Timothy Trotman examines the development of the scope of duty test after The Achilleas
Recovery of damages that arise naturally or according to the usual course of things is the very familiar first limb of what Alderson B described as “the proper rule” in Hadley v Baxendale [1843-60] All ER Rep 461. Is this rule still fit for purpose as a principle of general application? Or is it just shorthand for what parties are normally taken to have intended, and can it be supplemented by a new “scope of duty” test? What then would be the relation between the new and the old rules?
The Achilleas
These were the issues raised in 2008 in Transfield Shipping inc v Mercator Shipping inc [2008] UKHL 4, [2008] NI 152 hereafter The Achilleas. This article attempts to look at how this case has fared since then.
By a time charter of January 2003, owners let The Achilleas to charterers; and by a September 2003 addendum, hire was extended until 2 May 2004. In April 2004 the owners arranged a follow-on charter at $39,500 per day
