On the particular facts, the court held that the defendants could not take advantage of the exception clause as the passenger ticket passed no benefit to servants or agents, neither expressly nor by implication.
[5] As a consequence of this decision, specially drafted Himalaya clauses benefiting stevedores and others began to be included in bills of lading.
Although the case does not specifically discuss vicarious liability, Denning LJ stated,[6] "the steamship company say that, as good employers, they will stand behind the master and boatswain and meet any damages and costs that may be awarded against them".
Although the decision in The Himalaya is clear and unambiguous, the reasoning (ratio decidendi) underpinning the case is still the subject of some debate.
[citation needed] The Himalaya decision itself has been partly superseded by legislation in the United Kingdom on two fronts: The following cases reveal how English common law has progressed since Adler v Dickson: The decision of the English courts has been generally accepted and adopted throughout the Commonwealth.