xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Re The New York Star [1981] 1 WLR 138

Country:
United Kingdom
  • Plaintiff contracted X to convey packages to the destination.

  • Defendant, stevedores contracted by X to unload the ship, negligently allowed the packages to be stolen in the course of the unloading.

  • There was a clause in the contract that conferred the same protection that X had (claims to be brought within 1 year) on Defendant and Privy Council held that this “Himalaya” clause was effective despite Defendant not being a party to the original contract. 

Lord Wilberforce

  • In the normal course of things stevedores can rely on these clauses for ease of business + precedent of The Eurymadon (above).

  • This can apply in tort as well as contract provided the exemption clauses relate to both contractual and tortious liability. Had to be interpreted in the light of industry practice

    • What about where a party is unaware of industry practice/chooses not to use it?

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch