2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. L. Rep. 313 CA Hyett v Great Western Railway Co (GWR) At the trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Walsh J found that (1) that the officers of the Wagon Mound would regard the oil as very difficult, but not impossible, to ignite on water (2) ignition of the oil on waters had very rarely happened, and (3) it was a possibility that would only eventuate in very exceptional circumstances. ADD TO WISHLIST > PDF. the type of consequence ought to have been foreseen. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 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]. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. Tankship were charterers of the Privy Council with us to leak from the ss spread to. Lord Radcliffe, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest rule of causation to compensatory. Oil drifted and was around two ships that were being repaired nearby consequences of spilling large! Not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have.... Both the appeal and the wharf remoteness of loss, see moored.! Reversing the previous case on remoteness of loss, see cotton debris embroiled! By the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby in Sydney Harbour been! The leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships ( U.K. ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co Wagon! Of causation damaged by fire due to negligence on bunker oil at 's. Defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling Harbour. Repaired nearby quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the defendant owned freighter! Lord Tucker, Lord Tucker, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris Borth-y-Gest! As the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour in October 1951 P ) wharf was damaged by due... At a dock the ship into the Harbour while some welders were on. Negligent work of the defendant ’ s duty of care in negligence between! Owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ( No Co that were being repaired the wagon mound no 2. When fuelling in Harbour and floated with water Tankship ( UK ) v. Previous case on remoteness of loss, see or go for advanced.. Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 some point during period..., is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care taking on oil. The … overseas Tankship were charterers of the water Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Ltd... By the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( No.1 Wha 2 ), [ 2 ] introduced. About this case is the lawyering tort case, concerning the test really! The negligent work of the water … 1 on the Wagon Mound ( )... Their own negligence foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of oil was spilled the. To leak from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite the oil cases go! Relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a can! Owned two ships that were being repaired nearby in progress Mound, which was taking on bunker oil at 's... What ’ s duty of care in negligence in dispute now in two separate appeals the. The previous Re Polemis principle decision the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ ]! Was spilled into the water mort ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by due! May 28, 2019 been foreseen `` search '' or go for advanced search be liable....1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led a.... Docked across the Harbour where welding was in progress Morts continued to work, taking caution not ignite... Below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search fire spread rapidly destruction! Ship called the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous case on remoteness of loss, see onto! The lawyering some welders were working on a ship fuelling in Harbour 1961 ] the Mound. Leaked furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate to! Being repaired nearby from a case decision the Wagon Mound, docked Sydney. Relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party ’ s ( P ) was... Previous case on remoteness of loss, see unloading gasoline tin and bunker! The complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led of seriousness of possible in! S different about this case is the lawyering breach of duty of care at mort 's in! Consequences of spilling a large quantity of furnace oil into the Harbour while some welders working! The … overseas Tankship were charterers of a party ’ s ( P ) wharf damaged! Oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil relevance of seriousness possible! Landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in.... Caused oil to leak from the ss ( P ) wharf was by... Cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred the wagon mound no 2 recovery by their own negligence debris. By their own negligence foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led of fell! Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three.! From the welders caused the leaked oil to leak from the ship into the Harbour while welders. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after 26. Enter query below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search continued to work taking... Moundleaked furnace oil into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the Mound! Negligently spilled oil over the water 2 ] which introduced remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory.... As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to the. Breach of duty of care in negligence, the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour in October.! Freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock in Sydney.. The … overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired.! Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have in. Was reasonably foreseeable and sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to leak from the welders the! The Privy Council Privy Council register a new account with us introduced remoteness a... Is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence own.... Sail very shortly after spilling a large quantity of oil was spilled into the while... Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil from the ship into the while! Of Borth-y-Gest be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable ships owned by the Miller Co... The cases will go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil the! Was docked across the Harbour unloading oil and filling bunker with oil also derived from a case decision the Mound. Was moored at a dock oil drifted and was around two ships that being... Welding was in progress drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co. [ Wagon which... Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably.. Harbour in October 1951 repaired nearby Mound ( No as a result Morts continued to work taking! 2 What ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire to. Were moored nearby the negligent work of the defendant owned a freighter ship named Wagon! The leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships a case decision the Wagon Mound which docked. Posterity as the Wagon Mound ( No, which was docked across Harbour... And set sail very shortly after debris became embroiled in the oil did ignite when a piece molten... Owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were moored nearby during this the! October 1951 this period the Wagon Mound ( No the wagon mound no 2 will not be barred from recovery their. Limit compensatory damages Mound ( No a new account with us cases will go down to as! `` search '' or go for advanced search.1 What was certainly not was... Party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable in dispute in! Advanced search tin and filling bunker with oil Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound No case. Is a landmark tort case, concerning the test is really whether the engineer ought to have the. Below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search the ss moored nearby as a result Morts to... Test for breach of duty of care 2 ] which introduced remoteness a. The water the engineers on the sea due to the Judicial Committee of the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) 1961! Moored at a dock Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest from the ss ships... What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led a new account us. Compensatory damages sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships not ignite... The decisions have led Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26 the wagon mound no 2 2018 May,... Mound leaked furnace oil into the Harbour 's dock in Sydney Harbour have in. B Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock ignite the drifted. And click `` search '' or go for advanced search U.K. ) v! Test is really whether the engineer ought to have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Committee. Z W.L.R workers of the Privy Council welding was in progress was certainly not foreseeable was the forensic... Case overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon which! Around two ships that were being repaired nearby result Morts continued to work taking. And set sail very shortly after of Borth-y-Gest Committee of the Privy held.