Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government [1952] AC 292

The Heimgar suffered collision damage from the Carslogie, then heavy weather damage on voyage to repairs. Both were repaired concurrently. The House of Lords held the Carslogie's owners were not liable for detention damages as the Heimgar was already immobilised by the weather damage when collision repairs occurred.

Facts

On 26th November 1941, the Motor Vessel Heimgar was struck by the Steamship Carslogie while at anchor off Oban. The Carslogie was solely to blame. After temporary repairs, the Heimgar was certified seaworthy and sailed towards New York for permanent collision repairs. During the Atlantic crossing, she suffered heavy weather damage rendering her unseaworthy. At New York, three sets of repairs were carried out concurrently: collision repairs (10 days), heavy weather repairs (30 days), and engine repairs. The vessel was detained for approximately 50 days total.

Issues

Whether the owners of the Carslogie were liable to pay damages for the detention of the Heimgar during the period when collision repairs were being executed, given that the vessel was simultaneously undergoing repairs for heavy weather damage that had rendered her unseaworthy.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the Carslogie’s owners were not liable for detention damages.

Key Reasoning

Viscount Jowitt emphasised that plaintiffs must prove damages actually resulted from the wrongful act:

“It is essential to consider whether damages were caused to the Plaintiff by reason of such detention… Assuming that she was detained and assuming that she was detained by the wrongful act of the Defendant, did the Plaintiffs sustain damages as a result of such detention?”

He explained:

“damages are payable for the detention of a ship because she is a profit-earning machine. If she ceases to be a profit-earning machine it follows that she can sustain no damage from being detained until she again becomes capable of earning profit.”

Lord Normand stated:

“the real issue is whether in these ten days the vessel was a potential profit earning vessel or not.”

Lord Constable’s judgment in The Hauk was approved:

“Even on the assumption that the repair of the collision damage was the true cause, the pursuers must also show that the detention of the Cameronia for such repair resulted in a loss of profit, and they cannot do so when in fact the Cameronia was by reason of the accident to the rudder disabled from earning any profit before she was laid up.”

Implications

This case establishes that in claims for detention damages following a collision, it is insufficient merely to prove causation of detention. The claimant must demonstrate actual pecuniary loss resulting from that detention. Where a vessel is already incapacitated by another cause (such as subsequent weather damage) when repairs for the original tort are executed, no detention damages can be recovered because the vessel could not have earned profits during that period regardless of the collision repairs. The decision also questioned the distinction drawn in The Haversham Grange between detention damages and dock dues, with their Lordships indicating that in principle both should be treated alike.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The owners of the Carslogie were not liable to pay damages for detention of the Heimgar during the collision repairs, as the vessel was already immobilised and incapable of earning profits due to the heavy weather damage.

Source: Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government [1952] AC 292