514:
477:
456:
435:
402:
31:
327:
said that clause 7 did not exclude negligence liability in clear enough terms and clause 17 was ambiguous and would be construed against the Crown. The Crown could realistically be said to have been strictly liable for damage to the goods (e.g. by breach of obligation to keep the shed in repair) and
247:
and burned down the shed. According to proper practice he was negligent and should have used a hand drill because sparks flew and lit some cotton bales. $ 533,584 of goods were destroyed, of which $ 40,714 belonging to Canada
Steamship Lines. The Crown argued that CSL could not sue because clause 7
232:
Clause 17 said "the lessee shall at all times indemnify ... the lessor from and against all claims ... by whomsoever made ... in any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to the execution of these presents, or any action taken or things done ... by virtue hereof, or the exercise in any
921:
297:
The intention of the parties to be gathered from the whole of the document was that, as between the lessor and the lessee, the lessor should be exempt under both clauses 7 and 17 from liability founded on negligence
446:
704:
835:
335:
one should ask whether the words are wide enough to exclude negligence and if there is doubt, that is resolved against the one relying on the clause. If that is satisfied, then
212:(CSL) entered into a Crown lease for a twelve-year term, in which it became a tenant of certain dock property on which was situated a freight shed, on St Gabriel Basin on the
488:
725:
375:
691:
120:
611:
200:, it has been influential in similar cases under English law, but is now recognised as providing "guidelines" rather than an "automatic solution".
539:
189:
46:
768:
328:
therefore negligence should not be covered. In that regard, he set out the following principles for courts to use in considering such clauses:
804:
580:
778:
646:
567:
553:
916:
669:
931:
911:
810:
265:, Angers J held that the Crown's employees had been negligent and that clause 7 could not be invoked as their negligence amounted to
338:
one should ask whether the clause could cover some alternative liability other than for negligence, and if it can, it covers that.
368:
936:
794:
746:
658:
627:
604:
332:
if a clause expressly excludes liability for negligence (or an appropriate synonym ) then effect is given to that. If not,
267:
361:
196:, as the cause for appeal arose before the abolition of such appeals in 1949. Although arising in civil law under the
108:
413:
926:
799:
715:
525:
209:
197:
597:
262:
124:
92:
291:, the Court declared that the finding of negligence by the trial judge could not be disturbed. The Court ruled:
757:
736:
226:
Clause 7 said "the lessee (ie, CSL) shall not have any claim… for… damage… to… goods… being… in the said shed."
324:
288:
193:
139:
116:
88:
84:
636:
513:
476:
455:
434:
401:
279:). For the same reason, he dismissed the third party proceedings instituted by the Crown under clause 17.
299:
175:
789:
467:
179:
35:
680:
508:
471:
429:
396:
450:
229:
Clause 8 said the lessor (ie, the Crown) would maintain the said shed at its own cost and expense.
184:
153:
343:
272:
217:
504:
867:
392:
905:
240:
213:
571:
557:
529:
30:
543:
494:
167:
112:
64:
276:
353:
836:
Applying Canada
Steamship principles on interpretation of exclusion clauses
589:
922:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada
346:, and so the exclusion clause did not work to cover negligence.
244:
593:
357:
239:
In May 1944, while trying to keep the shed in repair with an
870:, AC 192 (21 January 1952) (on appeal from Canada)
842:, published 27 November 2012, accessed 27 February 2023
342:
In this case, another form of liability for damage was
305:
The conduct of the Crown's employees did not amount to
145:
135:
130:
104:
99:
76:
71:
60:
52:
42:
23:
91:(Canada), reversing judgments of Angers J in the
182:, concerning the interpretation of unfair terms
879:Confirmed as being applicable in Quebec law by
490:Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
315:CSL appealed the ruling to the Privy Council.
605:
369:
323:Appeal was allowed against the SCC judgment.
220:. The lease contained the following clauses:
8:
727:Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive
693:Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd
881:The Glengoil Steamship Company v Pilkington
612:
598:
590:
376:
362:
354:
29:
20:
864:Canada Steamship Lines Limited v The King
854:, S.C. 1949 (2nd. session), c. 37, s. 3
830:
828:
824:
540:HIH Casualty Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
190:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
47:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
769:Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi
805:Interpreting contracts in English law
581:Interpreting contracts in English law
172:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King
7:
779:Unfair terms in English contract law
647:Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd
568:Oceanbulk Shipping SA v TMT Asia Ltd
554:Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
233:manner of rights arising hereunder."
893:Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Limited
670:George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds
811:Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd
14:
705:St Albans DC v Int Computers Ltd
512:
475:
454:
433:
400:
87:, SCR 532 (23 June 1950),
795:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
747:DGFT v First National Bank plc
659:Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland
628:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
188:. The case was decided by the
164:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R
24:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R
1:
243:torch, an employee started a
414:Hartog v Colin & Shields
81:The King v. Canada SS. Lines
852:Supreme Court Amendment Act
417:[1939] 3 All ER 566
302:dissenting as to clause 7).
121:Lord Asquith of Bishopstone
953:
917:Canadian contract case law
800:Unfair Contract Terms Bill
716:Nash v Paragon Finance plc
526:ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS
426:Canada Steamship Lines v R
210:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd
198:Civil Code of Lower Canada
16:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd
932:1952 in Canadian case law
912:English contract case law
776:
765:
754:
743:
734:
723:
712:
701:
688:
677:
666:
655:
643:
634:
625:
578:
564:
550:
536:
522:
501:
485:
464:
443:
422:
410:
389:
384:Construing contract terms
263:Exchequer Court of Canada
257:Exchequer Court of Canada
150:
93:Exchequer Court of Canada
28:
758:OFT v Abbey National plc
737:Consumer Rights Act 2015
472:[1976] 1 WLR 989
178:case, also relevant for
620:Sources on unfair terms
451:[1953] 2 QB 450
325:Lord Morton of Henryton
289:Supreme Court of Canada
283:Supreme Court of Canada
271:(roughly equivalent to
194:Supreme Court of Canada
140:Lord Morton of Henryton
117:Lord Morton of Henryton
937:Canada Steamship Lines
637:Sale of Goods Act 1979
572:[2010] UKHL 44
558:[2009] UKHL 38
530:[1997] UKHL 28
170:, also referred to as
868:[1952] UKPC 1
544:[2003] UKHL 6
509:[1986] QB 644
495:[1980] UKHL 2
430:[1952] AC 192
176:Canadian contract law
168:[1952] UKPC 1
65:[1952] UKPC 1
790:English contract law
468:The Diana Prosperity
248:excluded liability.
180:English contract law
36:Old Port of Montreal
681:Smith v Eric S Bush
192:on appeal from the
447:Rose Ltd v Pim Ltd
397:(1871) LR 6 QB 597
208:In November 1940,
185:contra proferentem
154:contra proferentum
927:Ships of CP Ships
785:
784:
587:
586:
287:On appeal to the
160:
159:
944:
896:
890:
884:
877:
871:
861:
855:
849:
843:
832:
728:
694:
614:
607:
600:
591:
517:
516:
491:
480:
479:
459:
458:
438:
437:
405:
404:
378:
371:
364:
355:
344:strict liability
273:gross negligence
218:Port of Montreal
100:Court membership
33:
21:
952:
951:
947:
946:
945:
943:
942:
941:
902:
901:
900:
899:
891:
887:
878:
874:
862:
858:
850:
846:
833:
826:
821:
786:
781:
772:
761:
750:
739:
730:
726:
719:
708:
697:
692:
684:
673:
662:
651:
639:
630:
621:
618:
588:
583:
574:
560:
546:
532:
518:
511:
505:Thake v Maurice
497:
489:
481:
474:
460:
453:
439:
432:
418:
406:
399:
385:
382:
352:
321:
285:
259:
254:
206:
123:
119:
115:
111:
56:21 January 1952
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
950:
948:
940:
939:
934:
929:
924:
919:
914:
904:
903:
898:
897:
885:
872:
856:
844:
823:
822:
820:
817:
816:
815:
807:
802:
797:
792:
783:
782:
777:
774:
773:
766:
763:
762:
755:
752:
751:
744:
741:
740:
735:
732:
731:
724:
721:
720:
713:
710:
709:
702:
699:
698:
689:
686:
685:
678:
675:
674:
667:
664:
663:
656:
653:
652:
644:
641:
640:
635:
632:
631:
626:
623:
622:
619:
617:
616:
609:
602:
594:
585:
584:
579:
576:
575:
565:
562:
561:
551:
548:
547:
537:
534:
533:
523:
520:
519:
502:
499:
498:
486:
483:
482:
465:
462:
461:
444:
441:
440:
423:
420:
419:
411:
408:
407:
393:Smith v Hughes
390:
387:
386:
383:
381:
380:
373:
366:
358:
351:
348:
340:
339:
336:
333:
320:
317:
313:
312:
311:
310:
303:
284:
281:
258:
255:
253:
250:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
227:
216:, part of the
205:
202:
158:
157:
151:Unfair terms,
148:
147:
143:
142:
137:
133:
132:
128:
127:
106:
105:Judges sitting
102:
101:
97:
96:
85:1950 CanLII 40
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
949:
938:
935:
933:
930:
928:
925:
923:
920:
918:
915:
913:
910:
909:
907:
894:
889:
886:
882:
876:
873:
869:
865:
860:
857:
853:
848:
845:
841:
837:
831:
829:
825:
818:
813:
812:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
791:
788:
787:
780:
775:
771:
770:
764:
760:
759:
753:
749:
748:
742:
738:
733:
729:
722:
718:
717:
711:
707:
706:
700:
696:
695:
687:
683:
682:
676:
672:
671:
665:
661:
660:
654:
649:
648:
642:
638:
633:
629:
624:
615:
610:
608:
603:
601:
596:
595:
592:
582:
577:
573:
570:
569:
563:
559:
556:
555:
549:
545:
542:
541:
535:
531:
528:
527:
521:
515:
510:
507:
506:
500:
496:
493:
492:
484:
478:
473:
470:
469:
463:
457:
452:
449:
448:
442:
436:
431:
428:
427:
421:
416:
415:
409:
403:
398:
395:
394:
388:
379:
374:
372:
367:
365:
360:
359:
356:
349:
347:
345:
337:
334:
331:
330:
329:
326:
319:Privy Council
318:
316:
308:
304:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
290:
282:
280:
278:
274:
270:
269:
264:
256:
252:Court rulings
251:
249:
246:
242:
241:oxy-acetylene
231:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
219:
215:
214:Lachine Canal
211:
203:
201:
199:
195:
191:
187:
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
165:
156:
155:
149:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:Case opinions
129:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
107:
103:
98:
94:
90:
89:Supreme Court
86:
82:
79:
77:Appealed from
75:
70:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
892:
888:
883:, 28 SCR 146
880:
875:
863:
859:
851:
847:
839:
814:1 All ER 399
809:
767:
756:
745:
714:
703:
690:
679:
668:
657:
650:(1981) Ex CC
645:
566:
552:
538:
524:
503:
487:
466:
445:
425:
424:
412:
391:
341:
322:
314:
307:faute lourde
306:
286:
268:faute lourde
266:
260:
238:
207:
183:
171:
163:
162:
161:
152:
113:Lord Normand
80:
72:Case history
18:
895:, 1 KB 189
834:Wyatt, D.,
136:Decision by
109:Lord Porter
95:, ExCR 635
906:Categories
819:References
277:common law
125:Lord Cohen
67:, AC 192
61:Citations
840:Lexology
350:See also
146:Keywords
300:Locke J
261:At the
174:, is a
83:,
53:Decided
866:
204:Facts
43:Court
245:fire
275:in
908::
838:,
827:^
613:e
606:t
599:v
377:e
370:t
363:v
309:.
298:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
