(New South Wales) Two ships had collided, after, without negligence, an anchor on one ship failed. The Supreme Court had found the crew negligent after failing to react appropriately to the loss of the anchor. The company now appealed against the damages awarded against it.
Held: The Board approved the reasoning of Jacob J in Caltex.
Lord Fraser approved the statement of principle constituting the limit or control mechanism to be imposed upon the liability of a wrongdoer towards those who have suffered economic loss on consequence of negligence.
Judges:
Fraser of Tullybelton, Roskill, Brandon of Oakbrook, Templeman, Griffiths LL
Citations:
[1986] 1 AC 1, [1985] UKPC 21, [1985] 3 WLR 381, [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 303, [1985] 2 All ER 935
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Citing:
Approved – Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge ‘Willemstad’ 9-Dec-1976
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence – Duty of care – Foreseeability of harm – Economic loss not consequential upon damage to person or property – Damage to property of one person – Economic loss suffered . .
Cited – Elliot Steam Tug Co Ltd v Shipping Controller CA 1922
Scrutton LJ said: ‘At common law there is no doubt about the position. In case of a wrong done to a chattel the common law does not recognize a person whose only rights are a contractual right to have the use or services of the chattel for purposes . .
Cited by:
Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Commonwealth
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.331085
