![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Northern Electric Plc v Econofreight Heavy Transport Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 286 (20 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/286.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 286 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE DISTRICT REGISTRY)
(MR JUSTICE BEHRENS)
Strand London WC2A 2LL Tuesday 20 February 2001 |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE DYSON
____________________
NORTHERN ELECTRIC PLC | ||
Claimant/Respondent | ||
- v - | ||
ECONOFREIGHT HEAVY TRANSPORT LIMITED | ||
Defendant/Applicant |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040 Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"The Company shall in any event be discharged from all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods unless suit is brought within one year of the delivery date when they should have been delivered."
"In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness .... is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made."
"In relation to a notice (not being a notice having contractual effect), the requirement of reasonableness under this Act is that it should be fair and reasonable to rely reliance on it, having regard to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the notice) would have arisen."
"I have not found the balancing exercise I have to perform straightforward but in the end largely for the reasons submitted by Mr Morton I am not satisfied that Econofreight has established that clause 14.3 is fair and reasonable. In particularly I am not satisfied it is necessary or even reasonably necessary to protect any legitimate interest of Econofreight. Many of the other Standard Terms do not include such a clause. It reduces the limitation period provided by statute by 5 years; it makes no provision for latent damage or any other form of extension. I can see no real countervailing necessity for such a clause."
"I am fortified in this view by considering what the position would have been if Northern Electric had chosen to sue Yorkshire under the terms of the main contract. In that event Yorkshire would be precluded from seeking an indemnity from Econofreight unless Northern Electric brought its proceedings within a year. Furthermore it would be difficult for Yorkshire to protect its position by issuing proceedings within a year. Until Northern Electric makes a claim it has suffered no loss. This state of affairs, which arises because the goods carried by Econofreight belong to a third party, seems to me to be neither fair nor reasonable."
"It must follow, in my view, that, when asked to review such a decision on appeal, the Appellate Court should treat the original decision with the utmost respect and refrain from interference with it unless satisfied that it proceeded upon some erroneous principle or was plainly and obviously wrong."