Home Office V Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. Case Brief Wik
Home Office V Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. Case Brief Wik
Home Office V Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. Case Brief Wik
Fandom uses cookies to give you the best experience on our websites. By continuing to use Fandom, we assume that
you accept our use of cookies. Read more about cookies
START A WIKI
Case Briefs
Contribute
On the Wiki
Dorset's ability to bring a claim to the House of Lords. Appellant The Home Office of the United
Kingdom
Country United
Decision Edit
Kingdom
Appeal dismissed, trial allowed. Area of Remoteness
law
Lord Reid, for the majority, dismisses the first defence saying that times have changed and now liability can be
found in cases where the outcome was not foreseeable. All that needs to be established is that the initial act was
negligent (per Wagon Mound), which has been established here. They also reject the second defence stating that
this claim is negated if the action of the third party is the type of result that could reasonably be foreseen as a result
of the negligent act. In this case, the stealing of the boat and damaging another is exactly the type of outcome that
should have been foreseen by the officers. Finally, the third defence fails because there are no obvious public policy
issues that prevent the duty from being established.
Lord Diplock concurs but has different reasoning. He says that in general, in new situations where duty is being
established the characteristics of that situation must be compared to those present in situations accepted to
constitute negligence. When there is a discrepancy one must decide if what the new case is lacking is enough to
prevent duty from being established. In this case he decides that the fact that they were on an island made the
escape by boat a very foreseeable outcome of the negligence, and therefore it should have been prevented.
Viscount Dilhorne, in the dissentalisation, disagrees with the majority because he thinks that they are enacting new
laws, which should be the job of legislators and not the courts.
Ratio Edit
Liability is not necessarily negated simply because a third party performed the act that caused damage as a
result of the initial negligent act; if this action was a foreseeably outcome of the initial act then the original
negligent party will be responsible for the outcome of the third partys actions.
Categories: Tort law Remoteness Cases from the United House of Lords Add category
Kingdom cases
Also on Fandom Random Wiki
Games
Movies
TV
Explore Wikis
Follow Us
Overview
About
Careers
Press
Contact
Wikia.org
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Global Sitemap
Local Sitemap
Community
Community Central
Support
WAM Score
Help
Community Apps
Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat.
Advertise
Media Kit
Contact
Case Brief Wiki is a Fandom Lifestyle Community. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.