ABSTRACT
The courts extended the rule in Tulk v Moxhay to personal property, for example, a ship. In The Strathcona (1926), the plaintiffs had chartered The Strathcona for certain months each year. The ship was sold to the defendant who refused to allow the plaintiffs to use the ship. The plaintiffs sought an injunction on the ground that the doctrine in Tulk v Moxhay should be extended from land to ships. The court granted an injunction. This decision was criticised in Port Line Ltd v Ben Line Ltd (1958) where a ship chartered to the plaintiffs was sold to the defendants. The ship was requisitioned during the Suez war, and compensation was paid to the defendants. This compensation was claimed by the plaintiffs. Held-even if The Strathcona case was rightly decided, it could not be applied in this case as (a) the defendants were not in breach of any duty and (b) the plaintiffs had sought not an injunction but financial compensation, which was outside Tulk v Moxhay. The decision in The Strathcona has been widely criticised because: • a contract of hire creates personal, not proprietary
rights in the hired object;
• the retention of land which can benefit from the covenant is a necessary condition of the doctrine in Tulk v Moxhay.
