Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
MR. ENNET GOLDRICK for the Claimant MR. MARK JONES for the Defendant Hearing date: Friday, 23rd August 2013 ____________________
He also says that the defendants are entitled to the protection of a one year time bar under the Hague-Visby Rules. I shall refer in this judgment to the Hague Rules for the sake of simplicity.
Mr Butterworth did not dispute Mr Armstrong's evidence that many claims have been settled. He also said that the claimants had not sought to explain their title to sue but does not suggest that the defendants have ever pressed them to do so. Presumably the insurers on both sides recognise that they were dealing with subrogated claims and the identity of the insured on the different bills of lading was not of immediate commercial importance. However, Mr Butterworth states in his evidence:
I do not propose to say much about that because, as I understand it, the negotiations were without prejudice. However, a claim in tort and bailment is not inconsistent with the parties' rights and obligations being governed by a Hague Rules regime. In any case, Mr Butterworth's complaint does not, to my mind, fairly reflect the commercial court guide. The commercial court guide at B3.2 observes that:
In substance, the suggestion was that the present proceedings should be struck out and the defendants left to commence a new action, no doubt using the same procedure because of the claim in that new action.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.