Marwell Equipment Limited and British Columbia Bridge & Dredging Company Ltd. v. Vancouver Tug Boat Company Ltd.

Marwell Equipment Limited and British Columbia Bridge & Dredging Company Ltd. v. Vancouver Tug Boat Company Ltd.

Majority held that the respondent could limit liability under s.657 for the loss of the dredge because the collision occurred without the company's actual fault or privity, but s.659 and the limitation scheme do not extend to the appellants' statutory costs of removing the wreck imposed or recoverable under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, so limitation was not available for the removal-expense claim.

Citation
[1961] SCR 43
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Marwell Equipment Limited; Plaintiff/appellant: British Columbia Bridge & Dredging Company Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Vancouver Tug Boat Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 1960
Procedural Posture
Admiralty/collision Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court (admiralty)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: respondents' limitation of liability upheld for loss of the dredge but denied for the appellants' claim for costs of removing the wreck; two judges dissented.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Liability, Wreck Removal, Negligence, Corporate Attribution (directing Mind and Will), Statutory Duties Under Navigable Waters Protection Act
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Tort Statutory Interpretation Transportation Limitation of Liability Wreck Removal Negligence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marwell Equipment Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

British Columbia Bridge & Dredging Company Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Vancouver Tug Boat Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty/collision Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court (admiralty)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent shipowner could limit liability under ss.657 and 659 of the Canada Shipping Act for the loss of the dredge
  2. 2 Whether the limitation of liability under ss.657/659 extends to the appellants' costs of removing the wreck enforced under the Navigable Waters Protection Act
  3. 3 Whether the respondents had 'actual fault or privity' (directing mind and will) so as to forfeit the limitation defence

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the respondent could limit liability under s.657 for the loss of the dredge because the collision occurred without the company's actual fault or privity, but s.659 and the limitation scheme do not extend to the appellants' statutory costs of removing the wreck imposed or recoverable under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, so limitation was not available for the removal-expense claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: respondents' limitation of liability upheld for loss of the dredge but denied for the appellants' claim for costs of removing the wreck; two judges dissented.

Orders

  • Respondent entitled to limit liability under s.657 for loss of the dredge Townsend
  • Respondent not entitled to limit liability under ss.657/659 for the appellants' claim for the costs of removing the wreck