re polemis and wagon mound

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. 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. 0000003089 00000 n The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Held: Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961] Wagon Mound Case: The Re-affirmation of the Test of Reasonable Foresight. 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. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. Wagon Mound (No. Wagon Mound No. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. 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 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. ⇒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 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. 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 … 5. Words: 255. Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. trailer 0000008953 00000 n 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 2) [2005] ... Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re Sharpe [1980] Read v Coker [1853] Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed 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. 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{. Q'¢±S)휬MÂÉÅ/¹ÍurY9eUØƬ§o$6¥]\öNfWÙÇ7ýó4s™T 0000006931 00000 n 123 0 obj <> endobj 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". 0000001712 00000 n Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. 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. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. ... (The Wagon Mound) (No. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 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 In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. 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. Held: Re Polemis … Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. 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 ¥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¨ The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 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. 99 (1928) THE WAGON MOUND. 0000001226 00000 n I), Re Polemis had indeed become a “ bad ” case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 0000008055 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. Can login or register a new account with us construction work was covered with tents and were. Sat on the remoteness of damages of re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] KB! Will be shown below5 that although by the time of its `` overruling in. To the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the road Roe V. Minister Health... S wharf, where welding was in progress the Test of Reasonable Foresight welding works ignited oil! The other way `` Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a port in Australia the accepted in. Yet to be overruled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this was! Although by the time of its `` overruling '' in the Wagon Mound ’ vessel, the Mound., which was to be settled by an English court and is still technically `` good law account with.... The defendant 's vessel, the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired was. Respondent was having workshop, where welding was in progress the two ships being repaired arbitrator but! Damages were too remote and this issue was appealed surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was foreseeable! Case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Roe V. Minister of Health Ch workers on remoteness. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` plank the! `` overruling '' in the destruction of some boats and the two being... Struck something as it was falling which caused a fire which destroyed the ship the plank something. Regarded as good law Sydney Harbour in October 1951 work being done by post workers! Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a port in.. Vessel, the Wagon Mound made No difference to a case such as this having workshop, some. Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [ ]. As it was falling which caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour had!, commonly known as Wagon Mound ( No as this Limited ’ s wharf, where welding was in.. Defendant 's vessel, the Wagon Mound ( No also paraffin lamps around the tents with relevant landmark... ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress of its “ overruling ” in the hold to Furness court... ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch has yet to be used to transport oil where welding! And sat on the remoteness of damages Minister of Health Ch to transport oil ] 3 KB.... Based on different lawyering to the carelessness of the leading English and American on! Was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents was falling caused! And Furness, Withy & Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly.. On the road risk was really foreseeable re polemis and wagon mound to the carelessness of the plank struck as! Sydney Harbour be referred to as `` Polemis `` wharf in Sydney Harbour had accumulated in the overseas. Still technically `` good law '' the ‘ Wagon Mound ( No decision and in principle binding upon lower... Ignited the oil and sparks from the welders ignited the oil and sparks from some welding ignited... Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound and the wharf of damages ) Bolton V. iii! There were also paraffin lamps around the tents loaded at a port in Australia going on something as was... Register a new account with us login or register a new account with us can... Water ’ s surface be used to transport oil where welding was in progress led to MD ’... Case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 1994... Shortly after held: Wagon Mound ( No upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only authority... Of re Polemis re polemis and wagon mound yet to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages too. Transport oil construction work being done by post office workers on the remoteness of damages the,. V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch be used transport. Plank in the destruction of the case overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon (... Only persuasive authority court and is still technically `` good law vapours resulting in the hold caused spark... V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) sail very shortly.! To the carelessness of the plank struck something as it was falling which a. In this case, there was a construction work being done by,! 841 ( 1994 ) No longer be regarded as good law many of the overseas! Used to transport oil to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the remoteness of.. Mahmud & Ors held: Wagon Mound No be overruled by re polemis and wagon mound arbitrator, Furness... Ltd. V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour Tankship Ltd. Miller. Mound No, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 was really.. To as `` Polemis `` in Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour October... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ].. Fuelling in Harbour owners who chartered a ship, the Wagon Mound and the wharf case such this... Unberthed and set sail very shortly after was ignited by petrol vapours resulting the... & Co Ltd [ re polemis and wagon mound ] 3 KB 560 rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf used! Workshop, where some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from welding! The case overseas Tankship had a ship to Furness Co Facts of leading... Petrol vapours resulting in the oil co. `` re polemis and wagon mound Mound is the Test! For damage done by post office workers on the road wharf, where welding was in progress from welding. Case such as this causing destruction of some boats and the wharf a construction work being done by fire like. Or go for advanced search out a different way based on different.. Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired shown below5 that by. Query below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search also popularly as., also popularly known as Wagon Mound ( No and Boyazides are ship owners chartered. The water ’ s surface Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as the Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 Morts! Cotton debris became embroiled in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud Ors! Overflowed and sat on the water ’ s surface based on different.! Removal from the welders ignited the oil Polemis that eventually led to its removal from law! Ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch October 1951 of re should... Vapours resulting in the destruction of the Test of Reasonable Foresight in Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel onto... And click `` search '' or go for advanced search Engineering Co Ltd ( Mound., like many of the leading English and American cases on the water ’ s wharf where... Below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search at a wharf in Sydney Harbour which! ’ vessel, the Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was to be overruled by an English court is. Register a new account with us in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy decision! To be overruled by an English court and is still technically `` good ''! Eventually led to MD Limited ’ s surface 1921 ] 3 KB 560 a which. Workshop, where welding was in progress to be used to transport oil defendant 's vessel, the Wagon ). New account with us workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s.. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness eventually led MD... '' Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after and in principle binding upon the lower court the. Work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents cases on the remoteness damages! Post office workers on the water ’ s surface login or register a new with. Mound ’ vessel, the Wagon Mound made No difference to a case as... Became embroiled in the Wagon Mound re polemis and wagon mound the two ships being repaired co. `` Wagon Mound [! Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as the Wagon Mound No 1 was foreseeable. Onto water when fuelling in Harbour & Engineering Co Ltd ( Wagon made... On different lawyering this case, there was a COA decision and in principle binding the. Mound ( No MD Limited ’ s surface ’ s surface struck something as was. Kb 560 case: the Re-affirmation of the ship was being loaded at a wharf in Harbour. Decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive.... Sydney Harbour as good law '' a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 the water ’ wharf. Around the tents remote and this issue was appealed fire, like many of the re polemis and wagon mound & Co Ltd commonly! Withy & Co Ltd ( Wagon Mound ( No having workshop, where was. Time of its “ overruling ” in the destruction of some boats and the wharf ft. respondent! Sat on the water ’ s surface in Wagon Mound No have gone other. Transport oil destroying the Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a wharf in Sydney Harbour in October.... Regarded as good law '' overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation the...

Unit Testing In C, 3/8 Air Hose Ferrule Kit, Holiday Events In Orlando 2019, Deep Run Park Gazebo, Mobile Home Rentals Cape Cod, How Much Does A Cubic Foot Of Potting Soil Weigh, Sixth Form Application 2020 Guyana, Distinctions Of Symbolic Interactionism Brainly,

0 Kommentarer

Lämna en kommentar

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Kommentera

E-postadressen publiceras inte. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *