“Privy Council replaces direct consequence test with reasonable foreseeability for remoteness”
The defendants' ship discharged furnace oil into Sydney Harbour, which spread to the plaintiffs' wharf. The oil was ignited by welding operations, causing fire damage to the wharf and vessels. The oil spillage was negligent but fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable.
Whether the test for remoteness of damage in negligence should be direct consequence or reasonable foreseeability of the type of damage that occurred.
The defendants were not liable for the fire damage as it was not reasonably foreseeable, even though it was a direct consequence of their negligent oil spillage.
This case fundamentally reformed the law on remoteness of damage in negligence, establishing the modern test of reasonable foreseeability and providing greater certainty and limitation to tortious liability.
You're reading the free summary of Wagon Mound (No 1). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 (PC)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.