Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government

Damages for detention compensate proved pecuniary loss caused by deprivation of a profit-earning chattel. It is insufficient that the defendant’s wrong caused repairs or contributed to the detention. The claimant must show that, but for the wrong, the chattel could have been profitably used during the relevant period.

Assessment must take account of events occurring before trial. Where independent damage has already made a vessel unseaworthy throughout the period occupied by collision repairs, no loss of hire is attributable to the collision. By contrast, optional work performed concurrently does not reduce detention damages that would otherwise be recoverable.

The appellants’ steamship collided with the respondents’ vessel, which remained seaworthy after temporary repairs. While travelling to New York, partly to obtain permanent collision repairs, the vessel suffered independent heavy-weather damage that made her unseaworthy. Collision, machinery and weather-damage repairs were then performed concurrently. The weather repairs alone required longer than the ten days allocated to the collision repairs.

The Registrar allowed loss of hire and related war-risk items. Willmer J reversed that decision. The Court of Appeal restored the Registrar’s award, and the shipowners appealed.

The central issue was whether loss of hire resulted from the collision when the vessel could not have traded during the relevant ten days because of the independent weather damage.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Viscount Jowitt delivered the leading speech. Lord Normand, Lord Morton of Henryton and Lord Tucker gave concurring speeches, and Lord Asquith of Bishopstone agreed with the proposed order. The judgment of Willmer J was restored, with costs.

2. Per Viscount Jowitt and Lord Normand, a claimant seeking damages for detention must prove both that the defendant’s wrong necessitated the repairs and that deprivation of the chattel’s use caused pecuniary loss. Causation of detention and causation of financial loss are distinct questions. The court must consider events that have actually occurred before damages are assessed.

3. The vessel was seaworthy when she began the Atlantic voyage, but the subsequent weather damage made her incapable of profitable use. She would have remained under repair throughout the ten days allocated to collision work even if the collision had never occurred. The respondents therefore proved no loss of hire caused by the appellants’ wrong. The fact that the vessel had been routed to New York chiefly for collision repairs, or that the collision might be described as a cause of detention, did not alter that conclusion.

4. Per Lord Normand, Lord Morton and Lord Tucker, the temporal order of the casualties was not decisive. The relevant question was whether the vessel was capable of profitable use during the period claimed. The Haversham Grange was explained as supporting that inquiry rather than establishing liability according to which casualty occurred first.

5. Viscount Jowitt and Lord Normand distinguished necessary independent repairs from optional concurrent work. If collision repairs cause a recoverable period of detention, the wrongdoer cannot reduce liability merely because the owner uses that period for a machinery overhaul or other advisable but unnecessary work. The principles in The Ruabon, The Acanthus and The Chekiang supported that conclusion.

6. Although dock dues were not in issue, the Law Lords considered that liability for dock dues and liability for detention could not logically rest on different principles. The contrary part of The Haversham Grange was said to be inconsistent with principle and the House’s authorities; Lord Tucker stated that it should be overruled.

1. House of Lords: Allowed the appeal unanimously, restored the judgment of Willmer J and awarded costs to the appellants.
2. Court of Appeal: Bucknill LJ, Denning LJ and Lloyd-Jacob J reversed Willmer J and restored the Registrar’s award.
3. High Court: Willmer J reversed the Registrar and rejected the disputed detention damages.
4. Registrar: Allowed ten days’ detention damages and the related war-risk insurance and war-bonus items.