Horlock v. Beal [1916] UKHL 795 (21 January 1916)

Horlock v. Beal [1916] UKHL 795 (21 January 1916)

The contract of service between the seaman and the shipowner was frustrated and dissolved when the crew was removed from the ship and interned by enemy action, making performance impossible. Wages were not due for any period after that date, as the contract could not be fulfilled and neither party was at fault for the supervening impossibility.

Citation
[1916] UKHL 795
Parties
Appellant/shipowner: Horlock; Respondent/seaman's Representative: Beal (represented by his wife)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 January 1916
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Court of Appeal, England) / Final Judgment by House of Lords
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Court of Appeal reversed.
Legal Topics
Seaman's Wages, Frustration of Contract, Impossibility of Performance, Internment During War, Merchant Shipping Act Interpretation
Maritime Law Contract Law Employment Law Seaman's Wages Frustration of Contract Impossibility of Performance Internment During War Merchant Shipping Act Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Horlock

Appellant/shipowner

Beal (represented by his wife)

Respondent/seaman's Representative

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Court of Appeal, England) / Final Judgment by House of Lords

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a seaman is entitled to wages after his ship is detained by an enemy and the crew interned during wartime
  2. 2 Whether the contract of service is dissolved by impossibility of performance due to war and internment
  3. 3 Interpretation of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 regarding loss of ship and entitlement to wages

Ratio Decidendi

The contract of service between the seaman and the shipowner was frustrated and dissolved when the crew was removed from the ship and interned by enemy action, making performance impossible. Wages were not due for any period after that date, as the contract could not be fulfilled and neither party was at fault for the supervening impossibility.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Court of Appeal reversed.

Orders

  • No wages due to the seaman after the date of removal from the ship and internment (2nd November 1914).
  • No further payment required under the allotment note after that date.