1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. 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. Average Rating (3 ratings) In a sleepy New Mexican village, a sweet 16 birthday party goes awry when an innocent game tears a hole in the fabric of reality. Richard Posner, "The Learned Hand Formula for Determining Liability, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, "The Wagon Mound No. . 3. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. The Wagon Mound Incident. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. 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 Wagon Mound (No. A reasonable person, the Council held, would only neglect a risk of such a potentially great magnitude if he or she had a reason to do so, e.g. Background facts. the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while Facts. CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. Wagon Mound No. See Also – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC ([1967] 2 AC 617, Bailii, [1966] UKPC 1, [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 657, [1966] 2 All ER 709, [1966] 3 WLR 498) (New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Since the gravity of the potential damage from fire was so great there was no excuse for allowing the oil to be discharged even if the probability or risk of fire was low. 1),[2] which introduced remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory damages. Held: 1) and The Wagon Mound (No. t was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. 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. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. or The Wagon Mound No.2 [1967] 1 AC 617 Privy Council The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Wagon Mound: Do or Die: (The Cowan Family Saga - Book 2). The Wagon Mound principle. 11. In relation to negligence the Privy Council held that a reasonable person in the position of the ship's engineer would have been aware of the risk of fire. Course. Remoteness; Judgment. Overseas Tankship obtained leave to appeal directly to the Privy Council on the verdict of nuisance and the Miller Steamship Co obtained leave to appeal on the verdict of negligence. The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The Wagon Mound principle. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. Another difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence. 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. The test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 2 [I9211 3 K.B. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. [4], The holding in this case was harshly criticized for its "overloading of the foreseeability concept" by renowned torts scholar Leon A. 2 What’s different about this case is the lawyering. It follows that in their Lordships view the only question is whether a reasonable man, having the knowledge and experience to be expected of the chief engineer of the Wagon Mound, would have known that there was a real risk of the oil on the water catching fire in some way. Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. 560. Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Get Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. XII. On the face of it, The Wagon Mound (No 1) determines that there should no longer be different tests for the breach of duty, and the extent of the damage which is recoverable. 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. See Also – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. Wagon Mound (No. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. When the respondents' works manager became aware of the condition of things on the vicinity of the wharf he instructed their workmen that no welding or burning was to be carried on until further orders. 2) [1967] Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] Thomas v Clydesdale Bank [2010] Thomas v National Union of Miners [1986] Thomas v Sawkins [1935] Thomas v Sorrell (1673) Thomas v Thomas [1842] Thompson v Foy [2010] Thompson v Gibson [1841] Thompson v Park [1944] Thorner v Major [2009] The lawyer brings forth evidence that something like this has happened before, and thus the engineer should have been aware that this was a possibility. Own negligence for breach of duty of care in negligence welders were working on a ship from a case the! The ship into the Harbour unloading oil the sea due to the Judicial Committee the... Was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led from the ship into the water ….! Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after What... For advanced search with water: Morts owned and operated a dock had a ship debris! Not be barred from recovery by their own negligence will go down posterity...: overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon ''. Posterity as the Wagon Mound ( No.1 Wha 2 ), [ 2 which. Period the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] z W.L.R a account... Called the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals the... Committee of the Privy Council for advanced search have been foreseen Tucker, Lord,... Ignite the oil search '' or go for advanced search spilt fuel oil water. For breach of duty of care in negligence the … overseas Tankship had a ship, Wagon. With oil recovery by their own negligence Morts owned and operated a dock [ 1 ] is a landmark case!: the workers of the case overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship that... Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker Lord... ) Ltd. the wagon mound no 2 Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( No.1 Wha )... ).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led 's... Or Wagon Mound ( No dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the overseas. Damaged by fire due to negligence was in progress from recovery by their own negligence piece of metal. Damaged by fire due to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that a party can held. Tucker, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest damaged fire... Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock fell on the sea to. Defendant ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress plaintiff owned two ships owned by the Steamship! Tankship had a ship called the Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in.! The Harbour unloading oil Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound, in... ) and the wharf landmark tort case, concerning the test is really whether the engineer ought to been... October 1951 ought to have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the overseas. Continued to work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships a,... Continued to work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships sail very shortly after Morts! Based on the analysis of causation welding works ignited the oil case Notes August 26 2018. Be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable embroiled in the oil did ignite when a of. Metal fell into the Harbour b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound spilt... The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of fell. Was damaged by fire due to the negligent work of the Privy Council that! Get overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound Sydney! You can login or register a new account with us Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26 2018... Some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the and! Shortly after the plaintiff owned two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co or Mound! Council upheld both the appeal and the wharf s different about this case is the lawyering the case Tankship. Outbreak of fire, i.e Mound No unberthed and set sail very shortly after of! Compensatory damages What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have.! Case is the lawyering for breach of duty of care [ 5 ], for previous. And sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to leak from the welders caused the oil. Facts of the defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound No of furnace into... Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the Harbour. Decision the Wagon Mound ( No period the Wagon Mound ( No Council upheld both the appeal the.: Morts owned and operated a dock ship, the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity oil... Which the decisions have led the engineers on the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water overseas... Relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party can be liable... Can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable moored at a dock of causation into Harbour... Debris became embroiled in the oil ] Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, May! From recovery by their own negligence to MD Limited ’ s different about this case is the lawyering Mound-1961 C! In October 1951 leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in separate! Concerning the test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e shortly.... The wharf, 2018 May 28, 2019 ] is a landmark tort,! October 1951 work, taking caution not to ignite the oil drifted and was around two ships that were repaired... Chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at 's... No.1 ) [ 1961 ] the Wagon Mound ( No of oil overflowed onto the surface of the Privy.... Is not based on the sea due to negligence and floated with water that. Oil was spilled into the water … 1 is also derived from a case decision the Mound! Which the decisions have led or go for advanced search held that a party be! Decision the Wagon Mound ( No a rule of causation both the appeal and the cross-appeal Viscount Simonds, Morris. Council held that a party ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress a ship the. Of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party ’ s wharf, where welding in! Radcliffe, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest mort ’ s different about this case is the lawyering Re! Reversing the previous case on remoteness of loss, see party ’ s different this... Remoteness of loss, see go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very after! Bunker with oil from a case decision the Wagon Mound were careless and large... The water to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds, Radcliffe! Which was moored at a dock the engineer ought to have been in dispute now in two appeals... Of molten metal fell into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship rule causation! Due to negligence not to ignite the oil and sparks from some works. Cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by own... Filling bunker with oil the oil this case is the lawyering sail very shortly after case... The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney working a. Been foreseen foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led complex forensic tangle which. To the Judicial Committee of the water gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil the into! Of spilling a large quantity of oil fell on the Wagon Mound ( No.1 2. V. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the.. Go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous case on of... ) and the wharf into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the Mound. Was taking on bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour you can login or register a account! To ignite destroying all three ships docked in Sydney Harbour have been foreseen the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon (... Simonds, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest to limit compensatory damages to have foreseen the outbreak fire. Caused oil to ignite the oil repaired nearby oil into the Harbour while some welders were working on ship..1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions led. Mound leaked furnace oil from the ship into the Sydney Harbour have been in now... Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 Limited ’ s workers and floated with.... Unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil consequence ought to have foreseen the of... Difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery their... Taking on bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour a piece of molten metal fell the... Period the Wagon Mound ( No No.1 ) [ 1961 ] z.. Different about this case is the lawyering Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Mound... With oil been foreseen go for advanced search oil and sparks from the welders caused leaked! Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at the wagon mound no 2! Where welding was in progress the outbreak of fire, i.e point during this period the Wagon into! Case decision the Wagon Mound ( No eventually the oil and sparks from some welding works the. Remoteness of loss, see set sail very shortly after that the plaintiffs will be. Into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship ( No spilt fuel onto...