Legal Case Summary
Liesbosch Dredger v Edison Steamship [1933] UKHL 2; [1933] AC 449
Damages for the loss of a working dredger: replacement costs and ordinary delay were recoverable, but additional loss caused by the owners’ lack of funds was excluded.
Facts and background
In November 1928 the steamship Edison fouled the moorings of the dredger Liesbosch while leaving Patras, Greece. It dragged the unmanned dredger into the open sea, where she filled with water and sank. Edison’s owners admitted sole liability. The dispute concerned the amount of compensation.
Liesbosch’s owners were civil engineers using the dredger to fulfil a harbour-construction contract carrying heavy penalties for delay. Their available funds were tied up in the work and a contractual deposit. Although evidence showed that suitable replacement dredgers were available in Holland, they could not afford to buy one.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
After the harbour authorities threatened to cancel the contract, the owners hired the Adria from Italy. This dredger cost more to operate, and its hire required them also to take a tug and two barges. The harbour board later helped them acquire the Adria through an instalment arrangement.
What loss should the defendants pay for?
The owners claimed the costs actually incurred, including the substitute vessel, hire, additional operating expenses and loss during the interruption of work. The Admiralty Registrar substantially accepted that approach, finding that the owners had acted reasonably in their financial predicament. Langton J upheld the assessment with a small adjustment.
The Court of Appeal rejected that basis and substituted an award of £9,177 3s 4d plus interest. The owners appealed to the House of Lords. Two questions arose: whether damages could include extra costs attributable to their lack of funds, and whether compensation was otherwise confined to the price of replacing the dredger.
The House of Lords’ reasoning
Lord Wright began with the principle of restoring the injured party, so far as money could do so, to the position they would have occupied without the wrong. That principle remained subject to legal limits on recoverable consequences.
He rejected the claim to recover every reasonable expenditure actually incurred in the owners’ predicament. In his analysis, their lack of funds was a separate, concurrent cause of the additional loss, external to the defendants’ negligence. He preferred that explanation, while also saying that such financial consequences would be too remote if treated as consequences of the collision. The assessment therefore had to proceed as though the owners could buy a suitable replacement.
That did not mean that market price alone was enough. Liesbosch was working plant in an existing construction business. Even an owner with funds would need time to obtain and transport a substitute to Patras. Ignoring the resulting disruption would fail to compensate for the dredger’s real value to its owners.
Lord Wright identified three components: the market price of a comparable dredger; the costs of adaptation, transport, insurance and associated arrangements; and compensation for disruption during the period reasonably necessary to obtain a working replacement. The last component could include wasted overheads and staff and equipment expenses. Special losses caused by the owners’ financial position were to be disregarded.
Decision and outcome
The House varied the Court of Appeal’s order and referred the assessment back to the Registrar and Merchants. The fixed award of £9,177 3s 4d was replaced by whatever sum was assessed on those principles. Interest would run on that capitalised value from the date of loss.
The owners had nevertheless substantially failed because they had not secured restoration of Langton J’s award on their original basis. They were ordered to pay three-quarters of the defendants’ costs of the House of Lords appeal. The decision therefore both rejected their broader claim and required a fresh assessment allowing for ordinary replacement delay.
Judgment: Liesbosch Dredger v Edison Steamship, House of Lords, 28 February 1933; [1933] UKHL 2, [1933] AC 449 and [1933] All ER Rep 144.
