Gatoil International Inc v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co
[1985] 1 All ER 129
Judges:
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton J
Lord Scarman J
Lord Wilberforce J
Lord Keith of Kinkel J
Lord Roskill J
Subject References:
Admiralty
Jurisdiction
Action in rem
Claim arising out of agreement relating to carriage of goods in a ship or to use or hire of a ship
Agreement
Claim for payment of premiums on insurance policy over cargo
Whether claim for premiums arising out of 'any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in any ship'
Legislative References:
Administration of Justice Act 1956 - 47(2)(e)
Judgment date: 13 December 1984
ORDER
Held - The appeal would be allowed for the following reasons-
(1) On the true construction of s 47(2)( e ) of the 1956 Act the words 'any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in any ship whether by charterparty or otherwise' did not cover an agreement to pay premiums on a policy of insurance on cargo. It followed that the respondents' claim against the appellants for payment of insurance premiums was not a claim which fell within the provisions of s 47(2) and accordingly the arrest of the appellants' vessel was not valid (see p 130 j to p 131 b , p 132 b , p 133 d and p 137 e and h j , post); West of Scotland Ship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Aifanourios Shipping SA, The Aifanourios [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403 considered; The Sonia S [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 63 overruled.
(2) (Per Lord Fraser, Lord Scarman, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Roskill) Furthermore, since the 1956 Act had been enacted with the primary purpose of enabling the United Kingdom to ratify and comply with the 1952 convention, regard could be had to the travaux préparatoires of the 1952 convention in order to resolve any ambiguity in s 47(2)( e ) of the 1956 Act and, in particular, regard could be had to the fact that a proposal for claims for premiums on policies of maritime insurance to be included in the list of maritime claims was specifically not adopted when the convention was drafted because as a matter of policy it was considered unnecessary to provide for the protection of such premiums by means of arrest, and s 47(2)( e ) should be construed to give effect to that intention. It followed that s 47(2)( e ) did not cover claims in respect of an agreement to pay premiums on a policy of insurance on cargo (see p 130 j to p 131 b , p 132 b c , p 133 a to d and p 137 j , post); Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1980] 2 All ER 696 applied.