WebThe purposive approach is wider than the mischief rule as it looks at the positive social purpose of legislation rather than the problem the Act was created to deal with. 21 It is therefore a contextual approach as seen in Coltman v Bibby Tankers (1987)22. In Carter v Bradbeer (1975)23, Lord Diplock pointed out that “... WebThe operation of this presumption is illustrated by the case of Coltman v Bibby Tankers Ltd (1987) 3 ALL ER, 1068. The case rested on the interpretation of section 1(3) of the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act of 1969 which defined the word ‘equipment’ as including “any plant machinery, vehicles, aircraft and clothing”.

Coltman v Bibby Tankers [1988] AC 276 – Law Journals

WebMay 19, 2006 · Coltman v. Bibby Tankers Ltd. (1987) 3 AIIER 1068, 1071(HL) [Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act, 1969 S. 1(1)(3)]." 9. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is engaged in the business of shipping. Besides owning ships it also chartered … WebColtman v Bibby tankers (1987) Purpose Approach - Classed a defective ship as equipment. R v Bentham (2005) Purpose Approach - A robber pretended he had a gun … rite aid 260 north sanderson hemet

Coltman v Bibby Tankers [1988] AC 276 – Law Journals

WebOct 10, 2024 · Coltman v Bibby Tankers [1988] AC 276 In this case the Court of Appeal held that an injury sustained because of a defect in the hull of a ship was not actionable, … WebMcDermid v Nash Dredging and Reclamation Co Ltd (1987) The plaintiff was an 18- year-old inexperienced deckhand employed by a company of the defendants, but the captain of the tug was employed by a third party, a different company owned by the defendants. ... Coltman v Bibby Tankers (1988) It was claimed by the plaintiff that the ship was ... smirnoff new drinks