BALTIC SHIPPING COMPANY V. DILLON: Case Analysis

High Court of Australia (1993) 176 CLR 344

This is a case related to the shipping company, it is basically a Contract act case which is held in 1993 between the parties baltic shipping company and Dillion.https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/cases/database/baltic-shipping-v-dillon

FACTS

The dillion was  make a contract with the passenger on a cruise ship,” Mikhail Lermontov” which is owned and operated by a baltic ship company with a 14 days contract , but after the 9 days the ship sank and Mr. Dillion lost his belongings and he suffered from injury. She sued for the loss recovery cruise and the damages.

PARTIES

Mr Dillion, Petitioner

The baltic shipping company, Respondent

ISSUE

  • Whether there is a total lack of consideration by the Baltic shipping company?
  • Whether the Dillion recovers the damages for distress?

JUDGEMENT

Damages for disappointment and distress are not recoverable unless they proceed from the physical inconvenience caused by the breach or unless the contract is one of the objects which is to provide enjoyment, relaxation or freedom from molestation.

So the high court of Australia said that the following points, which are given below;

  • There was not a total failure of consideration due to 5 days remaining in a total of 14 days.
  • Physical loss damages should not be awarded.
  • Damages should be awarded only on that point of the contract where the points are not clearly determined. 

Authors/Editors

,

Similar Interesting Reads>>

2 thoughts on “BALTIC SHIPPING COMPANY V. DILLON: Case Analysis

Leave a Reply

2nd National Moot Court Competition, 2023 || Register Now!

X