Lex Mercatoria

www.lexmercatoria.org

www.jus.uio.no/lm

  toc   scroll    txt   pdf   pdf    odt    A-Z  Document Manifest   home 
<< previous TOC next >>
< ^ >

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd - House Of Lords

[1981] AC 251; [1980] 2 All ER 696; [1980] 3 WLR 209; [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 295, (33 ICLQ 797)

HEARING-DATES: 20, 21, 22 May, 10 July 1980

Catchwords:

Headnote:

Summary
Held
Notes:
Cases Referred to:

Introduction:

Counsel:
Judgment Read:
Panel:

Judgment 1: Lord Wilberforce

Judgment 2: Lord Diplock

Judgment 3: Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Judgment 4: Lord Scarman

Judgment 5: Lord Roskill

Disposition:

Metadata

SiSU Metadata, document information

Manifest

SiSU Manifest, alternative outputs etc.

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd - House Of Lords

House of Lords, England

copy @ Lex Mercatoria

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd - House Of Lords

[1981] AC 251; [1980] 2 All ER 696; [1980] 3 WLR 209; [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 295, (33 ICLQ 797)

HEARING-DATES: 20, 21, 22 May, 10 July 1980

Introduction:

Appeal. By a writ issued on 4th March 1976 the plaintiff, John Wesley Forthergill, brought an action against the defendants, Monarch Airlines Ltd, claiming (i) a declaration that under art 26 of the Warsaw Convention contained in Sch 1 to the Carriage by Air Act 1961 no complaint in respect of the partial loss of the contents of a suitcase belonging to the plaintiff which had been carried by the defendants by air was required and (ii) damages. On 17th March 1977 Kerr J ([1977] 3 All ER 616, [1978] QB 108) gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed. By notice under RSC Ord 59, r 6(2), the plaintiff sought to uphold Kerr J's judgment on the additional ground that he had erred in holding that a property irregularity report completed by the plaintiff on 13th March 1975 did not constitute proper notice to the defendants of the loss of contents of the plaintiff's suitcase under art 26(2) of the convention. On 31st July 1979 the Court of Appeal (Browne and Geoffrey Lane LJJ, Lord Denning MR dissenting) ([1979] 3 All ER 445, [1980] QB 23) dismissed [1981] AC 251, [1980] 2 All ER 696, [1980] 3 WLR 209, [1980] 2 Lloyd's R an appeal by the defendants but granted them leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The defendants appealed to the House of Lords. The facts are set out in the opinion of Lord Wilberforce.

36

John Wilmers QC and Marcus Edwards for the defendants. Christopher StaughtonQC and Timothy Young for the plaintiff.

Judgment Read:

Their Lordships took time for consideration. 10th July. The following opinions were delivered.

40

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman and Lord Roskill


  toc   scroll    txt   pdf   pdf    odt    A-Z  Document Manifest   home 
<< previous TOC next >>
< ^ >

Lex Mercatoria -->

( International Trade/Commercial Law & e-Commerce Monitor )

W3 since October 3 1993
1993 - 2010

started @The University of Tromsø, Norway, 1993
hosted by The University of Oslo, Norway, since 1998
in fellowship with The Institute of International Commercial Law,
Pace University, White Plains, New York, U.S.A.

Disclaimer!

© 

Ralph Amissah




Lex Mercatoria