THE LAW OF TUG AND TOWAND OFFSHORE CONTRACTS

THIRD EDITION

LLOYDS SHIPPING LAW LIBRARYSeries editors: Andrew W Baker QC and

Hatty Sumption

THE LAW OF TUG AND TOW AND OFFSHORE CONTRACTSTHIRD EDITION

BY

SIMON RAINEY

of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge,lUniversit de Bruxelles and Lincolns Inn;a Recorder of the Crown Court; a deputy

Judge of the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division;One of Her Majestys Counsel,

Visiting Fellow, Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law(University of Swansea)

FOREWORD BYTHE RT. HON. LORD CLARKE OF STONE-CUM-EBONY

First published 2012 by Informa Law & FinancePublished 2013 by Informa Law from Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA

Informa Law is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright Simon Rainey 1996, 2002, 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or byany electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopyingand recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publishers. Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used

only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Reprinted material is quoted with permission. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that theinformation contained in this work is correct, neither the authors nor Informa Law from Routledge can

accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions or for any consequences arising therefrom.

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only foridentification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-84311-968-5 (hbk)

Lloyds is the registered trade mark of the Society incorporated by theLloyds Act 1871by the name of Lloyds.

Text set in 10 on 12 Times by Interactive Sciences Ltd, Gloucester

In memoriamPeter Michael Rainey(19302004)

ForewordBY THE RT. HON. LORD CLARKE OF STONE-CUM-EBONY

It is eighteen years since I wrote the foreword to the first edition of this work. It was then a slimvolume which successfully brought together in a thoroughly researched and well structured way thevarious aspects of English maritime law as it affected the towage industry, engaged both insophisticated ocean towage, often allied to some form of offshore oil and gas or heavylift operation,and in the more humble context of port and harbour towage. The book was the first to bring togetherthe general law on the subject and to address the special questions which affect towage and offshoreoperations such as general average, collision and limitation. The book was also the first to give aclause-by-clause analysis and commentary of the (then relatively few) standard form contracts in thefield: the UK Standard Conditions for port and harbour work on which I was frequently engaged inpractice at the Bar and the later BIMCO Towcon, Towhire and Supplytime forms which Iencountered principally as judge. The book rapidly and deservedly became an authority in its field.

Since then, over its second and now its third edition, Simon Raineys The Law of Tug and Tow hasgrown in size and has come to encompass the wide variety of new and revised standard forms ofcontract which the offshore industry, under the auspices of BIMCO, has adopted in response to thechanging needs of and the specialised operations involved in support services for the exploration anddrilling industry, in towage and in the marine transportation of heavy and voluminous cargoes. I amglad to be able to say that the size and increased coverage of this latest edition has not been at theexpense of its learning, lightly worn, its logical and analytical clarity, its readability and its tackling,with obvious deep practical experience, of the tricky problems which the standard forms of contractseem, particularly, to throw up, with the whole work being enhanced by many practical suggestionswhich will greatly benefit those whose business it is to draft these offshore industry contracts.

At first sight, it seemed strange to me in reading this third edition to see that my decision asAdmiralty Judge in The Herdentor, decided as long ago as 19 January 1996, still looms large in thecommentary and in the subsequent case law considering the mutual allocation of risk (or, as BIMCOrefers to them, the knock-for-knock) provisions which lie at the heart of many of the BIMCO formsconsidered in this book.

However, the explanation is, perhaps, not hard to find. The philosophy of each party to a contractagreeing mutually to bear certain risks of loss and damage to their own property and of death andinjury to their own employees on the basis that they will insure themselves against those risks andwill not seek to hold the other party liable for them is a laudable and comprehensible one. But in theoffshore industry, where the values are very high and the potential liabilities enormous, once acasualty has taken place the pressures on the parties (and their insurers) to investigate possibleavenues of escape from what appeared at the time of contracting to be a simple and pragmaticdivision of risk are often considerable. Improvements in drafting may seek to address some of theissues which the parties raise (as may be the case with the new version of the Towhire clausewhich I considered in The Herdentor, Clause 18(3) which is now Clause 25(c) of Towhire 2008).But other wider issues as to the true scope of application of such clauses in general terms exist, as therecent decisions in The A Turtle [2009] 1 Lloyds Rep 177; Internet Broadcasting Corporation Ltd vMar LLC [2009] 2 Lloyds Rep 295 and Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corporation[2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm) demonstrate. These issues too were also touched on in my judgment inThe Herdentor but remain for further argument and decision. It is perhaps surprising that, although it

was apparently the first case decided by the Court on the BIMCO knock-for-knock clause and manyinteresting questions were raised in it as to the application and working of the clause, the decisionwas never reported. It certainly does not appear to have prevented it from being cited and applied.That may now be made easier by the fact that it has now been irrevocably disinterred and appears asan appendix to the current edition. I am grateful to Simon Rainey for that.1

I can think of no surer guide through the complex issues presented by the problems encountered bythe offshore marine industry both in the application of the general law and in the standard formcontracts which it uses than Simon Rainey in this third edition of his work. It is a testament to thevalue and authority of the book that it remains today the unrivalled and leading treatment of the lawrelating to offshore contracts and offshore industry operations.

I note that it was proposed to change the title from Tug and Tow to Offshore Contracts toutcourt for this edition. While this may be an understandable reflection of the industrys regard for anduse of the work and the breadth of its current coverage, it would have been, on one level perhaps, apity. For it was a battered copy of Alfred Bucknill KCs deceptively brief monograph, Tug and Tow ,handed down (as the bookplates witness) from A. D. Bateson, to Waldo Porges, to Scott Cairns, toBarry Sheen, to me, to David Steel and thence to Simon Rainey which, it appears, inspired his choiceof the original title in 1996. That makes this current work under the same title very much, to my mind,a 2 Essex Court production, which says a great deal for it. But I suppose that, as events between1996 and this new edition demonstrate and confirm (avoiding Latin as the CPR enjoins): The Timesare Changd, and in them Changd are we.

I wish the author and this third edition under its new title continued success.ANTHONY CLARKE

The Supreme Court1 August 2011

1 It is evident that all this is no more than an excuse for mutual self-congratulation!

Preface to the Third Edition As I wrote in the preface to the second edition of this work, it is (or should be) incumbent on anauthor to justify to his readers the putting out of another edition of his work, just as much as it is tojustify the writing of it in the first place. That was in 2002 and the favourable critical receptionaccorded to that further edition (as with its sales) seems to have confirmed that it was both timely anduseful both for practitioners and those in the offshore industry. Sed fugit interea, fugit irreparabiletempus. And so, the longer the next edition has been left, perhaps the easier the subsequentjustification of it in turn becomes. In the case of a third edition, some ten years after the second, theheadlong flight of time since 2002 has made this new edition not only timely, but truly necessary andthe justification of a new edition is therefore straightforward for a number of reasons.

First, since 2002, all of the standard forms of contract considered in this work (with the exceptionof the UK Standard Conditions) have been the subject of revision to a greater or lesser extent.

As part of BIMCOs periodic review of its forms, the Supplytime 89 form was revised and arevised version issued as Supplytime 2005. This is the standard form contract which is, perhaps,the linchpin of very many of the contractual arrangements in the offshore industry.

The BIMCO towage forms, Towcon and Towhire, first issued in 1985, were next to bereviewed. The review was timely as the number of claims in respect both of harbour tugs and thoseengaged in ocean towage under Towcon terms has been on the increase (see, for example, asreported by the Shipowners Club in its Lookout bulletin of 16.03.2010). As I mentioned in thepreface to the previous edition, these two forms, particularly, have continued to throw up a number ofdifficult questions as to the operation and effect of the BIMCO knock-for-knock liabilities clause,the well-known clause 18 of the original Towcon and Tow-hire forms which formed the basisfor similar provisions in the Supplytime form. It appears to be a fact of life that this singleprovision, providing for a mutual allocation of risk in respect of the parties respective property andemployees, described by BIMCO with justice as lying at the heart of the drafting philosophy behindits offshore industry forms and designed to minimise disputes in favour of insured or self-borne risks,continues to spawn many and varied arguments as to its effect and construction which are ofconsiderable ingenuity. Some (but unfortunately not all) of these have now been specificallyaddressed in the new Towcon 2008 and Towhire 2008 forms.

Lastly, the BIMCO Wreck forms, Wreckhire; Wreckcon and Wreckfixed, which haveproved very popular in the offshore and salvage industry, have only just emerged from the BIMCOrevision process, reflecting practical aspects and improvements to the forms and were recently issuedover the period May to August 2011 as Wreckhire [etc] 2010. The Wreckhire 2010 contains anumber of novel features which are designed to make it still more popular. Not to be outdone, theInternational Salvage Unions Salvcon and Salvhire forms were reissued in 2005, although herethe changes were mainly typographical.

Like the restless motion of the waves, these extensive changes in the Towcon/Towhire andSupplytime and Wreck forms have either eaten away substantially at the 1985/2002 text of thiswork causing it to fall away entirely, Dunwich like, or have left it, in places, very far fromrepresenting the current legal and contractual coastline: rendering the second edition a species oftextbook Winchelsea. For both of these reasons, the time which has elapsed since 2002 hasnecessitated virtually the rewriting of their respective chapters. Tempus edax rerum , as everyunfortunate textbook writer knows to his or her cost.

In addition, secondly, there has also been a considerable body of cases (in many of which I havebeen fortunate enough, due to this book, to have been involved in some respect or other) on many ofthe aspects covered in it: by way of example, The Borvigilant (which was, after all, reported as TheBorvigilant and the Romina G [2003] 2 Lloyds Rep 520 (CA); cf. my doubts in the preface to thesecond edition, at page x) on the warranty of authority clause in the UK Standard Conditions bywhich the hirer warrants that he acts for the owner of the tow if different; Targe Towing Ltd vMarine Blast Ltd (The Von Rocks) [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 721, in which the unhappy saga oflitigation (as Mance LJ described it) of the loss of the backhoe dredger Von Rocks in the North Seacontinued with a discussion of the same question in the context of the BIMCO warranty of authorityprovision and the possibility of bailment and sub-bailment on terms as a solution to the difficulties;Ease Faith v Leonis Marine Management [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 673 in which the Court revisited theissue of the particular heads of loss in the consequential loss provision in Clause 18(3) ofTowcon (now Clause 25(c) of Towcon 2008) and in which Andrew Smith J firmly endorsed thereasoning of Clarke J in Alexander G. Tsavliris Ltd v OIL Ltd (The Herdentor), 19 January 1996(unreported but noted at (1996) 3 Int ML 75 and now appended hereto); R v Goodwin [2006] 1Lloyds Rep 432 in which the Divisional Court grappled with the task of defining a vessel used innavigation and the apparently recurrent, A. P. Herbert-ish, issue of what is a jet-ski? which hasconsiderable ramifications for the application of admiralty jurisdiction and the Merchant ShippingActs to certain of the more recondite types of tow; SEA Servizi Ecologici v Muliciero ServiciosMaritimos [2007] EWHC 2639 (Comm) in which Andrew Smith J, in refusing permission to appealagainst an arbitration award, made some important further comments on the operation of theconsequential loss exclusion in Clause 12(c) of the Supplytime 89 form (now Clause 14(c) ofSupplytime 2005) and, very recently, Seadrill Management Services Ltd v OAO Gazprom (TheEkha) [2010] 1 Lloyds Rep 543 (Flaux J) and, subsequently, [2010] EWCA Civ 691 where the Courthad to consider the correct approach to the construction of mutual allocation of risk clauses, similarto the BIMCO format, but as found in the offshore drilling IDDCO contract form, and where it hasmade a number of illuminating general propositions. In addition, I include reference to issues whichhave been thrown up in arbitrations in which I have been engaged or on which I have advised invarious capacities.

Thirdly, the core principle of the BIMCO forms of knock-for-knock or the mutual allocation of riskfor well defined items of property and areas of potential liability has come under particular challengesince 2002. The P&I Clubs have noted a trend for contracting parties (usually the major oilcompanies) to qualify the terms of the BIMCO standard forms. As one leading P&I Club commentedas long ago as 2005: Knock-for-knock contracting and insurance arrangements appear to be in retreatin some quarters. BIMCO wordings are also frequently adapted as oil companies seek contractualarrangements that protect their interests and put more responsibility onto the shoulders of thecharterers. There is a growing practice of inserting exclusions for gross negligence and wilfulmisconduct into the liability provisions of offshore contracts (Barbara Jennings: Maritime RiskInternational Vol. 19, Issue 3). Of particular note, more recently, perhaps unconsciously echoing thistrend, decisions of the Court have pointed to an alternative and much more restrictive approach to theconstruction, even of mutual allocation of risk provisions such as Clause 25(b) of Towcon 2008,under which certain types of breach, which have been described as radical (i.e. presumably, goingto the rootradixof the contract, a throwback to concepts of fundamental breach), have beenheld to fall wholly outside the application of such clauses: see in the context of the predecessor toClause 25(b), Clause 18(2) of Towcon, the decision in A Turtle Offshore SA v Superior Trading

Inc (The A Turtle) [2009] 1 Lloyds Rep 177, and, in the context of other mutual allocation of risk orknock-for-knock provisions, for example a clause mutually excluding the recovery of consequentialloss, similar to Clause 25(c) of Towcon 2008 (the former Clause 18(3) of Towcon) and Clause14(c) of Supplytime 2005, Internet Broadcasting Corporation Ltd v Mar LLC [2009] 2 LloydsRep 295 (recently considered by Flaux J in Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albe-marle InternationalCorporation [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm)). Both decisions raise some fundamental issues as to theapproach to the construction of the BIMCO knock-for-knock clauses in all of the BIMCO formsconsidered in this book and have required an extended commentary and analysis.

Fourthly, I have received many requests to expand the book to cover other BIMCO offshorecontracts which are often used in conjunction with the forms already considered or in other aspects ofan offshore project. In particular, involvement over the last few years in a number of cases involvingcarriage of heavylift cargoes has shown that a commentary on the leading forms of BIMCO contract inthe heavylift and project construction field would be of value. I have accordingly included a newchapter which deals with the BIMCO Heavycon form, now Heavycon 2007 following itsrelatively recent revision, the Heavyliftvoy form for more routine heavy cargo carriage introducedin 2009 and the Projectcon form under which the hirer hires both a transportation unit, typically aheavylift barge, and a tug or tugs: a novel form which raises some nice questions of analysis.

The widespread use of the BIMCO forms covered in detail in this work for all aspects of offshorework has, apparently, led to the work being regarded by practitioners and others in the industryessentially as the Lloyds Shipping Law Library text for Offshore Contracts rather than purely forcontracts of towage. Consideration was therefore given by me and Informa to changing the title forthis new third edition. The publishers were, however, understandably reluctant to sever so abruptlythe connection with a title which has proved a remarkably popular and enduring one. The originaltitle of The Law of Tug and Tow (a title adopted in homage to and continuation of Alfred BucknillKCs leading work of that name, last published in 1927 and suggested by Mr Justice David Steel whenhe, as my head of chambers and with characteristic persuasiveness, induced me to take on the book in1994) was always, perhaps, somewhat too narrow (and antique) and the inclusion of the further formsdealt with in the second edition in 2002 and now again in this new edition have meant that the old titleno longer really fits the book. These considerations however explain the new full title of The Law ofTug and Tow and Offshore Contracts, a compromise solution which we hope will prove acceptable.

It remains only for me to thank those who have played a role in this third edition (as the book hasgrown fatter so has the list grown longer): Tony Clarke, now the Rt. Hon. Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony who, as with the previous editions of the work, once again made time to read the book in page-proof and to write a kind foreword (it is a matter of personal regret that I was not able to squeeze inanother edition before this one, since the editions and his forewords to them have almost followedeach step of Tonys outstanding judicial career from the Admiralty Court, via the Court of Appeal, tothe Supreme Court, missing only his time spent as Master of the Rolls); Michael Lacey of theInternational Salvage Union who again made me privy to his unrivalled inside knowledge of thedrafting of the BIMCO and ISU forms considered in this book and who assisted greatly, particularlyin relation to the very late emerging Wreck forms which threatened to derail the publication date;Paul Dean of Holman Fenwick Willan, one of the leading and busiest practitioners in the field ofoffshore contracts and with whom I have had the good fortune to work on some of the knottierproblems of the various BIMCO forms, who very kindly read through and commented upon Chapters4 and 5 on the Towcon, Towhire and Supplytime forms and gave me the benefit of his greatexperience and sagacity; Fabien Lerede of the Standard Club, perhaps the leading P&I Club in the

field of offshore risks, who equally kindly read through and commented upon the new Chapter 6 onthe Heavycon 2007 and associated heavylift and project cargo forms with his unrivalled practicalexperience of claims in this field; Jeremy Russell QC who was again kind enough to read through andcomment on Chapters 7 and 8 from the perspective of a leading salvage practitioner and Lloydsarbitrator; Robert Gay of Hill Dickinson, who allowed me to refer to two invigorating papers onsome of what he, with some justice and inimitably, has described as heffalump traps posed by theSupplytime form, whether 89 or 2005; Simon Kverndal QC who generously allowed me tomine the body of materials on the BIMCO Supplytime forms which he has collected in lecturing tothe industry on various aspects of that form; Liz Lewis of my publishers, Informa, who handled thevarious demands of getting the text prepared and out with unflappable efficiency and tolerance andwho arranged for the paragraph numbering with the text; the unknown E.R. whose extraordinaryphotograph I have been fortunate enough to be allowed by Informa to use as a frontispiece but whom,despite our best efforts, we have been unable to trace for permission to use it; BIMCO and, inparticular, Mr Grant Hunter, its indefatigable Chief Documentary Affairs Officer, for unstintingpermission to reproduce the BIMCO forms and the various explanatory notes and, last (but in realityfirst), my wife Charlotte, without whom nothing.

Any and all mistakes or infelicities in the text together with the views expressed in it are, however,mine and mine alone. It seems, unfortunately, now to be necessary to say that this work is not intendedto provide any individual legal advice to any litigant or client; although every effort has been made toeliminate errors, no responsibility is therefore accepted to any person who relies on any statementscontained within it.

The law is intended to be that as it stood on 1 August 2011.SIMON RAINEY

Quadrant ChambersLondon EC4Y 1AU

Outline Table of Contents Foreword by the Rt. Hon. Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-EbonyPreface to the Third EditionTable of CasesTable of Legislation, Rules and ConventionsTable of Statutory InstrumentsTable of International Conventions, Rules and LegislationTable of Forms and ConditionsCHAPTER 1THE CONTRACT OF TOWAGECHAPTER 2THE IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS OF TUG AND TOWCHAPTER 3STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (I) THE UK STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR

TOWAGE AND OTHER SERVICESCHAPTER 4STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (II) THE BIMCO FORMS TOWCON 2008

AND TOWHIRE 2008CHAPTER 5STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (III) THE BIMCO SUPPLYTIME 2005

FORMCHAPTER 6STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (IV) THE BIMCO HEAVYCON 2007;

HEAVYLIFTVOY AND PROJECTCON FORMSCHAPTER 7TOWAGE AND SALVAGECHAPTER 8THE ISU STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS FOR THE PROVISION OF TUGS TO

SALVORS FOR USE IN SALVAGE: SALVCON 2005 AND SALVHIRE 2005CHAPTER 9THE BIMCO/ISU STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS FOR WRECK REMOVAL

AND MARINE SERVICES: WRECKHIRE 2010; WRECKSTAGE 2010 ANDWRECKFIXED 2010

CHAPTER 10COLLISIONS INVOLVING TUG AND TOWCHAPTER 11TOWAGE AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITYCHAPTER 12TUG AND TOW AND GENERAL AVERAGECHAPTER 13ADMIRALTY JURISDICTIONAPPENDICES

Appendix 1 UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services (Revised 1986)Appendix 2 Towcon 2008Appendix 3 Towhire 2008Appendix 4 Supplytime 2005Appendix 5 Heavycon 2007Appendix 6 HeavyliftvoyAppendix 7 ProjectconAppendix 8 Heavyconbill 2007Appendix 9 Heavyconreceipt 2007Appendix 10 HeavyliftvoybillAppendix 11 Salvcon 2005Appendix 12 Salvhire 2005Appendix 13 Wreckhire 2010

Appendix 14 Wreckstage 2010Appendix 15 Wreckfixed 2010Appendix 16 Rule 24 of Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions)

Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1798)Appendix 17 Netherlands Tug Owners Conditions 1951Appendix 18 Scandinavian Tugowners Standard Conditions of the Year 1959 Revised 1974 and

1985Appendix 19 Alexander G. Tsavliris Ltd v OIL Ltd (The Herdentor) , judgment of the Hon. Mr

Justice Clarke of 19 January 1996 (unreported)INDEX

Table of Contents Foreword by The Rt. Hon. Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-EbonyPreface to the Third EditionTable of CasesTable of Legislation, Rules and ConventionsTable of Statutory InstrumentsTable of International Conventions, Rules and LegislationTable of Forms and Conditions

CHAPTER 1THE CONTRACT OF TOWAGEPart A. Preliminary considerationsDefining towageTowage arises ex contractu

Towage arises from a contractThe relationship between towage and salvageGratuitous towage

The contract of towage is a contract for servicesIs the contract of towage one of bailment (or akin thereto)?The role of the standard form contract

The UK standard conditionsThe BIMCO ocean towage and other offshore industry formsCommon European towage formsThe place of implied terms in towage and allied contracts

Part B. The making of the contractAuthority of master to contract to be towed

On behalf of his ownersOn behalf of his vessels cargo

Authority of a master to take a vessel in towThe master of a tugThe master of a vessel not a tug

Pre-contractual disclosure: The KingalockPart C. Other contractual mattersThe application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

The scope of applicationThe provisions of the Act

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999No special rules of construction for towage contractsThe effect of the general equitable jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court

CHAPTER 2THE IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS OF TUG AND TOWPart A.The obligations of the tugThe Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982The Minnehaha and The Julia

The principles summarisedThe impact of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 on these principles

Preparation for the towageFitness of the tug for the towage service

The obligationThe nature of the obligation

Contract for a named tug: special considerationsHow the considerations ariseThe casesThe present position

Performance of the towage serviceThe general positionThe question of controlExamples of identifying which vessel is in controlIf the tug is in control of the service

Completion of the towage serviceInterruptions in the course of the towageCircumstances in which the towage can be abandonedPart B. The obligations of the towThe JuliaFitness of the tow for the towage serviceProper seamanship during the towage service

The general positionThe question of controlTow in controlTug in control

Other aspects of the tow's obligations: the duty of co-operationCHAPTER 3STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (I) THE UK STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR

TOWAGE AND OTHER SERVICESPart A. IntroductionPart B. Commentary on the conditionsClause 1: introductory and definitions

Paragraph (a)Paragraph (b)(i) to (iii)Paragraph (b)(iv): whilst towing

Whilst towing: significanceThe commencement of towingThe involvement of more than one tugThe cesser of towing

Paragraph (b)(v) to (vii)Clause 2: hirer's warranty of authorityClause 3: vicarious liability of tow and tug

GenerallyThe period during which the clause operatesEffect as between tug and towEffect as between tug and tow and third parties

Clause 4: the exemption clause

Period of application and scheme of the clauseParagraph 4(a)Paragraph 4(b)Paragraph 4(c)

Personal fault of tug owner as to seaworthinessTug not in a position of proximity or risk

Paragraph 4(d)Paragraph 4(e)

Clause 5: substitution of tugClause 6: reservation of special rightsClause 7: further exemption clauseClause 8: non-suit clauseClause 9: jurisdiction clauseCHAPTER 4STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (II) THE BIMCO FORMS TOWCON 2008

AND TOWHIRE 2008Part A. The Towcon 2008 and Towhire 2008 formsThe genesis of the formsThe 2008 revision of the formsThe nature of the two formsPart B. The Towcon 2008 formThe structure and organisation of the form

Part I of Towcon 2008Boxes 4 to 12Boxes 13 to 21Annex A (Vessel Specification)Boxes 22 to 25Boxes 26 to 30Boxes 33 to 35Box 40

Part II of TowconCommentary upon Part II of the form

Clause 1: the towClause 2: basis of the contractClause 3: price and conditions of payment

The lump sumThe earning of the lump sum and the anti-deduction clause

Clause 4: the bunker price adjustment clauseClause 5: the cancelling date and the hirer's right to cancelClause 6: free time and delay paymentsClause 7: passage through canals and Restricted WatersClause 8: ice clauseClause 9: additional charges and extra costsClause 10: war risk escalation clauseClause 11: interestClause 12: security

Clause 13: place of departure/readiness for departureThe place of departureThe readiness of the tow for departureCertification

Clause 14: place of destinationClause 15: riding crewClause 16: towing gear and use of tow's gearClause 17: permits and certificationClause 18: tow-worthiness of the tow

Fitness of the towCertificate of tow-worthinessNon-waiver clause

Clause 19: the tug's seaworthinessClause 20: substitution of tugsClause 21: salvageClause 22: termination by the hirerClause 23: termination by the tug ownerClause 24: necessary deviation or slow steaming

GenerallyDeviation from the original rateThe liberties to deviateImpermissible deviations

Clause 25: liabilities and mutual indemnitiesGenerallyThe correct approach to construction of clause 25Clause 25's use of contractual indemnitiesInjury to or death of those engaged in the towage: sub-clause (a)Loss of or damage to or caused by tug and tow: sub-clause (b)Scope of exclusion/exemptionHeads of excluded loss and damageOther (financial) losses: sub-clause (c)The changes reflected in clause 25(c): (1) redefinition of heads of lossThe changes reflected in clause 25(c): (2) specific reference to excluded causes (and

negligence)Heads of excluded loss and damageThe circumstances in which clause 25(c) appliesThe overall operation of clause 25(a) to (c)Statutory limitations: sub-clause (d)

Clause 26: Himalaya clauseClause 27: war and other risks and difficulties

Paragraph (a): the defined termsParagraph (b): war and other risks affecting the passageParagraphs (c) to (d): additional insurance for the tug and wages for crewsParagraph (e): the liberty to deviateParagraph (f): blocking and trapping

Paragraphs (g) and (h): consequential provisionsClause 28: lienClause 29: warranty of authorityClauses 30 and 31: general provisions and time barClause 32: compliance with the ISPS and the United States MTSA legislationClauses 33 to 35: dispute resolution; security for claims and contractual noticesClause 33: (1): the new dispute resolution provisions in paragraphs (a) to (c) and (e)Clause 33: (2): the new mediation provisions in paragraph (d)Clause 34: security for claimsClause 35: notices

Part C. The Towhire 2008 formThe structure and organisation of the formCommentary on the different provisions in the Towhire 2008 form

Clause 3: price and payment clauseHireMobilisation/demobilisation paymentAnti-deduction clauseAbsence of delay payments and free time

Clause 4: bunkers and allied mattersClause 11: place of departureOther clauses

CHAPTER 5STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (III) THE BIMCO SUPPLYTIME 2005FORM

Part A. The genesis of the formPart B. The Supplytime 89 formA species of time charterpartyThe structure and organisation of the Supplytime 2005 formPart C. Commentary on the formPreamble: contractual definitionsClause 1: periodClause 2: delivery and redeliveryClause 3: condition of vessel

Description, class and seaworthiness as at deliverySeaworthiness and class during the service

Clause 4: structural alternations to the vessel and extra equipmentClause 5: surveyClause 6: employment and area of operation

Scope of vessel's employmentCertificatesThe vessel's spaceLay-up clause

Clause 7: master and crewOrdinary featuresParagraph (d): compliance with orders

Clauses 8 and 9: provide and pay for clauses

Clause 10: bunkersClause 11: compliance with the ISPS and the United States MTSA legislationClause 12: hire and paymentsClause 13: suspension of hireClause 14: liabilities

Knock-for-knockDefinitions and scope of applicationA more limited form of knock-for-knockScope of exemption/indemnityHeads of excluded loss and damageConsequential damagesThe scope of the losses excludedThe operation of the clauseHazardous and noxious substancesOther matters

Clause 15: pollutionClause 16: wreck removalClause 17: insuranceClause 18: saving of life and salvage

Liberty to deviateLiberty to perform salvageSalvage rendered to the charterers property

Clause 19: lienClause 20: sublet and assignmentClause 21: substitute vesselClause 22: war risksClause 23: cancellation in light of warClauses 24 and 25: ports and places affected by ice conditions and disease

IceFever/epidemics

Clauses 26 to 30 and 32: general or omnibus provisionsClause 31: early termination

Charterers right of terminationTermination by either party for causeThe procedure for termination for causeThe events which give rise to the right to terminate

CHAPTER 6STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS: (IV) THE BIMCO HEAVYCON 2007;HEAVYLIFYVOY AND PROJECTCON FORMS

Part A. The background to the formsPart B. The Heavycon 2007 formThe structure of the formPart I and the boxesAnnex A and the Demarcation of Scope of WorkCommentary on the provisions of Part II

Clause 1: definitions

Clause 2: the contractual voyageThe obligation to transport the cargoThe obligation as to the seaworthiness of the vesselThe obligation of despatch

Clause 3: deviation; delays; part cargoClause 4: loading and discharging responsibilities

GenerallyLoadingDischargingOther matters

Clause 5: necessary permits and licencesClause 6: duties and taxesClause 7: quarantineClause 8: commencement of laydays and cancellation of the charterClause 9: advance noticesClause 10: notice of readinessClause 11: the condition of the cargo and the approval of the transportationClause 12: freightClause 13: free time and demurrageClause 14: mobilisation and demobilisationClause 15: canal transitClause 16: bunker escalationClause 18: dangerous cargoClause 19: lienClause 20: substitutionClause 21: terminationClause 22: liabilities and indemnitiesClause 23: consequential damagesClause 24: pollutionClause 25: bill of lading or cargo receiptClause 26: insuranceClause 27: cargo Himalaya clauseClause 32: limitation of liabilityClause 34: agencyClause 35: brokerageClause 37: double banking

Part C. The Heavyliftvoy formThe structure of the formPart I and the boxesCommentary on the provisions of Part II

DefinitionsClause 1: scope of voyageClause 2: cargo requirements

Requirements as to the cargoThe carriers right to an indemnity

Defence of insufficiency of packingClause 3: cargo descriptionClause 4: cargo discrepancyClauses 9 and 10: the loading of the cargo and the free-in and liner-in hook optionsClause 9: free-inClause 10: liner-in hookClauses 11, 12 and 13: provisions common to both free-in and liner-in hook optionsClause 11: standard of seafasteningClauses 12 and 13: swell, port congestion and time waiting to berthClauses 14 and 15: the discharging of the cargo and the free-in and liner-in hook optionsClauses 16 and 17: provisions common to both free-in and liner-in hook optionsClause 18: freight, demurrage and detentionClause 21: terminal chargesClause 23: part cargoesClause 24: taxes, dues and chargesClause 25: bunker price adjustmentClause 26: deck cargoClause 27: bills of ladingClause 30: merchants option to terminateClause 34: clause paramountClause 39: BIMCO clause for special US Customs requirements

Part D. The Projectcon formThe structure of the formPart I and the boxesCommentary on the provisions of Part II

DefinitionsThe contractual voyage

Lying agroundThe obligation as to the seaworthiness of the vesselsThe obligation of due despatch

Clause 3: deviation and delaysClause 4: the parties responsibilities for the ballasting of the barge for cargo operationsClause 5: the parties responsibilities for loading and dischargingClause 7: taxesClause 9: the period within which the barge is to be delivered and loaded, and the rights to

cancelClause 10: notice of readiness and other advance noticesClause 11: marine warranty surveyor and approval of cargo and vesselsClause 12: freightClause 13: free time and delay paymentsClause 21: knock for knock and mutual indemnitiesClause 22: bills of lading, cargo notes and receipts

CHAPTER 7TOWAGE AND SALVAGEPart A. Preliminary considerationsThe historical relationship between towage and salvage

The nature of salvageThe 1989 Salvage ConventionThe essential criteria for salvage

Subject of salvageDangerVoluntarinessSuccess

Part B. From towage service to salvage serviceThe issues and questions arisingThe approach in The MinnehahaIts restatement in the later casesThe test as expressed in the Salvage ConventionsThe first requirement: unforeseen circumstances putting tow in danger

Unforeseen circumstancesCircumstances creative of danger for the towDanger to tow not of itself sufficientNo need for danger to the tug

The second requirement: service or services outside the scope of the contractThe burden and standard of proofThe effect of conversion into salvage upon the towage contractThe relationship with salvage under the common forms of contractTowage contracts providing for no salvage chargesEffects upon the rights of the tug crewThe sub-contracting in of tugs in salvage servicesThe effect of misconduct by the tug

The early authoritiesThe modern approach

Part C. Contracts for engaged servicesThe nature of engaged servicesHave engaged services survived the 1989 Salvage Convention?Part D. Salvage of a tug and towCHAPTER 8THE ISU STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS FOR THE PROVISION OF TUGS TO

SALVORS FOR USE IN SALVAGE: SALVCON 2005 AND SALVHIRE 2005Part A. IntroductionPart B. The Salvcon 2005 and Salvhire 2005 formsThe genesis of the formsThe nature of the two formsPart C. The Salvcon 2005 formThe structure and organisation of the form

Part I of the Salvcon 2005 formBox 4Boxes 3 and 5Boxes 6 to 8Box 9Boxes 10 to 16

Box 17Part II of the Salvcon 2005 form

Commentary on Part II of the formClause 1: definitionsClause 2: nature of services to be provided by the ownerClause 3: price and conditions of payment

Lump sumDelay payments and overpaymentsTermination for non- or late payment

Clauses 4 and 5: free time and delay paymentsClause 6: employment and area of operationsClause 7: master and crewClause 8: the owners obligations

Owners obligationsProtection of the environmentNo claims for salvage

Clause 9: hirers representativeClause 10: permitsClause 11: towing gear and equipmentClause 12: seaworthiness of the vesselClause 13: substitution of the vesselClause 14: terminationClause 15: time for payment and interestClause 16: extra costsClauses 17 and 18: security and insuranceClause 19: liabilities

Injury to or death of those involved in the service (clauses 19.1 and 19.2)Loss of or damage caused to or by vessels involved (clauses 19.3 and 19.4)Other (financial) losses and statutory limitations (clauses 19.5 and 19.6)

Clauses 2024 and 27: general provisionsClauses 25 and 26: law and arbitration procedurePart D. The Salvhire 2005 form

CHAPTER 9THE BIMCO/ISU STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS FOR WRECK REMOVALAND MARINE SERVICES: WRECKHIRE 2010; WRECKSTAGE 2010 AND WRECKFIXED

2010Part A. IntroductionPart B. The 2010 Standard Wreck formsPart C. The Wreckhire 2010 formThe structure of the formPart I and the boxesThe Annexes to the formCommentary on the provisions of Part II

Clause 1: definitionsClause 2: the servicesClause 3: company representative

Clause 4: change of work method and/or personnel, craft and equipmentClause 5: miscellaneous responsibilities of the partiesClause 6: permitsClause 7: delaysClause 8: suspension or terminationClause 9: delivery or disposal of the vessel by the contractorClause 10: price and conditions of paymentClause 11: bonus for prompt completion by the contractorClause 12: reduced daily rate of hire for late completionClause 13: extra costs incurred in relation to the servicesClause 14: extra costs incurred in disposal of the vesselClause 15: securityClause 16: liabilitiesClauses 17 to 19 and 22: standard provisions (Himalaya clause; lien; time for suit; notices)

Clause 20: expert evaluation of alteration of rates of hire and losses of time under clauses 4 and 7Clause 21: arbitration and mediationClause 23: insuranceClause 24: duties as to avoidance of pollution and knock-for-knock for pollution liabilitiesClause 25: rotation and replacement of craft, equipment and personnelClause 26: general provisionsPart D. The Wreckstage 2010 formClause 8: suspension or terminationClause 9: delivery or disposalClause 10: price and conditions of paymentClause 11: extra costsPart E. The Wreckfixed 2010 formGeneral description of the formDifferences with the provisions of Wreckstage 2010

CHAPTER 10COLLISIONS INVOLVING TUG AND TOWPart A. Preliminary remarksThe scope of the chapterNavigation and the Collision Regulations

Navigation and navigational rulesThe role of the Collision Regulations

The general scheme for apportioning liability in collisions between vesselsPart B. Navigation by tug and towThe role of the towage contractThe duties upon the tugThe duties upon the towSpecial aspects of the Collision Regulations

Lights and shapesSound signalsNavigational rules

Application to water-borne objectsTug and tow: how treated

Part C. Collision between tug and towThe relevance of the contractWhere the contract is silentPart D. Collisions during the towage which involve a third vesselThe irrelevance of the contractThe doctrine of control

The old lawThe test in The DevonshireControl not necessarily decisive

Liabilities between tug, tow and third party vesselThird party vessel not to blameThird party vessel also to blame

CHAPTER 11TOWAGE AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITYPart A. Limiting liability: General principlesHistorical background

A question of policyThe English approachSection 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894The Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (replaced by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995): the new

regimeThe framework of the 1976 Convention and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995Special questions arising in relation to tug and towPart B. Application of the Limitation Convention to shipsThe relevant wording of the 1976 ConventionThe position in English lawPart C. The aggregation of tug and tow for the purposes of the limitation fundThe question of aggregation: the flotilla issueThe cases before the Merchant Shipping Act 1958

The wording of the 1894 ActThe cases

The cases following the Merchant Shipping Act 1958The wording of the 1894 Act as amended by the 1958 ActThe decision in The Bramley Moore (1964)The decision in The Sir Joseph Rawlinson (1972) and later casesA summary of the law before the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (now the Merchant Shipping Act

1995)A comparison: the Canadian and American cases

The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (replacing the Merchant Shipping Act 1979) and the 1976Limitation Convention

The relevant wordingThe current state of the law on aggregation

The special problem of the flotillas physical structurePart D. Limitation of claims arising on any distinct occasionThe wording of the 1976 ConventionThe cases

Part E. Application of Limitation Convention between tug and towHow the question arisesThe position under the 1976 ConventionThe decision in Smit v Mobius

CHAPTER 12TUG AND TOW AND GENERAL AVERAGEPart A. The special issues arisingGeneral average and the York-Antwerp RulesQuestions specific to tug and towPart B. Recovery of towage expenses in general averageSummary of the positionThe leading casesThe adjusters rules of practicePart C. General average as between tug and towThe fundamental requirements for general averagePractical importance for tug and towThe importance of the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 and 2004The position prior to the 1994 Rules

Commonality of adventureThe basis of contribution between the respective interests

The York-Antwerp Rules 1994/2004 and the new Rule BCommonality of maritime adventureMeasure as to general averageTow-line slipped to save vessel(s)Disconnection an act of general average: continuation of common adventure

CHAPTER 13ADMIRALTY JURISDICTIONHistorical backgroundPresent-day Admiralty jurisdictionFeatures of the jurisdiction in respect of towage

Jurisdiction in remNo maritime lien Towage in respect of a ship Claims in the nature of towageOther available heads of jurisdiction

APPENDICESAppendix 1 UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services (revised 1986)Appendix 2 Towcon 2008Appendix 3 Towhire 2008Appendix 4 Supplytime 2005Appendix 5 Heavycon 2007Appendix 6 HeavyliftvoyAppendix 7 ProjectconAppendix 8 Heavyconbill 2007Appendix 9 Heavyconreceipt 2007Appendix 10 HeavyliftvoybillAppendix 11 Salvcon 2005

Appendix 12 Salvhire 2005Appendix 13 Wreckhire 2010Appendix 14 Wreckstage 2010Appendix 15 Wreckfixed 2010Appendix 16 Rule 24 of Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions)

Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1798)Appendix 17 Netherlands Tug Owners Conditions 1951Appendix 18 Scandinavian Tugowners Standard Conditions of the Year 1959 Revised 1974 and 1985Appendix 19 Alexander G. Tsavliris Ltd v OIL Ltd (The Herdentor), judgment of the Hon. Mr Justice

Clarke of 19 January 1996 (unreported)INDEX

Table of Cases A Turtle Offshore SA v Superior v Superior Trading Inc (The A Turtle) [2009] 1

Lloyds Rep 1771.27, 1.74, 1.76,

3.54, 4.138,4.1814.183,

4.187,4.1994.201,4.241, 4.244,

4.251, 4.259, 5.13,5.84, 5.86

Abaris, The. Owners of the SS Rio Verde v Owners of the SS Abaris (1920) 2L1 L Rep 411 2.81

Abbale v Alstom UK Ltd [2000] EWHC 122 (Tech) 4.25, 4.26Aboukir, The (1905) 21 TLR 200 2.56, 2.60, 7.39Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd [1959] AC 133;

[1958] 1 Lloyds Rep 73 (HL) 6.173Aditya Vaibhav (No. 1), The [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 573 5.59Adler v Dickson (No. 1) [1955] 1 QB 158; [1954] 2 Lloyds Rep 267 3.75Adriatic, The (1915) 85 LJP 12 3.47Adriatic, The, and The Wellington (1914) 30 TLR 699 2.45, 3.46Aegean Sea, The [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep 39 4.261, 11.65,

11.68, 11.72Afovos, The [1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 562 (CA); affmd [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 335

(HL) 8.53Afrapearl, The [2004] 2 Lloyds Rep 305 5.135, 6.225Agrico Chemical Co v MV Ben Martin, 664 F. 2d. 85 (1981) (US Ct of Appeals

(5th Cir)) 1.17, 1.30AIC Ltd v Marine Pilot Ltd (The Archimidis) [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 597 4.70Akerblom v Price Potter Walker & Co (1881) 7 QBD 129 1.55, 1.57, 1.59,

1.78Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd [1926] 2 KB 83; (1926) 25 L1 L Rep 30;

affmd [1927] 1 KB 352; (1926) 25 L1 L Rep 513 (CA) 4.151Albion, The (1861) Lush 282 7.58Albion, The. Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson Ltd v France Fenwick Tyne

and Wear Co Ltd [1952] 1 Lloyds Rep 367; [1953] 2 Lloyds Rep 82 (CA) 2.16, 4.97, 10.24Albion, The. Thomas Stone (Shipping) Ltd v Admiralty [1952] 1 Lloyds Rep 38;

affmd [1953] 1 Lloyds Rep 239 (CA) 2.16, 10.16Alexander G. Tsavliris Ltd v OIL Ltd (The Herdentor) (unreported, 19 January

1996; noted in (1996) 3 Int ML 75)1.75, 4.141, 4.153,

4.157, 4.187,

4.190, 4.196,4.201,

4.2164.220,4.228,

4.2364.238,4.253, 4.258, 5.77,

5.94, 5.97, 5.99,8.17, 8.92

Alexandra Towing v Millet (Owners) and Egret (Owners), The Bramley Moore[1964] P 200; [1963] 2 Lloyds Rep 429 (CA)

11.1, 11.25,11.3111.37,11.39, 11.43,11.45, 11.51,

11.55Alfred, The (1884) 50 LT 511; 5 Asp MLC 214 1.48Allison v Bristol Marine Insurance Co (1875) 1 App Cas 209 6.74Altair, The [1897] P 105 2.50, 2.52American, The, and The Syria (1874) LR 6 PC 127 2.50, 10.15, 10.35Anastassia v Ugleexport (1934) 49 L1 L Rep 1 5.47Andalusian, The (1878) 3 PD 182 11.17, 13.16Anderson Tritton & Co v Ocean Steamship Co (1883) 13 QBD 651 (CA); revsd

in part (1884) 10 App Cas 107 (HL)1.49, 7.20, 12.12,

12.14Annapolis, The (1861) Lush 355 4.109, 7.42, 8.70Apollon, The [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep 476 3.233.25, 3.34Aquacharm, The [1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 7 (CA) 5.154, 9.36Aries, The [1977] 1 WLR 185; [1977] 1 Lloyds Rep 334 (HL) 4.39, 6.74Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost) [1986] AC 717; [1986] 2

Lloyds Rep 109 3.39, 4.288Armand v Carr [1926] SCR 575 (Sup Ct, Canada) 1.11Armitage v Nurse (Exclusion Clauses) [1998] Ch 241 4.133Arthur Gordon, The (1861) Lush 270 (PC) 10.38Asfar v Blundell [1896] 1 QB 123 4.34Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v Houlder (1917) 22 Com Cas 279 6.65Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Abemarle International Corporation [2011] EWHC 1574

(Comm)1.75, 4.184, 4.186,

4.192, 4.201,4.2474.251,

4.260, 5.87, 6.99Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v Green [1971] 1 QB 456; [1970] 1

Lloyds Rep 209; affmd [1971] 1 QB 481; [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep 16 (CA) 12.14Australian Steamship Pty Ltd v Koninklijke-Java-China-Paketvaart Lynen NV

Amsterdam [1955] ALR 462 (Australia) 3.26Axa Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 133 4.41, 5.135, 5.137,

6.185Axel Brostrom & Son v Louis Dreyfus & Co (1932) 38 Com Cas 79 4.69Aztecs, The (1870) 3 Asp MLC 326 7.51Baltyk, The [1947] 2 All ER 560; (1947) 80 L1 L Rep 668 3.10, 4.199Beaverford, The v The Kafiristan [1938] AC 136; (1937) 58 L1 L Rep 317 (HL) 7.1007.105Benlarig, The (1888) 14 PD 3 7.110Berge Sund, The [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 453 5.154Betsey, The (1843) 2 Wm Rob 167 13.4BHP Petroleum Ltd v British Steel plc and Dalmine SpA [1999] 2 Lloyds Rep

583; affmd [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 277 (CA)4.213,

4.2254.228,4.232, 4.234, 5.94

Biggin v Permanite [1951] 2 KB 314 4.208Blandy Brothers & Co v Nello Simoni [1963] 2 Lloyds Rep 393 (CA) 6.102Boiler, The, ex The Elephant (1891) 64 LT 543 7.12Bold Buccleugh, The (1851) 7 Moo PC 267 13.9Booker v SS Pocklington [1899] 2 QB 690 5.117Borvigilant, The and The Romina G [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 631; affmd [2003] 2

Lloyds Rep 520 (CA)1.77, 3.2, 3.63,

3.79, 3.80, 4.266Bowbelle, The [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 532 11.11Boyse v Rossborough (1857) 6 HLC 3 7.22Brabant, The [1967] 1 QB 588; [1965] 2 Lloyds Rep 546 3.64, 4.19Bramley Moore, The. Alexandra Towing v Millet (Owners) and Egret (Owners)

[1964] P 200; [1963] 2 Lloyds Rep 429 (CA)11.1, 11.25,

11.3111.37,11.39, 11.43,11.45, 11.51,

11.55Brandt v Morris [1917] 2 KB 784 5.20Brass v Maitland (1856) 6 E & B 470 5.38, 6.81Brede, The [1974] QB 233; [1973] 2 Lloyds Rep 333 4.39Bristol City, The [1921] P 444 (CA) 2.75British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire [1975] QB 303 3.4, 3.5British Sugar plc v NEI Power Projects Ltd (1997) 87 BLR 42 4.212, 4.214,

4.231, 4.303, 5.55Brown v Clegg (1870) 3 Mar LC 512 (Sup Ct of Pennsylvania, USA) 1.16Brys & Gylsen Ltd v J & J Drysdale & Co (1920) 4 L1 L Rep 24 6.139Caffin v Aldridge [1895] 2 QB 366 6.120

Cairnbahn, The [1914] P 25 (CA) 10.56Caledonia (E. E.) Ltd v Orbit Valve Co [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 418; [1994] 1

WLR 15154.130, 4.144,4.183, 4.206

Caledonia North Sea Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2002] 1 Lloyds Rep553 4.130

Calypso, The (1828) 2 Hagg 209 7.6Cambrian, The (1897) 8 Asp 263 7.107Camerata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd [2011] EWHC

479 (Comm) 4.137Canada SS Lines v SS Paisley [1930] 2 DLR 257 (Can PC) 2.75Canada Steamships Lines v The King [1952] AC 192; [1952] 1 Lloyds Rep 1 3.56, 3.60, 4.144,

4.158,4.1674.171,4.201, 4.206,

4.233, 5.85, 5.103Canadian Salt Co v The Ship Irving Cedar [2000] FCJ No. 1410; LMLN 557

(Fed Ct, Canada) 4.155, 4.203Canova, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 54 1.56, 1.60Cap Palos, The [1925] P 458; (1921) 8 L1 L Rep 309 (CA) 1.76, 3.54,

4.1874.190,4.195, 4.197,4.198, 4.199

Cape Colony, The (1920) 4 L1 L Rep 116 2.52Cargo ex Capella, The (1867) LR 1 A & E 356 7.98, 7.101Cargo Ships E1 Yam v Invotra [1958] 1 Lloyds Rep 39 4.11Carlton, The [1930] P 18 1.76Caroline P, The [1984] 2 Lloyds Rep 440 4.159, 4.159,

4.298Caspian Sea, The [1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 91 4.34Challenge, The, and The Duc dAumale [1904] P 41; affmd [1905] P 198 2.81, 10.15, 10.37Charles Adolphe, The (1856) Swab 153 7.85Charlotte, The (1848) 3 W Rob 68 7.14, 7.51Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes 4.137Chemical Venture, The [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 508 4.72Choko Star, The. Industrie Chimiche Italia v Tsavliris Maritime Co [1989] 2

Lloyds Rep 42; revsd [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 516 (CA) 1.50, 4.111Christie & Vesey Ltd v Maatschappij Tot Exploitatie van Schepen en Andere

Zaken, Helvetia NV (The Helvetia S) [1960] 1 Lloyds Rep 540 6.59Christina, The (1848) 3 W Rob 29 2.48

Cia Naviera General SA v Kerametal (The Lorna I) [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 373(CA) 6.74

City of Calcutta, The (1898) 8 Asp MLC 442 (CA) 1.45Clan Colquhoun, The [1936] P 153; (1936) 54 L1 L Rep 221 1.76, 2.1, 2.52,

3.9, 3.30, 3.37Clan Steam Trawling Co Ltd v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd

1908 SC 651 7.86Cleadon, The (1860) Lush 158; 14 Mo PC 97 (PC) 10.34Clydebank Engineering Co v Don Jose Ramos y Yzquierdo y Castoneda [1905]

AC 6 4.53CMA CGM Marseille v Petro Broker International (Formerly known as Petroval

Bunker International) [2011] EWCA Civ 461 4.41, 6.75CMA CGM SA v Classica Shipping Co Ltd (The CMA Djakarta) [2004] 1

Lloyds Rep 46011.13,

11.6611.70Coggs v Bernard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 909 1.9Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK [2009] 2 Lloyds Rep 1 4.168, 4.171Columbia, The, 73 F. 226 (9th Cir. 1896) (USA) 11.49Comet, The, (Owners) v The W.H. No. 1 (and others) [1911] AC 30 (HL) 2.81Commissioner for Main Roads v Stannard Bros Launch Services (12 September

1990, unreported) 1.20Compania Sud American Vapores v ER Hamburg Schiff. (The Aconcagua)

[2006] 2 Lloyds Rep 66 6.166Connaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 501 (CA) 5.59Conoco Arrow, The [1973] 1 Lloyds Rep 86 3.753.77, 3.79Conoco Britannia, The [1972] 1 Lloyds Rep 342 13.26Contest, The, v The Age (1923) 17 L1 L Rep 172 2.52Cook v Dredging & Construction Co Ltd [1958] 1 Lloyds Rep 334 13.15Cory & Son v France Fenwick [1911] 1 KB 135 3.42Cosco Bulk Carrier Inc v Team-Up Owning Co (The Saldanha) [2011] 1 Lloyd s

Rep 187 6.56Court Line Ltd v Canadian Transport Co Ltd [1940] AC 934 (HL) 6.139CPC Group v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Co [2010] EWHC 1535 (Ch) 4.24Croudace Construction Ltd v Cawoods Products Ltd [1978] 2 Lloyds Rep 55 4.2124.214,

4.220, 4.221,4.223, 4.224,

4.232, 5.93, 5.98,5.101

Crus V, The (1862) Lush 583 1.80

Crusader, The [1907] P 15; affmd [1907] P 196 (CA) 1.46Dahl (t/a Dahl & Co) v Nelson, Donkin & Co (1880) 6 App Cas 38 6.188, 6.189Danah, The [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 351 6.166Dart, The (1889) 8 Asp 481 7.109Davies v Swan Motor Co Ltd [1949] 2 KB 291; [1966] 1 Lloyds Rep 97 (CA) 10.11Davis v Garrett (1830) 6 Bing 716 4.121Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696 (HL) 9.73Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemical Corporation v ICI Chemicals & Polymers

Ltd [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 387 (CA)4.2234.226,

4.228, 5.93,5.995.101

Democritos, The [1975] 1 Lloyds Rep 386; affmd [1976] 2 Lloyds Rep 149 5.24, 5.75, 6.62Derby, The [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 325 5.31Det Forenede DS v Barry Railway Co (1919) 1 L1 L Rep 658 3.42, 3.60Devonian, The [1901] P 221 (CA) 2.82, 10.22, 10.23,

10.50Devonshire, The. SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] P 21 (CA); affmd

[1912] AC 634 (HL)2.47, 2.48, 2.50,2.78, 2.79, 2.81,

4.83, 10.16, 10.36,10.5110.53

Devonshire, The, and The St. Winifred [1913] P 23 3.42, 3.60Dimitrios N. Bogiazides, The (1930) 37 L1 L Rep 27 7.47Director, The, 1927 AMC 1295 (4th Cir.) (USA) 2.68Dodd, The, 1927 AMC 427 (9th Cir.) (USA) 2.41Domby, The (1941) 69 L1 L Rep 161 7.31, 7.39Dominique, The [1989] AC 1056; [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 431 4.39, 6.74Driade, The [1959] 2 Lloyds Rep 311 7.60Drughorn v Rederieaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1919] AC 203 5.21Duc dAumale (No. 2), The [1904] P 60 7.69, 7.98, 7.103Duke of Manchester, The (1846) 2 W Rob 470; 4 Notes of Cases 575 2.50, 10.15Duke of Sussex, The (1841) 1 W Rob 270 2.48Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage Co [1915] AC 79 4.67Dunsmuir v The Ship Harold (1894) 3 BCR 128 (Canada) 1.57, 1.80Ease Faith v Leonis Marine Management [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 673 4.154, 4.157,

4.229, 4.238,4.253, 5.94, 5.99,

8.92Eastern City, The [1958] 2 Lloyds Rep 127 4.69Efploia Shipping Corporation Ltd v Canadian Transport Co Ltd (The

Pantanassa) [1958] 2 Lloyds Rep 449 6.66Elliott Steam Tug Co v New Medway Steam Packet Co (1937) 59 L1 L Rep 35 2.76Elliott Steam Tug Co v The Chester (1922) 12 L1 L Rep 331 2.69, 2.71Energy, The (1870) 23 LT 601; LR 3 A & E 48 2.81, 10.16Englishman, The, and The Australia [1894] P 239 2.52, 2.81Ert Stefanie, The [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 349 3.65EuNetworks Fiber UK Ltd v Abovenet Communications UK Ltd [2007] EWHC

3099 (Ch) 4.257European & Australian Royal Mail v P. & O. (1866) 14 LT 704 13.16Eurymedon, The. New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd

[1975] AC 154; [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 534 (PC) 3.73, 4.265Exxonmobile Sales & Supply v Texaco [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 435 5.137FC Bradley & Sons Ltd v Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1926) 24 L1 L Rep

446 (CA) 5.30Fearns (trading as Autopaint International) v Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Co

[2011] 1 WLR 366 4.39Ferryways NV v Associated British Ports [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 639 4.230, 5.94, 5.98,

5.99Fido v Lloyd Brasiliero, 283 F. 62 (2d. Cir. 1922) (USA) 3.34Fiona Trust v Privalov [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 267 4.296Fisher v The Oceanic Grandeur [1972] 2 Lloyds Rep 396 (High Ct, Australia) 7.87Five Steel Barges, The (1890) 15 PD 142 7.7, 7.41, 7.63,

7.73Fletcher v Alexander (1868) LR 3 CP 375 12.47Forder v Great Western Railway Co [1905] 2 KB 532 4.135Forfarshire, The [1908] P 339 1.76, 3.56Forum Craftsman, The [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 81 4.51Francis Batey, The. Minnie Somers, The v The Francis Batey (1921) 6 L1 L Rep

389; affmd (1921) 8 L1 L Rep 247 (CA)2.83, 10.14, 10.16,

10.57Fraser & White Ltd v Vernon [1951] 2 Lloyds Rep 175 2.34, 2.37, 2.38Fraser River Pile & Dredger Ltd v Empire Tug Boats Ltd (1995) 92 FTR 26

(FCTD, Canada) 1.19Freden, The (1950) 83 L1 L Rep 427 11.28, 11.38G.W. Rlwy Co v Royal Norwegian Government [1945] 1 All ER 324 1.76, 3.53, 3.57,

3.62Galatea, The (1858) Swab 349 2.62, 7.43, 7.79Gamecock Steam Towing Co Ltd v Trader Navigation Ltd (1937) 59 L1 L Rep

1702.58, 2.60, 2.65,

2.77, 4.69

Garbis Maritime Corporation v Philippine National Oil Co (The Garbis) [1982]2 Lloyds Rep 283 6.168

Gas Float Whitton (No. 2), The; sub nom Wells v Owners of the Gas FloatWhitton (No. 2) [1896] P 42 (CA); affmd [1897] AC 337 (HL)

7.12, 11.17, 13.1,13.16

Geier v Kujawa Weston and Warne Bros [1970] 1 Lloyds Rep 364 1.47Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd [2011] 1 Lloyds Rep 517

(CA) 4.39Generous, The (1868) LR 2 A & E 57 1.80George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 3 WLR 163 4.53Giertsen v Turnbull 1908 SC 1101 5.153, 6.225Gilbert Ash Northern Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1974] AC 689

(HL)4.40, 4.145, 4.261,

5.59, 5.141Gilbert Rowe, The [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 218 (CA) 4.174Glaisdale, The (1945) 78 L1 L Rep 477 7.19Glenaffric, The [1948] 1 All ER 245; (194748) 81 L1 L Rep 174 3.193.21Glenbeg, The (1940) 67 L1 L Rep 437 7.30Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc (The Mass Glory) [2002] 2

Lloyds Rep 244 5.144Glengaber, The (1872) LR 3 A & E 534 7.100Glenmorven, The [1913] P 141 2.35, 2.38, 2.61,

7.88Global Marine Drilling Co v Triton Holdings Ltd (The Sovereign Explorer)

[2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 60 13.20Glynn v Margetson & Co [1893] AC 351 (HL) 6.45Golden Light, The, The HM Hayes, and The Annapolis (1861) Lush 365 2.55Governor Raffles, The (1818) 2 Dods 14 7.5Great Scottish & Western Railway Co Ltd v British Railways Board (1993),

unreported (CA), transcript 5.4.1993 4.137Gregerso, The [1973] QB 274; [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep 220 7.91Grill v General Iron Screw Colliery Co Ltd (1866) LR 1 CP 600 4.133H.R. Macmillan, The [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 311 (CA) 9.36Hadji v Anglo-Arabian (1906) 11 Com (US 219) (USA) 4.122Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341 4.212, 4.213,

4.219, 4.221,4.226, 4.253,

4.254, 4.303, 5.55,5.77, 5.95, 5.97,

5.99Hale Brothers Steamship Co v Paul (1914) 19 Com Cas 384 6.188

Hang Fung Shipping & Trading Co v Mullion & Co [1966] 1 Lloyds Rep 511 6.141Happy Day, The [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 487 5.144Harlow, The [1922] P 175 2.82, 10.18, 11.26,

11.38, 11.45,11.55, 11.59,

13.15Harmony, The, v The Northborough (1923) 15 L1 L Rep 119 2.52Harris v Anderson (1863) 14 CB (NS) 499 (Ct of Common Pleas) 1.15, 1.19Harris v Best, Riley & Co (1892) 68 LT 76 6.136Hawksley v Outram [1892] 3 Ch 359 4.151Heinrich Bjorn, The (1885) 10 PD 48 (CA); affmd (1886) 11 App Cas 270 (HL) 13.1, 13.10, 13.11Helen, The (1865) LR 1 A & E 1 4.281Helen Miller, The [1980] 2 Lloyds Rep 95 4.70Hellespont Ardent, The [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 547 4.134Helvetia, The (1894) 8 Asp.MC 264 7.107Helvetia S, The. Christie & Vesey Ltd v Maatschappij Tot Exploitatie van

Schepen en Andere Zaken, Helvetia NV [1960] 1 Lloyds Rep 540 6.59Hendry Corporation v Aircraft Rescue Vessels 113 F. Supp. 198 (1953) (USA) 7.105Henry Ewbank, The (1883) 11 Fed Cas (Case No. 6376) 1166 (USA) 7.6Herdentor, The. Alexander G. Tsavliris Ltd v OIL Ltd (unreported, 19 January

1996; noted in (1996) 3 Int ML 75)1.75, 4.141, 4.153,

4.154, 4.157,4.187, 4.190,4.196, 4.201,4.2164.220,

4.228,4.2364.238,

4.253, 4.258, 5.77,5.94, 5.97, 5.99,

8.17, 8.92Hestia, The [1895] P 193 1.5, 7.7, 7.119HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank [2003] 2 Lloyds

Rep 61 4.261, 5.103Hill Harmony, The [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 147 (HL) 5.45Hjemmett, The (1880) 5 PD 227 7.41Hogarth v Miller [1891] AC 48 5.71Homely, The, Fed. Cas. No. 661 (1876) (USA) 7.105Homewood, The (1928) 31 L1 L Rep 336 4.109, 7.28, 7.29,

7.33, 7.42, 7.45,7.91

Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v Kloeckner & Co [1990] 2 QB514 4.40

Hongkong Fir, The [1961] 2 Lloyds Rep 478 (CA) 5.30Hotel Services Ltd v Hilton International Hotels (UK) Ltd [2005] BLR 235 4.212Houda, The [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 333; revsd [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 541 (CA) 5.43, 5.44Humble v Hunter (1848) 12 QB 310 5.20Hyman v Nye (1881) 6 QBD 685 2.24IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Rockware Glass Ltd [1980] FSR 335 4.23, 4.25, 4.26I.C. Potter, The (1870) LR 3 A & E 292 2.64, 7.43, 7.46,

7.54Impetus, The [1953] 2 Lloyds Rep 699 3.22Inchmaree, The [1899] P 111 1.51Industrie Chimiche Italia v Tsavliris Maritime Co (The Choko Star) [1989] 2

Lloyds Rep 42; revsd [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 516 (CA) 1.50, 4.111Inntrepreneur Pub Co Ltd v East Crown Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 611 5.135Internet Broadcasting Corporation Ltd v Mar LLC (Marhedge) [2009] 2 Lloyds

Rep 2951.75, 4.138, 4.192,

4.2424.244,4.248, 4.249,4.2514.254,

4.257, 4.260, 5.13,5.84, 5.87, 5.104,

6.99Irbenskiy Proliv, The. Mitsubishi Corporation v Eastwind Transport Ltd [2005]

1 Lloyds Rep 383 1.75Isca, The (1886) 12 PD 34 2.50, 2.52, 10.15,

13.26Island Archon, The [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 227 (CA) 5.54Ismail v Polish Ocean Lines (The Ciechocinek) [1976] QB 893; [1976] 1 Lloyds

Rep 489 (CA)6.126, 6.145,

6.211J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 3.4JP Donaldson, The, 167 US 599, 17 S. Ct. 951 (1897) (USA) 12.28, 12.29Jane Bacon, The (1878) 27 WR 35 (CA) 2.81, 10.15, 10.18Japy Frres v Sutherland [1921] 26 Com Cas 227 4.11Jet2.com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2011] EWHC 1529 (Comm) 4.24Jindal Iron & Steel Co Ltd v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co Jordan Inc (The

Jordan II) [2003] 2 Lloyds Rep 8 (CA); [2005] 1 WLR 1363 (HL) 6.139

John v Price Waterhouse [2002] EWCA Civ 899 5.136John Michalos, The [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 188 4.53

John Potter & Co v Burrell & Son [1897] 1 QB 97 (CA) 1.54Johs Stove, The [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 38 4.53Jones Ltd v Martin Bencher Ltd [1986] 1 Lloyds Rep 54 4.136Julia, The (1861) Lush 224; 14 Moo PC 210 (PC) 1.15, 1.16, 1.28,

1.32, 1.33, 2.6,2.8, 2.112.14,

2.43, 2.51, 2.67,2.79, 3.83, 7.23,

7.79, 10.13Kanchenjunga, The [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 391 (HL) 4.72Karavias v Callinicos [1917] WN 323 1.11Karin Vatis, The [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 330 4.35Kathy K, The [1972] 2 Lloyds Rep 36 (Ex Ct, Canada); affmd [1976] 1 Lloyds

Rep 153 (Sup Ct, Canada)11.47, 11.48,

11.55Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisya v Belships Co Ltd, Skibs A/S (1939) 63 L1 L

Rep 175 4.276Khian Captain (No. 2), The [1986] 1 Lloyds Rep 429 4.39, 6.74Kingalock, The (1854) 1 Spinks A & E 263 1.551.60, 1.80,

9.12Kingston-By-Sea, The (1850) 3 W Rob 155 10.38Kirknes, The [1957] P 51; [1956] 2 Lloyds Rep 651 11.54Kish v Taylor [1912] AC 604 (HL) 6.43Kite, The [1933] P 154 1.15, 1.28Knarwater, The, cited in The Lord Bangor [1898] P 28 10.36Kostas Melas, The [1981] 1 Lloyds Rep 18 5.60Koufos v C. Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350; [1967] 2 Lloyds

Rep 457 (HL) 6.89Krapan J, The [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 688 4.208Kriti Rex, The [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 171 6.120La Plata, The (1857) Swa 220 10.38Lady Flora Hastings, The (1848) 3 W Rob 118 2.65Lady Gwendolen, The [1965] P 294; [1965] 1 Lloyds Rep 335 3.65Lagarto, The (1923) 17 L1 L Rep 264 2.52Lampas, The (1933) 45 L1 L Rep 259 7.40Lansat Shipping Co v Glencore Grain BV (The Paragon) [2009] 2 Lloyds Rep

688 4.67

Lebeaupin v Crispin [1920] 2 KB 714 5.132

Leoborg, The [1962] 2 Lloyds Rep 146 13.24Leon Blum, The [1915] P 90; affmd [1915] P 290 (CA) 1.7, 1.8, 7.73, 7.89Lewis v Great Western Railway Co (1877) 3 QBD 195 4.135Liberty Mutual Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v HSBC Bank plc [2002] EWCA Civ 691 4.261Limerick Steamship Co Ltd v W H Stott & Co Ltd (The Innisboffin) [1921] 2 KB

613; (1921) 7 L1 L Rep 69 4.58, 4.59, 5.127Linea Naviera Paramaconi SA v Abnormal Load Engineering Ltd (The Sophie J)

[2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 763 6.40, 6.120, 6.204Lipa, The [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 19 4.11Liverpool, The [1893] P 154 7.22, 7.24, 7.42,

7.48, 7.49, 7.52,7.62, 7.70

Liverpool Brazil and River Plate SN Co v Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal,251 US 48 (1919) (USA) 11.49

Lolin, The (1931) 39 L1 L Rep 182 7.50London Arbitration 18/86 noted at (1986) 181 LMLN 4.70London Arbitration 1/88 noted at (1988) LMLN 16.1.1988 5.52London Arbitration 8/93 noted at (1993) 354 LMLN 6.139London Arbitration 11/97 noted at (1997) 463 LMLN 4.70London Arbitration 10/00 noted at (2000) 545 LMLN 6.42London Arbitration 1/02 noted at (2002) 585 LMLN 5.102London Dredging Co v Greater London Council (The Sir Joseph Rawlinson)

[1972] 2 Lloyds Rep 43711.3711.41,11.45, 11.51,

11.55London Explorer, The [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep 523 1.13Lord Bangor, The [1898] P 28 10.36Loveland Co Inc v United States, 1963 AMC 260, 207 F Supp 450 (USA) 12.29Lovelock (E.J.R.) Ltd v Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyds Rep 163 (CA) 4.311Lucullite, The (1929) 33 L1 L Rep 186 11.60Lukoil-Kaliningradmorneft plc v Tata Ltd & Global Marine Inc [1999] 1 Lloyds

Rep 365; affmd [1999] 2 Lloyds Rep 129 (CA)1.211.24, 1.27,

1.29, 3.39, 4.285,4.2894.294

Luna, The [1920] P 22; (1919) 1 L1 L Rep 475 1.46, 1.47, 12.16McCutcheon v David Macbrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125 3.4MacGregor Laird, The [1953] 2 Lloyds Rep 259 7.1Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251 2.83, 6.54, 9.24McKenzie Barge & Derrick Co v Rivtow Marine Ltd [1968] 2 Lloyds Rep 505

(Canada) 2.24, 3.4

Madeleine, The [1967] 2 Lloyds Rep 224 1.13, 5.31Madras, The [1898] P 90 7.74Makhutai, The [1996] AC 650 (PC) 4.266Manchester, The [1981] (2) SA 798 (C) (South Africa) 7.82, 7.83Maori King, Owners of Cargo of, v Hughes. See Owners of Cargo of Maori King

v HughesMarechal Suchet, The [1911] P 1 2.8, 2.12, 2.13,

2.20, 2.24, 2.27,7.67, 7.110

Margaret, The, 94 US 494 (1876) (USA) 1.16, 2.48Margery, The [1902] P 157 7.89Marilu, The [1956] 2 Lloyds Rep 97 4.281Marine Blast Ltd v Targe Towing Ltd (The Von Rocks) [2004] 1 Lloyd s Rep

271 1.251.27, 13.21Marion, The [1984] AC 563; [1984] 2 Lloyds Rep 1 3.65Marmion, The (1913) 29 TLR 646 10.17Mars, The, and other Barges (1948) 81 L1 L Rep 452 7.91Mary Hounsell, The (1879) 4 PD 204 10.24Massalia, The [1961] 2 QB 278 7.74Matina, The (1920) 2 L1 L Rep 360 7.48, 7.49Maude, The (1876) 3 Asp 338 7.119Maxine Footwear Co v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1959] AC 589;

[1959] 2 Lloyds Rep 105 (PC)6.40, 6.41, 6.120,

6.204Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc (The

Reborn) [2009] 2 Lloyds Rep 639 6.121, 6.146Melpomene, The (1873) LR 4 A & E 129 7.119Merchant Shipping Co v Armitage (1873) LR 9 QB 99 4.34Merchants Marine Insurance Co v North of England P&I (1926) 23 Com Cas

165 13.13Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith [1947] AC 1; (1946) 79

L1 L Rep 569 (HL) 3.483.51Metvale Ltd v Monsanto International SARL (The MSC Napoli) [2009] 1 Lloyds

Rep 246 11.69Midland Silicones v Scruttons [1962] AC 446; [1961] 2 Lloyds Rep 365 3.73, 3.75, 4.265Midwest Shipping v Henry [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep 375 5.42, 5.44Mifflin, The, 1931 AMC 326 (USA) 1.11Mihalios Xilas, The [1978] 2 Lloyds Rep 186 5.63Mihalis Angelos, The [1971] 1 QB 164; [1970] 2 Lloyds Rep 43 (CA) 6.65

Millars Machinery Co v David Way & Son (1935) 40 Com Cas 204 4.212, 5.98Minnehaha, The (1861) Lush 335; 15 Moo PC 133 (PC) 1.6, 1.7, 1.15,1.16, 1.18, 1.20,1.28, 1.32, 1.33,

2.5, 2.7,2.112.13, 2.17,2.222.24, 2.26,2.43, 2.51, 2.53,2.59, 3.83, 4.21,

4.106, 7.23, 7.25,7.36, 7.43, 7.48,7.54, 7.56, 7.64,7.66, 7.70, 7.79,7.96, 7.97, 8.70,

10.13Minnie Somers, The v The Francis Batey (1921) 6 L1 L Rep 389; affmd (1921)

8 L1 L Rep 247 (CA)2.81, 10.14, 10.16,

10.57Miraflores, The, and The Abadesa [1966] P 18 (CA) 10.11Mitsubishi Corporation v Eastwind Transport Ltd (The Irbenskiy Proliv) [2005]

1 Lloyds Rep 3831.75, 4.186, 4.195,

4.196, 4.201,4.257

Monarch Airlines Ltd v London Luton Airport Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 403 5.85Monarch Towing Co v British Columbia Cement Co [1957] SCR 816 (Sup Ct,

Canada) 11.47Mondel v Steel (1841) 8 M & W 858 4.39Morgengry, The, and The Blackcock [1900] P 1 (CA) 10.50Morris v C.W. Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716; 1965] 2 Lloyds Rep 63 1.21, 4.291Morrison Steamship Co v The Greystoke Castle [1947] AC 265; (1947) 80 L1 L

Rep 55 (CA) 12.31Mount Cythnos, The (1937) 58 L1 L Rep 18 7.14, 7.60Mozart, The [1985] 1 Lloyds Rep 239 5.144MSC Panther, The, and The Ericbank [1957] 1 Lloyds Rep 57 2.45, 3.50, 3.51,

10.42Muncaster Castle, The [1961] AC 807; [1961] 1 Lloyds Rep 57 4.96Nanfri, The [1978] 2 Lloyds Rep 132 (CA) 4.320, 5.59, 5.60National Semiconductors (UK) Ltd v UPS Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 212 4.136National Trust v Birden [2009] EWHC 2023 (Ch) 5.137Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. v Cia. International de Seguros [1988] 1

Lloyds Rep 116 4.19Neptune, The (1824) 1 Hagg 227 7.15

New York Star, The. Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty v Salmond & Spraggon(Australia) Pty [1981] 1 WLR 138; [1980] 2 Lloyds Rep 317 (PC)

3.73New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon)

[1975] AC 154; [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 534 (PC) 3.73Newona, The (1920) 4 L1 L Rep 156 1.33, 1.70, 1.76,

4.197Niobe, The (1888) 13 PD 55 2.50, 2.52, 2.81,

10.16, 10.18,10.49

North Goodwin No. 16, The [1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 71 3.35, 7.12, 7.32,7.60, 13.15, 13.16

Northern Pioneer, The [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 212 4.276Northland Navigation Co Ltd v Patterson Boiler Works Ltd (1983) 2 CF59

(Canada) 12.30, 12.47Norway (No. 2), The (1865) 3 Moo PC (NS) 245 4.34Nour, The [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 1 (CA) 6.120Nunley v The Dauntless, 863 F. 2d. 1190 (1989) (USA) 7.92Ocean, The (1845) 2 W Rob 368 321Ocean Frost, The. Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1986] AC 717; [1986] 2

Lloyds Rep 109 3.39Ocean Steamship Co v Anderson (1883) 13 QBD 651 1.43, 1.44, 1.47Onward, The (1874) LR 4 A & E 38 1.48, 1.49Overseas Buyers v Granadex SA [1980] 2 Lloyds Rep 608 4.23Owners of Cargo of Maori King v Hughes [1895] 2 QB 550 2.24Owners of the SS Melanie v Owners of the SS San Onofre [1925] AC 246;

(1924) 20 L1 L Rep 288 (HL) 7.18Owners of the Sea Tractor v Owners of the Tramp (The Tramp) [2007] 2 Lloyds

Rep 363 7.53Pacific Express v Salvage Princess (1940) Ex CR 230 11.47Paltara Pty Ltd v Dempster (1991) 6 WAR 85 4.26Pamela, The [1995] 2 Lloyds Rep 249 8.53Panther, The, and The Ericbank [1957] 1 Lloyds Rep 57 2.45, 3.50, 3.51Partafelagid Farmur v Grangemouth & Forth Towing Co Ltd [1953] 2 Lloyds

Rep 699 (Ct of Sess) 3.21Patteson, Chandler & Stephen Ltd v The Senator Jackson [1969] DLR 166

(Canada) 2.16

Pentecost v London District Auditor [1951] 2 KB 759 4.133Pericles, The (1863) Br & L 80 7.55, 7.62

Perks v Clark (Inspector of Taxes); sub nom Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Perks[2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 431 (CA)

13.21Phantom, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 58 1.80, 7.14Philadelphia, The, 86 US 125 (1873) (USA) 10.8Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 545;

[1980] AC 827 (HL)1.72, 1.73, 1.77,

3.54, 3.58, 4.157,4.184, 4.190,4.191, 4.193,4.197, 4.246,4.248, 4.254

Pioneer Container, The [1994] 2 AC 324; [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 593 (PC) 1.21, 4.291, 4.294Pips (Leisure Productions) Ltd v Walton [1981] 2 EGLR 172 4.23PNSL Berhad v Dalrymple Marine Services Pty Ltd (The Koumala) [2007]

QCA 429; (2008) 737 LMLN 2 (Canada) 3.2, 3.25, 3.28Point Anne Quarries v The Tug Mary Francis Whalen (1922) 13 L1 L Rep 40 2.34, 2.38Polartank, The (1948) 82 L1 L Rep 108 3.49Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty v Salmond & Spraggon (Australia) Pty (The New

York Star) [1981] 1 WLR 138; [1980] 2 Lloyds Rep 317 (PC) 3.73Portsmouth SS Co v Liverpool & Glasgow Salvage Association (1929) 34 L1 L

Rep 459 5.42President Van Buren, The (1924) 19 L1 L Rep 185; 16 Asp MLC 444 1.33, 1.77, 3.42Princess Alice, The (1849) 3 W Rob 138 1.1, 3.6, 7.4Product Star (No. 2), The [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 397 4.271, 4.276,

4.277,5.1265.128

Proforce Recruit Ltd v The Rugby Group plc [2006] EWCA Civ 69 5.136Pyman SS Co v Hull & Barnsley Rly. Co [1914] 2 KB 788; affmd [1915] 2 KB

729 (CA) 2.24Queen Elizabeth, The (1949) 82 L1 L Rep 803 7.88Quickstep, The (1890) 15 PD 196 2.48R v Carrick District Council, ex p. Prankerd [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep 675 13.12R v Goodwin [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 432 (CA) 13.12, 13.14,

13.21R v St. John Shipbuilding (1981) 126 DLR (3d) 353 13.15R v The Island Challenger [1959] Ex CR 413 2.52R & B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd [1988] 1 WLR

321 1.62

R. Pagnan & Fratelli v NGJ Schouten NV (The Filipinas I) [1973] 1 Lloyds Rep349 6.66

Raft of Timber, A (1844) 2 W Rob 251 13.16Rajah, The (1872) LR 3 A & E 539 11.58Raleigh, The, 44 F 781 (1890) (USA) 2.68Ramsden, The [1943] P 46 3.11Ran, The; The Graygarth [1922] P 80; (1921) 9 L1 L Rep 524 (CA) 11.2411.26,

11.32,11.3311.36,11.3811.40

Raphael, The [1982] 2 Lloyds Rep 42 1.76, 3.56, 5.75Ratata, The [1898] AC 513 2.8, 2.24, 2.52Ravennavi SpA v New Century Shipbuilding [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 24 5.134Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd [1939]

AC 562; (1939) 64 L1 L Rep 229 (HL) 6.43Rederieaktiebolaget Argonaut v Hani [1918] 2 KB 247 5.20Reed v Dean [1949] 1 KB 188 2.36, 2.38, 2.41Refrigerant, The [1925] P 130; (1925) 22 L1 L Rep 492 1.76, 2.57, 2.58,

4.107, 7.38Renpor, The (1883) 3 PD 115 (CA) 7.108, 7.109Republic of Spain v North of England Steamship Co Ltd (1938) 61 L1 L Rep 44 4.276, 4.281,

4.282Reward, The (1841) 1 W Rob 174 1.4, 7.20Rhodia v Huntsman International [2007] 2 Lloyd Rep 325 4.23Rhne, The, v Peter AB Widener [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 600 (Sup Ct, Canada) 11.28, 11.45,

11.55Rigoletto, The [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 532 4.266Rilland, The [1979] 1 Lloyds Rep 455 7.125Riverman, The [1928] P 33; (1927) 29 L1 L Rep 80 1.76, 3.43, 3.60Robert Dixon, The (1879) 5 PD 54 (CA) 2.50, 7.68Robertson v Amazon Tug and Lighterage Co (1881) 7 QBD 598 (CA) 2.31, 2.32,

2.342.37, 2.39,2.41, 2.42, 5.20

Robinson v Knights (1873) LR 8 CP 465 4.34Romance, The [1901] P 15 10.22Roseline, The [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 410 10.6Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The Ilissos) (1949) 82 L1 L

Rep 196 (CA) 6.56SS Devonshire v The Barge Leslie [1912] P 21 (CA); affmd [1912] AC 634

(HL)2.47, 2.48, 2.50,2.78, 2.79, 2.81,

4.83, 10.16, 10.36,10.5110.53SS Melanie, Owners of the, v Owners of the SS San Onofre. See Owners of the

SS Melanie v Owners of the SS San OnofreSS Rio Verde (Owners) v SS Abaris (Owners) (1920) 2 L1 L Rep 411 2.16Sacramento Navigation Co v Salz, 273 US 326 (1927) (USA) 11.49St. Lawrence Cement Inc v Wakeham & Sons Ltd (1995) 86 OAC 182 (Ontario

CA, Canada) 1.19Saint Line Ltd v Richardsons Westgarth & Co [1940] 2 KB 99; (1940) 67 L1 L

Rep 624.212, 4.214,

4.303, 5.94, 5.98St. Patrick, The (1930) 35 L1 L Rep 231 2.83,Salvador, The (1909) 25 TLR 384; 25 TLR 727; 26 TLR 149 2.42Sara, The (1889) 14 App Cas 209 13.11Saratoga, The (1861) Lush 318 7.54Scaramanga v Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295 (CA) 1.53, 4.122, 5.115,

6.43Scotia, The (1890) Asp MLC 541 2.82SEA Servizi Ecologici v Mulciero Servicios Maritimos [2007] EWHC 2639

(Comm) 4.234, 5.103Seadrill Management Services Ltd v OAO Gazprom (The Ekha) [2010] 1 Lloyds

Rep 543; [2010] EWCA Civ 691; [2010] Lloyds Rep Plus 25 (CA)4.1454.147,

4.183, 4.261, 6.89Sewell v B.C. Towing and Transport Co (1884) 9 SCR 527 1.19Shanklin, The (1932) 43 L1 L Rep 153 2.52Shaw v Great Western Railway Co [1894] 1 QB 373 5.85Sheffield District Railways v Great Central Railway (1911) 27 TLR 451 4.23Sinclair v Cooper 108 US 352 (USA) 7.59Sinquasi, The (1880) 5 PD 241 2.50, 10.15, 10.47Sir Joseph Rawlinson, The. London Dredging Co v Greater London Council

[1972] 2 Lloyds Rep 43711.3711.41,11.45, 11.51,

11.55Skelton v London & North Western Rly (1867) LR 2 CP 631 1.9Slaney, The [1951] 2 Lloyds Rep 538 7.42Smit International (Deutschland) GmbH v Josef Mobius Bau-gesellschaft GmbH

[2001] CLC 15454.130, 4.152,4.1754.180,4.182, 4.187,

4.189, 4.261, 5.85,6.101, 11.45,

11.71Smith v Dart & Son (1884) 14 QBD 105 5.24

Smith v St. Lawrence Tow Boat Co (1873) LR 5 PC 308 2.50Smith v South Wales Switchgear [1978] 1 WLR 165 (HL) 3.56, 3.60, 4.167,4.206

Smjeli, The [1982] 2 Lloyds Rep 74 2.73, 2.74,11.4211.45,11.51, 11.53

Socit Nouvelle dArmement v Spillers & Bakers Ltd [1917] 1 KB 865 12.13Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd [2008] 1 Lloyds

Rep 558 4.69Socrates, The, and The Champion [1923] P 76; (1923) 14 L1 L Rep 91 10.43Spaight v Tedcastle (1881) 6 App Cas 217 (HL) 1.18, 2.6, 2.50,

2.81, 10.15Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo Mango & Co Ltd [1932] AC 328; (1931) 41 L1 L Rep

165 4.122Star Maria, The [2003] 1 Lloyds Rep 183 7.45, 7.56Starsin, The [2003] UKHL 12; [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 571 4.294Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 163 13.12Steel v State Line Steamship Co (1877) 3 App Cas 72 2.21Stevens v The White City, 285 US 195 (USA) 1.17, 1.24Stocznia Gydynia SA v Gearbulk Holdings Ltd [2009] 1 Lloyds Rep 461 4.261Stormcock, The (1885) 5 Asp MLC 470 2.48, 2.50, 2.52,

10.48Strathgarry, The [1895] P 264 1.80Strathnaver, The (1875) 1 App Cas 58 1.4, 7.51Stuart v British & African Steam Navigation Co (1875) 32 LT 275 1.54Sturgis v Boyer, 65 U.S 110 (1861) (USA) 2.47, 2.48STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Ugland Bulk Transport (The Livanita) [2008] 1 Lloyds

Rep 86 4.70Suisse Atlantique Socit dArmement v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale

[1966] 1 Lloyds Rep 529; [1967] 1 AC 361 (HL)1.73, 1.74, 4.151,

4.185, 4.186,4.187, 4.246,4.248, 4.251

Sumi Maru 9001, The. Wiltops (Asia) Ltd v Owners of the Tug Sumi Maru 9001[1993] 1 SLR 198 2.252.27

Sun Oil Co v Dalzell Co (1932) 287 US 291 (USA) 1.17Sunlight Mercantile v Ever Lucky Shipping [2004] 2 Lloyds Rep 174 6.166Susan v Luckenbach, The [1951] P 197; (1950) 84 L1 L Rep 538 (CA) 7.100Svenssons Travaruaktiebolag v Cliffe Steamship Co Ltd [1932] 1 KB 490;

(1931) 41 L1 L Rep 262 6.166

Swan, The [1968] 1 Lloyds Rep 5 5.20Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson Ltd v France Fenwick Tyne and Wear Co

Ltd (The Albion (No. 2)) [1952] 1 Lloyds Rep 367; [1953] 2 Lloyds Rep 82(CA) 2.16, 4.97

Swiss Bank Corporation v Brinks-Mat Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyds Rep 79 1.75, 4.190, 4.193,4.194, 4.196,4.201, 4.246

Symonds v Pain (1861) 30 LJ Ex 256 3.4Sze Hai Tong Bank Co Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd [1959] AC 576; [1959] 2

Lloyds Rep 114 (PC) 4.185Tappenden v Artus [1964] 2 QB 185 4.291Targe Towing Ltd v Marine Blast Ltd (The Von Rocks) [2004] 1 Lloyd s Rep

7214.209, 4.286,4.288, 4.293,

13.19Tasmania, The (1888) 13 PD 110 3.4Taylor v Geelong Harbour Trust Commissioners [1962] 1 Lloyds Rep 143 (Sup

Ct of Vict, Australia) 3.61Terrell v Mabie Todd & Co Ltd [1952] WN 434; [1952] 2 Time LR 574 2.9, 4.26Texaco Southampton, The [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 94 (NSW CA, Australia) 7.92Texas Instruments Ltd v Nason (Europe) Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 146 4.136Thetis, The (1869) LR 2 A & E 365 1.53Thiess Bros (Queensland) Proprietary Ltd v Australian Steamships Proprietary

Ltd [1955] 1 Lloyds Rep 459 (Sup Ct (NSW)) 6.43Thomas v Harrowing SS Co [1915] AC 57 4.34Thomas & Co v Portsea SS Co [1912] AC 1 (HL) 4.19Thomas Stone (Shipping) Ltd v Admiralty (The Albion) [1952] 1 Lloyds Rep

38; affmd [1953] 1 Lloyds Rep 239 (CA) 2.16, 10.15Ticonderoga, The (1857) Swa 215 10.46, 10.47Tojo Maru, The [1972] AC 242; [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep 341 (HL) 7.7, 11.13Tor Line AB v Alltrans Group of Canada [1984] 1 WLR 48; [1984] 1 Lloyds

Rep 1231.75, 4.186, 4.190,

4.193, 4.196,4.201

Total Transport v Arcadia Petroleum (The Eurus) [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 408;affmd [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 351 (CA) 4.159

Tradigrain SA v Intertek Testing Services (Canada) [2007] 1 CLC 154 (CA) 4.133Transocean Liners Reederei GmbH v Euxine Shipping Co Ltd (The Imvros)

[1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 848 6.166Travers & Sons Ltd v Cooper [1915] 1 KB 73 (CA) 6.166Tregeglia v Smiths Timber (1896) 1 Com Cas 360 6.188

Tres Flores, The [1974] QB 264; [1973] 2 Lloyds Rep 247 3.34, 6.67Trevorian, The (1940) 66 L1 L Rep 45 7.29, 7.56Triton v Vitol (The Nikmary) [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 55 6.48Troilus, The [1950] P 92; 83 L1 L Rep 195 (CA) 7.7Tryggingarfelagio Foroyar P/F v CPT Empresas Maritimas SA [2011] EWHC

589 (Admlty) 9.6Tug Champlain, The [1939] 1 DLR 384 (Exch Ct, Canada) 1.18, 1.19, 2.24,

2.41Tynedale Steam Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co Ltd (1936) 41

Com Cas 206 5.154US v Leboeuf Bros. Towing Co, 1978 AMC 2195 (E.D.La.) (USA) 2.10US Shipping Board v Bunge (1926) 42 TLR 174 6.43Umona, The [1914] P 141 10.54Undaunted, The (1860) Lush 90 7.106, 7.108,

7.109, 7.119Undaunted, The (1886) 11 PD 46 2.19, 2.22, 2.24,

2.25Union Amsterdam, The [1982] 2 Lloyds Rep 432 4.53Union Castle Mail Steamship Co Ltd v Borderdale Shipping Co Ltd [1919] 1

KB 612 6.143Union of India v Cia. Naviera Aeolus [1964] AC 868 4.53Union of India v Reederij Amsterdam [1963] 2 Lloyds Rep 223 (HL) 4.96Unique Mariner, The [1978] 1 Lloyds Rep 438 1.44, 1.58, 1.60,

1.79, 1.80United Service, The (1883) 8 PD 56; affmd (1884) 9 PD 3 (CA) 2.16Upper Egypt Produce Exporters v Santamana (No. 1) (1923) 14 L1 L Rep 159 6.126, 6.144,

6.211Uranienborg, The [1936] P 21 3.16, 3.193.20,

3.22Valiant, The [1921] P 312 3.13Valsesia, The [1927] P 115 2.81, 13.27Virginia M, The [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 603 3.34Von Rocks, The. Marine Blast Ltd v Targe Towing Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 271 1.251.27, 13.21Walumba, The [1964] 2 Lloyds Rep 387 (Sup Ct (Vic)); affmd [1965] 1 Lloyds

Rep 121 (High Ct, Australia) 3.32, 3.36Warrior, The, 1929 AMC 41 (USA) 1.11Wataga, The (1856) Swa 165 13.1Waterloo, The (1820) 2 Dods 433 7.85

Watkins v Rymill (1883) 10 QBD 178 1.47West Bay III, The (Maurice Federation v Stewart) [1969] 1 Lloyds Rep 158

(Exch Ct., British Columbia Admiralty District) 1.11West Cock, The [1911] P 23; affmd [1911] P 208 (CA) 1.15, 1.28, 1.76,

1.77, 2.21,2.232.27, 2.33,

3.56, 3.57, 4.101Western Neptune, The and The St Louis Express [2010] 1 Lloyds Rep 158 10.2, 10.15, 10.25,

10.26, 10.33,10.39, 11.18

Westrup v Great Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co (1889) 43 Ch D 241 13.10, 13.25White Star, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 68 7.57Wilhelmine, The (1842) 1 Notes of Cases 376 7.14William Alexander v Aktiebolaget Hansa [1920] AC 88 4.53Wilson v Brett (1843) 11 M & W 113 4.133Wiltops (Asia) Ltd v Owners of the Tug Sumi Maru 9001 (The Sumi Maru 9001)

[1993] 1 SLR 198 2.252.27Wire Rope Industries v B.C. Marine [1981] SCR 363 (Sup Ct, Can) 3.66Yeoman Credit Ltd v Apps [1962] 2 QB 508 2.36, 2.38Youell v Bland Welch & Co Ltd (No. 1) [1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 127 4.150, 6.75

Table of Legislation, Rules and Conventions[Paragraph number references printed in bold indicate where text is quoted]

UK StatutesAdministration of Justice Act 1956

s. 1(1)(k) 13.24, 13.25Admiralty Court Act 1840 (3 and 4 Vict., c. 65) 13.3, 13.25

s. 6 13.3, 13.5Arbitration Act 1950 8.101Arbitration Act 1979 8.101Arbitration Act 1996 4.308Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 4.209, 6.103Constitutional Reform Act 2005

s. 59 13.5Sch. 11, pt. I, para. 1(1) 13.3

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 4.263, 9.71s. 1 3.81, 4.264

(1) 3.81, 4.264(2) 6.103(3) 3.81, 4.264

6 4.263(6) 4.263

10(1) 3.81(2) 4.263

Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 13.12Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 13.21Interpretation Act 1889 11.38Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 10.11Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 7.71

s. 1(3) 7.71Limitation Act 1980 4.207Marine Insurance Act 1906 4.136

s. 55(2)(a) 4.13666 12.2

Maritime Conventions Act 1911

s. 1 10.55, 10.56(1) 10.11, 10.56

(c) 10.4014 10.8

ss. 68 7.35Merchant Shipping Act 1854 11.4Merchant Shipping Act 1873

s. 17 10.8Merchant Shipping Act 1894 11.6, 11.17, 11.50, 11.54, 13.12

s. 503 3.65, 11.5, 11.38(1) 11.21, 11.30

(d) 11.30742 13.12

Merchant Shipping Act 1921s. 1(1) 13.12

Merchant Shipping Act 1958 11.30, 11.31, 11.40, 11.46, 11.48, 11.50, 11.51,11.54, 11.56

Merchant Shipping Act 1979 4.261, 11.8, 11.12, 11.17, 11.20, 11.45, 11.51,11.61

Merchant Shipping Act 1981 11.8Merchant Shipping Act 1984 11.8Merchant Shipping Act 1985 13.12Merchant Shipping Act 1995 1.50, 7.8, 7.116, 11.12, 11.17, 11.20, 11.45,

11.51, 13.12s. 85 10.5

187 10.56(1) 10.11, 10.56(2) 10.11(5) 10.40

189(1) 10.12224(1) 7.8, 7.116313(1) 7.11, 13.17

Sched 7, Pt. II, para. 2 11.17para. 12 11.17

Sched. 11, Pt. I 11.17Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and 11.7, 11.30, 11.31, 11.40, 11.56

Others) Act 1958Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act1994

7.9

s. 1(1) 7.8Sched. 2, para. 2 7.122

6 7.121, 7.122Misrepresentation Act 1967 9.28Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854 5.85Responsibility of Shipowners Act 1813 11.4Senior Courts Act 1981

s. 20 13.12s. 20(1)(a) 13.5

(2) 13.22(h) 13.22, 13.26(k) 13.5, 13.12, 13.28

21(3) 13.9(4) 13.7, 13.8

24(1) 13.12, 13.17Statute of Limitation of Liability 1734 (7 Geo. 2,

c. 15)