 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Landcatch Ltd v Braer Corporation & Ors [1999] ScotCS 117 (19 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1999/117.html Cite as: [1999] ScotCS 117, 1999 SLT 1208, [1999] 2 LLR 316, [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 316, 1999 SCLR 709 |
||
[New search] [Help]
SECOND DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
|
Lord Justice Clerk Lord McCluskey Lord Cowie |
A224/9/95
OPINION OF THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK
in
RECLAIMING MOTION FOR PURSUERS
in
Admiralty Action in personam
LANDCATCH LIMITED Pursuers;
against
(FIRST) (i)THE BRAER CORPORATION; (ii) TREVOR WILLIAMS; (iii) ANTHONY JONES; (iv) MICHAEL S. HUDNER and (SECOND) ASSURANCEFORENINGEN SKULD Defenders;
and
THE INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND Minuters:
_______ |
Act: McNeill, Q.C., Weir; Maclay Murray & Spens (Pursuers)
Alt: Scott, Q.C., Howie; Henderson Boyd Jackson, W.S. (Defenders)
Alt: Dean of Faculty, Tyre, Q.C.; Morton Fraser & Milligan, W.S. (Minuters)
19 May 1999
This action arises from the grounding of the motor vessel Braer at Garths Ness, Shetland on 5 January 1993 and the consequent escape or discharge of oil from the vessel. It was raised against the Braer Corporation, the owner of the Braer, and her insurers. It claimed compensation under section 1 of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 and, in regard to the insurers, under Norwegian law. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund were sisted as minuters and tabled a full defence. The pursuers (to which I will refer as "Landcatch") had previously raised an action against the Fund for payment of compensation under section 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974. A procedural debate in this action was appointed to proceed at the same time as the debate in the earlier action in respect that certain common issues of fact and the law arose in both actions. Following that debate the Lord Ordinary dismissed both actions. Landcatch reclaimed against the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor in each of the actions but did not dispute his conclusion in the present action so far as concerned the insurers. The reclaiming motions in respect of both actions were heard together.
The matters at issue in the reclaiming motion were the same in the case of both actions. For the reasons given in my opinion in the action at the instance of Landcatch against the Fund I am of opinion that Landcatch's reclaiming motion should be refused and that the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor should be adhered to.
SECOND DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
|
Lord Justice Clerk Lord McCluskey Lord Cowie |
A224/9/95
OPINION OF LORD McCLUSKEY
in
RECLAIMING MOTION FOR PURSUERS
in
Admiralty Action in personam
LANDCATCH LIMITED Pursuers;
against
(FIRST) (i)THE BRAER CORPORATION; (ii) TREVOR WILLIAMS; (iii) ANTHONY JONES; (iv) MICHAEL S. HUDNER and (SECOND) ASSURANCEFORENINGEN SKULD Defenders;
and
THE INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND Minuters:
_______ |
Act: McNeill, Q.C., Weir; Maclay Murray & Spens (Pursuers)
Alt: Scott, Q.C., Howie; Henderson Boyd Jackson, W.S. (Defenders)
Alt: Dean of Faculty, Tyre, Q.C.; Morton Fraser & Milligan, W.S. (Minuters)
19 May 1999
For the reasons given in my Opinion in the related action, against the Fund, I agree with your Lordship in the chair as to the disposal of this reclaiming motion.
SECOND DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
|
Lord Justice Clerk Lord McCluskey Lord Cowie |
A224/9/95
OPINION OF LORD COWIE
in
RECLAIMING MOTION FOR PURSUERS
in
Admiralty Action in personam
LANDCATCH LIMITED Pursuers;
against
(FIRST) (i)THE BRAER CORPORATION; (ii) TREVOR WILLIAMS; (iii) ANTHONY JONES; (iv) MICHAEL S. HUDNER and (SECOND) ASSURANCEFORENINGEN SKULD Defenders;
and
THE INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION COMPENSATION FUND Minuters:
_______ |
Act: McNeill, Q.C., Weir; Maclay Murray & Spens (Pursuers)
Alt: Scott, Q.C., Howie; Henderson Boyd Jackson, W.S. (Defenders)
Alt: Dean of Faculty, Tyre, Q.C.; Morton Fraser & Milligan, W.S. (Minuters)
19 May 1999
For the reasons stated by your Lordship in the chair in the related reclaiming
motion and my own brief comments thereon, I agree that this reclaiming motion should
be disposed of as your Lordship proposes.