Neuchatel Swiss General Insurance Co Ltd v Vlasons Shipping Inc

Neuchatel Swiss General Insurance Co Ltd sued Vlasons Shipping Inc in relation to a marine insurance policy covering a vessel that was lost in the South China Sea. The dispute centred around a "typhoon clause" in the policy, which prohibited the vessel from sailing when there was a typhoon or storm warning either between ports of departure and destination or at the port of destination. The court was required to determine the meaning of "allowed" in this context, specifically whether it was necessary to show that the ship sailed with knowledge of the master or owner, or if the warning as to the storm needed to affect the vessel at the moment of departure, or if the term "warning" included warnings of the future course of a typhoon. The court also needed to consider whether the judge was entitled to add one per cent to the foreign rate of interest proved in evidence, as per section 59 of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The court held that the term "allowed" in the typhoon clause did not require proof that the ship sailed with knowledge of the master or owner, nor did it require the warning to affect the vessel at the moment of departure. Instead, the term "warning" was interpreted broadly to include warnings of the future course of a typhoon. The court found that the warnings in place for over 24 hours prior to the vessel's departure were sufficient to trigger the typhoon clause. Additionally, the court held that the judge was entitled to add one per cent to the foreign rate of interest proved in evidence, as per section 59 of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The decision of the court was in favour of Neuchatel Swiss General Insurance Co Ltd. The insurer was not liable for the loss of the vessel, as the typhoon clause was triggered by the warnings in place prior to the vessel's departure. The court also awarded interest on the judgment in accordance with section 59 of the Supreme Court Act 1986.