Parsons Corporation & Ors v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger

Parsons Corporation & Ors v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger

The defendant failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy after delivery by not ensuring the hooks were properly proof tested, despite being a specialist operator and having knowledge of the double hook arrangement. The absence of proof testing was causative of the accident and loss. The defendant...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Parsons Corporation; Claimant: Parsons Energy & Chemicals Grouping; Claimant: WorleyParsons Group, Inc; Claimant: WorleyParsons International; Claimant: Saudi Arabian Parsons Limited; Claimant: Italian Petrochemical Manufacturers SpA; Claimant: ATB Caldereria SpA; Defendant: C. V. Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Shipping Contract Dispute / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Seaworthiness, Due Diligence, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Negligence, Proof Testing, Limitation of Liability
Admiralty Contract Tort Seaworthiness Due Diligence Carriage of Goods by Sea Negligence Proof Testing +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parsons Corporation

Claimant

Parsons Energy & Chemicals Grouping

Claimant

WorleyParsons Group, Inc

Claimant

WorleyParsons International

Claimant

Saudi Arabian Parsons Limited

Claimant

Italian Petrochemical Manufacturers SpA

Claimant

ATB Caldereria SpA

Claimant

C. V. Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Shipping Contract Dispute / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy under Article III Rule 1 of the Hague-Visby Rules
  2. 2 Whether the vessel was in the defendant's 'orbit' prior to delivery for the purposes of liability
  3. 3 Whether the failure to proof test the hooks was causative of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy after delivery by not ensuring the hooks were properly proof tested, despite being a specialist operator and having knowledge of the double hook arrangement. The absence of proof testing was causative of the accident and loss. The defendant cannot rely on certificates or the acts of Lloyd's or the shipyard to discharge its duty. The claimants proved their loss.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Defendant liable for damages for breach of contract of carriage and failure to exercise due diligence under Article III Rule 1 of the Hague-Visby Rules
  • Quantum of damages to be determined, subject to Hague-Visby package limitation if applicable