 322
NV Reederij Amsterdam v President of India. The Amstelmolen [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 57, 74
NV Stoomv Maats De Mass v Nippon Yusen Kaisha. The Pendrecht [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 56 339
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti. The Siboen and The Sibotre [1976]
Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc. The Dynamic [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 693 74, 362
Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht. The Eugenia [1964] 2 QB 226; [1964] 2 WLR 114;
[1964] 1 All ER 161; [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 381 38, 42, 43
Odenfeld, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 357 362
Odfjfell Seachem v Continentale des Petroles [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 275 205
L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v Yamashita-Shinnihon. The Bouccra [1994] AC 486; [1994]
1 All ER 20; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 251 345
O’Hanlon v GW Ry (1865) 6 B & S 484; 12 LT 490 359
Oinoussin Pride, The. See Pride Shipping Corp v Chung Hwa Pulp Co
OK Petroleum v Vitol Energy [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 160 249
Oldendorff & Co GmbH v Tradax Export. The Johanna Oldendorff [1974] AC 479; [1972] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 292; [1973] 3 WLR 382; [1973] 3 All ER 148; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285 53, 54, 55, 57,
58, 74
Olympic Brilliance, The. See Lakeport Navigation Co v Anonima Petroli Italiana
Onisilos, The. See Salamis Shipping v Meerbeek
OOCL Bravery, The [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 394 181, 195
Oricon v Intergraan [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 82 122
Oriental Steamship Co v Tylor [1893] 2 QB 518; 69 LT 577; 7 Asp MLC 377 292, 294
Orinoco Navigation Ltd v Ecotrade. The Ikariada [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365 250, 252
OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 710 315
OT Sonya, The. See Cargill International v CPN Tankers
Ove Skou v Rudolf A Oetker. The Arctic Skou [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 478 90
Overseas Tankship (UK) v BP Tanker Co [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 386 186
Overseas Transportation Co v Mineralimportexport. The Sinoe [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514; [1972]
Overstone v Shipway [1962] 1 WLR 117; [1962] 1 All ER 52 108
Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801; [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 577; [2005] 2 WLR 942 321, 322
Pacific Molasses Co v Entre Rios CN. The San Nicholas [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 8 251
Palace Shipping Co v Gans SS Line [1916] 1 KB 138; 115 LT 414; 13 Asp MLC 494 26
Palm Shipping Inc v Kuwait Petroleum Corp. The Sea Queen [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 500 56
Palm Shipping Inc v Vitol SA. The Universal Monarch [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 483 27
Palmco Shipping Inc v Continental Ore Corp. The Captain George K [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 21 42
Pamela, The. See Schelde Delta Shipping v Astarte Shipping
Pan Ocean Shipping Co v Creditcorp Ltd. The Trident Beauty [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 365; [1994]
1 WLR 161; [1994] 1 All ER 470 108
Panalpina v Densil Underwear Ltd [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 187 355
xxxvii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxviii
TABLE OF CASES
Pannell v American Flyer [1958] AMC 1428 196

Papera Traders Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine. The Eurasian Dream [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719 187
Parana, The (1877) 2 PD 118; 36 LT 388; 2 Asp MLC 399 358
Parker v South Eastern Ry Co (1877) 2 CPD 416; 36 LT 540 159
Parsons v New Zealand Shipping Co [1901] 1 KB 548; 84 LT 218; 9 Asp MLC 170 127
Parsons Corp v CV Scheepvaartonderneming. The Happy Ranger [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 357 23,
176, 202, 203
Parsons Corp v CV Scheepvaartonderneming. The Happy Ranger [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 649 190
Paterson Steamships Ltd v Robin Hood Mills (1937) 58 LlLR 33 11
Patrick v Russo-British Grain Export Co [1927] 2 KB 535; 28 LlLR 358, 724; 1 Asp MLC 71 359
Payzu v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581; 121 LT 563 361
Pegase, The. See Satef-Huttenes Albertus SpA v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co
Pembroke, The. See Nelson Pine Industries v Seatrans New Zealand
Pendle & Rivet Ltd v Ellerman Lines (1927) 33 Com Cas 70; (1928) 29 LlLR 133 278
Pendrecht, The. See NV Stoomv Maats De Mass v Nippon Yusen Kaisha
Penelope, The [1928] P 180; 139 LT 355; 17 Asp MLC 486 40
Peonia, The. See Hyundai Merchant Marine Co v Gesuri Chartering Co
Peter de Grosse, The (1876) 1 PD 414; 34 LT 749; 3 Asp MLC 195 125
Petersen v Freebody & Co [1895] 2 QB 294; 73 LT 163; 8 Asp MLC 55 80
Petr Schmidt, The. See Galaxy Energy International v Novorossiysk Shipping
Petredec Ltd v Tokumaru Kaiun Ltd. The Sargasso [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 162 206
Petrinovic & Co v Mission Française des Transports Maritimes (1941) 71 LlLR 208 74
Petroleum Oil & Gas Corp of South Africa v FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd [2008] EWHC 2480 (Comm);
[2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 556 274
Phelps & Co v Hill [1891] 1 QB 605; 64 LT 610; 7 Asp MLC 42 18
Phillips & Co v Clan Line Steamers Ltd (1943) 76 LlLR 58 278
Phillips Petroleum Co v Cabaneli Naviera. The Theodegmon [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 52 187
Phoenix Shipping Corp v Apex Shipping Corp. The Apex [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 476 342
Phonizien, The [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 150 249
Phosphate Mining Co v Rankin (1915) 21 Com Cas 248; (1916) 115 LT 211; 13 Asp MLC 418 270
Photo Production v Securicor Transport [1980] AC 827; [1980] 2 WLR 283; [1980] 1 All ER 556;
[1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 545 21, 22, 156, 179, 203, 280, 350, 353
Pilgrim Shipping v State Trading Corp of India. The Hadjitsakos [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 356 63
Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770; [1953] 2 All ER 810 361
Pioneer Container, The. See KH Enterprise v The Pioneer Container
Pioneer Moon, The. See Shinko Boeki Co v Pioneer Moon
Pionier, The. See Continental Fertiliser Co v Pionier Shipping
Pirelli Cables Ltd v United Thai Shipping Corp [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 663 316, 317
Polessk, The [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40 318
Polish Steamship Co v Atlantic Maritime Co. The Garden City (No 2) [1985] QB 41; [1984]
Popi M, The. See Rhesa Shipping Co v Herbert David Edmunds
Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty v Salmond & Spraggon Australian Pty. The New York Star [1981]
Port Line Ltd v Ben Line Steamers Ltd [1958] 2 QB 146; [1958] 2 WLR 551; [1958] 1 All ER 787;
[1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 290 41, 364
Portland Trader, The [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 443 274
Portsmouth SS Co v Liverpool & Glasgow Salvage (1929) 34 LlLR 459 110, 111
Poseidon Schiffahrt v Nomadic Navigation Co. The Trade Nomad [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 57 99
Posidon, The. See China Offshore Oil Ltd v Giant Shipping Ltd
xxxviii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xxxix
TABLE OF CASES
Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987] Ch 25; [1986] 3 All ER 513 363

Poznan, The (1922) 276 Fed Rep 418 23
President Brand, The. See Inca Co Naviera SA v Nofinol Inc
President of India v Lips Maritime Corp. The Lips [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 131 94
President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co [1970] 1 QB 289; [1969] 3 WLR 1120; [1969] 3 All
ER 1549; [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 476 243
President of India v NG Livanos Maritime Co. The John Michalos [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 188 77
President of India v West Coast Steamship Co [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278 10, 187
Pride Shipping Corp v Chung Hwa Pulp Co. The Oinoussin Pride [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 126 249
Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd. The Ythan [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 457 138
Pteroti Compania Naviera SA v National Coal Board [1958] 1 QB 469; [1958] 2 WLR 505;
[1958] 1 All ER 603; [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 245 79
Puerto Buitrago, The. See Attica Sea Carriers Corp v Ferrostaal
Puerto Madrin v Esso Standard Oil Co [1962] AMC 147 55, 59
Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co [1954] 2 QB 402; [1954] 2 WLR 1005; [1954] 2 All ER 158;
[1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 321 129, 175, 176, 181, 192
Pythia, The. See Western Sealanes Corp v Unimarine
Quarrington Court, The [1941] AMC 1234 244
Radauti, The. See Navrom v Callitsis Ship Management SA
Rafaela S, The. See MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich v Five Star General Trading. The Mount I [2001] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 597 326, 328
Ralli Bros v Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287; 123 LT 375; 15 Asp MLC 33 40
Rasnoimport V/O v Guthrie [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 121
Rathman v Othman [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 565 334
Raymond & Reid v King Line Ltd (1939) 64 LlLR 254 280
Raymond Burke Motors v Mersey Docks & Harbour Co [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 155 151
Reardon Smith Line v Austrailan Wheat Board [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 44 30
Reardon Smith Line v Australian Wheat Board [1956] AC 266; [1956] 2 WLR 403; [1956] 1 All
ER 456; [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 27
Reardon Smith Line v Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance [1939] AC 562; [1939] 3 All ER 444;
64 LlLR 229; 19 Asp MLC 311 16
Reardon Smith Line v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1960] 1 QB 439; affirmed [1962]
1 QB 42; [1963] AC 691; [1963] 2 WLR 439; [1963] 1 All ER 545; [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 12
54, 62, 70, 72, 73, 270, 271
Reardon Smith Line v Sanko SS Co. The Sanko Honour [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 418 342
Refco Inc v Eastern Trading Co [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 159 333, 334
Reindeer SS Co v Forslind (1908) 13 Com Cas 214; 24 TLR 529 91
Reliance Industries Ltd v Enron Oil & Gas Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 645 340
Rena K, The [1979] QB 377; [1979] 1 All ER 397; [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 545 249
Renton v Palmyra Trading Corp of Panama. The Caspiana [1957] AC 149; [1957] 2 WLR 45;
[1956] 1 QB 462; [1956] 3 All ER 957; [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 379 20, 192, 209, 220, 272
Repetto v Millar’s Karri Forests Ltd [1901] 2 KB 306; 84 LT 836; 9 Asp MLC 215 301
Research (UK) Ltd v Vista Corp [2008] EWCA Civ 153 322
Resolven, The (1892) 9 TLR 75 71
Rewia, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 246
Reynolds & Co v Tomlinson [1896] 1 QB 586; 74 LT 91; 8 Asp MLC 150 26
Rhesa Shipping Co v Edmunds. The Popi M [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 279
Rickards v Forestal Co [1942] AC 50; 165 LT 257; 70 LlLR 173 269
Rigoletto, The. See Lotus Cars v Southampton Cargo Handling plc
xxxix
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xl
TABLE OF CASES
Rijn, The. See Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart v Scanbulk A/S

Rio Sun, The. See Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker Co
Rio Tinto Co v Seed Shipping Co (1926) 24 LlLR 316; 134 LT 764; 17 Asp MLC 21 17
River Gurara, The [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 53; [1998] QB 610; [1997] 3 WLR 1128; [1997] 4 All
ER 498; [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 225 196, 97, 198, 199, 200
Riverstone Meat Co v Lancashire Shipping Co. The Muncaster Castle [1961] AC 807; [1961] 2 WLR
269; [1961] 1 All ER 495; [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 57 10, 187, 188, 189, 190, 217, 227
Roachbank, The. See Venezolana de Navegacion v Bank Line
Roberts & Co Ltd v Leicestershire County Council [1961] Ch 555; [1961] 2 WLR 1000; [1961]
2 All ER 545 131
Robin Hood Flour Mills v Paterson & Sons. The Farrandoc [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 232; [1967]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 276 11, 187, 191, 280
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850 358
Rodocanachi v Milburn (1886) 18 QBD 67; 56 LT 594; 6 Asp MLC 100 243, 356
Roelandts v Harrison (1854) 9 Ex 441; 156 ER 189 292
Rona (No 2), The (1884) 51 LT 28; 5 Asp MLC 259 18, 19
Roper v Johnson (1873) LR 8 CP 167 347
Ropner Shipping Co, Re [1927] 1 KB 879; 137 LT 221; 27 LlLR 317; 17 Asp MLC 245 74, 77
Rosa S, The [1989] QB 419; [1989] 2 WLR 162; [1989] 1 All ER 489; [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 574 196
Rosenfeld, Hillas & Co v Port Laramie (1923) 32 CLR 25 121
Rossetti, The [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 116 10
Rowson v Atlantic Transport Co [1903] 2 KB 666; 89 LT 204; 9 Asp MLC 458 275
Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 471 318
Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (No 1). The Ilissos [1949] 1 KB 525; [1949]
1 All ER 171; (1948) 82 LlLR 196 97
Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (No 2) (1949) 83 LlLR 228 108, 109, 110, 111
Royal Mail Steam Packet Co, Re [1910] 1 KB 600; sub nom Royal Mail Steam Packet Co v River
Plate Steam Packet Co (1910) 102 LT 333; 11 Asp MLC 372 79
Royal Typewriter Co v MV Kulmerland [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 428 197
Rozel, The. See Channel Island Ferries v Cenargo Navigation
Rubystone, The [1955] 1 QB 430 73
Rudolf A Oetker v IFA Internationale Frachtagentur AG. The Almak [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 557 129,
172
Russell v Niemann (1864) 17 CB (NS) 163; 10 LT 786 264
Russo-Chinese Bank v Li Yan Sam [1910] AC 174 121
SA Sucre Export v Northern River Shipping Ltd. The Sormovskiy 3068 [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266
156, 158
Sabah Flour v Comfez [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 18 210
Sabah Shipyard Ltd v Pakistan [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 571 316, 318
Sabine Howaldt, The. See Gerber & Co Inc v The Sabine Howaldt
Saetta, The. See Forsythe International v Silver Shipping Co
Safeer, The. See Kuwait Supply Co v Oyster Marine
Saga Cob, The. See K/S Penta Shipping A/S v Ethiopian Shipping Lines
St Enoch Shipping Co v Phosphate Mining Co [1916] 2 KB 624 396
Salamis Shipping SA v van Meerbeek & Co. The Onisilos [1971] 2 QB 501; [1971] 2 WLR 1392;
[1971] 2 All ER 497; [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 29 271, 272
Samuel v West Hartlepool SN Co (1906) 11 Com Cas 115 301
San Nicholas, The. See Pacific Molasses Co v Entre Rios CN
Sanday & Co v Keighley, Maxsted & Co (1922) 10 LlLR 738; 127 LT 327; 15 Asp MLC 596;
27 Com Cas 296 66
xl
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xli
TABLE OF CASES
Sanday & Co v British and Foreign Marine Ins Co [1915] 2 KB 781 269
Sandeman & Sons v Tyzack SS Co [1913] AC 680; 109 LT 580; 12 Asp MLC 437 83
Sanders v Maclean (1883) 11 QBD 327; 49 LT 462; 5 Asp MLC 160 132
Sandgate, The [1930] P 30; 142 LT 356; 35 LlLR 151; 18 Asp MLC 83 73
Sanko Honour, The. See Reardon Smith Line v Sanko Steamship Co
Santa Clara, The. See Vitol v Norelf Ltd
Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart v Scanbulk A/S. The Rijn [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267 97, 111, 112
Santiren Shipping Ltd v Unimarine. The Chrysovalandou Dyo [1981] 1 All ER 340; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 159 101, 102, 305, 306, 354
Sargasso, The. See Petredec Ltd v Tokumaru Kaiun Co
Satef-Huttenes Albertus SpA v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co. The Pegase [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 175
354, 357, 359
Saturnia, The. See Superfos Chartering A/S v NBR (London) Ltd
Satya Kailash, The. See Seven Seas Transportation Ltd v Pacifico Union Marina Corp
Saudi Crown, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 261 121, 129
Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana. The Scaptrade [1983] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 146; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 253 101, 105, 106, 363, 364, 365
Scaptrade, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 425 104
Scaptrade, The [1983]. See Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana
Scaramanga v Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295; 42 LT 840; 4 Asp MLC 295 17
Schelde Delta Shipping v Astarte Shipping. The Pamela [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 249 107
Schiffahrt- und Kohlen GmbH v Chelsea Maritime Ltd. The Irene’s Success [1982] QB 481; [1982]
Schilizzi v Derry (1855) 4 E & B 873 63
Schulze v GE Ry (1887) 19 QBD 30; 57 LT 438
Scottish & Newcastle International Ltd v Othon Ghalanos [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 462 321
Scottish Navigation Co v Souter [1917] 1 KB 222; 115 LT 812; 13 Asp MLC 539 40
Scruttons v Midland Silicones [1962] AC 446; [1962] 2 WLR 186; [1962] 1 All ER 1; sub nom
Midland Silicones v Scruttons [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365 149, 150, 154, 201, 202
Sea & Land Securities v Dickinson [1942] 2 KB 65; 167 LT 173; 72 LlLR 133; [1942] 1 All ER 503
7, 98
Sea Maas, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 321
Sea Queen, The. See Palm Shipping Inc v Kuwait Petroleum Corp
Sea Success Maritime Inc v African Maritime Carriers [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 692 123
Seabridge Shipping Ltd v Antco Shipping Ltd [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 367 269
Seabridge Shipping v Orssleff’s Eftf [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 685 210, 339
Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markasi [1993] 3 WLR 756; [1993] 4 All ER 456; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 1 314
Seacrystal Shipping Ltd v Bulk Transport Group Shipping Co. The Kyzikos [1987] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 48; [1988] 3 WLR 858; [1988] 3 All ER 745; [1989] AC 1264; 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 56, 58, 61
Seaflower, The. See BS & N Ltd v Micado Shipping Ltd
Searose Ltd v Seatrain (UK) Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 894; [1981] 1 All ER 806; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 556
334, 335
Seki Rolette, The. See Grimaldi Compagnia di Navigazione v Sekihyo Lines Ltd
Serena Navigation Ltd v Dera Commercial Establishment [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 166 201
Serrano v US Lines [1965] AMC 1038 37
Seven Pioneer, The [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 57 143
Seven Seas Transportation v Atlantic Shipping [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 188 100
Seven Seas Transportation v Pacifico Union Marina Corp. The Satya Kailash [1984] 2 All ER 140;
[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 588 211, 212, 273, 274
xli
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xlii
TABLE OF CASES
Sevonia Team, The. See K/S Seateam & Co v Iraq National Oil Co
Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 App Cas 74; 52 LT 445; 5 Asp MLC 376 129, 131, 135, 139, 160
Shillito, The (1897) 3 Com Cas 44 308
Shillito v Biggart [1903] 1 KB 683; 88 LT 426; 9 Asp MLC 396 301
Shinko Boeki Co v Pioneer Moon. The Pioneer Moon [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 199 196
Shipping Corp of India v Gamlen Chemical Co (1980) 55 ALJR 88 191, 192
Shipping Corp of India v NSB Niederelbe. The Black Falcon [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 77 93
Shipping Developments Corp v V/O Sojuzneftexport. The Delian Spirit [1972] 1 QB 103; [1971]
2 WLR 1434; [1971] 2 All ER 1067; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506 57, 62, 74
SHV Gas Supply & Trading v Naftomar Shipping. The Azur Gaz [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 163; [2006]
Siam Venture, The [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 147 78
Siboti v BP France [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 364 249
Sig Bergesen v Mobil Shipping Co. The Berge Sund [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 453 97, 110
Silver v Ocean SS Co [1930] 1 KB 416; 142 LT 244; 35 LlLR 49; 18 Asp MLC 74 124, 272
Silver Coast Shipping v Union Nationale des Cooperatives Agricoles. The Silver Sky [1981] 2
Silver Constellation, The [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 440 11
Silver Cypress, The (1944) 143 Fed Rep 2d 462; [1944] AMC 895 16
Silver Sky, The. See Silver Coast Shipping v Union Nationale des Cooperatives Agricoles
Simona, The. See Fercometal v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co
Simona, The [1989] AC 788; [1988] 2 All ER 742; [1988] 3 WLR 200; [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 199
347
Singer UK Ltd v Tees & Hartlepool Port Authority [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 164 148
Sinochem International Oil v Mobil Sales & Supply Corp [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 670 315
Sinoe, The. See Overseas Transportation Co v Mineralimportexport
Siordet v Hall (1828) 4 Bing 607 264, 280
Siskina, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 333
Skarp, The [1935] P 134; 154 LT 309; 52 LlLR 152; 18 Asp MLC 576 125
Skibs, Snefonn v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha. The Berge Tasta [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 422 91, 92
Skips A/S Nordheim v Syrian Petroleum Co. The Varenna [1984] QB 599; [1984] 2 WLR 156;
[1983] 3 All ER 645; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 592 248, 249
SL Sethia Liners Ltd v Naviagro Maritime Corp. The Kostas Melas [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18 101, 102
SLS Everest, The. See Bangladesh Chemical Industries v Henry Stephens Shipping Co
Smailes & Son v Evans & Reid [1917] 2 KB 54; 116 LT 595; 14 Asp MLC 59 98
Smith v Bedouin Steam Navigation Co [1896] AC 70 120
Smith v Dart (1884) 14 QBD 105; 52 LT 218; 5 Asp MLC 360 67
Smith v Zigurds [1934] AC 209; 150 LT 303; 47 LlLR 267; 18 Asp MLC 475 302
Snia Societa v Suzuki (1924) 18 LlLR 333 14
Soblomsten, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 293; 15 LT 393 296
Sociedad Carga Oceanica v Idolinoele. The Angelos Lusis [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 28 56
Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices SA v Agrimpex. The Aello [1961] AC 135; [1960] 3 WLR 145;
[1960] 2 All ER 578; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623 54, 62, 69
Société Anonyme des Minerais v Grant Trading Co. The Ert Stefanie [1989] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 349 288
Société Co-opérative Suisse v La Plata (1947) 80 LlLR 530 39, 40
Société Franco-Tunisienne v Sidermar. The Massalia [1961] 2 QB 278; [1960] 3 WLR 701; [1960]
2 All ER 529; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 594 42
Société Franco-Tunisienne v Sidermar. The Massalia (No. 2) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 352 60, 61
Société Maritime Marocaine v Notos Maritime Corp. The Notos [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 503 61
xlii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xliii
TABLE OF CASES
Solholt, The. See Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt

Solon, The. See Cero Navigation Corp v Jean Lion
Sommer Corp v Panama Canal Co [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 287 195
Son Shipping Co v DeFosse & Tanghe 199 F 2d 687 (1952); [1952] AMC 1931 206, 212
Sonia, The. See Trafigura Beheer v Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc
Sonicare International v East Anglia Freight Terminal Ltd [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 48 148
Sormovskiy 3068, The. See SA Sucre Export v Northern River Shipping
Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt. The Solholt [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 605 361
South African Dispatch Line v SS Niki [1960] 1 QB 518; [1960] 2 WLR 294; [1960] 1 All ER 285;
[1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 663 70
South Australian Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191 356
Southecote’s Case (1601) 4 Co Rep 836; 76 ER 1061; Cro Eliz 815 264
Spanish American Skin Co v MS Ferngulf [1957] AMC 611 122
Spectra International plc v Hayesoak Ltd [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 153 148
Spence v Chadwick (1847) 10 QB 517; 9 LT (OS) 101 264
Spence v Union Marine Ins Co (1868) LR 3 CP 427; 18 LT 632 82, 83
Sperry Rand Corp v Norddeutscher Lloyd [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 119 197
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd. The Spiliada [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 314, 318, 319
Spiros C, The. See Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Shipping
SS Pharmaceutical Co v Qantas [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 288 204
Stach Ltd v Baker Bosley Ltd [1958] 2 QB 130 350
Stag Line v Board of Trade [1950] 2 KB 194; [1950] 1 All ER 1105; 84 LlLR 1 54
Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango & Co [1932] AC 328; 146 LT 305; 18 Asp MLC 266; sub nom Foscolo,
Mango v Stag Line [1931] 2 KB 48; (1932) 41 LlLR 165 20, 22, 184, 202, 208, 209, 280
Standard Ardour, The. See Interbulk Ltd v Ponte Dei Sospiri Shipping Co
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365 126
Standard Electrica S/A v Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft [1967] 2
Standard Oil of New York v Clan Line Steamers [1924] AC 100; 130 LT 481; 16 Asp MLC 273
280
Stanton v Richardson (1875) LR 9 CP 390; 33 LT 193; 3 Asp MLC 23 11, 12, 14
Star of Luxor, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 139 317
Star Sea, The. See Manifest Shipping v Uni-Polaris Insurance Ltd
Star Texas, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 445 325
Starsin, The. See Homburg Houtimport v Agrosin Private Ltd
Startup v MacDonald (1843) 6 Man & G 593 95
Steel v State Line SS Co (1877) 3 App Cas 72; 37 LT 333; 3 Asp MLC 516 9
Steelwood Carriers Inc v Evimeria Compañia Naviera. The Agios Giorgis [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 192
107, 305, 306
Stephens v Harris (1887) 57 LT 618; 6 Asp MLC 192 271
Stettin, The (1889) 14 PD 142; 61 LT 200; 6 Asp MLC 395 82, 156
Steven v Bromley [1919] 2 KB 722; 121 LT 354; 14 Asp MLC 455 69
Stewart v Van Ommeren [1918] 2 KB 560; 119 LT 637; 14 Asp MLC 359 96
Stocznia v Latvian Shipping [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132 362
Stolt Loyalty, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 598 8
Stolt Marmaro, The. See Cantieri Navali Riuniti v NV Omne Justitia
Stolt Sydness, The. See Mauritius Oil Refineries v Stolt-Nielson
Stolt Tankers v Landmark Chemicals [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 786 74, 77
Stone Gemini, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255 156, 157
Stork, The, See Compania Naviera Maropan SA v Bowaters Paper Mills
xliii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xliv
TABLE OF CASES
Strathlorne SS Co v Weir (1935) 50 LlLR 185 109

Strong v Hart (1827) 6 B & C 160; 2 C & P 55 298
Studebaker Distributors Ltd v Charlton SS Co [1938] 1 KB 459; 157 LT 583; 59 LlLR 23; [1937]
4 All ER 304 196
Stylianos Restis, The [1974] AMC 2343 37
Subro Valour, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 509 190
Sucrest Corp v M/V Jennifer [1978] AMC 2520 35
Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967]
1 AC 361; [1966] 2 WLR 944; [1966] 2 All ER 61; [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 529 4, 21, 43, 52, 77,
280, 352, 353, 363
Sun, The. See Liner Shipping Ltd v Vatis
Sun Shipping Co v Watson (1926) 42 TLR 240; 24 LlLR 28 61
Superfos Chartering A/S v NBR (London) Ltd. The Saturnia [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 366 77
Super Servant Two, The. See Lauritzen SA v Wijsmuller
Svenska Traktor v Maritime Agencies (Southampton) Ltd [1953] 2 QB 295; [1953] 3 WLR 426;
[1953] 2 All ER 570; [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 124 178, 180, 181
Svenssons Travaruaktiebolagt v Cliffe Steamship Co [1932] 1 KB 490; 147 LT 12; 18 Asp MLC
284; 41 LlLR 262 76
Sze Hai Tong Bank v Rambler Cycle Co [1959] AC 576; [1959] 3 WLR 214; [1959] 3 All ER 182;
[1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 114 82, 156, 157
TA Shipping Ltd v Comet Shipping Ltd. The Agamemnon [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 675 59
Tagart, Beaton & Co v Fisher & Sons [1903] 1 KB 391; 88 LT 451; 9 Asp MLC 381 307
Tage Berglund v Montoro Shipping Corp. The Dagmar [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 563 27
Tamplin SS Co v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Co [1916] 2 AC 397; 115 LT 315; 13 Asp MLC 467 40
Tamvaco v Simpson (1866) LR 1 CP 363; 14 LT 893 304
Tankexpress (A/S) v Compagnie Financière Belge des Petroles [1949] AC 76; [1948] 2 All ER 939;
82 LlLR 43 96, 105
Tarva, The [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 385 295
Tasman Discoverer, The [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 647 186
Tate v Meek (1818) 8 Taunt 280 304
Tatem v Gamboa [1939] 1 KB 132; 160 LT 159; [1938] 3 All ER 135; 61 LlLR 149 40, 43
Tattersall v National Steamship Co (1884) 12 QBD 297; 50 LT 299; 5 Asp MLC 206 12
Telfair Shipping Corp v Athos Shipping Co. The Athos [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 127 102
Temple SS Co v Sovfracht (V/O) (1945) 79 LlLR 1; 173 LT 373 90
Tempus Shipping Co v Louis Dreyfus [1930] 1 KB 699 276
Teno, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 289 100
Tento, The. See Aaby v States Marine Corp
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153; [1971] 2 WLR 1166; [1971] 2 All ER 127 276
Teutonia, The (1872) LR 4 PC 171; 26 LT 48; 1 Asp MLC 214 17, 18, 26, 264
Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Co v Morel Bros [1891] 2 QB 647; 65 LT 659; 7 Asp MLC 106 80
Theodegmon, The. See Phillips Petroleum Co v Cabaneli Naviera
Theraios, The. See Lodza Compañia de Navigacione SA v Government of Ceylon
Thermo Engineers v Ferrymasters [1981] 1 WLR 1470; [1981] 1 All ER 1142; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 200 181
Thiess Bros v Australian SS Pty Ltd [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 459 208
Third Chandris Shipping Corp v Unimarine. The Genie [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 184 333, 334
Thomas v Harrowing Steamship Co [1915] AC 58; 12 Asp MLC 532 296
Thomasson Shipping Co v Peabody [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 296 79
Thompson v LMS Ry Co [1930] 1 KB 41 159
Thorley v Orchis SS Co [1907] 1 KB 660; 96 LT 488; 10 Asp MLC 431 23
xliv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xlv
TABLE OF CASES
Thorman v Dowgate SS Co [1910] 1 KB 410; 102 LT 242; 11 Asp MLC 481 54

Thorsa, The [1916] P 257; 116 LT 300; 13 Asp MLC 592 13
Through Transport Mutual Ins Ass Ltd v New India Assurance Co [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 61 323
Thyssen Inc v Calypso Shipping Corp [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 206
Tidebrook Maritime Corp v Vitol [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251 60
Tillmans v Knutsford [1908] AC 406 245
Timna, The. See Zim Israel Navigation Co v Tradax Export
Tindefjell, The [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 253 197
Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106; [1977] 3 All ER 129; [1977] 2 WLR 496 363
Toepfer GmbH v Tossa Marine Co. The Derby [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 11
Tojo Maru (Owners) v NV Bureau Wijsmuller. The Tojo Maru [1972] AC 242; [1971] 2 WLR 970;
[1971] 1 All ER 1110; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 341 284
Tokio Marine & Fire Ins v Retla Steamship Co [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91 125, 126, 265
Toledo, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 40 190
Tonnelier v Smith (1897) 77 LT 327; 8 Asp MLC 273; 2 Com Cas 258 96
Torni, The [1932] P 78; 147 LT 208; 18 Asp MLC 315 184
Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp. The Gregos [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40; [1995] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 1; [1994] 1 WLR 1465; 4 All ER 998 92, 93
Total Transport Corp v Amoco Trading Co. The Altus [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 423 77, 297
Tradax Export v Dorada Compañia Naviera SA. The Lutetian [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 140 100
Trade Nomad, The. See Poseidon Schiffahrt v Nomadic Navigation Co Ltd
Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Shipping. The Spiros C [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319 249, 307
Trafigura Beheer v Golden Stavraetos Maritime. The Sonia [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 201 205, 210, 214
Tramp Shipping Corp v Greenwich Marine Inc. The New Horizon [1975] 1 WLR 1042; [1975]
2 All ER 989; [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 314 271
Transcatalana v Incobrasa Brazileira [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215 340
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc. The Achilleas [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 275; [2008]
3 WLR 345; [2008] 4 All ER 159 355, 356
Transfigura Beheer BV v Mediterranean Shipping Co. The Amsterdam [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 622;
[2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 385 156, 175
Transgrain Shipping v Global Transporte Oceanico. The Mexico 1 [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 507 59,
60, 61
Transocean Liners v Euxine Shipping Co Ltd. The Imvros [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 848 109
Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc. The Mary Lou [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272 30
Transpacific Eternity v Kanematsu Corp. The Antares III [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 233 135
Transworld Oil Inc v Minos Compania Naviera. The Leni [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 48 204
Trechman SS Co v Munson Line (1913) 203 F 692 91
Treglia v Smith’s Timber Co (1896) 1 Com Cas 360; 12 TLR 363 64
Tres Flores, The. See Compania de Naviera Nedelka v Tradex International
Triad Shipping Co v Stellar Chartering. The Island Archon [1995] 1 All ER 595; [1994] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 227 110
Trident Beauty, The. See Pan Ocean Shipping Co v Creditcorp Ltd
Triton Navigation Ltd v Vitol. The Nikmary [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 55 61, 69
Tropwind, The. See Tropwood AG v Jade Enterprises Ltd
Tropwood AG v Jade Enterprises Ltd. The Tropwind [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 232 102
Tsakiroglou & Co v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93; [1961] 2 WLR 633; [1961] 2 All ER 179;
[1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329 39, 42
TTMI Ltd of England v ASM Shipping [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401 333
Tubacex Inc v M/V Risan 45F 3rd 951 (5th Cir 1995) 192
Turner v Grovit [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 169 316, 322
xlv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xlvi
TABLE OF CASES
Turner v Haji Goolam [1904] AC 826; 91 LT 216; 9 Asp MLC 588 305
Tuxpan, The [1991] AMC 2432 266
Tuyuti, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 51 332
Tynedale SS Co v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co [1936] 1 All ER 389; 154 LT 414; 19 Asp MLC 16;
41 Com Cas 206; 52 LlLR 282 98, 99
Tzortzis v Monark Line [1968] 1 WLR 406; [1968] 1 All ER 949; [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 337 325
UBS AG v NSH Nordbank AG [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272 315
Ugland Trailer, The. See Welsh Irish Ferries Ltd, Re
Ulyanovsk, The. See Novorossisk Shipping Co v Neopetro Co
Unifert International Sal v Panous Shipping Co. The Virginia M [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 603 61
Uni-Ocean Lines v C-Trade SA. The Lucille [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 387 31, 44
Union Amsterdam, The. See Blue Anchor Line Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International
Union Transport v Continental Lines [1992] 1 WLR 15; [1992] 1 All ER 161; [1992] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 229 321
United Carriers Ltd v Heritage Food Group [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269; [1996] 1 WLR 371; [1995]
4 All ER 95 290
United States of America v Atlantic Mutual Ins Co [1952] AMC 659; [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 520 268
United States of America v Marilena P [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 641; [1969] AMC 1155 271
Unitramp v Garnac Grain Co Inc. The Hermine [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212 26, 27, 28, 76
Universal Cargo Carriers v Citati [1957] 1 WLR 979; [1957] 3 All ER 234; [1957] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 174; [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191 39, 71
Universal Monarch, The. See Palm Shipping Inc v Vitol SA
Universal Ruma Co v Mediterranean Shipping Co [2001] AMC 110 205
Uranus, The [1977] AMC 586 101
US Shipping Board v Bunge y Born (1924) 41 TLR 73 25
Uxbridge Permanent Building Soc v Pickard [1939] 2 KB 248 (CA) 121
Valla Giovanni & C v Gebr van Weelde Scheepvartkantoor BV. The Chanda [1985] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 563 74
Van Uden Maritime BV v Kommonditsgesellschaft Fium [1999] QB 1225; [1999] 2 WLR 1181 333
Vantage Navigation v Suhail. The Alev [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 138 108
Vardinoyannis v Egyptian General Petroleum Corp. The Evaggelos Th [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 200 25,
30, 109
Varenna, The. See Skips A/S Nordheim v Syrian Petroleum Co
Varing, The [1931] P 79; 145 LT 433; 18 Asp MLC 231 80
Varna No 2, The [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 41 318
Vaughan v Campbell & Co (1885) 2 TLR 33 61
Vechscroon, The. See McCarren & Co Ltd v Humber International Transport Ltd
Venezolana de Navigacion v Bank Line. The Roachbank [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 498 97
Venezuela, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 393 246
Vermont, The [1942] AMC 1407 278
Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries [1949] 2 KB 528; [1949] 1 All ER 997 354, 355
Vikfrost, The. See Fletcher (W&R) Ltd v Sigurd Haavik Aksjeselskap
Villa, The. See Villa Denizcilik Sanayi v Longen
Villa Denizcilik Sanayi v Longen. The Villa [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 195 338
Vimeira, The. See Interbulk Ltd v Aiden Shipping Co
Virginia M, The. See Unifert International Sal v Panous Shipping Co
Vita Food Products v Unus Shipping Co [1939] AC 277; [1939] 1 All ER 513; 63 LlLR 21; 19 Asp
MLC 257 183, 184, 193, 324
Vitol v Norelf Ltd. The Santa Clara [1996] AC 800; [1996] 3 All ER 193; [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 225
352, 353
xlvi
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xlvii
TABLE OF CASES
Vogemann v Zanzibar SS Co (1902) 7 Com Cas 254 99

Vortigern, The [1899] P 140; 80 LT 382; 8 Asp MLC 523 12
Voss v APL Co Ltd [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 707 162
Waldwiese Stiftung v Lewis [2004] EWHC 2589 328
Wallems Rederi A/S v Muller & Co [1927] 2 KB 99; 27 LlLR 277; 137 LT 154; 17 Asp MLC 226
19, 71, 297
Washington, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 453 274
Watson v Shankland (1871) Ct Sess 3rd series 142; (1873) LR 2 HL (Sc) 304; 29 LT 349; 2 Asp
MLC 115 293
Watson SS Co v Merryweather & Co (1913) 108 LT 1031; 12 Asp MLC 353 91
Watts & Co v Mitsui & Co Ltd [1917] AC 227; 116 LT 353; [1916–17] All ER Rep 506; 13 Asp
MLC 580 269
Wealands v CLC Contractors [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 739 343
Wehner v Dene Shipping Co [1905] 2 KB 92 307
Welex v Rosa Maritime Ltd. The Epsilon Rosa [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509
250, 316
Welsh Endeavour, The. See Marubeni Corp v Welsh Overseas Freighters Ltd
Welsh Irish Ferries Ltd, Re. The Ugland Trailer [1986] Ch 471; [1985] 3 WLR 610; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 372 308
Wenjiang, The. See International Sea Tanker Inc v Hemisphere Shipping Co
Wertheim v Chicoutimi Pulp Co [1911] AC 301; 104 LT 226 358
Westchester Fire Ins Co v Buffalo Salvage Co [1941] AMC 1601 34
Westcoast Food Brokers Ltd v The Ship ‘Hoyanger’ [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 79 265
Western Bulk Carriers v Li Hai Maritime Inc. The Li Hai [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 389 101, 107
Western Gear Corp v States Marine Lines Inc 362 F 2d 328; [1966] AMC 1969 205
Western Sealanes Corp v Unimarine. The Pythia [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 160 99
Western Triumph, The. See North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corp
Westpac Banking Corp v South Carolina National Bank [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 129
Whaite v Lancs & Yorks Ry (1874) LR 9 Ex 67; 30 LT 272 196
Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 147 109, 212
White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413; [1962] 2 WLR 17; [1961] 3 All
ER 1178 92, 362
White Rose, The. See A/B Helsingfors SS Co v Rederiaktiebolaget Rex
Wibau Maschinenfabric Hartmann SA v Mackinnon, Mackenzie & Co. The Chanda [1989]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 494 180, 203
Wickman v Schuler [1974] AC 235; [1973] 2 All ER 39; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 53 348
Williams v Manisselian Freres (1923) 17 LlLR 72 75, 76
Williams & Co v Canton Ins Office Ltd [1901] AC 462; 85 LT 317; 9 Asp MLC 247 295
Williams Bros v Agius [1914] AC 510; 110 LT 865 359
Williams Bros v Naamlooze (1915) 21 Com Cas 253 271
Wilomi Tanana, The. See Mendala III Transport v Total Transport Corp
Wilson v Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 544 185
Wilson v Kymer (1813) 1 M & S 157 299
Wilson v Lancs & Yorks Ry (1861) 9 CB (NS) 632; 3 LT 859 354
Wilson v Wilson (1872) LR 14 Eq 32; 26 LT 346; 1 Asp MLC 265 302
Wolff (SM) Co v SS Exiria [1962] AMC 436 272
Wolverhampton Corp v Emmons [1901] 1 QB 515; 84 LT 402; 17 TLR 234 363
World Navigator, The. See Kurt A Becher v Roplak Enterprises
World Symphony, The. See Chiswell Shipping Ltd v National Iranian Tanker Co
xlvii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xlviii
TABLE OF CASES
Wye Shipping Co v Compagnie Paris-Orleans [1922] 1 KB 617; 10 LlLR 85 111

Xantho, The (1887) 12 App Cas 503; [1886–90] All ER Rep 212; 57 LT 701; 6 Asp MLC 207 266,
274
Xingcheng, The. See China Ocean Shipping Co v Owners of the Vessel ‘Andros’
Yone Suzuki v Central Argentine Ry (1928) 27 Fed Rep 2d 795; [1928] AMC 1521 55, 308
Ythan, The. See Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd
Yukong Line Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corp [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113 333
Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558; [1982] 2 WLR 288; [1982] 1 All ER 556; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 240 335
Zapata v Bremen [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315 315, 316
Zenovia, The [2009] EWHC 739 (Comm); [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 177; [2009] Lloyd’s Rep 139
92
Zim Israel Nav Co v Tradax Export SA. The Timna [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91 62
Zuiho Maru, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 552 39
xlviii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page xlix
Table of statutes
Arbitration Act 1950 336 s 41(3) 345

s 4(1) 344 s 44(2)(e) 333
s 13A 345 s 52(4) 340
s 23 344 s 66(1) 345
s 27 204 s 67 343
Arbitration Act 1975 336, 345 s 68 342, 343
s 1(1) 343 s 69 337, 342, 343
Arbitration Act 1979 336 s 69(1) 339, 341
s 1(4) 341 s 69(3) 340
s 1(6)(a) 340 s 69(3)(a) 341
s 4(1)(a) 341 s 69(3)(c) 343
Arbitration Act 1996 336–45 s 69(7) 340
s 2 337 s 69(8) 340
s 2(3) 333 s 70(4) 340
s 3 337 s 70(8) 340
s 9(4) 343 s 76(1) 339
s 11 331 s 76(3) 339
s 14(1) 339 s 81 341
s 14(4) 339 s 85(2) 341, 343
s 15 337 s 86(2)(b) 343
s 15(1) 338 s 87(1) 337, 341
s 15(2) 339 s 101 345
s 15(3) 338 s 102 345
s 16 337 s 102(2) 345
s 16(5) 338 s 103 345
s 16(6)(b) 338 Part III 345
s 17 337 Schedule 1 337
s 17(2) 339
s 18 337 Bills of Lading Act 1855 131, 137, 298, 299
s 18(3)(d) 338 s 1 130, 131, 132, 136, 139, 178, 251, 299
s 20(3) 338 s 2 139, 299
s 21(3) 338
s 21(4) 339 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1904 [Australia]
s 23(1) 344 116
s 23(3) 344 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 116, 175,
s 24(1) 344 195
s 33(1) 338 s 1 183
s 38–39 337 s 3 183
s 40 337 Schedule [Hague Rules]
s 40(1) 338 Art II
s 41 337 r 1 13
xlix
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page l
TABLE OF STATUTES
Art III r 2(a) 44, 217, 267, 273

r 3 126, 199 r 2(b) 188, 275
r 6 23, 150 r 2(c) 192, 216, 266
r 8 151, 209 r 2(d) 192, 216
Art IV 22, 198 r 2(e) 192, 216, 264
r 3 37 r 2(f) 192, 216
r 4 209 r 2(g) 192, 216, 264, 270
r 5 23 r 2(h)–(i) 192, 216
r 5 175, 195, 202, 203 r 2(j) 192, 216, 272
r 6 36–7 r 2(k)–(l) 192, 216
Art IX 195 r 2(m) 192, 216, 265
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 [United r 2(n)–(p) 192, 216
States] 10, 13, 183, 210, 211, 268 r 2(q) 192, 272, 278, 279
s 2 212 r 4 19, 20, 208, 219
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 6, 117, r 5 175, 186
166, 174, 184, 255, 273 r 5(a) 203
s 1 174, 177 r 5(c) 199, 200
s 1(2) 23, 184, 203, 222 r 5(d) 200
s 1(3) 176, 177 r 5(e) 203, 204, 205
s 1(4) 160, 162, 174, 176, 177 r 6 35–6, 180, 204, 206, 209
s 1(5) 201 Art IV bis
s 1(6) 175, 186, 211 r 1 143, 144, 202
s 1(6)(b) 116, 160, 177, 186 r 2 201
s 3 187 r 3 202
Schedule [Hague/Visby Rules] r 4 204
Art I(a) 246, 258 Art V 194, 207, 210, 227, 243
Art I(b) 162, 174, 175, 176, 181, 243 Art VI 177, 228
Art I(c) 178, 179, 182 Art VII 182
Art I(e) 181 Art X 175, 176, 183, 185, 216
Art II 177, 212 Art X(a) 184
Art III 126, 187, 188, 193, 210, 258 Art X(b) 184
r 1 10, 11, 113, 187–91, 207, 277 Art X(c) 185, 232
r 2 113, 179, 190, 191–2, 217, 218, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1972 [Singapore]
220, 274, 275 s 3(1) 185
r 3 118, 119, 122, 125, 126, 160, 175, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 [Australia]
176, 177, 193, 243 185, 228
r 3(a) 128 s 8 185
r 3(b) 199 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 136,
r 3(c) 199 137–40, 142, 162, 163, 166, 171, 298
r 4 113, 121, 123, 128, 160, 193 s 1(1) 137
r 5 113, 127, 160, 193, 207 s 1(2)(a) 121, 140
r 6 161, 174, 205, 206, 207, 212, 213, s 1(3) 140, 163
214, 339 s 1(5) 137, 166
r 7 161, 193 s 2(1) 136, 137, 138–9, 160, 161, 251
r 8 10, 113, 126, 174, 184, 194, 246, s 2(1)(b) 139, 163
258 s 2(1)(c) 139
Art IV 188, 192, 210, 218, 219, 233, 277 s 2(2)(a) 138
r 1 188, 190, 212 s 2(2)(b) 138
r 2 192, 194, 212, 216, 228, 232, s 2(3) 139
263, 265, 277 s 2(4) 139, 143
l
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page li
TABLE OF STATUTES
s 2(5) 138 rs 4–8 313

s 3 139 r 11 313
s 3(1) 300 r 15 313
s 3(3) 131, 139, 299 r 16 313
s 4 121, 160 PD 314, 332
s 5(2) 137 Part 23
s 5(3) 140, 160 PD 13 334
s 5(4) 138 Part 25
s 5(5) 162 r 1(1)(f) 332
s 6 130 r 1(1)(g) 332
Carriage of Goods by Sea Amendment Act PD 334
1997 [Australia] 228 PD 4 332
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 320 Part 61
s 25 333 PD 3.6 314
s 25(2) 333 Companies Act 1989
s 26 331 s 93 308
Schedule [Brussels 1 Regulation] 320 Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 324, 328
Art 1(2) 321 s 2(2) 327
Art 2 321 s 2(3) 326
Art 4 321 Schedule 1 [Rome Convention] 324, 326–8
Art 5 321 Art 1.1 326
Art 22 321, 322 Art 1.2 326
Art 23 321, 322 Art 1.3 326
Art 24 321 Art 3.1 327
Art 25 333 Art 3.2 327
Art 25(2) 333 Art 3.3 327
Art 26 331, 332 Art 4(3)(4) 328
Art 27 322 Art 4.1 327
Art 28 322 Art 4.2 328
Art 71(1) 321 Art 4.4 328
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Art 4.5 328
(Amendment) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1824) Art 7.1 327
320, 323 Art 7.2 327
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Art 8 327
(Interim Relief) Order 1997 (SI 1997/302) Art 9 327
333 Art 10 326
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Art 16 327
(Provisional and Protective Measures) Art 18 328
(Scotland) Order (SI 1997/2780) 333 Art 21 327
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991 320 Schedule 3 328
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Authentic Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
Instruments and Court Settlements) Order 153–4, 202
2001 (SI 2001/3928) 320 s 1 137
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Order 2001 s 1(1)(a) 153
(SI 2001/3929) 320 s 1(1)(b) 153
Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2008 s 1(2) 153
(SI 2008/2178) s 1(3) 153
Schedule 1 313 s 2(1) 153
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 313 s 2(1)(a) 154
Part 6 313, 314 s 2(1)(b) 154
li
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page lii
TABLE OF CASES
s 2(1)(c) 154 Art 1.2 283

s 2(2)(a) 154 Art 1.3 285
s 6(5)(a) 137, 153 Art 1.4 284, 285
s 6(6) 153 Art 1.5 284
s 7(1) 153 Art 1.6 285
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Art 2 284
s 102 345 Art 2.1(a) 285
Art 2.1(b)–(f) 285
Explosives Act 1875 33 Art 2.2 285
Art 3 285
Frustrated Contracts Act 1943 see Law Reform Art 4 287
(Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 Part II para 12 285
Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security
Harter Act 1893 [United States] 116, 188, 268 Act 1997
s 3 273 s 15 286
Human Rights Act 1998 Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and
s 6 340 Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997
(SI 1997/2367) 38
Law of Property Act 1925 reg 1(2) 33
s 136(1) 302 Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 and Others) Act 1958 283
44, 45, 293 Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971
s 1(2) 45 283, 295
s 1(3) 45
Limitation Act 1980 206 Nuclear Installations Act 1965 285
s 5 204, 207
Pomerene Act 1916 [Federal Bill of Lading Act;
Maritime Conventions Act 1911 267 United States] 163
s 1 267
Merchant Shipping Act 1854 282 Sale of Goods Act 1979 163
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 287 s 12–15 348
s 33 302 s 18
s 446 33, 37 r 5(1) 143
s 448 38 r 5(2) 143
ss 492–8 81 s 19 134
s 502(1) 275, 277 s 19(3) 135
s 503 275, 283 s 51(3) 359
Merchant Shipping Act 1974 283 Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924 [Australia] 185
Merchant Shipping Act 1979 283 s 9 185
s 18 277 Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1940 [New Zealand]
Merchant Shipping Act 1981 s 11A 185
s 2(4) 201 Shipping and Seamen Act 1908 [New Zealand]
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 285 116
s 85 38 Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993
s 185 285 Sch 1
s 185(2A) 286 Part XV 81
Schedule 7 [International Convention on Supreme Court Act 1981
Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims s 20(2)(g) 314
1976] s 20(2)(h) 314, 331
Art 1.1 283 s 21(4) 314
lii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page liii
TABLE OF CASES
s 21(4) 331 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 21

s 21(4)(b) 331 Schedule 1 21
s 37(3) 332
Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Water Carriage of Goods Act 1910 [Canada]
Act 1925 116, 213
s 45 332
liii
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page liv
Abbreviated book titles
The following books are referred to in the text by means of the abbreviated forms shown
below in bold type.
Carver: Treitel, Sir Guenter and Reynolds, FMB, Carver on Bills of Lading, 2nd edn, Sweet &
Maxwell (2005)
Cheshire and Fifoot: Cheshire, GC, Fifoot, CHS and Furmston, MP, Law of Contract, 15th
edn, Butterworths (2007)
Cooke: Cooke, J, Young, T, Taylor, A, Kimball, JD, Martowski, D and Lambert, L, Voyage
Charters, 3rd edn, LLP (2007)
Gaskell: Gaskell N, Asariotis, R, and Baatz, Y, Bills of Lading – Law and Contracts, LLP (2000)
Scrutton: Boyd, SC, Burrows, AS and Foxton, D, Charter Parties and Bills of Lading, 21st edn,
Sweet & Maxwell (2008)
Tetley: Tetley, W, Marine Cargo Claims, 4th edn, Blais (2008)
Tiberg: Tiberg, H, Law of Demurrage, 4th edn, Stevens (1995)
Treitel: Treitel, Sir Guenter, The Law of Contract, 12th edn (ed. by Edwin Peel), Sweet &
Maxwell (2007)
Wilford: Wilford, M, Coghlin, T and Kimball, JD, Time Charters, 6th edn, LLP (2008)
liv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page lv
List of abbreviations
ACL Atlantic Container Line

c. and f. cost and freight
c.i.f. cost, insurance, freight
CIM International Convention on Carriage of Goods by Rail
CMI Comité Maritime International
CMR International Convention on Carriage of Goods by Road
COGSA Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
CTO combined transport operator
f.a.s. free alongside ship
EDI electronic data interchange
FCA free carrier (named place)
FCL full container load
f.o.b. free on board
f.i.o. free in and out
f.i.o.s.t. free in and out stowed trimmed
ICC International Chamber of Commerce
LCL less than container load
MTO multimodal transport operator
NYPE New York Produce Exchange
P and I Clubs Protection and Indemnity Clubs
SDR special drawing right
STC said to contain
TCM Transports Combinés des Marchandises (Multimodal Transport Convention)
UCP Uniform Customs and Practice of Documentary Credits
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
lv
A01_WILS8938_07_SE_FM.QXD 5/11/10 9:49 AM Page lvi
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following for permission to reproduce copyright material:
HMSO for the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992:
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland; Comité Maritime International for
the CMI Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills and the CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading;
The Baltic and International Maritime Council for the BIMCO Standard Bareboat Charter,
Code name: ‘Barecon 2001’, The Baltic and International Maritime Council Uniform General
Charter, Code name: ‘Gencon’, the BIMCO Uniform Time-Charter (as revised 2001), Code
name: ‘Baltime 1939’, the Liner Bill of Lading, Code name: ‘CONLINEBILL’ 1978, the BIMCO
Liner Bill of Lading, Code Name: ‘CONLINEBILL 2000’, the Bill of Lading, Code Name:
‘CONGENBILL’, Edition 1994, and the Combined Transport Bill of Lading, revised 1995,
Code Name: ‘COMBICONBILL’; Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited
for the Charter Party ‘Shellvoy 6’ and the Charter Party ‘Shelltime 4’; Association of Ship
Brokers and Agents Inc. for The New York Produce Exchange Form ‘NYPE’, 1946 and the Time
Charter, New York Produce Exchange Form ‘NYPE 93’; A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S trading as
Maersk Line for the Maersk Line Bill of Lading for Ocean Transport or Multimodal Transport
and the Maersk Line Non-Negotiable Waybill; General Council of British Shipping for the
GCBS Common Short Form Bill of Lading; and the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) for the United Nations Convention on Contracts for
the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea 2009 (The Rotterdam Rules).
In some instances we have been unable to trace the owners of copyright material, and we
would appreciate any information that would enable us to do so.
lvi
M01_WILS8938_07_SE_C01.QXD 5/11/10 9:50 AM Page 1
Part I
General introduction
1 Introduction
When a shipowner, either directly or through an agent, undertakes to carry goods by sea, or
to provide a vessel for that purpose, the arrangement is known as a contract of affreightment.
Such contracts may take a variety of forms, although the traditional division is between those
embodied in charterparties and those evidenced by bills of lading. Where the shipowner
agrees to make available the entire carrying capacity of his vessel1 for either a particular voy-
age or a specified period of time, the arrangement normally takes the form of a charterparty.
On the other hand, if he employs his vessel in the liner trade, offering a carrying service
to anyone who wishes to ship cargo, then the resulting contract of carriage will usually be
evidenced by a bill of lading. The two categories of charterparty and bill of lading are not,
however, mutually exclusive, since frequently the party chartering a vessel for a specific period
of time may himself operate it as a general carrier.
1.1 The charterparty
A charterparty is a contract which is negotiated in a free market, subject only to the laws of
supply and demand. While the relative bargaining strengths of the parties will depend on the
current state of the market, shipowner and charterer are otherwise able to negotiate their own
terms free from any statutory interference. In practice, however, they will invariably select a
standard form of charterparty as the basis of their agreement, to which they will probably
attach additional clauses to suit their own requirements. These standard forms have a variety
of origins. Some have developed over a number of years in association with a particular trade,
such as grain, coal or ore, while others have been designed by individual firms with a
monopoly in a particular field, such as the transport of oil. A considerable number which
have appeared during the past century, however, are the products of the documentary
committees of such bodies as the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, the Baltic and
International Maritime Conference and the Japanese Shipping Exchange, on many of which
both shipowner and charterer interests are represented.
The existence of these standard forms is of considerable advantage in international trade
where the parties may be domiciled in different countries and their negotiations hampered
by language problems. In such circumstances, parties conversant with the terms of a standard
1
Or occasionally only part of the vessel, e.g. where liner companies charter space on each other’s vessels.
3
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
form are unlikely to be caught by an unusual or unexpectedly onerous clause, and accord-
ingly can concentrate their attention on the essential terms covering such matters as freight,
laytime and demurrage rates. The widespread international use of such forms also produces
uniformity in the application of the law and its interpretation by the courts. Many of these
advantages are, however, lost when in many instances the parties use the standard form
merely as a framework for their contract. Depending on their relative bargaining positions,
existing clauses are amended and extra clauses added until the final agreement bears little
resemblance to the original form. As a result, clarity is lost and litigation encouraged.
There are essentially two basic forms of carriage charter,2 depending upon whether the
vessel is chartered for a period of time or for one or more voyages. In both instances the
shipowner retains control of equipping and managing the vessel and agrees to provide a car-
rying service. In the case of the voyage charter he undertakes to carry a cargo between specified
points, whereas in a time charter he agrees to place the carrying capacity of his vessel at the
disposal of the charterer for a specified period of time. A typical example of a voyage charter
is provided by a seller of goods under a c.i.f. contract who, having agreed to ship the goods
to the buyer, then charters a vessel to carry them to their destination. Time charters, on the
other hand, are often used by carriers who wish to augment their fleet for a particular period
of time without the expense of buying or running the vessel.
Before briefly outlining the characteristics of these two basic charter forms, mention must
be made of a variety of hybrids which are the inevitable product of a climate of freedom of
contract. The first of these hybrids is the trip charter, which consists of a time charter of a ves-
sel for a specific cargo voyage. Instead of the fixed freight payable per unit of cargo on the
completion of a voyage charter, this device ensures that the shipowner is paid hire for the
entire time spent on the voyage until the cargo has been discharged at its destination. A slight
variation on this form, designed to protect the shipowner in cases where the port of discharge
is in an isolated area where other cargoes are unlikely to be available, is to require payment
of hire to continue until the vessel has returned to the normal trade routes.
While the trip charter falls into the category of time charters, the other two hybrids are
treated as voyage charters despite the fact that in each case the contract involves the carriage
of goods over a specified period of time. The first example is the consecutive voyage charter
under which the vessel, having been chartered for a specific period of time, is required to
complete a series of voyages between designated ports during that period.3 An alternative
form, with the same objective, is the long-term freighting contract under which the shipowner
undertakes to transport specified quantities of a bulk product, such as coal or grain, between
designated ports in a given time, using vessels of his own choice.4
The main distinctions between the two forms of voyage and time charter stem from their
basic difference of function. While in both cases the shipowner remains responsible for the
running of his own vessel and is merely providing a carrying service, in the case of the voyage
charter he is undertaking to transport a specified cargo between designated ports, whereas in
the time charter he is placing his vessel for an agreed time at the disposal of the charterer who
2
There is also the demise or bareboat charter, which is not technically a carriage charter but a lease of the vessel
transferring to the charterer not only the possession but also the management and navigation of the ship. See
infra pp 7–8.
3
For an example of a consecutive voyage charter in operation, see Suisse Atlantique v Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
[1967] 1 AC 361.
4
The actual vessels used are normally chartered under individual voyage charters.
4
1.2 THE BILL OF LADING CONTRACT
is free to employ it for his own purposes within the permitted contractual limits. The time
charterer thus controls the commercial function of the vessel and is normally responsible for
expenditure directly resulting from compliance with his instructions, such as fuel costs, port
charges and the cost of loading and discharging the cargo. He also undertakes to indemnify
the shipowner against liabilities arising from bills of lading issued under his instructions. The
voyage charterer, in contrast, takes little more part in the operation of the vessel than would
a shipper under a bill of lading contract. His primary obligation is to provide a cargo and to
arrange for its reception at the port of discharge. Normally he also has to bear the cost of any
time used in loading or discharging the cargo in excess of the agreed lay days. Occasionally
he may himself undertake responsibility for the loading or discharging operations, but
otherwise he takes no part in the general running of the vessel.
A further difference to be found between the two types of charter is in the method
by which the price is calculated for the services provided by the shipowner. In the case of a
voyage charter, payment can take the form either of a lump sum for the voyage or can be fixed
in proportion to the amount of cargo carried. With a time charter, hire is payable according
to the amount of time the vessel is placed at the disposal of the charterer. In either situation
the crucial factor to be taken into consideration in calculating the appropriate rate is the basic
time required to complete the particular operation and the likelihood of this time being
extended by delays and hindrances beyond the control of the parties. From the shipowner’s
point of view the time charter is far more attractive in this respect, since the risk of delay
caused by such factors as bad weather, congestion in port or strikes of stevedores, falls on the
charterer who must pay a flat rate for the time he hires the vessel. His only relief is to be found
in the ‘off-hire’ clause which, in essence, provides that he is not required to pay for time lost
due to circumstances which are attributable to the shipowner or the vessel, such as engine
failure or crew deficiencies. On the other hand, in a voyage charter the shipowner, by quot-
ing a fixed rate per ton of cargo for the complete voyage, will himself bear the risk of delay
arising from causes beyond the control of the parties.5 In fixing the appropriate freight rate
for such a charter, therefore, negotiations will centre on the estimated time required for
completion of the voyage, the number of lay days allowed for loading and discharge, and the
amount of demurrage to be paid by the charterer in the event of those lay days being
exceeded.
1.2 The bill of lading contract
For shippers with only a small quantity of cargo available, the chartering of any vessel is
hardly a practical proposition. Their requirements are normally catered for by the regular
liner services which operate between major ports or alternatively they may make use of the
services of tramp vessels which sail from port to port in search of cargo. In either case, once
the cargo is loaded, a bill of lading will be issued which will act, not only as a receipt for the
cargo shipped, but also as prima facie evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. Most
companies engaged in the liner trade will produce their own proprietary brand of bill, while
5
NB It is possible to transfer the risk of such delay to the charterer by the inclusion of appropriate terms to that
effect in the charterparty, see infra at pp 56–8.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Jhon F. Wilson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carriage of Goods by Sea Jhon F. Wilson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘There really is no comparable book to Carriage “...

deserves a place on the

Carriage of Goods by Sea

NEW TO THIS EDITION

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Visit www.mylawchamber.co.uk/wilsoncogbs to access regular updates

www.pearson-books.com John F Wilson

CVR_WILS8933_07_SE_CVR.indd 1 19/5/10 09:41:16

Carriage of Goods by Sea

We work with leading authors to develop the strongest

Under a range of well-known imprints, including Longman,

To find out more about the complete range of our

Carriage of Goods by Sea

Pearson Education Limited

Visit us on the World Wide Web at:

© John F Wilson 1988, 1993, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset in 9/12.5pt Giovanni by 35

Preface to the first edition xii

2 Implied obligations in a contract of affreightment 9

2.5.2 Nature of liability 34

3 The voyage charterparty 49

4 The time charterparty 85

4.4 Payment for hire 94

5 Bills of lading and their functions 115

6 Application of the Hague/Visby Rules 174

6.3 Basic provisions of the Hague/Visby Rules 186

7 Bills of lading – the Hamburg Rules 215

8 Bills of lading – the Rotterdam Rules 230

9 Bills of lading issued under charterparties 243

9.3 Where bill indorsed by charterer to a third party 251

10 Problems of combined transport 253

12 Limitation of liability 282

14 Shipowners’ liens 303

15 Dispute settlement 313

16 Breach of contract 346

16.2 The effects of breach 347

Visit the Carriage of Goods by Sea, seventh edition

Preface to the first edition

Mediterranean Shipping Co which involved construction of a clause seeking to exempt ship

Visit the Carriage of Goods by Sea, seventh edition mylawchamber site at

[Numbers in bold type indicate cases illustrated in the text]

Aaby v States Marine Corp (The Tento) [1950] AMC 947 14

Amstelmolen, The. See NV Reederij Amsterdam v President of India

Bangladesh Export Import Co v Sucden Kerry [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 43

Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600 139

Freeman v Taylor (1831) 8 Bing 124 16

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341 220, 353, 354, 356

Hogarth v Miller Bros & Co [1891] AC 48; 64 LT 205; 7 Asp MLC 1 98

Lancaster, The. See Ellerman Lines Ltd v Lancaster Maritime Co Ltd

Longford, The (1889) 14 PD 34 332

National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 666 323

Norway, The (1865) 13 LT 50; 16 ER 92 295

Pannell v American Flyer [1958] AMC 1428 196

Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987] Ch 25; [1986] 3 All ER 513 363

Rijn, The. See Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart v Scanbulk A/S

Solholt, The. See Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt

Strathlorne SS Co v Weir (1935) 50 LlLR 185 109

Thorman v Dowgate SS Co [1910] 1 KB 410; 102 LT 242; 11 Asp MLC 481 54

Vogemann v Zanzibar SS Co (1902) 7 Com Cas 254 99