reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. The learned Judge held that, as the evidence showed, the Defendants did not appreciate that the immersion of the cover in the liquid would produce an explosion and he held that they were not to blame for not appreciating it. GLASGOW REALTY CO. V. METCALFE. The learned Judge's finding, uncontested on appeal, that in the state of knowledge as it was at the time of the accident the Defendants could not reasonably have foreseen that the immersion of the asbestos cement cover in the liquid would be likely to injure anyone must lead to the conclusion that they would have been under no liability to the Plaintiff if they had intentionally immersed the cover in the liquid. I do not think that this authority assists him. It is acknowledged by the Respondent that no-one in the employer's service knew of the likelihood of such an event, and it is clear that no-one in the room at the time thought of any dangerous result. Topics similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. This can be seen in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518.The same principle can be seen to be applied in Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556. I am of opinion that it would be wrong on these facts to make another inroad on the doctrine of foreseeability which seems to me to be a satisfactory solvent of this type of difficulty. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. The evidence also showed that, prior to the accident, no one supposed the immersion of an asbestos concrete compound in a molten metal mixture could lead to an explosion. (See Lord Reid's Speech at page 781). It was, however, argued by Mr James for the Appellant that, even though the risk of explosion upon immersion of the cover was not one which the Defendants could reasonably foresee, the Plaintiff can, nevertheless, recover because one of the Defendants' servants inadvertently either knocked the cover into the liquid or allowed it to slip in, thus giving rise to a foreseeable risk of splashing the hot liquid on to the Plaintiff and injuring him by burning. The actual damage sustained by the Plaintiff was damage of the same kind, that is by burning, as could be foreseen as likely to result from knocking the cover into the liquid or allowing it to slip in, and Mr James contended that this was sufficient to impose a duty on the Defendants owed to the Plaintiff to take reasonable care to avoid knocking the cover into the liquid, or allowing it to slip in, and that the Plaintiff's damage flowed from their breach of this duty. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. Type Legal Case Document Date 1964 Volume 1 Page start 518 Web address ... Smith v Leech, Brain & Co. Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 Previous: Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] ... Have you read this? The fact that they inadvertently knocked it into the bath cannot of itself convert into negligence that which they were entitled to do deliberately. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, he made an Order for costs in favour of the Plaintiff on the High Court scale after the date of transfer. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. In May 2017 the Firm was rebranded from Doughty Hanson to DH Private Equity Partners (DH). A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Therefore, he argues, the actual accident was merely a variant of foreseeable accidents by splashing. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary . Distinguishing the significance of specific injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Dooley v Cammell Laird; Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co; Drake v Foster Wheeler Ltd; Dryden v Johnson Matthey PLC; Dubai Aluminium v Salaam; Dufosse v Melbry Events Ltd; Dulieu v White; Dunnage v Randall; Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd; Employers’ Liability Insurance “Trigger” Litigation LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Unless it appears on the Judgment Schedule. It was, therefore, reasonable, and I would submit the Judgments of your Lordships have made it apparent, to regard this case as of such importance as to justify High Court trial. We wanted a High Court decision for that, because there is one fatal accident case. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. It was the second risk which happened and caused the Plaintiff damage by burning. There was an eruption due to chemical changes underneath the surface of the liquid as opposed to a splash caused by displacement from bodies falling on to its surface. The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. With great respect the fallacy in this reasoning appears to me to lie in the proposition of law in paragraph (3). Kores Manufacturing Co Ltd v Kolok Manufacturing Ltd [1959] Ch 109 1959 CA Jenkins LJ Employment When considering a post employment restrictive covenant on an employee, the court should allow that an employer has a legitimate interest in maintaining a stable and trained workforce. I believe this to be the law in some parts of the United States of America and it is the principle lying behind the workmen's compensation code now abandoned, but, in my judgment, it is not justifiable to import the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher into this branch of the English law. The Claimant suffered burns from the explosion. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. His ratio decidendi, which was somewhat elliptically expressed can, I think, be fairly expanded into the following findings of fact and propositions of law: (1) It was common knowledge that some substances (viz. METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. The first risk, which it shares with any other solid object of similar weight and size, is that if it is allowed to drop on to the hot liquid in the bath with sufficient momentum it may cause the liquid to splash on to persons within about one foot from the bath and injure them by burning. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co (1964) (chemical reaction boiling over) Type of injury was foreseeable but the means by which the burns occurred was not, so no liability was found. > Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1 Q.B. Cancel anytime. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. The injury that he sustained were brought about in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable. A few moments later an explosion occurred. (7) Therefore, the damage was the result of the Defendants' breach of the duty which they owed to the Plaintiff. And when (if ever) the Plaintiff was in the area in which he could be hit by a mere splash (apparently the liquid being heavy, if splashed, would not travel further than a foot from the bath) the cover had already slid into the liquid without splashing. Such a proposition might, before The Wagon Mound, have been supported by In re Polemis, 1921 3 King's Bench, page 560. The learned Judge did mention, after giving Judgment, that that sum should be paid out to the Defendants, but by some oversight it was not included in the Judgment as drawn up. At the time of the explosion it was not known that the asbestos would react in that way. Of course, we could not object to that. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Does the County Court Act give any circumstances which should make it proper to transfer? Their Lordships held, however, that although the exact chain of events was unforeseeable, the type of accident and the injuries "though perhaps different in degree, did not differ in kind from injuries which might have resulted from an accident of a foreseeable nature". LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: What do you say about that, Mr Gibbens? But in Doughty V. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1964) 1 QB 518, the plaintiff who was an employee of the defendant company was wearing an asbestos cement covering. In Hughes v. Lord Advocate the breach of duty by the defendant which was relied upon was his omission to guard a dangerous allurement to children which was liable to cause them injury (inter alia) by burning. Listen. Posted in The Law Of Torts Tagged Adigun vs Ag oyo, Doughty vs Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd, Hughes vs Lord Advocate, Liesbosch Dredger vs Edison Steamship; The Edison, Re Polemis, Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co, Reasonable forseeability, Wagon Mound's case Leave a comment In the Wagon Mound case the Board held that Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law and that the essential factor in determining liability for the consequences of a tortious act of negligence is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. high and 3ft. Type Legal Case Document Date 1964 Volume 1 Page start 518 Web address ... Smith v Leech, Brain & Co. Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 Previous: Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] ... Have you read this? DE 68216763 Investor Relationship(IR): Edward Turner Senior Vice President, IR E-mail: USA Office: Address: Canal Street Unit A&B, South San Francisco, CA 94080 I understand that other people were injured in this same accident, my Lord. We ought, in my opinion, to start with the premise that the criterion in English law is foreseeability. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Over the course of three decades, DH established a strong track record of Reliance was put upon the case of Hughes v. Lord Advocate, where the exact consequences of the lamp overturning were not foreseen, but it was foreseeable that if the manhole were left unguarded boys would enter and tamper with the lamp and it was not unlikely that serious burns might ensue for the boy. Fagan [1969] 1 QB 439. contains alphabet), England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company Ltd. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this In Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd injury was by (unforeseeable) explosion rather than by (foreseeable) splashing. In fact, two workers approached the cauldron to watch the lid as it slipped beneath the surface of the mixture. Read our student testimonials. MR C. COLSTON (for Mr James): My Lord, this case was started in the County Court by the Plaintiff, as your Lordship will know. Mr A.E. There will be an Order for payment out of the money in Court. lid falls in, and unexpectedly disintegrates and explodes (not negligence) Bradford v Kanellos (1974) Flash fire occurred in the grill of defendant's restaurant. The cover was of a type designed for use with the furnace and had been widely so used in the trade for upwards of 20 years. I have great sympathy with the Plaintiff who suffered injury through no fault of his own. The same result would occur if something that contained actual moisture in it (as opposed to what might be called the potential moisture which is thus precipitated by great heat) was immersed; if, for instance, this cover, which is porous and capable of holding water, had been immersed when wet. In my judgment, the reasoning in Hughes v. Lord Advocate cannot be extended far enough to cover this case. LORD PEARCE (read by Lord Justice Harman): The Defendants appeal from a Judgment of Mr Justice Stable awarding to the Plaintiff 150 damages for personal injuries suffered in an accident which occurred during the Plaintiff's employment at the Defendants' factory. a sum of money. An asbestos lid was knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid accidentally causing an explosion to occur. Judgment entered for the Defendants, and that the costs of this appeal should follow. [1] [2] [3] The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in Hughes v Lord Advocate , thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Their Lordships' House distinguished the Wagon Mound case on the ground that the damage which ensued though differing in degree was the same in kind as that which was foreseeable. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, they are High Court cases. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co (Ltd) [1964] 1 All ER 98. Topic. 153 (1936) (suit by sublicensee against retailer for trademark infringement stayed pending arbitration between sublicensee and licensee). those which were chemically unstable at 800 degrees and upon disintegration at that temperature formed, among other things, a gas) would cause an explosion upon immersion in the liquid cyanide. This latter was caused by the disintegration of the hard-board under the great heat to which it was subjected and the consequent release of the moisture enclosed within it. In that department there stood two baths or cauldrons 3ft. Now, it may very well be that it is desirable that it should be the law that the employer is such an insurer and that an injury which, without the employee's fault, happens to him in the course of his employment is the responsibility of his employer. The former risk was well-known (that was foreseeable) at the time of the accident; but it did not happen. change. Mix carefully before a Court and voila – a successful negligence action, remembering the guiding principle as stated by Lord Kenneth Diplock in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company Ltd.: "There is no room today for mystique in the law of negligence. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK: The cases are all Union cases, are they? ... Hughes v Lord Advocate suggests not but see: Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556 Case summary . Doughty was an employee for the Turner Manufacturing Company (defendants). Moreover, according to the evidence it seems that the cover never did create a splash: it appears to have slid into the liquid at an angle of some 45 degrees and dived obliquely downwards. 482 S.W.2d 750 (1972) NATURE OF THE CASE: Metcalfe (P), P filed a negligence action against Glasgow (D) to recover damages for personal injuries that resulted from D's negligence in maintaining a glass window in one of … Nobody regarded this as a dangerous matter or withdrew from the neighbourhood of the bath. ... Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 . Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. No authorities were cited to the learned Judge at the trial and at that date, we are told, the Judgment of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound, reported in 1961 Appeal Cases, 388, had not yet been reported. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: On the County Court scale up to the date of transfer. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: The learned Judge appears to have decided this case in favour of the Plaintiff upon the footing that having regarded to the peril engendered by the presence in the cauldron of this mass of molten material and to the knowledge which the Defendants had that certain substances might produce dangerous results it was negligent in them or, in other words, a breach of their duty towards the Plaintiff to allow anything whatsoever to fall or slip by accident into the molten material. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. MR GIBBENS: No, my Lord. The fact that it was done inadvertently cannot create any liability, for the immersion of the cover was not an act which they were under any duty to take any care to avoid. On the transfer of the case to the High Court the Registrar made an Order as required of him that the Defendants should give security for costs in the sum of 450 as paid in by the Defendants under that Order. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd | [1964] 1 QB 518. There was thus, in the circumstances of this case, no breach of duty to the Plaintiff involved in inadvertently knocking the cover into the liquid or inadvertently allowing it to slip in. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. Our enquiry must, therefore, be whether the result of this hard-board cover slipping into the cauldron, which we know now to be inevitably an explosion, was a thing reasonably foreseeable at the time when it happened. (F.G.C.) Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Transport Board [1942] AC 509 . The Plaintiff was at that moment standing by the side of the foreman not far from the bath. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 … It had been so used in England and the United States for over 20 years. Mix carefully before a Court and voila – a successful negligence action, remembering the guiding principle as stated by Lord Kenneth Diplock in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company Ltd.: "There is no room today for mystique in the law of negligence. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: The actual amount involved here is very small. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company: Case analysis. LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK: This is a test case for both sides. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd The plaintiff was employed by the. 386 THE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. It then appeared that whenever any cover made of compound asbestos cement was immersed in the molten liquid and subjected to a temperature of over 500 degrees it created such an eruption. It is the application of common morality and common sense to the activities of the common man." But it was not suggested that this particular cover contained actual moisture at the time of the accident, since it had been standing in the hot room for some days beforehand. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Is the Plaintiff legally aided? WEC Machining Ltd offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis CNC machining and precision engineering services. Neither they, nor anyone else, thought they were doing anything risky. For these reasons I would accordingly allow this appeal. Our activities span distribution, manufacturing, support services and asset rental. They had thick walls intended to resist great heat so that the internal area of each bath was only 18 by 31 inches. Two men actually moved closer to peer into the bath and see what had happened. Tag: Doughty vs Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written By Olanrewaju Olamide. If the learned Judge's proposition is correct the mere fact of an explosion consequent upon the immersion of some substance in the liquid would render the Defendants liable, however meticulous the care they had taken to see that the substance was chemically inert at 800 degrees, for the fact of the explosion would show that the substance "could" cause one. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing - Wikipedia. (2) It was common knowledge that other substances (viz. An attempt to import into the general law of negligence a similar strict liability upon persons carrying on an ultra-hazardous activity was made in Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd., 1947 Appeal Cases, page 156, and was negatived by the House of Lords. The learned Judge took the view, which Mr James concedes was correct, that if the Defendants had deliberately immersed this cover in the bath as part of the normal process, they could not have been held liable for the resulting explosion. Du Preez & Others v Zwiegers 2008 (4) SA 627 (SCA) 1986), citing and quoting Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163, 163-66, 81 L. Ed. This is a somewhat unconventional arrangement Read more about Quimbee. (5) The Defendants did not take every possible precaution to ensure that the cover was not immersed in the liquid cyanide. Cancel anytime. Get Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 1 Q.B. It means, in effect, that the Defendants could only use the furnace at their peril, for the whole purpose of its use was to immerse in it substances which were chemically inert at 800 degrees. Turner & Co (Glasgow) is a family owned and controlled portfolio of companies established in 1912 and now employs over 1000 people worldwide. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 All Er 98 - CA - Free download as Word Doc (.doc), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. The sole question at issue is whether it was reasonable for this case to be transferred to the High Court as the County Court Act provides. After an interval, which one witness put at one minute and another at two minutes, the molten liquid erupted from the bath, injuring the bystanders by its great heat and setting fire to objects on which it fell. The result of those claims depends upon the Judgment in this case. Listen. Further, it seems somewhat doubtful whether the cover falling only from a height of 4 or 6 inches, which was the difference in level between the liquid and the sides, could have splashed any liquid outside the bath. It was under that section that we applied to the County Court Judge and had it transferred. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: We do not see why we should not apply the same rules as were applied by the Judge below. The crucial finding by the learned Judge, in a characteristically laconic Judgment, was that this was not a risk of which the Defendants at the time of the accident knew, or ought to have known. MR GIBBENS: My Lord, the issue of fact was out of all. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence.. In the present case the potential eruptive qualities of the covers when immersed in great heat were not suspected and they were not a known source of danger, but Mr James argues that the cause of injury was the escape of the hot liquid from the bath, and that injury through the escape of liquid from the bath by splashing was foreseeable. MR GIBBENS: No, my Lord; it is a Union case. LORD JUSTICE HARMAN: Are they High Court or County Court cases? Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd (1971) See Hughes v Lord Advocate. Doughty v Turner Ltd: CA 1964. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case MR COLSTON: Yes, my Lord. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. Turner appealed to the England and Wales Court of Appeals. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Listen. The second risk is that if it becomes immersed in a liquid, the temperature of which exceeds 500 degrees Centigrade, it will disintegrate and cause an under-surface explosion which will eject the liquid from the bath over a wide area and may cause injury by burning to persons within that area. Email: Call us on: 01202 821 000 Visit: Doughty Engineering Ltd is a global leader in manufacturing of rigging, suspension and lifting equipment for the film, TV and theatre industry. The cause of the accident, to quote Lord Reid's words, was "the intrusion of a new and unexpected factor". LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK: About two years before the accident the Defendants, who are the Plaintiff's employers, purchased for the purpose of their business from a reputable manufacturer of asbestos cement an asbestos cement cover for a cyanide bath heat treatment furnace, in which a cyanide salt was raised to a temperature of 800 degrees Centigrade, at which temperature it became a somewhat viscous liquid. Listen. Mr E. BRIAN GIBBENS, Q.C. E Hulton Co v Jones [1910] AC 20. square. Indeed, the evidence showed that any disturbance of the material resulting from the immersion of the hard-board was over an appreciable time before the explosion happened. The procedural disposition (e.g. References: [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] 1 QB 518, [1963] EWCA Civ 3, [1964] 2 WLR 240, [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] QB 518 ... is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. Du Preez & Others v … DOUGHTY v TURNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY [1964] 1 All ER 98. Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing (Nantong) Co., Ltd Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA Co., Ltd. WEEE-Reg.-Nr. This water turns to steam and produces an explosion or eruption which throws some of the hot molten liquid out of the bath, Thus the immersion of the cover in the bath was inevitably followed by an eruption of liquid from the bath. The evidence showed that splashes caused by sudden immersion, whether of the metal objects for which it was intended or any other extraneous object, were a foreseeable danger which should be carefully avoided. In the then state of their knowledge, for which the learned Judge, rightly on the evidence, held them in no way to blame, the accident was not foreseeable. 1196 . In my opinion, the damage here was of an entirely different kind from the foreseeable splash. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Turner was found liable at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518 CA (UK Caselaw) They used it in a place where it might inadvertently be caused to fall into the liquid cyanide and become immersed therein. Failure to avoid knocking it into the liquid, or allowing it to slip in, was of itself no breach of duty to the Plaintiff. The reasoning in his Judgment is not sufficiently explicit to make it clear whether the point argued by Mr James, with which I am now dealing, formed part of his ratio decidendi, though some of his observations in the course of the hearing suggest that it was not. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. This finding, which was justified by the evidence and has not been assailed in this appeal, would appear to lead logically to the conclusion that in causing, or failing to prevent, the immersion of the cover in the liquid, the Defendants, by their servants, were in breach of no duty of care owed to the Plaintiff, for this was not an act or omission which they could reasonably foresee was likely to cause him damage. He must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which he can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his neighbour; but he need do no more than this. In order to conserve the heat in each bath there were two loose covers which rested side by side over it. Get free access to the complete judgment in DOUGHTY v. FUNK on CaseMine. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. The infant plaintiff, to whom the duty was owed, was allured and was injured by burning, although the particular concatenation of circumstances which resulted in his burns being more serious than they would have been expected to be could not reasonably have been foreseen. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of I understand that they are being conducted by other Solicitors, but by the same Union. Brady, R O --- "A Reconciliation Problem in Remoteness: Hughes v Lord Advocate and Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd" [1965] SydLawRw 12; (1965) 5(1) Sydney Law Review 169 Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above The falling cover might have ejected the liquid by a splash and in the result it did eject the liquid, though in a more dramatic fashion. They did so on the recommendation of the reputable manufacturers of the furnace itself. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. We were not prepared to have it decided in the County Court. Operating from a purpose built 33,000 sq. The learned Judge, nevertheless, found the Defendants liable. The foreseeable risk was injury from splashing liquid, but there was little splash and no one was injured. I only would observe that the other cases were made to mark time, so that this case could be decided first, by those acting for the various Plaintiffs. They asked for it. He therefore held that the inadvertence of one of the Defendants' workmen in upsetting the cover into the bath was "negligent in the true sense of the word; that is to say, it constituted an actionable wrong". References: [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] 1 QB 518, [1963] EWCA Civ 3, [1964] 2 WLR 240, [1964] 1 All ER 98, [1964] QB 518 ... is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.