en Change Language. 2) should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. The fire destroyed the ships. Hughes V Lord Advocate. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock Smith v. Charles Baker and Sons South Indian Ind v. Alamelu Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal White v. John Warrick & Co. Law of Arbitration 5 Topics Expand Lesson Content 0% Complete 0/5 Steps Arbitration 1-17 Arbitration 18 - 43M Arbitration 44 - 87 Case Law 1 - 17 Case Law 18-43 Indian Partnership Act 6 Topics close menu Language. Facts []. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. The natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted. 1 A.C. 617 (1967) Facts A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. 388. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "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. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s11(2) and its other States' equivalents. Listen to the opinion: Tweet . Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of it concentrated near Plaintiff's wharf. Pure economic loss, scope of duty of care bailee recovery for bailor's loss of use (Armstead v Royal Sun Alliance) Hospital Trust not liable for third party's unauthorised use of patient data (Underwood v Bounty UK Ltd) Plaintiff's manager became aware of the oil and assessed the danger, deciding it was okay to proceed with caution. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [''Wagon Mound No. Ltd. Appellants; v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents. 404; [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] AC 388; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty [1967] 1 AC 617; March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12 at paras. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. South Indian Ind v. Alamelu. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. (117) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 at 422; . Close suggestions Search Search. English (selected) Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) Privy Council Appeal No. Click the card to flip . M.C. Constitution of India 31 Topics Expand. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited (New South Wales) [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd,[1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. The jury determines the actual damages totals to $100,000. Held: The defendants were held not liable since, while damage to the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) Also known as: Morts Dock & Engineering Co v Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd Privy Council (Australia) 18 January 1961 Case Analysis Where Reported [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant . The oil ignited and the wharf suffered fire damage. Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands. This observation was cited with approval in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388, 426. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Mehta v. Union of India. Facts: Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the. Brief Fact Summary. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng'g Co. (The Wagon Mound (No. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other finding must be mentioned. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 102 5 2 Reasonable Foreseeability Before the decision in In re Polemis v Furness, Withy & Co Ltd432 English law accepted and applied the . Report Citation [1961] 2 W.L. Present at the Hearing : Lord Reid 253 considered. : The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd - "The Wagon Mound" [1961] AC 388 In summary. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 PC (UK Caselaw)'remot. 2''] . 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. This case disapproved of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage. The Wagon Mound (No 2) should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The Wagon Mound (No 1), which introduced a remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory damages. 430Snyman CR (2002) (n16) 82. 23 of 1960 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 [.] New!! Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 is a Tort law case focusing on Negligence and Duty of care. The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney.The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and . Lesson Content 0% Complete 0/31 Steps 02. true At the conclusion of a tort trial, the jury finds the plaintiff about 30% responsible for the damages she suffered and the defendant about 70% responsible for causing the damages. Hambrook v. Stokes Bros. Bourhill v. Young. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock . The Wagon Mound caseestablished a 'remoteness' test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (1961) Facts: Due to the defendants' negligence, oil was spilled and accumulated around the claimant's wharf. Original Case. (136) cf Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 29-30, per Brennan J. The Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1966] 2 All ER 709. 1''] A defendant is not liable for unforeseeable consequences of his negligent conduct,even though they were the direct result of defendant's conduct. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell (1872) L.R. 2. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Original Case. Ibid. I would add, however, that King v. Phillips, a case in which the plaintiff failed, would, as I think, clearly be decided differently today. 217 198 CLR 180] PERRE v APAND PTY LTD McHugh J dangers of the open sea of system or science . After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts' wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Definition. (THE WAGON MOUND.) Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - - - - - Appellant v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. News 17. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney. 1961Overseas Tankship Ltd.v.Morts Dock and Engineering Co.Ltd.Palsgraf""freasonable perceive""the foresight of the reasonable man Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. *388 Overseas Tankship (U.) The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. This spill did minimal damage to the plaintiff's ships. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. LAWS2383 Cases. Manindra Mukherjee v. Mathuradas. However, in The Wagon Mound (No 1) a large quantity of oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from the Wagon Mound and it drifted under the wharf where the claimants were oxyacetylene welding. Term. Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Mound had been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. 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. Facts. 126 [1961] A. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. Page 2 of 27 OVERSEAS TANKSHIP (U.K.) LTD. APPELLANTS; AND MORTS DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. RESPONDENTS. In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Issue 1. 6,7 and 8 per Mason CJ 7 C.P. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. 1. Who can be suet in tort? About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Art 12-35: Fundamental Rights . A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts'. Open navigation menu. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration. Held: Crown had radical title but did not automatically have beneficial title; only indigenous people can hold native title; if exclusive possession . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal. The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. 1), is a landmarktort lawcase, which imposed a remotenessrule for causation in negligence. en Change Language. Facts. The resulting fire damaged the wharf and two ships. Jolley V Sutton London Borough Council (2002) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V Miller Steamship co pty Ltd (Wagon Mound No 2) 1961. Judicial Committee 1))FactsA tankship had carelessly discharged oil which was carried by wind and tide to a wharf whichwas used for repair work on other ships in the harbor. Defendant set sail, making no effort to disperse oil. This asks whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable. (the Wagon Mound.) 1 / 68. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. 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. Limited and another (and Cross-appeal consolidated) - Respondents FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 25th MAY 1966. During this time, Tankships' ship leaked oil into the harbor. How much will the plaintiff recover under comparative negligence? This preview shows page 117 - 119 out of 495 pages. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. Fact: Meriam people lived on the land; sought native title over the land. Resource Type Case page Court Privy Council Date Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . Facts: Lamb V Camden Borough Council (1981) QB 625. For the remainder of Oct. 30 and until about 2 p.m. on Nov. 1, work was carried on as usual, the condition and congestion of the oil remaining substantially unaltered. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Facts The crew members of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd were working on a ship, when they failed to turn off one of the furnace taps. Facts: In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388, the D's vessel leaked oil that caused fire. TORT CASE LIST. overseas_tankship_vs_morts_dock - Read online for free. The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. Summary of Overseas Tankship (DF) v. Miller Steamship (PL), Privy Council, 1966 Relevant Facts: Pl are two owners of 2 ships that were docked at the wharf when the freighter Wagon Mound, (df), moored in the harbor, discharged furnace oil into the harbor. Per curiam: It does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that for an act of negligence, however slight or venial, which results in some trivial . 70,000 The oil spread across the surface of the water and later caught fire, when cotton waste on the surface came in contact with molten metal dropped by dock workers. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock. Individuals Children McHale v Watson [1966] ALR 513, Leung Kwok Lung v Ling Wai [2010] HKEC 544 Family members Married Persons Status Ordinance (Cap 182) Section 1) Corporations Chau Chui Ping v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (2006) HCPI 261 of 2003 Incorporated Bodies Aberdeen Winner . A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [''Wagon Mound No. Open navigation menu. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . Court Privy Council (Australia) Judgment Date 18 January 1961. The oil was ignited. 1 / 68. The Privy Council[2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Privy Council, 1961 A.C. 388. close menu Language. See also Joubert WA (1965) (n386) 10 -12.431Neethling J & Potgieter JM (2015) (n6) 204;S v Danils1983 3 SA 275 (A) 332. The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. Overseas Tankship V Mort Dock and Engineering co. Ltd (wagon Mound (No 1) 1961, AC. But at about that time the oil under or near . This appeal is brought from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissing an appeal by the appellants, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd" from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kinsella exercising the Admiralty Jurisdiction of that Court in an action in which the appellants were defendants and the respondents Morts Dock . Close suggestions Search Search. See more Australia. Tort Introduction.