Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd

When Parliament repeats language that has received a clear and settled judicial construction in legislation concerning the same subject, it is presumed to adopt that construction. The stated purpose of implementing an international convention does not displace that presumption where Parliament deliberately retains broader domestic terminology.

For the statutory protection of seamen’s wages, a physical casualty amounts to a “wreck” when its consequences render the ship incapable of carrying out the maritime adventure covered by the seaman’s contract. The relevant adventure is the whole contractual venture. A short interruption for repairs during a running engagement involving a series of voyages does not terminate the service by reason of wreck unless it frustrates that venture.

In Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd [1933] AC 402, the appellant was chief engineer of a steam trawler under a six-month running agreement covering a series of fishing trips. After a collision, the vessel returned to Aberdeen under her own steam. The crew were paid off while repairs were undertaken, and the appellant resumed work 14 days later.

The appellant claimed £9 16s in unemployment wages under section 1(1) of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act 1925. The Sheriff Court allowed the claim, but the First Division of the Court of Session, by a majority, recalled that award.

The central questions were whether the casualty constituted a statutory “wreck” and, if so, whether the appellant’s service had terminated by reason of that wreck because the contracted maritime adventure had been frustrated.

1. Disposition. The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the interlocutor of the First Division. The appellant was not entitled to wages under section 1(1) of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act 1925.

2. Statutory construction. Viscount Buckmaster, Lord Warrington of Clyffe and Lord Russell of Killowen held that Parliament had repeated in the 1925 Act the expression “wreck or loss” from section 158 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. That expression had received a clear judicial construction in The Olympic. Parliament was therefore presumed to have adopted that construction when legislating again on the same subject.

   The convention’s expression “loss or foundering” did not require a narrower interpretation. The majority considered that Parliament had deliberately used the established terminology of the domestic statutory code and had not intended to reduce rights already recognised under the earlier legislation.

3. Meaning of wreck. Viscount Buckmaster, Lord Warrington, Lord Russell and Lord Macmillan accepted the approach in The Olympic. A physical casualty may amount to a statutory wreck where it renders the vessel incapable of carrying out the maritime adventure for which the seaman contracted. Frustration of that adventure supplies the criterion by which the consequences of the casualty are assessed.

4. Application. Those four Law Lords held that the contracted adventure was a series of practically continuous fishing trips over about six months, rather than the particular trip interrupted by the collision. The vessel was repaired in 14 days and then resumed the contemplated fishing service. That interruption did not frustrate the whole adventure. The appellant’s service had therefore not terminated by reason of the wreck within the statutory meaning.

5. Separate reasoning. Lord Blanesburgh agreed that the appeal should be dismissed but considered The Olympic wrongly decided. In his view, “wreck” required a physical wreck and could not be established merely by frustration of the commercial adventure. He also considered the earlier decision insufficiently authoritative to have been adopted legislatively by repetition of the words. Lord Macmillan, while accepting The Olympic, observed that the reenactment principle was a rebuttable presumption whose application depended on whether the earlier construction was settled and well recognised.

6. Viscount Buckmaster and Lord Warrington additionally rejected the suggestion that the owners had exercised their contractual power to terminate the agreement. The crew had been told that the vessel was being laid up only until repairs were completed.

1. House of Lords: In Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd [1933] AC 402, the appeal was dismissed unanimously and the First Division’s interlocutor was affirmed.
2. First Division of the Court of Session: By a majority, Lord Blackburn and Lord Morison, with the Lord President dissenting, allowed the owners’ appeal and recalled the Sheriff Court’s award.
3. Sheriff Court of Aberdeen: The Sheriff and Sheriff-substitute allowed the seaman’s claim and awarded £9 16s in wages.