But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down … 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. 0000001144 00000 n You can login or register a new account with us. 0000001985 00000 n 0000008953 00000 n %%EOF The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. Held: Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case. 0000005064 00000 n 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. Wagon Mound No. The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. 0000003089 00000 n Held: Re Polemis … or 123 0 obj <> endobj 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 … 11. ⇒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 143 0 obj<>stream Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed 123 21 About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. DIRECT CONSEQUENCES Re Polemis (footnote n.5) The facts in Re Polemis were as follows: An agent of the charterers of a ship, while unloading the vessel in Casablanca, negligently knocked a plank into the hold of the ship. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Words: 255. 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 I), Re Polemis had indeed become a “ bad ” case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 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. %PDF-1.6 %âãÏÓ 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. 0000001893 00000 n 0000007122 00000 n H‰œUMoÛ8½ëWðVˆ¿YìÄhÔÉn« ‡ X(Ž›¨°­][BÚþú%R–å:‡E€HÖpßð½þ—H *¹Æ4aø§-£Lq \4¿ç«äìrÅÈE™ü°æÓæ)Rd’%güÐì[‚iœI’ÍqEö‚ÿH¶%‹Ï_DlC€S®DàK4Ê,3$[%éùøöË8»¼¹&'ÙwgA{. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 5. 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. re Polemis – any damage foreseen Wagon Mound 1 – type of harm Hughes v L Advocate – method unseen but PI Jolley v Sutton – method unseen but type foreseen Tremain v Pike – if … In Wagon Mound No. 0000004069 00000 n Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. startxref i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 0000008055 00000 n Furness hired stevedores to help unload the ship, and one of them knocked down a plank which created a spark, ignited the gas, and burnt the entire ship down. Q'¢±S)휬MÂÉÅ/¹ÍurY9eUØƬ§o$6¥]\öNfWÙÇ7ýó4s™T A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. Enter query below and click "search" or go for advanced search. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Morts. 0000005153 00000 n login to your account, Made with favorite_border by Webstroke- © All rights reserved, A v Roman Catholic Diocese of Wellington [2008, New Zealand], A v Secretary of State for Home Affairs (No. <]>> The ensuing explosion caused a fire which destroyed the ship. 0000000016 00000 n ... NB This was overruled in Wagon Mound No 1 . The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. 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) Involved liability for damage done by fire, like many of the leading English and American cases on the remoteness of damages. 0000001712 00000 n 0 0000000716 00000 n The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. The above rule in Wagon Mound’s case was affirmed by a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Hughes vs Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837. 0000001802 00000 n 0000007028 00000 n 'THE WAGON MOUND' I. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. thumb of Re Polemis, said the principle of "instantaneous bodily consequences" on the subject of quantity of harm to property. The impact of the plank in the hold caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold. 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. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. 99 (1928) Now overruled by the Wagon Mound (No. 0000001226 00000 n In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. 0000002997 00000 n 14 v Motor Accidents Insurance Bureau [2009, Australia], Calico Printers’ Association v Barclays Bank (1931), Caltex Oil Pty v The Dredge “WillemStad” [1976, Australia], Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996], Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965], Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969], Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970], Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985], Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (Transport Policy) [1985], Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg (Taxation of Spirits) [1978], Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (Marshall I) [1986], Case 167/73 Commission v France (French Shipping Crews) [1974], Case 168/78 Commission v France (Tax on Spirits) [1980], Case 170/78 Commission v UK (Wine and Beer) [1980], Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987], Case 179/80 Roquette Frères v Council [1982], Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982], Case 265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997], Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982], Case 36/80 Irish Creamery Association v Government of Ireland [1981], Case 7/68 Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968], Case 70/86 Commission v UK (Dim-dip headlights) [1988], Case 98/86 Ministère public v Arthur Mathot [1987], Case C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1982], Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003], Case C-113/77 Japanese Ball Bearings [1979], Case C-131/12 Google right to be forgotten case [2014], Case C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Car Tax) [1990], Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990], Case C-181/91 Parliament v Council (Bangladesh Aid) [1993], Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990], Case C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996], Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Belgian Waste) [1992], Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame [1990], Case C-25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963], Case C-27/04 Commission v Council (Excessive Deficit Procedure) [2004], Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991], Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini v Newcastle United Football Club [2003], Case C-321/95 Greenpeace v Commission [1998], Case C-331/88 R v Minister of Agriculture, ex p Fedesa [1990], Case C-352/98 Bergaderm v Commission [2000], Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012], Case C-376/98 (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000], Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006], Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998], Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications plc [1996], Case C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1975], Case C-417/04 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006], Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council (Linguistic Diversity) [1999], Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd [2013], Case C-443/98 Unilever v Central Food [2000], Case C-470/03 AGM (Lifting Machines) [2007], Case C-486/01 Front National v European Parliament [2004], Case C-491/01 (BAT and Imperial Tobacco) [2002], Case C-506/08 Sweden v MyTravel Group and Commission [2011], Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Wild Birds) [1991], Case C-583/11 Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami v Parliament and Council [2013], Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002], Case C-84/94 UK v Council (Working Time Directive) [1996], Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Seal Products Case) [2013], Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988], Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990], Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012], Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947], Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996], Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997], Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone [2008, ECJ], Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952], Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010], Circle Freight International v Medeast Gold Exports [1988], City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988], Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997], Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008], Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League FC [1994, Australia], Colour Quest Ltd v Total Dominion UK Plc [2009], Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909], Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863], Corbett v Cumbria Cart Racing Club [2013], Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008], Couch v Branch Investments [1980, New Zealand], Council of Cvil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985], Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004], Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Company [1999, Australia], Crown River Services v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996], CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994], Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance [1971], Cunliffe-Owen v Teather and Greenwood [1967], Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951], Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2006], Daraydan Holidays v Solland International [2005], Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern [1995], Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956], Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2011], Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors [1852], Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993], Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915], Edgeworth Construction Ltd v Lea [1976, Canada], Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999], Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of Sate for Employment [1994], Equity & Law Home Loans v Prestidge [1992], Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1878], Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976], Fundamental rights and the European Union, Primacy and competence of the European Union, European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. of Re Polemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 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. Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 0000001354 00000 n 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. Co.162 N.E. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961] 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. The Wagon Mound and Re Polemis Until rg61 the unjust and much criticized rule in Re Polemisl was held, by the courts, to be the law in both England and Australia. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. 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. trailer ¥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¨ 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." 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. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. THE WAGON MOUND. 0000006931 00000 n 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 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], A crew member on a ship dropped a plank of wood which caused a spark and ultimately led to the destruction of the ship, The destruction of the ship was directly consequential from the actions of the crew member. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. Consequently, the court uses the reasonable foresight test in The Wagon Mound, as the Privy Council ruled that Re Polemis should not be considered good law. Detailed Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with facts. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. 2" Yun v. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 (1994). 1) [1961]. Wagon Mound Case: The Re-affirmation of the Test of Reasonable Foresight. 1" Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. endstream endobj 124 0 obj<> endobj 125 0 obj<>/Encoding<>>>>> endobj 126 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]>>/Type/Page>> endobj 127 0 obj<> endobj 128 0 obj<> endobj 129 0 obj<> endobj 130 0 obj<>stream The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 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.