Time - Building Contract Claims - page 24

In Fairfield-Mabey Ltd v. Shell UK Ltd , Shell entered into a contract with
Fairfield-Mabey (FM) to fabricate parts of a gas platform in the North Sea.
Sub-contractors were employed by FM to carry out weld-testing, etc. It was
fast track work. Delays occurred and there followed claim and counter-
claim. FM sued Shell and joined in Met-Testing (MT) claiming an indemnity
against the counterclaim. The settlement reached was £280,000 to FM, but
they then claimed £400,000 against MT. MT said that even if they were at
fault regarding the testing, there was no damage because another sub-
contractor had in any case caused the delay. It was held that the absence
of approval for certain tests was not a cause of equal efficacy with the sub-
contractor delays. The test was that of the ordinary bystander who would
have said that the cause of delay was due to the sub-contractor.
Another case which is instructive is Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v. Royal
Norwegian Government (The Carslogie) 76 . In 1941, the Heimgar, belonging to
the respondents, collided with the Carslogie, which belonged to the appel-
lants. The Carslogie was at fault. Temporary repairs to the Heimgar were
carried out in England and the ship proceeded to the USA for permanent
repairs. During her voyage, she suffered heavy weather damage which
needed immediate repair. The ship remained in dock for 50 days and
repairs to the collision damage and weather damage were carried out
concurrently. It was agreed that 10 days should be allocated to the repair
of the collision damage and 30 days to repair the weather damage. The
respondents claimed damages for loss of charter hire during the ten days
attributable to the collision damage. It was held that the appellants were
only liable for the loss of profit suffered by the respondents resulting from
the appellants' wrongful act. During the time that the Heimgar was
detained in dock she was not profit-earning because the heavy weather
damage had made her unseaworthy; therefore, the respondents had not
suffered any damage, because the vessel was undergoing repairs in respect
of the collision damage for 10 days. The case contains reference to further
examples which are very instructive.
'It is well established that, if a ship goes into dock for repairs of damage
occasioned by a collision brought about by the fault of another vessel, the
owners of that other vessel must pay for the resulting loss of time, even
although her owners take advantage of her presence in the dock to do
some repairs which, though not necessary, are advisable. Thus, in Ruabon
SS Co .v. London Assurance [1900] AC 6, the Ruabon suffered damage on
the voyage which made it necessary for her to be put into dry dock. The
owners (without causing delay or increase of dock expenses) took advan-
tage of her being in dry dock to have made the survey of the vessel for
renewing her classification, though this survey was not then due. It was
decided that the expense of getting the vessel into and out of dock, as well
as those incurred in the use of the dock, fell on the underwriters alone.' 77
76 [1952] 1 All ER 20.
77 Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v. Royal Norwegian Government (The Carslogie) [1952] 1 All ER 20 at 24 per
Viscount Jowitt.