Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd v Ringrose
[1962] 1 All ER 97(Judgment by: Holroyd Pearce LJ)
Between: Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd
And: Ringrose
Judges:
Holroyd Pearce LJWillmer LJ
Davies LJ
Subject References:
Insurance
Marine insurance
Policy
Dinghy insurance
Policy covering loss or damage "whilst within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat"
Accident to craft in middle of English Channel
Constitutional Law
Channel Islands
Whether part of the United Kingdom
Case References:
Stoneham v Ocean, Railway and General Accident Insurance Co - (1887), 19 QBD 237; 51 LT 236; 51 JP 422; 8 Digest (Repl) 844, 919
Judgment date: 16 November 1961
Judgment by:
Holroyd Pearce LJ
This is an appeal from a judgment of His Honour Judge Block, in favour of the plaintiffs for £52 15s 8d. The plaintiffs issued a policy of insurance to the defendant in respect of his sixteen-foot catamaran, valued at £200. The defendant set sail in his catamaran from England bound for the Channel Islands, and in the course of his voyage he suffered a misadventure in respect of which he claims to be covered under the terms of the policy. The policy is headed "Dinghy Insurance Policy" and provides:
"The company will at their option pay for replace or make good accidental loss of or damage to the insured craft, her machinery gear and equipment whilst within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat or in transit by road or by rail."
The defendant was dismasted about twenty-eight miles south of Portland Bill. He was rescued by an Italian tramp steamer which took him and his catamaran on board. On arrival at Genoa, she laid claim to salvage. The defendant got in touch with his insurers, the plaintiffs, and, ultimately, it was agreed that they should pay him the sum now claimed without admission of liability, on his promise to repay if, on investigation, they proved not to be liable. They now sue him on his promise to repay. If his accident was within the terms of the policy this claim for repayment fails. The defendant claims that his accident occurred "whilst within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat". He bases his argument on two grounds. First he argues that the Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom, and that, since he was setting out from England to the Channel Islands, it is reasonable that he should be covered by the insurance policy for the whole of that journey between two places in the United Kingdom. It would, he said, be artificial to suggest that he was covered for a while when he left England, and covered for a while before he arrived at the Channel Islands but was not covered in mid-Channel.
In my view, that first argument cannot stand. A case was very fairly produced by counsel for the plaintiffs in which a Divisional Court held that the Channel Islands were within the United Kingdom. It is Stoneham v Ocean, Railway and General Accident Insurance Co . Mathew J said ((1887), 19 QBD at p 239):
"... I think it is sufficiently apparent that the question which the parties intended to leave to the court as a question of law is whether Jersey is, in popular language, a part of the United Kingdom. I have no hesitation in saying that it is: I can give no other answer to the question."
Cave J said ((1887), 19 QBD at p 240):
"As to the first point, I think it is very clear that Jersey is within the United Kingdom within the meaning of the words of this policy."
He continues in a sentence which shows that the court was much influenced in their view by the complete absence of merit in the contrary contention, in the words ((1887), 19 QBD at p 241):
"Some light is thrown on this question by one of the conditions indorsed on the policy: 'This policy shall be void if the assured shall travel beyond the limits of Europe, or shall embark in any vessel with the intention of going beyond such limits.' That provision means that the policy shall be in force in Europe, and Jersey is in Europe. In my judgment it is also within the United Kingdom."
Two years after that case, the Interpretation Act, 1889, was passed, and s 18 provided that in every Act passed after 1889-
"... the following expressions shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, namely:-(1) The expression 'British Islands' shall mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man."
The language of that paragraph clearly shows that the Act does not include the Channel Islands in the United Kingdom. The fact that the Interpretation Act, 1889, assigns a meaning to a word in Acts of Parliament does not necessarily mean that it has that meaning in commercial documents. Nevertheless, it is of some guidance in ascertaining their true construction.
In 5 Halsbury's Laws Of England (3rd Edn), p 647, para 1392, there appears this paragraph:
"Constitutional status. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man occupy an anomalous position, for they are neither parts of the United Kingdom nor colonies. They differ considerably from each other in powers and practice. With the United Kingdom they make up the British Islands. Citizens of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, but may be known, if they so desire, as citizens of the United Kingdom, Islands and Colonies. In matters relating to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, the Queen is advised by the Home Secretary."
There is no evidence in this case from which we can deduce that there is a special meaning by custom to be given to the words "United Kingdom" in commercial documents of this or any other nature. In my view, therefore, the Channel Islands cannot be said to be covered by the words of this policy, "within the United Kingdom."
Nor do I assent to the second part of the proposition, namely, that, assuming the Channel Islands to be part of the United Kingdom, the insured is covered for the whole of his journey of fifty miles or so from the coast of England to the Channel Islands. The place where the casualty occurred must determine whether there was a claim for accidental loss "whilst within the United Kingdom ashore of afloat". The destination to which the craft is going is not the deciding factor.
Secondly, it is argued that, even if the Channel Islands are not included in the United Kingdom, the words "within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat" cover a wide area stretching out from the actual shore of the United Kingdom. One must bear in mind that the words occur in the context of a Dinghy Insurance Policy and not of a Yacht Policy. It was suggested in argument that the limit might be the area within sight of land, a wide area which differs greatly according to the type of land, the size of the ship and various physical conditions. In the context of this policy, that is a possible contention. It was also suggested that it covered the waters over which Her Majesty claims jurisdiction. In the context, this seems to provide the most clear and ascertainable limitation of the area included in the policy. But it is not necessary to decide that matter finally. Here the accident happened twenty-eight miles from the shore of England in mid-Channel in a spot that was nearer to the Channel Islands than to England. Clearly, the place where the casualty occurred is not covered by the words "within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat."
For those reasons, the defendant was not covered by the policy in respect of this accident and the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed on their claim. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.