Coltman and Anor v Bibby Tankers Ltd
[1988] A.C. 276[1987] 3 All ER 1068
(Judgment by: Lord Roskill)
Between: Coltman and Anor - Appellants
And: Bibby Tankers Ltd - Respondents
Judges:
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord RoskillLord Griffiths
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Subject References:
HEALTH AND SAFETY
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
SHIP
Vessel lost at sea with all hands
Dependants' claim based on defective construction of ship
Whether vessel 'equipment'
Legislative References:
Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 (c. 37) - s. 1(1)(a) (3)
Case References:
Davie v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd - [1959] A.C. 604; [1959] 2 W.L.R. 331; [1959] 1 All E.R. 346, H.L.(E.)
Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps - [1899] A.C. 99, P.C.
Donoghue v. Stevenson - [1932] A.C. 562, H.L.(Sc.)
Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Parker - [1966] A.C. 141; [1966] 2 W.L.R. 486; [1966] 1 All E.R. 399, H.L.(E.)
Munby v. Furlong - [1977] Ch. 359; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 270; [1977] 2 All E.R. 953, C.A.
Robinson v. Local Board of Barton-Eccles - (1883) 8 App.Cas. 798, H.L.(E.)
Yarmouth v. France - (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 647, D.C.
Judgment date: 3 December 1987
Judgment by:
Lord Roskill
My Lords, I must confess that I have found the problem of construction to which this appeal gives rise more difficult than have your Lordships. The marked difference of opinion in the courts below between O'Connor and Glidewell L.JJ., on the one hand, and Lloyd L.J. and Sheen J., on the other, shows how difficult the problem is. For most of the argument I was disposed to share the views of the majority in the Court of Appeal because I found it difficult to accept that if Parliament in enacting the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 had intended that Act to embrace merchant ships in the word "equipment" in section 1(1)(a) that word would have been defined in section 1(3) in a manner which includes vehicles and aircraft but does not include merchant ships. But I recognise the strength of the submission that if the main engines of merchant ships are included in the definition, for they are clearly machinery, it is difficult to deduce any rational reason for excluding the hulls of such ships. Moreover, the derricks and winches of a merchant ship must surely be "equipment" within the ordinary meaning of that word irrespective of the definition in section 1(3).
Ultimately, therefore, I have found the reasoning in the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, which I have had the benefit of reading in advance, compelling. I therefore agree that the appeal must be allowed and the question answered in the same sense as that in which it was answered by Lloyd L.J. and Sheen J.