Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd v Ringrose

[1962] 1 All ER 97

---

(Judgment by: Willmer LJ)

Between: Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd
And: Ringrose

Court:

Judges: Holroyd Pearce LJ

Willmer LJDavies 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:
Willmer LJ

I have come to the same conclusion. The question raised is an extremely interesting and not unimportant one. It is whether the liability which the defendant incurred by reason of the casualty to his craft falls within a policy which insures against accidental loss of or to his craft "within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat". There is no issue as to where the casualty happened. The position has been marked, for convenience, on a chart for us to see, and it is sufficient to say that it is somewhere between twenty-five and thirty miles to the south of Portland Bill, or a position which can fairly be described as about in the middle of the English Channel.

In my judgment, it is the place where the casualty happened that must determine whether the loss falls within the policy or not. The destination to which the craft was bound, namely, the Channel Islands, only becomes important, as I see it, in relation to the argument addressed to us, to the effect that anything happening within the course of a voyage from one place in the United Kingdom to another place in the United Kingdom must itself be within the United Kingdom. The Channel Islands, it is said, are within the United Kingdom; therefore, since this was a voyage from Teignmouth in the United Kingdom to the Channel Islands in the United Kingdom, the casualty must be covered by the policy.

I do not think, however, that that argument can prevail. For one thing, I am far from satisfied that the Channel Islands do come within the United Kingdom. I do not refer again to the authorities to which Holroyd Pearce LJ has already referred; I am content to express my concurrence with the conclusions which my Lord had drawn therefrom. Furthermore, I should not be prepared to subscribe to the argument even if it could be shown that both the point of departure and the destination were within the United Kingdom. I can conceive of a number of possible voyages starting from port A in the United Kingdom and leading to port B in the United Kingdom which could well take a vessel far, far away from any of the coasts of the United Kingdom. I should have difficulty in holding that, merely because a voyage begins and ends in the United Kingdom, everything that happens during it happens within the United Kingdom. I do not think that it is necessary in this case to reach any final conclusion what exactly is embraced within the expression "within the United Kingdom ashore or afloat". For myself, I think there is much to be said for the view that the expression covers the area over which Her Majesty claims jurisdiction. But, as I have said, I do not think that it is necessary to reach a final conclusion on that point, because I am satisfied that, wherever the line is drawn, the place where this casualty happened, being substantially mid-way between England and France, must fall outside it, and could not by any test be held to be within the United Kingdom.

In those circumstances, it seems to me that the loss which the defendant had the misfortune to sustain is not a loss within the policy, and that the plaintiffs rightly succeeded in the court below. Accordingly, I agree that the appeal fails.