Per Lord Mance

Loss suffered by the ship-owners was not caused by compliance with the charterers' instructions to load cargo, but it was caused by the fact that the charter was at an end

Although it was true that no cargo would have been on board but for charterers' instructions but such fact was not the test of the proximate or effective cause of loss

General context of the charter-party also supported a conclusion that the express "indemnity clause" provided therein, was inapt to apply

Allowing ship-owners' claim on the basis of "indemnity clause" would stretch the application of the express charter indemnity without justification, without regard to the potential consequences (including the uncertainty or certainty of ever more ambitious claims) and without need

Applying indemnity to the present case was unnecessary

Law was capable of dealing with the present situation in a more conventional way by imposing on charterers an obligation as bailors to reimburse the ship-owners as bailees for their time and expense spent in looking after the cargo prior to its discharge, and probably by also imposing on charterers an obligation in restitution in respect of any benefit they could be said to have had through the storage of the cargo on board the ship

Said remedies flowed either from the services rendered in such respect by the ship-owners under the compulsion of their legal obligations as bailees, or from the benefit received thereby by the charterers, but not from the express indemnity

Claim of ship-owners in the present case could succeed under the law of bailment

Appeal was allowed and order of High Court was restored accordingly.