Overturning own decision

Jindal and Steele & Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co Jordan Inc H of L TLR 26 November

In all mercantile transactions, the great object should be certainty; therefore, it is of more consequence that a rule should be certain, than whether the rule is established one way or the other, because speculators in trade then know what ground to go upon. That was the judgment in Vallejo v Wheeler in 1774, which was recently confirmed in Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd [2004] 1 AC 715. For the House to be persuaded under Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 123 to depart from an earlier decision, that decision had to be demonstrated to work unsatisfactorily in the marketplace and to produce manifestly unjust results: see R v G [2004] 1 AC 1034. In the present case, the appellants sought to persuade the House to reverse its decision in GH Renton and Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama [1957] AC 149 that Article III, Rule 2 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, scheduled to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, merely stipulated the manner of performance of the functions undertaken by the carrier under the contract and did not impose obligations on the carrier to load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods carried. Since that decision, shipowners, charterers, shippers and consignees had acted on the basis that it correctly stated the law. It had formed the basis of countless bills of lading, voyage charterparties and time charterparties. Charterparties would have incorporated in the rules on the basis of the decision, insurances had been placed, protection and indemnity club rules had been drafted, risks would often have been assessed in reliance on the decision. Even if the House were persuaded that the cargo owners’ interpretation of the Rules was correct, the case against departing from Renton was nevertheless overwhelming. There was, however, another factor. The Rules were under constant revision and the United Nations Commission on International Trade law was currently undertaking a revision of the Rules governing the carriage of goods by sea. It would take into account representations from all interested groups, including shipowners, charterers, cargo owners and insurers. By itself that factor made it singularly inappropriate to re-examine the Renton decision now.