Baron Shipping Co Ltd (Baron) raised the defence of prescription against an action of negligence brought by Le Pelley in respect of a collision between Le Pelley's yacht and Baron's motor vessel in St Peter Port Harbour on 11 May 1994. Baron relied on s 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (Imp) (the 1911 Act), registered on the records of Guernsey on 18 January 1960. Section 9 of the 1911 Act provides that it is to 'extend throughout His Majesty's Dominions and to any territories under his protection', and thus was an Act of the Imperial Parliament applicable to Guernsey. Section 8 of the 1911 Act is consistent with, and gives effect to, art 7 of the Collision Convention 1910, which provides for a two-year limitation period for claims arising out of collisions.

Le Pelley argued that this provision was repealed by the Law Reform (Tort) (Guernsey) Law 1979 (the 1979 Law), which provides in s 4(1): 'Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment or any rule of law, an action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.' Section 19(1) provides: 'In this Law, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectfully assigned to them, that is to say:- "enactment" includes any enactment of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.' The Royal Court found in favour of Le Pelley. Baron appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal allowed. The action will be remitted to the Royal Court for the determination of all outstanding issues.

Section 8 of the 1911 Act has been repealed in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (UK) (the 1995 Act), but by s 315 of the 1995 Act, it extends only to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Section 8 of the 1911 Act therefore remains in force in Guernsey, and no doubt in other dependencies of the Crown, subject to the arguments raised in respect of the 1979 Law. By s 190 of the 1995 Act, a two-year limitation period is retained, no doubt reflecting the continuing international treaty obligations undertaken by the Crown. There are substantial differences of detail, in that, eg, the wide discretion given by the proviso in the case of the 1911 Act is narrowed to the taking into account of only certain specific circumstances upon the granting of an extension, but the two-year period is retained.

The judgment of the Court below, which contains no reference to authority, does not make it clear whether the Bailiff was treating the 1979 Law as expressly or impliedly repealing the provisions of the 1911 Act. In this jurisdiction it is permissible to refer to the travaux préparatoires in the interpretation of a law. In these, there is no reference to the 1911 Act or its subject matter. Indeed, the stated objective appears to have been to bring the law of this Island into line with that in England. In these circumstances the Court can only find that there has been an express repeal if it is satisfied that the words used can have no other meaning. On that approach the Court would have to be driven to find that such a repeal was provided for, despite the consequent departure from treaty obligations undertaken by the Crown, and owed by this Island as a dependent territory. The Court finds that there was no express repeal of the 1911 Act.

As to an implied repeal, neither the phraseology used in the two provisions in question nor the surrounding circumstances lead the Court to the conclusion that the later of the two provisions is to be treated as so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the earlier one as to constitute an implied repeal. Reference has already been made to the terms of the treaty obligations undertaken by the Crown and owed (among others) by the Bailiwick of Guernsey and to the recognition of those obligations in the title of, and recitals to, the 1911 Act. To the preference of the particular act of legislation over the general, is further to be added the presumption that the legislature (in this case the States) does not intend to act in breach of public international law. An intention to bring about the breach of treaty obligations owed by the Bailiwick is something which there is no reason to impute to the States in this matter.

There was neither an express nor an implied repeal of s 8 of the 1911 Act, which remains in force in this Island.