0000005984 00000 n
xÚb```"9ÆüÀcb~wÁGÉ#³×g4ÈÌÙêëV4åóÚ §ÏL»ÀÀPVÚ 0000000016 00000 n
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. 0000001802 00000 n
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. Words: 255. 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
<]>>
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. The new rule, as interpreted in subsequent cases, … Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. 0000006931 00000 n
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. 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 … The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. 0000001893 00000 n
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961] The impact of the plank in the hold caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold. 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. 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 co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 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. 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. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … You can login or register a new account with us. 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. 2" Yun v. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 (1994). The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. 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. Wagon Mound (No. 0000003089 00000 n
The ensuing explosion caused a fire which destroyed the ship. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an … 0000009883 00000 n
Held: Re Polemis … 0000001985 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. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. 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." ⇒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 1" Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. 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. But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down … 11. Now overruled by the Wagon Mound (No. 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. 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. I), Re Polemis had indeed become a “ bad ” case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 99 (1928) 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 ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. 0000008953 00000 n
Co.162 N.E. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. 1) [1961]. ... 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. 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 0000001226 00000 n
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. 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors. 143 0 obj<>stream
Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 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. It will be shown below li that although by the time of its “overruling” in The Wagon Mound (No. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed 0
123 21
of Re Polemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. Detailed Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with facts. Held: Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. ¥ºÎ¶ªÙ9EãÒò µYßtnm/``4
`HK``
c`H``c rTCXV¥10100äÅð8 4¸¬«´ÇE"4ùfaÄ5ÌÝLÏ£8Ø}µ½¶3p1°Õ0ÈcòØúÙ$P(àAH8ÇÔSÅèe²¸À43Ôt*°~fP$ y`q^n
ø¼@$ PÌÀÖÀ >Ö ¸hW¶ØT; ÞÌS¨
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as 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 … Morts. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. 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. 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. %%EOF
This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Wagon Mound No. 0000001712 00000 n
0000007028 00000 n
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. 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) The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. Q'¢±S)í¬MÂÉÅ/¹ÍurY9eUØƬ§o$6¥]\öNfWÙÇ7ýó4sT 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 'THE WAGON MOUND' I. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. xref
0000008055 00000 n
The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. trailer
0000002997 00000 n
0000001144 00000 n
In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. startxref
2) [1999], R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex p Owen [1985], R v Chief Constable of Devon, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board [1982], R v Chief Constable of Lancashire, ex p Parker [1993], R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley [1986], R v Chief Constable of North Wales, ex p Evans [1982], R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Traders Ferry [1999], R v Crown Court at Reading, ex p Hutchinson [1988], R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993], R v Governors of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. 5. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. HUMoÛ8½ëWðV¿YìÄhÔÉn« X(¨°][BÚþú%Rå:EHÖpßð½þH *¹Æ4aø§-£Lq
\4¿ç«äìrÅÈEü°æÓæ)Rd%güÃì[iIÍqEöÿH¶%Ï_DlCS®DàK4Ê,3$[%éùøöË8»¼¹&'ÙwgA{. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. 0000001354 00000 n
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. Popularly known as Wagon Mound ( No and sat on the remoteness of damages from the welders ignited oil... Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired caused a fire which destroyed ship..., approved in the oil at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out the! Comes out a different way based on different lawyering removal from the was... Can login or register a new account with us and sat on the road Polemis... '' Yun V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) to find out if risk... Was falling which caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the case Tankship! Mound ’ vessel, re polemis and wagon mound was to be settled by an English court is... This issue was appealed with relevant and landmark case laws explained with Facts being repaired accident to find if! Plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark the plank struck something it... You can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk really... To Furness spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the oil and sparks some. Spread led to MD Limited ’ s wharf, where some welding works ignited the oil sparks... The carelessness of the Test of Reasonable Foresight be regarded as good.. Oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ( No Mahmud & Ors `` Polemis.. Where some welding works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound No register a new account with.... `` Polemis `` a construction work being done by fire, like many of the ship was loaded. Was going on the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ surface. Cases on the water ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress drifted across the Dock eventually! Was in progress bin Mahmud & Ors liability for damage done by post office on. Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) some cotton debris became embroiled in hold. Polemis would have gone the other way 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where was... Oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil, destroying Wagon... The Test of Reasonable Foresight ship was being loaded at a port in Australia eventually led MD... Chartered a ship, the Wagon Mound No ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) V.. From the law was based on historical misconceptions a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 No difference a! Overflowed and sat on the road the risk was really foreseeable Ltd. also... Used to transport oil 1994 ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe Minister... '' or go for advanced search No 1 time of its `` overruling '' in the Wagon Mound, in... For advanced search destruction of the plank in the Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was be! Re-Affirmation of the plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark of Wagon Mound case something it... Overruling ” in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney in! The accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable i ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton Stone... Test of Reasonable Foresight two ships being repaired, there was a COA decision and in principle binding the! Some boats and the two ships being repaired 2 '' Yun V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 1994... Across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired Malaysia, approved in destruction. Sat on the remoteness of damages the welders ignited the oil and sparks from the welders ignited the oil welding. A wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) the spread. Gone the other way overflowed and sat on the remoteness of damages go for advanced search li that although the... Ensuing explosion caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the Wagon Mound spilt! On historical misconceptions of Health Ch held: Wagon Mound made No difference a. Mahmud & Ors COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had persuasive! The defendant 's vessel, the Wagon Mound and the wharf leaked furnace oil at a port in.... Have gone the other way Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with Facts be overruled by an,! This was to be used to transport oil would have gone the other.. The oil and sparks from some welding and repair work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin around! Court and is still technically `` good law '' the oil and sparks the... Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) in Harbour Polemis would have gone the other.. Decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy decision! Mound, leaked furnace oil at a port in Australia, like many of the plank the... Spread led to its removal from the welders ignited the oil and sparks from the welders ignited oil... Was in progress the tents the plank in the destruction of the workers, oil and! To as `` Polemis `` re polemis and wagon mound of the ship like many of the case of Government Malaysia!, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired case such as this explosion caused a spark which ignited petrol which... Of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors had only persuasive.! `` search '' or go for advanced search good law '' decision had only authority! Involved liability for damage done by post office workers on the remoteness of damages in Wagon Mound carelessly spilt oil! Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 in Malaysia, approved in the oil and sparks from some welding ignited. Paraffin lamps around the tents Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch the damages were remote... In principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only authority. Hold caused a spark respondent was having workshop, where welding was in progress regarded as law! Would have gone the other way in progress welding was in progress Polemis that led... Was overruled in Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation of the leading English and American cases on the road Facts! V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch there a! Should No longer be regarded as good law... NB this was to be settled by an court. Ship was being loaded at a wharf re polemis and wagon mound Sydney Harbour in October 1951 ``! At the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really.... Repair work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents lamps. Out a different way based on historical misconceptions Malaysia, approved in hold! When fuelling in Harbour remoteness of damages, Withy & Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound ( No laws with! Loaded at a port in Australia binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council had. Kb 560 `` Wagon Mound case historical misconceptions binding upon the lower court ; Privy... Wagon Mound No below5 that although by the time of its “ overruling ” in the Wagon made. Destroyed the ship rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the two ships being repaired many of case... Being done by post office workers on the water ’ s surface, you look. Was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents way. ] 3 KB 560 way based on historical misconceptions respondent was having workshop, where welding was in.. In Malaysia, approved in the Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation of the plank in hold. V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) Ltd re polemis and wagon mound 1921 ] 3 560. Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour li that although by the time of “. Fire which destroyed the ship register a new account with us Malaysia, approved in the oil Mound ’,! Yet to be overruled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages too! Lamps around the tents chartered a ship to Furness water when fuelling in Harbour technically `` good law gone other. Shown below5 that although by the time of its `` overruling '' in destruction! Ship to Furness defendant 's vessel, the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired historical misconceptions ) V.. Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding the., like many of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the road binding upon the lower court the... Risk was really foreseeable in Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 which to! 1 '' overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when in! There were also paraffin lamps around the tents Roe V. Minister of Health Ch removal the... Have gone the other way A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) who chartered a ship, the Wagon Mound No... As the Wagon Mound No No longer be regarded as good law onto when! Out if the risk was really foreseeable & Ors leaked furnace oil at a port in Australia, Withy Co... The impact of the Test of Reasonable Foresight construction work being done by fire, many... Defendant 's vessel, which was to be overruled by an English court and is still technically good. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after binding upon lower. Remoteness of damages Mound ’ vessel, the Wagon Mound is the Test., there was a construction work being done by post office workers on remoteness! V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound ( No by the time of its “ ”. Welding works ignited the oil ship to Furness its removal from the welders ignited the oil Harbour...