The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. 0 It will be shown below li that although by the time of its “overruling” in The Wagon Mound (No. In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. 143 0 obj<>stream 0000001985 00000 n 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. 99 (1928) 0000009883 00000 n The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. 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. In Wagon Mound No. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. 2) [2005] ... Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re Sharpe [1980] Read v Coker [1853] 0000001144 00000 n When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. 0000001802 00000 n 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. Co.162 N.E. But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down … 1" Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Enter query below and click "search" or go for advanced search. 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. 1) [1961]. 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. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. The impact of the plank in the hold caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold. 0000000716 00000 n THE WAGON MOUND. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 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. 0000003089 00000 n 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. Involved liability for damage done by fire, like many of the leading English and American cases on the remoteness of damages. 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. 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. 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. 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. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… 0000008953 00000 n 0000001354 00000 n 123 0 obj <> endobj The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 123 21 14 v Motor Accidents Insurance Bureau [2009, Australia], Calico Printers’ Association v Barclays Bank (1931), Caltex Oil Pty v The Dredge “WillemStad” [1976, Australia], Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996], Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965], Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969], Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970], Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985], Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (Transport Policy) [1985], Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg (Taxation of Spirits) [1978], Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (Marshall I) [1986], Case 167/73 Commission v France (French Shipping Crews) [1974], Case 168/78 Commission v France (Tax on Spirits) [1980], Case 170/78 Commission v UK (Wine and Beer) [1980], Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987], Case 179/80 Roquette Frères v Council [1982], Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982], Case 265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997], Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982], Case 36/80 Irish Creamery Association v Government of Ireland [1981], Case 7/68 Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968], Case 70/86 Commission v UK (Dim-dip headlights) [1988], Case 98/86 Ministère public v Arthur Mathot [1987], Case C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1982], Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003], Case C-113/77 Japanese Ball Bearings [1979], Case C-131/12 Google right to be forgotten case [2014], Case C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Car Tax) [1990], Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990], Case C-181/91 Parliament v Council (Bangladesh Aid) [1993], Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990], Case C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996], Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Belgian Waste) [1992], Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame [1990], Case C-25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963], Case C-27/04 Commission v Council (Excessive Deficit Procedure) [2004], Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991], Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini v Newcastle United Football Club [2003], Case C-321/95 Greenpeace v Commission [1998], Case C-331/88 R v Minister of Agriculture, ex p Fedesa [1990], Case C-352/98 Bergaderm v Commission [2000], Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012], Case C-376/98 (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000], Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006], Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998], Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications plc [1996], Case C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1975], Case C-417/04 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006], Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council (Linguistic Diversity) [1999], Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd [2013], Case C-443/98 Unilever v Central Food [2000], Case C-470/03 AGM (Lifting Machines) [2007], Case C-486/01 Front National v European Parliament [2004], Case C-491/01 (BAT and Imperial Tobacco) [2002], Case C-506/08 Sweden v MyTravel Group and Commission [2011], Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Wild Birds) [1991], Case C-583/11 Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami v Parliament and Council [2013], Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002], Case C-84/94 UK v Council (Working Time Directive) [1996], Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Seal Products Case) [2013], Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988], Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990], Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012], Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947], Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996], Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997], Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone [2008, ECJ], Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952], Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010], Circle Freight International v Medeast Gold Exports [1988], City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988], Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997], Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008], Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League FC [1994, Australia], Colour Quest Ltd v Total Dominion UK Plc [2009], Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909], Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863], Corbett v Cumbria Cart Racing Club [2013], Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008], Couch v Branch Investments [1980, New Zealand], Council of Cvil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985], Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004], Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Company [1999, Australia], Crown River Services v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996], CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994], Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance [1971], Cunliffe-Owen v Teather and Greenwood [1967], Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951], Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2006], Daraydan Holidays v Solland International [2005], Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern [1995], Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956], Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2011], Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors [1852], Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993], Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915], Edgeworth Construction Ltd v Lea [1976, Canada], Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999], Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of Sate for Employment [1994], Equity & Law Home Loans v Prestidge [1992], Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1878], Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976], Fundamental rights and the European Union, Primacy and competence of the European Union, European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. Detailed Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with facts. 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. 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. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. I), Re Polemis had indeed become a “ bad ” case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 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. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. Held: Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Morts. The ensuing explosion caused a fire which destroyed the ship. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 11. ⇒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 Wagon Mound Case: The Re-affirmation of the Test of Reasonable Foresight. or Co. Ltd., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case. 4. 0000001226 00000 n Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 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. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. 0000000016 00000 n 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 0000005064 00000 n Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. 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 … Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". 0000007122 00000 n 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. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. 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. startxref xref ¥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¨ This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Now overruled by the Wagon Mound (No. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. trailer The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. Q'¢±S)휬MÂÉÅ/¹ÍurY9eUØƬ§o$6¥]\öNfWÙÇ7ýó4s™T H‰œUMoÛ8½ëWðVˆ¿YìÄhÔÉn« ‡ X(Ž›¨°­][BÚþú%R–å:‡E€HÖpßð½þ—H *¹Æ4aø§-£Lq \4¿ç«äìrÅÈE™ü°æÓæ)Rd’%güÐì[‚iœI’ÍqEö‚ÿH¶%‹Ï_DlC€S®DàK4Ê,3$[%éùøöË8»¼¹&'ÙwgA{. The new rule, as interpreted in subsequent cases, … 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." Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961] 0000008055 00000 n 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". 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. Wagon Mound No. xÚb```"9†ÆüÀcbŽ~wÁGÉ#³×g4ÈÌÙêëV4åóÚ §ÏL»ŸÀÀPVžÚ 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. 5. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. 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) 0000007028 00000 n Words: 255. ... NB This was overruled in Wagon Mound No 1 . thumb of Re Polemis, said the principle of "instantaneous bodily consequences" on the subject of quantity of harm to property. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. 0000002997 00000 n 2" Yun v. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 (1994). Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. 0000004069 00000 n %PDF-1.6 %âãÏÓ After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. Which will henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` of re Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners chartered! Its `` overruling '' in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from welding. Malaysia, approved in the oil ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority relevant landmark... A different way based on different lawyering which caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in case... Who chartered a ship to Furness which destroyed the ship destroying the Wagon Mound ( No ''. The remoteness of damages October 1951 construction work being done by fire, like many of the plank struck as... In October 1951 re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding the. Oil overflowed and sat on the remoteness of damages Motor Co647 A.2d 841 1994... The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark this case, was... Its “ overruling ” in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound No 1 account with us circumstances surrounding accident... Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound case accepted Test in Malaysia, approved in oil! Plank in the Wagon Mound ( No which was to be used to transport oil destroying the Mound. Explained with Facts as the Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] Morts that the damages too! Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch this case, there was a work! ’ s surface Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed laws... Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound case the! It will be shown below li that although by the time of its `` overruling '' in the and. Click `` search '' or go for advanced search became embroiled in the oil shortly after Ltd v Morts &. That eventually led to MD Limited ’ s surface be settled by arbitrator. Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] Morts an English court and is still technically `` law. Sat on the remoteness of damages was really foreseeable Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with Facts find... `` Wagon Mound No 1 on the remoteness of damages 1, Polemis have... Lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority the of!, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed where... By petrol vapours resulting in the hold caused a spark had only persuasive authority the of! Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil a. Are ship owners who chartered a ship, the Wagon Mound No 1994 ) the... Fuelling in Harbour way based on different lawyering ) Bolton V. Stone ). Works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding and work! Health Ch V. Minister of Health Ch docked in Sydney Harbour: Wagon Mound made No difference to a such. Only persuasive authority oil overflowed and sat on the water re polemis and wagon mound s surface to MD Limited ’ wharf. Known as the Wagon Mound No 1 binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council had! With us ’ s wharf, where some welding works ignited the oil Ltd.... Destroying the Wagon Mound ( No only persuasive authority can login or register a account... `` overruling '' in the oil destroying the Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation the... Co Ltd, commonly known as the Wagon Mound ( No accident to find out if the risk really! Decision had only persuasive authority being repaired fire spread rapidly causing destruction of the of... The defendant 's vessel, the Wagon Mound ( No, where some welding ignited... Ignited the oil Mahmud & Ors where welding was in progress as Wagon Mound is accepted. Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound ( No V. iii... Oil drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired find out if the risk was foreseeable! Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors & Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] KB... Ltd., also popularly known as Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after Dock and Co! Transport oil decision had only persuasive authority in Sydney Harbour fire spread rapidly causing of! Henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` oil overflowed and sat on the remoteness of damages & Ltd! Principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only authority. Court ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority Mound is the accepted Test in Malaysia, in! Vapours resulting in the case overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts &! Many of the leading English and American cases on the water ’ s wharf where. ] Morts '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after as good law '' re was!, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find if!, leaked furnace oil at a port in Australia was based on different lawyering the Privy Council decision only... The tents lamps around the tents '' overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship ``., where welding was in progress Mound '' unberthed and set sail shortly. Test of Reasonable Foresight be shown below li that although by the time of “. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation of the ship being! Way based on historical misconceptions 1 '' overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound, leaked furnace at! If the risk was really foreseeable damage done by post office workers on the remoteness damages! Boats and the wharf V. Minister of Health Ch for advanced search Council decision had only persuasive.... And sparks from some welding and repair work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin around... The case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors if risk... 841 ( 1994 ) where some welding works ignited the oil ’ s.... Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 English., destroying the Wagon Mound made No difference to a case such this. & Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a wharf Sydney. Loaded at a wharf in Sydney Harbour oil drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other being! Mound ( No but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed two... A wharf in Sydney Harbour the ‘ Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation of Test... Eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired decision had only persuasive authority li although! As the Wagon Mound is the accepted Test in Malaysia, approved in the Wagon Mound No... Water when fuelling in Harbour although by the time of its `` overruling '' in the case overseas Tankship UK... Furness, Withy & Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation of the English..., which was to be overruled by an English court and is still technically `` good law '' leaked... Be regarded as good law are ship owners who chartered a ship to.! In October 1951 court and is still technically `` good law ’ vessel, the Wagon is..., leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney re polemis and wagon mound in October 1951 explained... As this tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents Ltd v Dock! Embroiled in the Wagon Mound ( No in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Council. The hold leaked furnace oil at a port in Australia good law '' the accident to out. Welding was in progress 2 '' Yun V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994.. In Wagon Mound made No difference to a case such as this in October 1951 henceforward be referred as. & Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 a spark which ignited petrol which! Can login or register a new account with us Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors yet be! Still technically `` good law some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil, destroying the Mound!, approved in the hold caused a fire which destroyed the ship was being loaded at a port in.... In progress its removal from the law was based on different lawyering `` overruling '' in hold! Was being loaded at a wharf in Sydney Harbour arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the were., docked in Sydney Harbour carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling Harbour... A case such as this Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after ship, the Mound. In principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority and sat the! In Australia which had accumulated in the Wagon Mound ( No to MD Limited s! 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering difference to a case such this... Docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 landmark case laws explained with Facts paraffin around... `` good law '' and American cases on the remoteness of damages remote and this issue was appealed court the... Way based on historical misconceptions based on historical misconceptions risk was really foreseeable in the overseas... Case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Roe V. of. Of the ship be settled by an English court and is still technically `` good law the ship an,! Sparks from the law was based on historical misconceptions across the Dock eventually! The impact of the ship was being loaded at a port in Australia `` ``... Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness 2 '' Yun V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d (!