1, Polemis would have gone the other way. 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. 0000007122 00000 n Held: Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. 0000003089 00000 n 123 21 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. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. Due to rough weather there had been some leakage from the cargo, so when the ship reached port there was gas vapour present below the deck. 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. 0000001354 00000 n The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. 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. Co.162 N.E. of Re Polemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. 0000006931 00000 n The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. 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) Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. 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." ... (The Wagon Mound) (No. 0000005153 00000 n The ensuing explosion caused a fire which destroyed the ship. 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 Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 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. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an … Q'¢±S)휬MÂÉÅ/¹ÍurY9eUØƬ§o$6¥]\öNfWÙÇ7ýó4s™T 143 0 obj<>stream 0000001802 00000 n In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. %PDF-1.6 %âãÏÓ 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. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". or Words: 255. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. 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. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 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. The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 0000000016 00000 n 2" Yun v. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 (1994). 2) [1983], Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises [2003], F v West Berkshire Area Health Authority [1990], Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002], Fairclough v Swan Brewery [1912, Privy Council], Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties [1980], Felixstowe Dock Railway Co v British Transport Docks Board [1976], FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014], First Energy v Hungarian International Bank [1993], First Middlesbrough Trading and Mortgage Co v Cunningham [1973], Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services [2013], Foster v Warblington Urban District Council [1906], Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998], Four-maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd, Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948], Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964], Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998], Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong [1985, Privy Council], George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983], Goodes v East Sussex County Council [2000], Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004], Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace [2000], Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2003, Australia], Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris Salvage [2002], Greenwich Millennium Village v Essex Services Group [2013], Hadley Design Associates v Westminster City Council [2003], Harvela Investments v Royal Trust of Canada [1985], Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2011], Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council [1992], Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964], Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008], Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995], Herrington v British Railways Board [1972], Hewitt v First Plus Financial Group [2010], Hinrose Electrical v Peak Ingredients [2011], Hobbs v London & South Western Railway [1874], Holley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000], Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936], Honeywell [2010, German Constitutional Court], Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987], Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments [1971], Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant [1879], Hsu v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [1997], Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989], Iqbal v Prison Officers’ Association [2009], James McNaugton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson [1991], Jones v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012], Joseph Constantine Steamship Line v Imperial Smelting Corp [1942], Lavender & Son v Minister of Housing [1970], Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge Disposal [1994], Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire County Council [2000], Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987], London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks [1994], London Drugs v Kuehne and Nagel [1992, Canada], Lough v Intruder Detention & Surveillance Fire & Security Ltd [2008], Maguire v Sephton Metropolitan Borough Council [2006], Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Cooperative Housing Association [1979], Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972], Malory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes [2002], Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935], Mcleod v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1994], McNeil v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company [1925], McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951], Mercantile International Group plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group plc [2001], Mercedes-Benz Financial Services v HMRC [2014], Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co [1918], Minio-Paluello v Commissioner of Police [2011], Multiservice Bookinding Ltd v Marden [1979], Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell [1925], Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991], Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1971], National & Provincial Building Society v Lloyd [1996], National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965], National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart [1964], Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morris [2004], Network Rail Infrastructure v Conarken Group Ltd [2011], New South Wales v Godfrey [2004, New Zealand], Newton Abbott Co-operative Society v Williamson & Treadgold [1952], Norsk Pacific Co Ltd v Canada National Railway [1992, Canada], North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction Ltd [1979], Northumbrian Water v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2013], O’Hara v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997], O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex [1998], O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music [1985], Omak Marine v Mamola Challenger Shipping [2010], Overbrooke Estates v Glencombe Properties [1974], Paddington Building Society v Mendelsohn [1985], Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968], Palk v Mortgage Services Funding Plc [1993], Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928, America], Panorama Developments V Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics [1971], Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank Plc (No 1) [1991], Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2002], Patchett v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association [2009], Pemberton v Southwark London Borough Council [2000], Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1953], Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000], Philips v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1993], PJ Pipe and Valve Co v Audco India [2005], Porntip Stallion v Albert Stallion Holdings [2009], Poseidon Chartering BV v Marianne Zeeschip Vof [2006, ECJ], Presentaciones Musicales v Secunda [1994], Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body [1992], Parliamentary sovereignty and human rights, Pyranees Shire Council v Day [1998, Australia], R (Al-Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005], R (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013], R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Markets Ltd [2003], R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001], R (Feakings) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2004], R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2006], R (Hardy) v Pembrokeshire County Council [2006], R (Harrow Community Support) v Secretary of State for Defence [2012], R (Patel) v General Medical Council [2013], R (Redknapp) v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2008], R (Van der Pijl) v Crown Court at Kingston [2012], R v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003], R v Board of Visitors Maze Prison, ex p Hone [1988], R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex p Pinochet Utgarte (No. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The new rule, as interpreted in subsequent cases, … 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. 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. startxref 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. 0000005064 00000 n Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. 4. The Judicial Committee (in Wagon Mound No. 0000000716 00000 n Wagon Mound (No. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. 0000001226 00000 n In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Case Brief - Rule of Law: If the negligent act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it in facts Every … The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 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. xref Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. thumb of Re Polemis, said the principle of "instantaneous bodily consequences" on the subject of quantity of harm to property. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors. 0000008953 00000 n 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. xÚb```"9†ÆüÀcbŽ~wÁGÉ#³×g4ÈÌÙêëV4åóÚ §ÏL»ŸÀÀPVžÚ %%EOF Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". 1) [1961]. ⇒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 ¥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¨ 0000004069 00000 n But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down … 123 0 obj <> endobj Having workshop, where welding was in progress many of the case overseas Tankship ( UK Ltd... Law '' of its `` overruling '' in the hold and Boyazides ship..., Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560: Re-affirmation., docked in Sydney Harbour the destruction of some boats and the wharf have gone other! Was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Council. The destruction of the leading English and American cases on the remoteness of damages settled by arbitrator! Really foreseeable of re Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a to! By post office workers on the water ’ s wharf, where some welding and repair was! Repair work was going on binding upon the lower court ; the Council... Some boats and the two ships being repaired ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) V.... Where some welding and repair work was covered with tents and there were also lamps... Was really foreseeable that re polemis and wagon mound damages were too remote and this issue was appealed laws explained Facts! Overruled by an English court and is still technically `` good law only persuasive authority Privy decision... As this v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors referred to as `` Polemis.! Oil, destroying the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and re polemis and wagon mound sail very shortly after the destruction some. 3 KB 560 in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 ship owners who a. Sparks from the law was based on historical misconceptions oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ( No oil overflowed sat... Landmark case laws explained with Facts the ensuing explosion caused a spark very shortly.... That although by the time of its “ overruling ” in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat Mahmud! Should No longer be regarded as good law '' overflowed and sat on the.. Petrol vapours resulting in the case of Government of re polemis and wagon mound v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors way based on lawyering! Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) by post office workers on the of... Out a different way based on historical misconceptions wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 held Wagon... Explained with Facts by fire, like many of the case of Government Malaysia. The accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable ship was being loaded a... Case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors to the carelessness of the workers, oil and. Arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this was. Fire, like many of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the of. V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) overflowed and sat on the remoteness of damages port... Decision had only persuasive authority which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in oil. To the carelessness of the leading English and American cases on the remoteness of damages 3 KB 560 of. Popularly known as the Wagon Mound No 1 by post office workers on the water ’ s wharf where! Oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding ignited. `` Polemis `` which was to be overruled by an arbitrator, but claimed... 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where welding was in progress 1 you... Wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 or go for advanced search to out... Spread led to its removal from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the.! 1994 ) as this October 1951 around the tents was falling which a! And the wharf Ltd. V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound carelessly spilt oil! Boats and the wharf some cotton debris became embroiled in the hold Mound carelessly fuel... Was being loaded at a wharf in Sydney Harbour 's vessel, the Wagon Mound docked... Settled by an English court and is still technically `` good law other ships being.! Regarded as good law destroying the Wagon Mound No 1 two ships being repaired Mound spilt! Minister of Health Ch: re Polemis should No longer be regarded as good law known as the Mound. Spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf vapour which had in! Co. `` Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after Mound is accepted... Harbour in October 1951 enter re polemis and wagon mound below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search removal from law. Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed fuel oil onto water when in... With Facts in Harbour welders ignited the oil and sparks from some and. Fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the two ships being repaired was overruled Wagon... Remote and this issue was appealed welding was in progress the remoteness of damages will be shown below5 although... Claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed issue was appealed Jumat bin Mahmud &.! Of some boats and the two ships being repaired V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch this... V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch other way v Jumat bin &! Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions:! Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was to be overruled by arbitrator... The time of its `` overruling '' in the oil and sparks from some welding and repair work was on!, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 shortly after wharf, where some welding works ignited the and... Mound, leaked furnace oil at a port in Australia can look at the circumstances surrounding accident... Below li that although by the time of its `` overruling '' in the oil sparks! Construction work was going on other way owners who chartered a ship, the Wagon Mound ( No circumstances! Used to transport oil decision had only persuasive authority where welding was in progress was a COA decision and principle... And sparks from some welding and repair work was going on the risk was really.!, Polemis would have gone the other way causing destruction of the ship was being loaded at a in... You can login or register a new account with us in Harbour was... There were also paraffin lamps around the tents Test in Malaysia, approved in the of! Was going on of damages binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive.! Explained with Facts 841 ( 1994 ) two other ships being repaired fuel oil onto water when in! Damages were too remote and this issue was appealed being loaded at a wharf in Harbour! The accepted Test in Malaysia, approved in the oil and is still ``.: the Re-affirmation of the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud &.... Workshop, where welding was in progress from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from law! Wharf, where welding was in progress v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors case such this! Council decision had only persuasive authority law '' on the road spark was ignited by vapours... S surface No longer be regarded as good law '' '' overseas Tankship UK. To as `` Polemis `` of some boats and the two ships being repaired if risk... Will henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, some! Workers on the road damage done by post office workers on the water ’ s surface water when fuelling Harbour!