Cazalet and Others (Owners of the S.S. "Cronstadt") v. Morris & Co. (Charterers) [1916] ScotLR 716 (20 July 1916)

Cazalet and Others (Owners of the S.S. "Cronstadt") v. Morris & Co. (Charterers) [1916] ScotLR 716 (20 July 1916)

The exception clause in the charter-party did not apply to the charterers but only to the shipowners; the alleged custom of the port to discharge esparto fibre into railway trucks was not established, as it was based solely on the convenience of a single receiver; the defenders (charterers) were in breach of contract for failing to take delivery within the stipulated period and were liable for demurrage; the shipowners were entitled to recover lighterage expenses to the extent that such expenses mitigated the demurrage claim.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 716
Parties
Pursuers: William Marshall Cazalet and others (Owners of the S.S. Cronstadt); Defenders: Morris & Company (Charterers)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 July 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (shipping/contract) / Appeal From Sheriff Court at Glasgow to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; defenders found liable for demurrage and lighterage to the extent of mitigation.
Legal Topics
Charter Party Interpretation, Demurrage, Exceptions Clauses, Custom of the Port, Restraint of Princes, Damages for Breach of Contract
Shipping Law Contract Law Charter Party Interpretation Demurrage Exceptions Clauses Custom of the Port Restraint of Princes Damages for Breach of Contract

Case Brief

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Marshall Cazalet and others (Owners of the S.S. Cronstadt)

Pursuers

Morris & Company (Charterers)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (shipping/contract) / Appeal From Sheriff Court at Glasgow to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the exception clause in the charter-party apply to charterers as well as owners?
  2. 2 Was there a binding custom of the port at Bristol to discharge esparto fibre into railway trucks?
  3. 3 Does a shortage of railway trucks due to government requisition constitute a 'restraint of princes'?

Ratio Decidendi

The exception clause in the charter-party did not apply to the charterers but only to the shipowners; the alleged custom of the port to discharge esparto fibre into railway trucks was not established, as it was based solely on the convenience of a single receiver; the defenders (charterers) were in breach of contract for failing to take delivery within the stipulated period and were liable for demurrage; the shipowners were entitled to recover lighterage expenses to the extent that such expenses mitigated the demurrage claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; defenders found liable for demurrage and lighterage to the extent of mitigation.

Orders

  • Defenders (charterers) to pay £285 with interest as demurrage.
  • Defenders to pay £200 as lighterage expenses, being five days' demurrage saved by use of lighters.