Pedrus Steamship Co., Ltd v. Burntisland Harbour Commissioners [1909] ScotLR 1004 (20 July 1909)

Pedrus Steamship Co., Ltd v. Burntisland Harbour Commissioners [1909] ScotLR 1004 (20 July 1909)

The system adopted by the Harbour Commissioners of rotating the preference berth for regular traders, with only one berth reserved at a time, was within the powers conferred by the 10th bye-law and not ultra vires. The 11th bye-law did not entitle a non-regular trader to remain in a berth reserved for regular traders after the arrival of a regular trader. Procedural objections to the reclaiming note were unfounded as the amendment was not on the record at the relevant time and printing the interlocutor was not required.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 1004
Parties
Pursuer: Pedrus Steamship Company, Limited; Defender: Burntisland Harbour Commissioners
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 July 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed (majority)
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Harbour Regulation, Statutory Interpretation, Bye Laws, Preference in Berthing, Procedural Competency
Administrative Law Maritime Law Ultra Vires Harbour Regulation Statutory Interpretation Bye Laws Preference in Berthing Procedural Competency

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pedrus Steamship Company, Limited

Pursuer

Burntisland Harbour Commissioners

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Note) From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the system of rotating preference berths for regular traders was ultra vires the powers conferred by the 10th bye-law under the Harbours Clauses Act 1847.
  2. 2 Whether the removal of the pursuer's vessel from its berth before loading was completed was contrary to the 11th bye-law.
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements regarding amendment and printing of the record were complied with for the reclaiming note.

Ratio Decidendi

The system adopted by the Harbour Commissioners of rotating the preference berth for regular traders, with only one berth reserved at a time, was within the powers conferred by the 10th bye-law and not ultra vires. The 11th bye-law did not entitle a non-regular trader to remain in a berth reserved for regular traders after the arrival of a regular trader. Procedural objections to the reclaiming note were unfounded as the amendment was not on the record at the relevant time and printing the interlocutor was not required.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed (majority)

Orders

  • Objection to competency of reclaiming note repelled.
  • Record allowed to be amended as indicated.