THE MUNCASTER CASTLE

11THEMUNCASTERCASTLERIVERSTONEMEATCOMPANY,PTY.,LTD.v.LANCASHIRESHIPPINGCOMPANY,LTD.Producedby朱探宇2220083802赵旸2220083994李理2220080875宋洋2220081134张浩2220082024黄起龙2220082491贾凯22200809142【Basicfacts】OnMay7,1953,theMuncasterCastlewasloadedinNo.5holdwith150casesofcannedoxtongue,thepropertyoftheRIVERSTONEMEATCOMPANY,forshipmenttoLondonunderbillofladingsubjecttoAustralianSea-CarriageofGoodsAct,1924.OnJuly16inthecourseofdischargeinLondonitwasdiscoveredthat113ofthecaseshadbeendamagedbyseawater.TherewasnodisputethatatthestartofthevoyagefromSydneytheMuncasterCastlewasunseaworthy;thatunseaworthinesscauseddamagetothegoodsandthatthedamageamountedto£9740s.3d.3•–VesselsurveyedpriortoheroutwardvoyagetoAustralia•–Inspectioncoversofstormvalvesreplaced,aftersurveyors'inspection,byfitteremployedbyship-repairerswhowereinstructedbyship-owners'managers'marinesuperintendenttoopenupinspectioncoversforsurvey•-Noseawaterinholdatendofoutwardvoyage•–HeavyweatheronhomewardvoyageDiscoveryofsea•-waterdamagetocargoand15in.ofwaterinNo.5lowerholdduringdischargeatLondon.4【KEYISSUES】Mainissue:Thismainissueofthiscaseiswhether,wherelossordamagehadresultedfromtheunseaworthinessofhisship,thecarrierwasentitledtotheimmunityconferredonhimbyArt.IV,Rule1,oftheAustralianSea-CarriageofGoodsAct,1924,iftheunseaworthinesshadresultedfromthenegligenceofaworkmanemployedbyacompetentship-repairerengagedbythecarrier,theresultofwhosenegligencewouldnotbediscoverablebyappropriatesurveysandinspectionscarriedoutinaccordancewithordinaryprudentpractice.5Otherissueswhichcontributetoresolvethesaidmainissue:--WhetherthedecisionsinW.Angliss&Co.(Australia)Pty.,Ltd.v.PeninsularandOrientalSteamNavigationCompany,[1927]2K.B.456;(1927)28Ll.L.Rep.202,andinDaviev.NewMertonBoardMills,Ltd.,andAnother,[1959]A.C.604;[1959]2Lloyd'sRep.587n.,weredistinguishablethemeaningandeffectofArt.IIIoftheHagueRuleswhichwereincorporatedintheAustralianSea-CarriageofGoodsAct,1924--6【HoldingsandReasons】7CourtofFirstInstancePlaintiff(Cargo-owner)claimed:thevesselwasunseaworthyinthatinspectioncoversoverstormvalvesweredefectiveduetofaultyhardeningupofnutsoninspectioncoverssothattheship-ownershouldbeliablefortheplaintiff’sloss.Defendant(ship-owner)contended:Theyhaveexercisedduediligencetomakevesselseaworthy,whenun-seaworthinesswasduetonegligenceoffitteremployedbycompetentship-repairersengagedbyship-owners,theresultofwhosenegligencewouldnotbediscoverablebyLloyd'sRegistersurveyorsorship-owners'marinesuperintendentcarryingouttheirdutiesinaccordancewithordinaryprudentpracticeofsuchpersons.8MCNAIR,J.:mostprobablecauseofthewaterenteringtheholdwasthenegligentfailurebytheship-repairers'fitterproperlytohardenupthenutsontheinspectioncoversoverthestormvalves;thatship-owners'surveyorwasnotnegligentinfailingtodetectthatbadworkmanship;andthatship-ownershaddischargedtheburdenofprovingthattheyexercisedduediligence.AppealedbyCargo-owners9CourtofAppealShip-ownerswereliableiftheyfailedtoperformtheirdutyoriftherewasafailureonthepartofanyonetowhomtheperformanceofthedutywasdelegated.COURTOFAPPEAL(MORRIS,ORMERODandWILLMER,L.JJ.):Plaintiff(cargo-owner)Appealed:Entrustingthevesseltoacompetentfirmofship-repairerswasanactinperformanceof,andnotadelegationof,theirobligationtoexerciseduediligence.Therefore,theappealwouldbedismissed.AppealedbyCargo-owner10Cargo-ownerAppealed:--theappellants'casecanbesummedupinwordsusedbyLordJusticeMacKinnonintheCourtofAppealinSmith,Hogg&Co.,Ltd.v.BlackSea&BalticGeneralInsuranceCompany,Ltd.,(1939)64Ll.L.Rep.87,atp.89:“Thelimitationandqualificationoftheimpliedwarrantyofseaworthiness,bycuttingitdowntouse”duediligenceonthepartoftheship-ownertomaketheshipseaworthy,“isalimitationorqualificationmoreapparentthanreal,becausetheexerciseofduediligenceinvolvesnotmerelythattheship-ownerpersonallyshallexerciseduediligence,butthatallhisservantsandagentsshallexerciseduediligence…”andthedecisionwasaffirmedbytheHouseofLords((1940)67Ll.L.Rep.253)11--thefactsofW.Angliss&Co.(Australia)Pty.,Ltd.v.PeninsularandOrientalSteamNavigationCompanyaredifferentformthatofthepresentcase,whichmeansAngliss'scasecannotprovideareasonableanalogyforthepresentone.--LordJusticeWillmer,intheCourtofAppeal,waswrongwhenhedrewadistinctionbetweenemployingsomeoneelsetocarryonone'sownbusinessandengagingsomeoneelsetoperformsomethingwhichishisbusiness.Inthepresentcase,theworktobedonecouldproperlyberegardedascomingwithinthebusinessbothoftheship-repairersandtheship-owner.ThedutyimposedbyArt.IIIwasnotstrictlyanalogoustothecommon-lawdutytoexercisereasonablecare.Itwasaspecificobligationimposedbystatuteoracceptedbycontract.12Respondentcontended--Angliss'scasewasnotdistinguishablefromthepresentcase.Nodistinctioncouldbedrawnbetweenanegligentworkmanemployedbyashipbuilderandoneemployedbyaqualifiedship-repairer.--ThereasoningintheAnglisscasewasapplicableinthepresentcase,andAnglisshadbeenrepeatedlyapproved.TheprinciplesonwhichthereasoninginAnglisswasbasedwere:…Wherewhathadtobedonedidnotordinarilyformpartofhistradeorbusinessinhiscapacityasacarrier,incontrastwithloading,sto