clr/1989/1989_1_301.pdf

(2)(a)— It is that applied by the High Courts of Justice in England, in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, on thedaypreceding Independence Day — Therefore, TheBills of Lading Act, 1855 isapplicable in Cyprus. Admiralty — Practice — Rules applicable — The Cyprus Admiralty Jurisdiction Order. 1893, Rule237 — TheRulesof Court applied in theAdmiralty Division of theHigh Court ofJusticeofEngland on the daypreceding Independence day are to the extent contemplated by 10 Rule 237 applicable in Cyprus in virtue of section 29

(2)(a) of the Courts ofJusticeLaw, 1960 (Law 14/1960). 15 Carriage of Goods bySea — Bill ofLading — Consignee of thegoods or endorseeofthebill oflading — Rights transferredtothem byreason ' of the consignment or indorsement limited to those under the contract,asexpressedin the bill of lading. Bill of lading — Effect — As between the shipper and the shipowner when there existsacharterparty or when thereisno charterparty — Effect asbetween shipowner and consignee or indorsee — Review of authorities. 2 0 Admiralty — Practice — Pleadings — Striking out on ground that they are unnecessary and tend to prejudice, embarrassor delay the fair 301 Southfields Indust.v.M.V..Adriatic»K»

(1989)tnal of the action — Order 19 Rule 27 of the English Rules of Court— The purpose of Rule 17islimitedto theenforcement of the Rules of pleading contained in Order 19— Wlien the case of the applicant isthatthe Petitiondoes notdisclosea reasonable causeof action, the practice is to bat>e the application on 0 19R 17and on 0 25 R4 ot the same Rules — The rules apply only inplain and obvious cases — Ifthere isaserious point of law requmng senous discussion thissummary procedure /s notavailable 5 The principles appliedbythe Coirt ··*thibcaseappear sufficiently in the hereinabove headnote^ The .jpnlieι'ιοηbydefendants 1and 2 10 f to strike out part of (he pptifon u.' , Η theend,dismissed, on the ground that the is?u^s raised by in**paragraphs soughttobestruck out ariisuch '»,torequire ι«'iisidr-i ,(i< • 211Jdiscussion Apohcatmn dismissed. No orderat ίο costs 15 Case*>iettned tv Styiiti'i'n' ν Γ·κ· l-ish "g lrawlei «Narkisot, · ?ndTwo Othci.

(1965)1 C L R ^>i Snip «Glonana»anaAnother ^ Breidi(1W2)1CLR 40Cl Asimcnos·' Pawkuv,

(1982)1 C I . R 14.\ 20 n Fraserv 7eleguiph Co istructionCo [\&7 .\LR 7 Q B '>ή6. Clvn Mill·&Co ν EastandWe*iln<haPock Co [1882]7Aop C<is Leduc & Co ν Ward and Others (1886 001 All ΕΚ Rep 266 { 2 0 Q B D 475). ^ The «Ardennes»84 Li L Rep 340, JadranskaSlobodna Plovidba ν Photos Photiades & Co {196^:1 C LR 58, Archangeios Domain Limited ν Adnatica Societa Pei Azione Di Navigatione through theirCyprus Agents Messis A L Manto- 3 0 vant&Sons Ltd

(1978)1C LR 439, Knowles ν Roberts, 38 Ch D270, Rasam ν Budge [1893] 1QΒ 571, Liardetv Hammond ElectncLightCo, 31 W R 710, Mudge ν Penge UD C, 85 LJ Ch 814, 302 35 IC.L.R. Southfields Indust.v.M.V. «Adriatica K» Davyv.Garrett, 7Ch. D. 473; Hubbock&Sons ν Wilkinson [1895-9] AllE.R.Rep.244; Kemsleyv. Foot[19511 1All E.R.331; Willoughbyv. Eckstein [1936] ΪAilE.R. 650; 5 Margarine Union v.CambayPrinceS.S. Co. [1967]3All E.R.

1. Application. Application by defendants 1 and2 for striking outparagraphs 4, 5, 6, part of paragraph 7, paragraphs 8, 9,
2. 18 and part of paragraph 23, set out in the appendix to this decision on the 10 ground that they are irrelevant, unnecersary and tend to embarrass anddelay thefair trial of theaction. St. McBride,for theapplicants-defendants 1 and
3. M.Montanios, for the respondent-plaintiff. Cur.adv.vult. 15 STYLIANIDES J. read the following decision. By this application by summons the defendants 1and 2,theship and the owners thereof, apply thatparagraph 4,5, 6, part of paragraph 7, paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 18 and part of paragraph 23, particularly set out in an Appendix, which is an integral part of this Decision, be 20 struck outon theground thattheyareirrelevant, unnecessary and tend toembarrass and delay the fair trial of theaction. The plaintiffs opposed this application. Theplaintiffs, alocalcompanyraised thisaction,assetoutinthe writof summonsandthepetition,as consignees, holdersof theBill 25 of Lading for the carriage of 163 pallets STC 420.000 6 1/2 OZ whiteglasslikebottles from PiraeusporttoLimassol portCandF. The shipper was Yioula Glassworks SA of Greece. Inthewritof summons theclaim isfor damages forloss suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the delay in the transport and delivery by 30 the Defendants oftheaforesaid cargo duetobreach of contractof affreightment and/oragreement of carriage of goods by sea and/ or negligence and/or fraud and/or misrepresentation of the defendants 3 to the shippers. Defendants 3 are described as agents, at the material time,of defendant 1ship. 35 It is the contention of counsel for the applicants that the 303 StylianidesJ. Southflelds Indust.v.M.V. «Adriatica K-

(1989)respondentsareconsigneesand/orendorseesoftheBillofLading and that the sole evidence astothe contract of affreightment isto befound intheBillofLadingitself.Theconsigneeisnotentitledto adduce evidence outside the terms of the Bill of Lading.That a right of action in tort is not transferred to the consignee or 5 endorsee. That the duty of care does not lie on the shipowner towards anyone who wasnot the owner of the goods at the time when thetortofnegligenceinthe performance ofthecontractwas committed. Thatthe plaintiffs didbecometheholdersofthe Billof Lading and therefore owners of the goods long after the alleged 10 facts in the paragraphs sought to be struck out. That an action in tort should not be joined in an action for damages for breach of contract of affreightment. Counsel for therespondents on theotherhand contended that striking out is ordered by the Court only in plain and obvious 15 cases.Thatthe BillsofLadingActisnotapplicable inCyprus.That «Yioula»,who appeared shipper inthe Billof Lading,shipped the goods on behalf of the plaintiffs astheiragentand theystated this fact todefendants 3.Thatunderthecommon law,whichisthelaw applicable, facts which took place before the execution ofthe Bill 20 ofLadingareevidence ofthecontract.Thattheclaimisbased not only on breach of contract of affreightment but, also, on misrepresentation and fraud.Thatthepartofthepetitionsoughtto be struck out is necessary for the latter cause of action and the Court at this stage should not go into a detailed examination to 25 determine matters which may affect the cause of action and the course of the case. It was submitted by counsel for the respondents that the law applicable in this country isconfined to the lawset out in section 29

(1)oftheCourtsofJusticeLaw, 1960and,therefore, theBillsof 30 LadingActisnot applicable. This Court derives its jurisdiction from the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964 (Law No. 33/64) and in particular from section 9(a) which, as regards Admiralty Jurisdiction, brings into play the provisions of section 19(a) and 35 section 29

(2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (LawNo. 14/ 60). Section 29

(2)(a) of Law 14/60 makes specific provision for the Admiralty Jurisdiction, that the law applicable is the law «appliedbytheHighCourtofJusticeinEngland, intheexerciseof 40 304 IC.L.R. Southfields Indust.v. M.V.«Adrlatica K> StylianidesJ. its admiralty jurisdiction, on the day preceding Independence. Day»asitmightbe«modified byanylawoftheRepublic», subject always to any overriding provisions of the Constitution -(Costas Stylianou v. The Fishing Trawler*Narki$$os» and Two Others 5

(1965)1 C.L.R. 291;Ship *GIoriana»andAnother v. Breidi{\982) 1 C.L.R. 409). Rule237 oftheAdmiralty Jurisdiction Rulesprovides:- 10 «237. Inall casesnot provided bythese Rules,the practice of the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice of England,sofarasthesameshallappeartobeapplicable,shall be followed». Since Rules of Court are a speciesof legislation, the provisions of section 29

(2)(a) extend to them as well. The Rules of Court, which were in force and applied in the Admiralty Division of the 15 High Court of Justice of England on the day preceding the Independence Day, are the ones applicable by this Court in the exerciseofitsAdmiraltyJurisdictiontotheextentcontemplatedby Rule237 above -{Asimenos v.Paraskeva

(1982)1C.L.R. 145). The Bills of Lading Act, 1855 is applicable in this country. 20 Section 1'readsas follows:- 25 «1. Everyconsignee ofgoods named inabilloflading,and every indorsee ofa billof ladingtowhom the property in the goods therein mentioned shall pass, upon or by reason of such consignment or indorsement, shall have transferred to and vested inhimallrightsofsuit,and besubject tothe same liabilitiesinrespect ofsuch goodsasifthecontract contained inthe billof ladinghad been made with himself». InFraserv.Telegraph Construction Co. [1872]L.R. 7Q.B. 566 Blackburn, J. said atp. 571:- 30 *The bill of lading, notwithstanding some case that Mr. Cohen referred tointhe Common Pleas,mustbetaken tobe the contract under which goods are shipped, and until Iam tolddifferent bya court of error, Ishallsohold». In Clyn,Mills &Co. v. Eastand WestIndiaDock Co. [1882] 7 35 App.Cas.591,Lord Selbome said atp.596:«Everyone claimingasassignee under a billof lading must be bound by its terms, and by the contract between the shipner of the goods and the shipowner therein expressed. 305 Stjlianides J. Southfields Indust. v.M.V. «Adriatica K-

(1989)The primary office andpurpose of abillofladingalthough by mercantile lawand usage itisasymbol oftherightof property in the goods, isto express the terms of the contract between the shipper and the shipowner». InLeduc& Co. v. WardandOthers[1886-90]AllE.R.Rep.266 (20Q.B.D. 475),an action byan endorsee for a lossof the goods during a deviation from the voyage, Lord Esher, M.R., said at p. 268:- 5 «Thequestion in thiscaseis,what isthecontract contained in the bill of lading? Itwassuggested that a billof lading is,in 10 all circumstances, nothing but a receipt for the goods, and contains no contract, except that the goods, have been receivedbytheshipownersandaretobedeliveredbythemat the place named. This is an instrument which has received one construction from themercantile worldand thecourtsfor 15 more than ahundred years.Wherethereisa charterparty, the bill of lading is only a receipt for the goods, because all the terms of the contract of carriage, as between the shipowner and the charterer, are containing in the charterparty, and the billof lading isonlygiven to enable the charterer todealwith 20 the goods during transmission. But even where there is a charterparty, although the bill of lading is only a receipt as between the charterer and the shipowner, it is more than a receipt as between the endorsee and the shipowner; it contains the contract between them». 25 Andatp.269:«Itseems to me impossible to say that a bill of lading does not contain the terms ofthe contract of carriage». Fry,L.J., said at p.270:«in myview, averylargeportion oftheargument which we 30 have heard in this case isconcluded by the provisions of the BillsofLadingAct, 1855.Theplaintiffs entered intoacontract with merchants abroad for the purchase of goods to be shipped from a foreign port. The substance of that contract was that the vendors were to deliver shipping documents to 35 the purchasers, and thatthe purchasers were topay the price in exchange for the documents. The Bills of Lading Act providesby s.l, that...». 306 1C.L.R. Southfields Indust. v. M.V. «Adriatica K» StylianidesJ. After he recites the section he continues:- 5 «Those words appear tome tobe applicable tothe present case. The plaintiffs are endorsees of a billof lading to whom the property inthegoodstherein mentioned haspassed onor by reason of the endorsement. The legislature have declared that there isacontract inthebilloflading,andthatthe benefit ofthatcontractisvested inthe endorsees.Itseemstometobe impossible inthe face ofthat section forthe court tosaythata billof lading contains no contract.» 10 Andfurther down:- 15 «...I prefer torestmyjudgment ontheviewthattheprovisionof the statute making the contract contained in the billof lading assignable is inconsistent with the idea that anything which took place between the shipper and shipowner, not embodied in the billof lading, could affect that contract . 20 ... as Ihave said, where a statute has made the benefit of a contract assignable to a third party, it isinconsistent with the policy of the statute to allow anything which took place between thepartiestothecontract,butwhichisnot embodied init,toaffect the contract». In The «Ardennes»84 LI.L.Rep.340 atp.345 we read:- 25 «Leduc & Co. v. Ward and Others, 20 Q.B.D. 475, on which Sir Robert so strongly relied, was a case between shipowner and indorsee of the bill of lading, between whom its terms are conclusive by virtue of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, so that no evidence was admissible in that case to contradict orvary itsterms. Between thoseparties the statute makesitthe contract». In Jadranska Slobonda Plovidba v. Photos Photiades & Co. 30

(1965)1C.L.R.58aclearand distinctivedifferentiation wasmade between theshipperontheone sideandthosewhoacquirearight under the Billsof LadingAct, 1855.Atp.65 itwassaid:- 35 «Where a bill of lading has been held to be the contract it waseither soby reason of section 1of the BillofLadingAct, 1855 (asinthe case of Leduc v. Ward20 Q.B.D. 475) or the partiesappear tohave agreed that itshould be so. Itappearstobewellsettledthatabillofladingisnotinitself 307 SohamdesJ. Southfields Indust. ν M.V. «AdriaticaK»

(1989)the contractbetween theshipowner andtheshipperof goods, thoughithasbeensaidtobeexcellentevidenceof itsterms» In Archangelos Domain Limited ν Adnatica Societa Per Azione DiNavigatione through their Cyprus Agents Messrs A L Mantovani & Sons Ltd,

(1978)1 C L R 439, Mr Justice Hadjianastassiou. after reviewing the English Case Law on the subject, held that the Bill of Lading is not in itself the contract between the shipowner and the shippers of goods though it isan excellent evidence of its terms At ρ 467 he clearly adopted the Leduc s case and said «That was a case between shipowner and endorsee of the biil of lading,between whom itstermsareconclusive by virtue of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855 so that no evidence was admissible inthatcase tocontradictorvaryitsterms Between those parties thestatute makes itthe contract» 5 10 15 The law with regard to consignees/endorsees is well settled Therights tosue transferred totheendorsee/consignee arelimited to those under the contract, as expressed in the Bill of Lading Order 19 of the English Rules provides for pleading generally Rule 27 reads «27 The Court or a Judge may at any stage of the proceedings order tobe struck out or amendedany matter in any indorsement or pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action,and may in any such case, if 25 they or heshall thinkfit,orderthecostsof theapplicationto be paid as between solicitor and client» This is the rule on which the defendants-applicants rely upon, they seek to stnke out theparagraphs set out inthe Appendix to this Decision on the ground that they are unnecessary and they 30 tend to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of theaction They based this contentionon two legsThat the plaintiffs-respondents are consignees and their rights are those denved from theBill of Lading,and That no cause of action in tort can be raised against the 35 defendants by the consignees In thecourse of theaddress, learned counsel for theapplicants submittedthatnocause of action isdisclosed bytheseparagraphs 308 2 U 1C.L.R. Southfields Indus!, v.M.V. «Adriatic» K» StylianidesJ. The petition may be divided into two1.Aclaim forbreach of.contractofaffreightment, asevincedin the BillofLading; and , ' 2. A claim for fraud or misrepresentation exercised by 5 defendants 3, the agent of the defendants-applicants on the shipper, whoallegedly wasactingfortheshipment asagent of the present plaintiffs. Rule27ofOrder 19isageneral provision forenforcing therules setout inOrder 19.Itsambit of operation islimited. 10 The Court refrains from dictating to parties how they should frame theircase.Theparties,however,mustnotoffend againstthe rulesof pleadings, which are laid down bythe law. Bowen. L.J.,in Knowles v.Roberts,38 Ch. D p. 270, said- 15„ 20 «Therulethatthe Court isnottodictatetopartieshow they should frame their case, is one that ought always to be preserved sacred. But that rule is, of course, subject to this modification and limitation, that the parties must not offend against the rules of pleading which have been laid down by the law; and if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary, and ittendsto prejudice, embarrass, and delay the trial of the action, it then becomes a pleading which is beyond hisright». Wholly immaterial matter which raises irrelevant issues, which may involve expense, trouble and delay, are struck out, as they 25 will prejudice the fair trial of the action -(see Rassam v. Budge. [1893] 1 Q.B. 571; Liardet v. Hammond ElectricLight Co., 31 W.R. 710; Mudge v.'Penge U.D.C., 85 L.J. Ch. 814, C.A.; 32 T.L.R. 354, 417;Davy v.Garrett.7Ch. D.473). Applicants' counsel argued that the paragraphs sought to be 30 struckoutdidnotdiscloseacauseofactionand further thatacause of action in tort could not be joined in this action, raised by a consignee of the Billof Lading. The general practice in England is: such applications to be based onboth Order 19,rule27 andOrder25,rule4,ifthe matter 35 does not require careful consideration and inquiry, but it can be disposed rather summarily. 309 <f Stylianides J. Southfields Indust. v.M.V. «Adriatica K»

(1989)Order 25, rule 4reads:«25.4.The Court oraJudge may order anypleadingto be struckout,onthegroundthatitdisclosesnoreasonable cause of action or answer, and in any such case or in case of the action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court or a Judge may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered accordingly, asmay bejust». 5 Order25abolished demurrersandsubstituted amore summary process for getting rid of pleadings which show no reasonable 10 cause of action or deffence. InHubbuck &Sons v. Wilkinson[1895-9] AllE.R. Rep.244,it wassaid atp.247:«Theapplication ismade under R.S.C.,Ord. 25,r.

1. Order 25 abolished demurrers, and substituted a more summary 15 processforgettingridofpleadingswhichshowno reasonable cause of action or defence. Two courses are open to a defendant who wishes to raise the question whether, assuming a statement of claim to be proved, it entitles the plaintiff torelief.Onemethod istoraisethequestionoflawas 20 directed by Ord. 25,r.2;the other istoapply tostrikeout the statement of claim under Ord. 25, r.
2. The first method is appropriate to cases requiring argument and careful consideration. The second and more summary procedure is onlyappropriate tocaseswhichareplainand obvious,sothat 25 anymasterorjudgecansayatoncethatthestatementofclaim asitstandsisinsufficient, even ifproved, toentitlethe plaintiff to what he asks.The useoftheexpression, 'reasonable cause of action' in r. 4, shows that the summary procedure there introduced isonly intended tobehad recoursetoinplain and 30 obvious cases». This was repeated by the Court of Appeal in Kemsley v. Foot [1951] 1AllE.R. 331;p.333,where itwassaid:«The type of case appropriate for application under these rules was considered, among other cases,in London Corpn. 35 v. Homer and Hubbuck & Sons v. Wilkinson, Heywood & Clark,a decision of this court. These cases are referred to in the ANNUAL PRACTICE under R.S.C., Ord. 25, r.4 and counsel for the plaintiff at one time submitted that sostrick a principle did not apply to R.S.C., Ord. 19, r.
3. An 40 310 1C.L.R. 5 10 Southfields Indust. v. M.V. «Adriatica K» StylianidesJ. examination of the latter case makes it, I think, clear that, although theapplication, ashere,wasunderboth rules,itwas R.S.C.. Ord. 19.r.27, that was substantially in question. The effect of the cases isaccurately summarised in the ANNUAL PRACTICE, and ! think applies toboth rules.Theyshould be appliedonlyinplainand obviouscases,and,ifthereisapoint oflawwhich requires seriousdiscussion, an objection should be taken on the pleadings and the point set down for argument under R.S.C., Ord. 25, r.
4. Counsel for the third and fourth defendants relied on these cases,buthe delivered a full argumenton themerits,towhichcounselfortheplaintiff replied.The court must, ofcourse,go intothe meritstosome extenttoseewhetherthepointisoneforseriousdiscussion». Astatement ofclaimisembarrassingifitraisesaclaimwhich the 15 plaintiff isnot entitled tomake -[Knowlesv.Roberts, (supra)). Allegations ina petition, which, even ifproved, do not disclose a cause of action inlaw,arestruck out under Order 25, rule 4and Order 19,rule27.Itisnotamatterofdiscretion,asitisnotrightto callupon the defendant tojustify a plea which discloses no cause 20 ofaction -{Willoughbyv.Eckstein [1936] 1 AllE.R. 650).. The plaintiffs-respondents as consignees under the Bill of Ladinghavetheirrightsincontract,includingtherighttosueforan antecedent tort, which are given to them by virtue of the provisions of the Billsof Lading Act, 1855 -{Margarine Union v. 25 Cambay PrinceS.S. Co. [1967]3 AllE.R.775,p. 795 (lettersFG)). The averments in the paragraphssought tobe struck out differ from the contents ofthe Billof Lading. Itisalleged that theshipper wasthe agent of theplaintiffs, who 30 were actually the owners of the goods before their shipment and that defendants No. 3 (the agent of defendants-applicants) made representation not very consistent with the dates, etc., set out in the Billof Lading. The issue raised bythe part of the petition sought to be struck 35 out isnot within the compass of rule 27, Order 19.Thisisnot an application, eitherunderOrder25, rule4,orunder Order25, rule
5. The issue raised in the aforesaid paragraphs and in argument before me requiresconsideration and inquiry.Itisnotaplain case of not adhering tothe rulesset down in Order 19.Itisin effect a 311 StylianidesJ. Southfields Indust.v. M.V. «AdriaticaK»

(1989)demurrer that cannot be disposed in the present application as framed and in virtue of the rule relied upon. Forthe foregoing, the application isdismissed. Noorder as tocosts. Application dismissed. No order astocosts. APPENDIX (The paragraphs of the petition sought to be struck out are paragraphs 4,

1. 6, 8, 9, 10, 18 in whole and the parts of paragraphs 7 and 23 whichare inbrackets). 10 «
2. By an agreement made on or about 18.4.85 between the Plaintiffs and YioulaGlass-WorksS.A. of Athens (hereinafter called 'Yioula') by or through Yioula's agent in Cyprus Handsome Trading Ltd. acting for and on Yioula's behalf, Yioula agreed to manufacture and selltothePlaintiffs and the 15 Plaintiffs agreed to buy 400,000 pieces of 12oz white glass like bottles {hereinafter called 'the goods') cost and freight Limassol liner terms, for shipment from Piraeusto Limassol. The said agreement between the Plaintiffs and Yioula was made partly orallyandpartly inwriting. 20
3. Inperformance ofthe said agreement, the Plaintiffs had an irrevocable documentary established in favour of Yioula through the National Bank of Greece, S.A., Nicosia Branch

(525)on or about 24.4.

2. Itwasatermoftheagreementbetween thePlaintiffs and 25 Yioula that the goodsshould bedelivered tothe Plaintiffs not later than 21.7.85 asthey wouldbe needed for the Plaintiffs' manufacturing purposes on 22.7.
4. (Inperformance ofthe saidagreement)Yioula delivered on 15.7.85apartof thegoods*">theDefendants 3, whowere 30 acting on their own account and/or for and on behalf of defendant and/or her owners for carriage on Defendant 1 from PiraeustoLimassolon 16.7.85,(informing Defendants3 that shipment was urgent both for themselves and the Plaintiffs for and on whose behalf the goods were being 35 shipped. Defendants 3 thereupon informed Yioulathat there 312 5 1C.L.R. Southfields Indusl. v,M.V. «Adrtatica K» StylianidesJ. was a delay and Defendant 1 would not leave Piraeus for Limassol until 17.7.85). 5 10
5. On 17.7.85 Defendants 3 informed Yioula that Defendant 1would not set sail for Limasol until 19.7.85 and represented to Yioula thai itwould proceed from Piraeus to Limassol on that day and with all convenient and/or reasonable dispatch and would be atLimassol on 21.7.85.In reliance upon the said representations and acting upon the faith and truthofthesameand induced therebyYioulaagreed with Defendants 3 to ship all the Plaintiffs' order which was ready by then for carriage from Piraeus to Limassol and allowed Defendant 1to load the said goods.
6. The Plaintiffs have since discovered and the fact isthat thesaid representations were untrue. 15
7. Defendants 3 made the said representations fraudulently and eitherwellknowing thattheywerefalse and untrueorrecklesslynotcaringwhethertheyweretrueor false. 18.On orabout 22.7.85Yioula learned from Defendants 3 that Defendant 1had notsetsail for Limassol on 19.7.85and 20 was still at Piraeus.' Defendants 3 assured them and/or undertook thatDefendant 1 would leavedirectlyfor Limassol on 23.7.
8. 25 30
9. The plaintiffs saythatifDefendant 1 had proceeded on 19.7.85 and/or with all convenient and/or reasonable dispatch aswasexpressly and/or impliedly agreed inthebills of lading (and/or represented and/or undertaken by Defendants 3 and/or otherwise), Defendant 1 would have arrived at Limassol on orabout 21.7.85 and that the delayof 12 days was wrongful and/or unjustifiable and/or unreasonable and/or in breach of contract and/or representation and/or undertaking». 313