Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd v Ringrose

[1962] 1 All ER 97

---

(Judgment by: Davies LJ)

Between: Navigators and General Insurance Co Ltd
And: Ringrose

Court:

Judges: Holroyd Pearce LJ
Willmer 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:
Davies LJ

I agree. I do not think that it is necessary for the court to express any view as to the correctness of the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in Stoneham v Ocean, Railway and General Accident Insurance Co , to which Holroyd Pearce LJ has referred. Speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to see that any assistance can be derived in this case from the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1889, even if they could possibly be said to apply to a policy of insurance as opposed to a statute. Section 18 refers to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; and it is, therefore, argued that those three places are mutually exclusive. But I find it very difficult to believe that an insured yachtsman in the Isle of Man, if he had this policy issued to him, would not be covered by it as being afloat within the United Kingdom in the terms of the policy. The passage from Halsbury's Laws Of England, to which we have been referred, is based on no other authority than the deduction made from the words in the Interpretation Act, 1889.

But all these matters are, in my opinion, as my Lords have said, irrelevant. Even if the Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom, it is impossible, as I ass it, to deduce from the fact that the port of departure was an English port and the intended destination was a Channel Islands port the conclusion that, throughout the whole of that voyage, the defendant's vessel was within the United Kingdom. An example that was referred to in the argument, I think, makes this plain from a common-sense point of view. Supposing the holder of a dinghy policy, such as this, were minded to sail from Liverpool to Belfast, both of those ports being unquestionably within the United Kingdom, and suffered a loss while out at sea, it seems to me that by no stretch of the imagination could it possibly be said that at that time he was within the United Kingdom. It is quite plain, as I think, that the place where this loss occurred was not within the United Kingdom.

What that phrase in the policy does mean is, as my Lords have indicated, a very much more difficult matter on which to pronounce. Indeed, it is not necessary for us to pronounce on it at all. All I would say about it in addition to what has been said is this. Whatever test one chooses gives rise, one would think, to anomalies. If the test of "the waters over which Her Majesty claims jurisdiction" is applied, one would, I think, encounter anomalies. On a straight line of coast, presumably, those waters would mean waters within the three mile limit. If, in the course of a voyage intended to be within that three mile limit or in the course of a race intended to be within the three mile limit, a vessel were carried, say, a quarter of a mile beyond the three mile limit owing to conditions of wind or tide, to say that, in those circumstances, she would cease to be insured when she sailed more than three miles from the shore would seem to me to be an affront to common sense. But, as I say, it is not necessary to decide what the words mean. I agree with what my Lords have said that, whatever they mean, this loss is not within them. I, therefore, agree that the appeal fails.

Appeal dismissed.