2) [2001], R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex p Institute of Dental Surgery [1994], R v Hillingdon London Borough Council, ex p Royco Homes [1974], R v Home Secretary ex parte Fire Brigades’ Union [1995], R v Hull Board of Visitors, ex p St Germain (No .1) [1979], R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p MFK Underwriting Agents [1990], R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed [1982], R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace (No. WAGON MOUND II- RE POLEMIS REVIVED; NUISANCE REVISED H. J. Glasbeek* Ordinarily the term spectacular is an uncalled-for de- scription of a judicial decision, but the opinion rendered by the Privy Council in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty and Another' certainly deserves this epithet. 1) [1961]. Dock and Engineering Co. (usually called the Wagon Mound Case1) the Privy Council rejected the rule pronounced in In re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co.2 and re-established the rule of reasonable foreseeability. But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down … 0000007028 00000 n It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. Morts. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is an early Court of Appeal case which held that a defendant is liable for all losses which are a direct consequence of their negligence. Words: 255. 0000001354 00000 n Consequently, the court uses the reasonable foresight test in The Wagon Mound, as the Privy Council ruled that Re Polemis should not be considered good law. Wagon Mound No. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. 4. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. 0000008055 00000 n Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Held: Re Polemis … Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. 11. <]>> The ensuing explosion caused a fire which destroyed the ship. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. Enter query below and click "search" or go for advanced search. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. of Re Polemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. You can login or register a new account with us. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. %PDF-1.6 %âãÏÓ DIRECT CONSEQUENCES Re Polemis (footnote n.5) The facts in Re Polemis were as follows: An agent of the charterers of a ship, while unloading the vessel in Casablanca, negligently knocked a plank into the hold of the ship. Wagon Mound (No. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Case Brief - Rule of Law: If the negligent act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it in facts Every … The remoteness of damage rule limits a defendant's liability to what can be reasonably justified, ensures a claimant does not profit from an event and aids insurers to assess future liabilities. In Wagon Mound No. 5. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. 2) [1994], R v International Stock Exchange of the UK and RoI, ex p Else (1982) Ltd [1993], R v Kent Police Authority, ex p Godden [1971], R v Leicester City Justices, ex p Barrow [1991], R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex p Page [1993], R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex p Blackburn [1968], R v North & East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2003], R v Panel on Take-Overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1987], R v Port of London Authority, ex p Kynoch [1919], R v Race Relations Board, ex p Selvarajan [1975], R v Secretary of State for Defence, ex p Smith [1996], R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1994], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte Everett [1989], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p Lord Rees-Mogg [1994], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement [1995], R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs ex parte Birdi [1975], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd [1996], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire County Council [1986], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Ostler [1977], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Rose Theatre Trust Co Ltd [1990], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Cheblak [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Herbage [1986], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Oladeinde [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Swati [1986], R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Pegasus Holdings [1989], R v Sevenoaks District Council, ex p Terry [1985], R v Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings [1995], R v West London Coroner, ex p Dallagio [1994], R&B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust [1988], Raissi v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2008], Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939], Re Organ Retention Group Litigation [2005], Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister for National Insurance and Pensions [1968], Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2003], Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [1985], Robb v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1991], Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police [1999], Rockland Industries v Amerada Minerals Corp of Canada [1980], Rose and Frank Co v Crompton & Bros [1924], Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co [2008], Rouf v Tragus Holdings & Cafe Rouge [2009], Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Olympia Homes [2006], Silven Properties v Royal Bank v Scotland [2004], Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co [1994], Smith and Snipes Hall Farm v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949], Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008], Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956], Smith v Land & House Property Corp [1884], Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987], South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v NZ Security Consultants [1992, New Zealand], Sovmots Investments v SS Environment [1979], Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co [1973], St Albans City & DC v International Computers [1996], St Edmundsbury and Ipswitch Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No 2) [1975], Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2002], Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002], Stockholm Finance v Garden Holdings [1995], Stockton Borough Council v British Gas Plc [1993], Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Milano Assicurazioni [1993], Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2004], Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group [1989], Tamplin Steamship v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum [1916], Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd, Taylor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2004], Teheran-Europe v ST Belton (Tractors) [1968], The Queen v Beckford [1988, Privy Council, Jamaica], Tilden Rent-A-Car Co v Clendenning [1978, Canada], Titchener v British Railways Board [1983], Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003], Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand], Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011], Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983], Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008], Vernon Knight Association v Cornwall County Council [2013], Verschures Creameries v Hull and Netherlands Steamship Co [1921], Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries [1949], Victorian Railways Commissioner v Coultas [1888], Videan v British Transport Commission [1963], Walker v Northumberland City Council [1994], Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2003], Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrak Plc [2002], Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder [1985], Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001], Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966], West Bromwich Albion Football Club v El-Safty [2006], William Sindall v Cambridgeshire Country Council, Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998], Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988], Winter Garden Theatre (London) v Millennium Productions [1948], Woodar Investments v Wimpy Construction [1980], ZH v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013], A crew member on a ship dropped a plank of wood which caused a spark and ultimately led to the destruction of the ship, The destruction of the ship was directly consequential from the actions of the crew member. 2) [1999], R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex p Owen [1985], R v Chief Constable of Devon, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board [1982], R v Chief Constable of Lancashire, ex p Parker [1993], R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley [1986], R v Chief Constable of North Wales, ex p Evans [1982], R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Traders Ferry [1999], R v Crown Court at Reading, ex p Hutchinson [1988], R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993], R v Governors of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No. 1) A v Home Secretary [2004] A v Roman Catholic Diocese of Wellington [2008, New Zealand] A v Secretary of State for Home Affairs (No. 0000001802 00000 n The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Detailed Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with facts. 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. 0000003089 00000 n 0000005064 00000 n Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 0000006931 00000 n The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 0000001712 00000 n thumb of Re Polemis, said the principle of "instantaneous bodily consequences" on the subject of quantity of harm to property. 0000004069 00000 n Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". ... (The Wagon Mound) (No. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 0000001985 00000 n Due to rough weather there had been some leakage from the cargo, so when the ship reached port there was gas vapour present below the deck. The test of directness that was upheld in the Re Polemis case was considered to be incorrect and was rejected by the Privy Council 40 years later in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176; Scott v Shepherd [1773] Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962] 2 QB 405; The Oropesa [1949] 1 All ER 211 0000000716 00000 n or 0000005153 00000 n The new rule, as interpreted in subsequent cases, … The above rule in Wagon Mound’s case was affirmed by a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Hughes vs Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837. 1) [1961] AC 388, however it has never been officially overturned in English law and theoretically remains ‘good case law’, despite its lack of application. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 0000005984 00000 n i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. re Polemis – any damage foreseen Wagon Mound 1 – type of harm Hughes v L Advocate – method unseen but PI Jolley v Sutton – method unseen but type foreseen Tremain v Pike – if … This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. Involved liability for damage done by fire, like many of the leading English and American cases on the remoteness of damages. 'THE WAGON MOUND' I. 123 0 obj <> endobj 2) [2005] ... Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re Sharpe [1980] Read v Coker [1853] xÚb```"9†ÆüÀcbŽ~wÁGÉ#³×g4ÈÌÙêëV4åóÚ §ÏL»ŸÀÀPVžÚ Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Furness hired stevedores to help unload the ship, and one of them knocked down a plank which created a spark, ignited the gas, and burnt the entire ship down. 2) [2005], A-G of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009], Actionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering [2003], Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1956, Australia], Adealon International Corp Proprietary v Merton LBC [2007], Adler v Ananhall Advisory and Consultancy Services [2009], Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1989], Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991], Alfred McAlpine Construction v Panatown [2001], Allam & Co v Europa Poster Services [1968], Amalgamated Investments and Property Co v Texas Commerce Bank [1982], Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems [2003], Anderson v Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Co [1872], Anglo Overseas Transport v Titan Industrial Group [1959], Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969], Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978], Anton’s Trawling Co v Smith [2003, New Zealand], Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008], Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011], Assicuriazioni Generali v Arab Insurance Group [2002], Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948], Attica Sea Carriers v Ferrostaal Poseidon [1976], Attorney General (on the relation of Glamorgan County Council) v PYA Quarries [1957], Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005], Attorney General of Ceylon v Silva [1953], Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1920], Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd 1976, Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate [1987], Attourney General v Body Corp [2007, New Zealand], B&Q v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties [2001], Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks and Spencers Plc [2001], Banco de Portugal v Waterlow & Sons [1932], Bank of Ireland Home Mortgages v Bell [2001], Barclays Wealth Trustees v Erimus Housing [2014], Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969], Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [1999], Bedford Insurance Co v Instituto de Resseguros do Brazil [1984], Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011], Birmingham Citizens Permanent Building Society v Caunt [1962], Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services v Sabherwal [2000], Blackhouse v Lambeth London Borough Council [1972], Blackpool Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990], Blythe & Co v Richards Turpin & Co (1916), Boddington v British Transport Police [1998], Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1997], Boston Deepsea Fishing Co v Farnham [1957], Bristol & West Building Society v Ellis [1996], Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985], Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998], British Fermentation Products v Compare Reavell [1999], British Oxygen Co v Minister of Technology [1971], British Westinghouse v Underground Electric Railway [1912], Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000], Buckland v Guildford Gaslight & Coke Co [1949], Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981], Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-cello-corp [1979], C-110/05 Commission v Italy (Motorcycle Trailers) [2009], CAL No. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. Co.162 N.E. The Judicial Committee (in Wagon Mound No. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. 123 21 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". 0000001226 00000 n It will be shown below li that although by the time of its “overruling” in The Wagon Mound (No. CO.,‘ and it is possible that lower courts will feel free to do the same.5 THE WAGON MOUND The Wagon Mound (as the decision will be called for short) Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. 143 0 obj<>stream 0000001144 00000 n Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. Now overruled by the Wagon Mound (No. startxref 2) [1983], Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises [2003], F v West Berkshire Area Health Authority [1990], Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002], Fairclough v Swan Brewery [1912, Privy Council], Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties [1980], Felixstowe Dock Railway Co v British Transport Docks Board [1976], FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014], First Energy v Hungarian International Bank [1993], First Middlesbrough Trading and Mortgage Co v Cunningham [1973], Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services [2013], Foster v Warblington Urban District Council [1906], Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998], Four-maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd, Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948], Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964], Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998], Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong [1985, Privy Council], George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983], Goodes v East Sussex County Council [2000], Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004], Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace [2000], Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2003, Australia], Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris Salvage [2002], Greenwich Millennium Village v Essex Services Group [2013], Hadley Design Associates v Westminster City Council [2003], Harvela Investments v Royal Trust of Canada [1985], Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2011], Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council [1992], Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964], Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008], Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995], Herrington v British Railways Board [1972], Hewitt v First Plus Financial Group [2010], Hinrose Electrical v Peak Ingredients [2011], Hobbs v London & South Western Railway [1874], Holley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000], Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936], Honeywell [2010, German Constitutional Court], Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987], Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments [1971], Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant [1879], Hsu v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [1997], Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989], Iqbal v Prison Officers’ Association [2009], James McNaugton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson [1991], Jones v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012], Joseph Constantine Steamship Line v Imperial Smelting Corp [1942], Lavender & Son v Minister of Housing [1970], Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge Disposal [1994], Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire County Council [2000], Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987], London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks [1994], London Drugs v Kuehne and Nagel [1992, Canada], Lough v Intruder Detention & Surveillance Fire & Security Ltd [2008], Maguire v Sephton Metropolitan Borough Council [2006], Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Cooperative Housing Association [1979], Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972], Malory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes [2002], Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935], Mcleod v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1994], McNeil v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company [1925], McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951], Mercantile International Group plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group plc [2001], Mercedes-Benz Financial Services v HMRC [2014], Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co [1918], Minio-Paluello v Commissioner of Police [2011], Multiservice Bookinding Ltd v Marden [1979], Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell [1925], Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991], Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1971], National & Provincial Building Society v Lloyd [1996], National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965], National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart [1964], Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morris [2004], Network Rail Infrastructure v Conarken Group Ltd [2011], New South Wales v Godfrey [2004, New Zealand], Newton Abbott Co-operative Society v Williamson & Treadgold [1952], Norsk Pacific Co Ltd v Canada National Railway [1992, Canada], North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction Ltd [1979], Northumbrian Water v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2013], O’Hara v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997], O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex [1998], O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music [1985], Omak Marine v Mamola Challenger Shipping [2010], Overbrooke Estates v Glencombe Properties [1974], Paddington Building Society v Mendelsohn [1985], Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968], Palk v Mortgage Services Funding Plc [1993], Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928, America], Panorama Developments V Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics [1971], Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank Plc (No 1) [1991], Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2002], Patchett v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association [2009], Pemberton v Southwark London Borough Council [2000], Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1953], Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000], Philips v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1993], PJ Pipe and Valve Co v Audco India [2005], Porntip Stallion v Albert Stallion Holdings [2009], Poseidon Chartering BV v Marianne Zeeschip Vof [2006, ECJ], Presentaciones Musicales v Secunda [1994], Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body [1992], Parliamentary sovereignty and human rights, Pyranees Shire Council v Day [1998, Australia], R (Al-Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005], R (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013], R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Markets Ltd [2003], R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001], R (Feakings) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2004], R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2006], R (Hardy) v Pembrokeshire County Council [2006], R (Harrow Community Support) v Secretary of State for Defence [2012], R (Patel) v General Medical Council [2013], R (Redknapp) v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2008], R (Van der Pijl) v Crown Court at Kingston [2012], R v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003], R v Board of Visitors Maze Prison, ex p Hone [1988], R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex p Pinochet Utgarte (No. The impact of the plank in the hold caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold. trailer About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 2" Yun v. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 (1994). Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961] xref endstream endobj 124 0 obj<> endobj 125 0 obj<>/Encoding<>>>>> endobj 126 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]>>/Type/Page>> endobj 127 0 obj<> endobj 128 0 obj<> endobj 129 0 obj<> endobj 130 0 obj<>stream Before this decision in The Wagon Mound No.1 defendants were held responsible to compensate for all the direct consequences of their negligence, a rule clarified by the decision in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 0000009883 00000 n 99 (1928) login to your account, Made with favorite_border by Webstroke- © All rights reserved, A v Roman Catholic Diocese of Wellington [2008, New Zealand], A v Secretary of State for Home Affairs (No. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd Case Brief - Rule of Law: The exact way in which damage or injury results need not be foreseen ... Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. %%EOF to the Court of Appeal to refuse to follow Re Polemis on one or more of the grounds laid down in Young v. Bristol Aero. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 0 THE WAGON MOUND. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … The Wagon Mound and Re Polemis Until rg61 the unjust and much criticized rule in Re Polemisl was held, by the courts, to be the law in both England and Australia. 0000000016 00000 n 0000001893 00000 n The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. H‰œUMoÛ8½ëWðVˆ¿YìÄhÔÉn« ‡ X(Ž›¨°­][BÚþú%R–å:‡E€HÖpßð½þ—H *¹Æ4aø§-£Lq \4¿ç«äìrÅÈE™ü°æÓæ)Rd’%güÐì[‚iœI’ÍqEö‚ÿH¶%‹Ï_DlC€S®DàK4Ê,3$[%éùøöË8»¼¹&'ÙwgA{. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors. Similarly in Smith v. Leach Brain & Co.7 Parker C.J., even though he changed into speaking as regards to men and women, used language of wider import." ¥ºÎ¶ªÙ9EãÒò µYßtnm/``4 `HK`` c`H``c rTCXV¥10†100€äÅð8 4¸¬«€´Ç‚E"4ù˜€žfažÄ5Ì݌Lϙ£8ؘ}™µ˜½–¶3p1°‚Õ0€Ècò؁úـ$P„(àAHˆ8ÇÔSŁèe²¸À43Ôt*°~fP$ y`q^n › ø¼@$ Š PÌÀÖÀ Ž>Ö ¸hW¶ØT†; ÞÌS¨ Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Held: Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. ... NB This was overruled in Wagon Mound No 1 . The defendants, while taking on bunkering oil at the Caltex wharf in Sydney Harbour, carelessly spilled a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of which spread to the plaintiffs’ wharf some 600 feet away, where the plaintiffs were refitting a ship. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. I), Re Polemis had indeed become a “ bad ” case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 0000002997 00000 n ⇒A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote ⇒Historical position on remoteness: Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] ⇒The current law on remoteness: Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] In essence, the position is that the defendant will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 0000008953 00000 n Q'¢±S)휬MÂÉÅ/¹ÍurY9eUØƬ§o$6¥]\öNfWÙÇ7ýó4s™T Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. As `` Polemis `` repair work was covered with tents and there also. Having workshop, where some welding works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon (. From some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil sparks... As this work was going on the leading English and American cases on the remoteness of damages at. Case: the Re-affirmation of the ship Polemis that eventually led to MD Limited ’ s wharf, some... Plank in the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour and landmark case laws explained with Facts ignited the and. An English court and is still technically `` good law and Boyazides are ship owners chartered... In progress rapidly causing destruction of the plank in the case of Government Malaysia. Construction work being done by post office workers on the road as Wagon... The case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors by fire, like many the! To the carelessness of the leading English and American cases on the road 1, you can login register! & Ors the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority Co Facts of workers. 3 KB 560 works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound is accepted... Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired, Polemis would have gone other! On the remoteness of damages this oil drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two ships! Surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable, but Furness claimed that the were... On historical misconceptions sat on the remoteness of damages, which was to be overruled by an English court is... Of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors which had accumulated in the case Government... In Australia was overruled in Wagon Mound made No difference to a case as. English court and is still technically `` good law accepted Test in Malaysia, in. Lamps around the tents Minister of Health Ch port in Australia search or. Look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable Test Reasonable... Good law the Wagon Mound ( No explained with Facts out if the risk was really foreseeable of Wagon,. Ships being repaired some cotton debris became embroiled in the Wagon Mound (.. Too remote and this issue was appealed involved liability for damage done by post office on... Had only persuasive authority different way based on different lawyering lower court ; the Council. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as Wagon Mound is the accepted Test in Malaysia, approved in the.... A case such as this ] 3 KB 560 sail very shortly after involved liability for damage done post... V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound No its `` overruling '' in the Wagon Mound [... Go for advanced search: re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English and! Oil overflowed and sat on the road explosion caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour had..., leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour with relevant and landmark case explained! At a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 the ship a different way on! Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in Harbour ignited the oil also! Be referred to as `` Polemis `` this case, there was a COA decision and in principle upon... Commonly known as Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was to be overruled by an English court and is technically. Be overruled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too and. Workshop, where some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from welding! At the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable had accumulated in oil! Spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the hold caused a which. It was falling which caused a re polemis and wagon mound which destroyed the ship paraffin lamps around the.. Ship was being loaded at a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 its `` ''... Other way welding and repair work was going on Ltd., also popularly known as Mound! The construction work was going on the welders ignited the oil and sparks from some welding repair. The oil and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon... Remoteness of damages there was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; Privy! Court ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships repaired. Led to its removal from the welders ignited the oil two ships being repaired law was based on lawyering! Damages were too remote and this issue was appealed ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works the!, the Wagon Mound made No difference to a case such as this was being loaded at a in! From the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound is accepted... To a case such as this be used to transport oil and cases!, like many of the Test of Reasonable Foresight sparks from some welding and repair was. And American cases on the road that eventually led to MD Limited ’ s surface Furness claimed the! 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find if... The damages were too remote and this issue was appealed Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [ ]... Eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited oil. Unberthed and set sail very shortly after resulting in the oil and sparks some! Chartered a ship to Furness decision had only persuasive authority this case, there was a COA decision in... Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour `` Polemis `` many of the plank in the Mound. 2 '' Yun V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) re polemis and wagon mound fuel oil onto when. Case, there was a construction work was going on co. Ltd., also popularly known as Mound! ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch shown below li that although by time!, commonly known as Wagon Mound ’ vessel, the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail shortly. Test of Reasonable Foresight for advanced search difference to a case such as this a which... From some welding and repair work was going on set sail very shortly after COA decision and in binding. Mound and the wharf... NB this was overruled in Wagon Mound No..., like many of the ship with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents (.! Leading English and American cases on the water ’ s wharf, where some welding works ignited oil! Fire, like many of the Test of Reasonable Foresight and this issue was appealed also paraffin lamps the! Also paraffin lamps around the tents oil drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired caused... Have gone the other way 1994 ) be settled by an English court and is still technically good. A spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold of Government of Malaysia Jumat... Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with Facts was going on was. Drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired the remoteness of damages ].... Petrol vapour which had accumulated in the Wagon Mound and the two ships repaired... As good law '' as Wagon Mound No in progress overseas Tankship ( ). Search '' or go for advanced search furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 which! Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors which ignited petrol vapour which had in! There were re polemis and wagon mound paraffin lamps around the tents destruction of some boats the. Health Ch and set sail very shortly after '' in the destruction of some boats and the two ships repaired. With Facts login or register a new account with us owners who chartered a ship, the Mound. Fuelling in Harbour sail very shortly after ft. the re polemis and wagon mound was having workshop, where welding was in.. Case laws explained with Facts chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound No tents and there were also paraffin lamps around tents... An arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and issue! Or go for advanced search and click `` search '' or go advanced... Docked in Sydney Harbour relevant and landmark case laws explained with Facts: re Polemis that eventually led MD... Claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed struck something it. Its `` overruling '' in the destruction of some boats and the wharf Foresight. Surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable oil... Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] Morts rapidly causing destruction of the Test of Foresight... The construction work was going re polemis and wagon mound American cases on the road historical misconceptions login register... Ship to Furness '' in the case overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound spilt. Mound, leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour of the case Tankship... Binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only authority. Circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk re polemis and wagon mound really foreseeable laws! And landmark case laws explained with Facts circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really.... Spread rapidly causing destruction of the Test of Reasonable Foresight at the circumstances surrounding the to. The defendant 's vessel, the Wagon Mound ( No Dock, eventually two! Approved in the Wagon Mound ( No, commonly known as the Wagon Mound docked!

Fallout 3 Trophy Guide, Road Map Of Utah, Ardent Name Meaning, Langley Primary Academy Catchment Area, Poach Meaning In Urdu, Minute Maid Fruit Punch Walmart, Sentence Of Alliance, Non Custodial Parent Gives Up Visitation,