Byrne v Limerick Steamship Company, Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 February 1946
• Date: 05 February 1946
• Court: High Court

[Overend J.),

Byrne

and

Limerick Steamship Company

Limited

- Contract - Frustration -Impossibility of undertaking voyage without facilities from British Authorities - No facilities without compliance with requirements - Crew list to be approved by British Permit Office in Dublin before sailing - Discharge of seaman without notice because requisite permit for him not granted - Whether contract frustrated - Clause providing for Master discharging seaman "as circumstances, in his opinion, so require" - Whether binding having regard to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 - Compensation for wrongful discharge - "One month's wages" - Danger money - Allowance for maintenance - Whether included in the term "wages" - Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 58 Vict., c. 60), s. 114, sub-ss. 1, 3; s. 115, sub-s. 5; s. 156, sub-s. 1; ss. 162, 720 and 742.

By a running agreement, dated 8th January, 1943, a crew was signed on for the defendants' ship from 3rd February, 1943 to 30th June, 1943. In the course of her voyage the ship was to call at a British port for the necessary bunkers, which, as in the case of facilities afforded by the British for clear passage through the seas controlled by the British Navy, could only be obtained on compliance with all the requirements of the British Authorities. Since the 16th January, 1943, there was introduced the further requirement that the crew-list must be furnished to, and be approved of by, the British Permit Office in Dublin before the departure of the vessel from Dublin. In the afternoon of 3rd February, 1943, three seamen, including B., were signed on in substitution for three of the crew who had been discharged, and B. went on board and started work. Later in the day a crew-list was prepared and sent to the British Permit Office for approval; the ship was ready to sail and only awaiting the requisite papers. The permit for B. was refused, and, as the sailing could not be delayed, the defendants' Dublin Manager informed the Master that he would have to discharge B. and get a substitute. B. was accordingly discharged by the Master and given one day's pay. The only reason for B.'s discharge was the refusal of the permit; his character was reported as "very good" for both ability and conduct. Six weeks later B. went to England to obtain employment, and to be enabled to do so he must have obtained a permit from the British Permit Office. In November of the same year he was signed on for another ship of the...