F Kanematsu & Co Ltd v The Shahzada [1956] HCA 57

High Court of Australia Taylor J. F Kanematsu & Co Ltd v The Shahzada [1956] HCA 57

ORDER Action dismissed.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgment was delivered by:—

Oct. 3 Taylor J.

The above-mentioned plaintiff, a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of Japan, was the owner of one thousand wet-salted cattle hides which were shipped in three hundred and thirty-two bags on board the above-mentioned vessel at Sydney on 12th September 1952 for carriage to Kobe. The hides had been purchased on the plaintiff's behalf by its agent in Sydney, J. Gunton (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., and they were consigned by that company, pursuant to two bills of lading issued on the last mentioned date, to Kobe for delivery to its order. The bills of lading, each of which related to one hundred and sixty-six bags of hides, were issued by MacDonald, Hamilton & Co. on behalf of the owner of the vessel. As will appear the hides did not reach Kobe but there is no dispute that the plaintiff company was at all material times entitled to the benefit of the contracts evidenced by the bills of lading in the same manner as if those contracts had been made between it and the shipowner and the case has proceeded on this basis.

The Shahzada completed her loading on 12th September 1952 and, having left her berth, proceeded on her way to sea. But whilst still in harbour, and a considerable distance from the entrance to the port, she came into collision with another vessel and sustained serious damage as a result of which the master thought it prudent to beach the vessel in Double Bay. The collision occurred during the evening of 12th September and the vessel remained in Double Bay until the morning of 14th September. After she had been re-floated on the morning of the 14th she returned to a berth at Glebe Island where a considerable portion of her cargo, including the hides in question, was removed to enable her to enter dry dock for repairs. It should be said at once that it is not suggested that the collision was caused either wholly or in part by any default on the part of those in charge of the Shahzada.