BP Exploration Operating Com Ltd v Chevron Shipping Co & Ors [1999] ScotCS 31 (26 January 1999)

BP Exploration Operating Com Ltd v Chevron Shipping Co & Ors [1999] ScotCS 31 (26 January 1999)

The court held that the pursuers' averments of error induced by the defenders, causing delay in raising actions against the correct parties, were sufficiently relevant to allow proof under s.6(4) of the 1973 Act. The court further held that statutory liability under s.74 of the 1847 Act attaches to the registered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 31
Parties
Pursuer: B. P. Exploration Operating Company Limited; Defender: Chevron Shipping Company; Defender: Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Limited; Defender: Chevron Transport Corporation
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Prescription
Outcome
No order on pleas-in-law; all three actions to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Bareboat Charter Liability, Statutory Liability for Harbour Damage, Personal Bar (estoppel), Assignation of Rights
Commercial Law Maritime Law Tort Law Prescription and Limitation Bareboat Charter Liability Statutory Liability for Harbour Damage Personal Bar (estoppel) Assignation of Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. P. Exploration Operating Company Limited

Pursuer

Chevron Shipping Company

Defender

Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Limited

Defender

Chevron Transport Corporation

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether actions against Tankers and Transport are time-barred by prescription
  2. 2 Whether error induced by defenders suspends prescription under s.6(4) Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  3. 3 Who is liable under s.74 Harbour Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847: registered owner or bareboat charterer

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuers' averments of error induced by the defenders, causing delay in raising actions against the correct parties, were sufficiently relevant to allow proof under s.6(4) of the 1973 Act. The court further held that statutory liability under s.74 of the 1847 Act attaches to the registered owner, not the bareboat charterer, and that the pursuers' averments in contract, negligence, statutory duty, assignation, and personal bar were sufficiently relevant for proof before answer.

Court Disposition

No order on pleas-in-law; all three actions to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • All three actions to be put out By Order for discussion on further procedure.