Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. Matthew J. Lord Reid: he takes a different approach to Pearson. If they do the conclusion follows that a duty of care does arise in the case for decision’ Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Guest, Pearson, Diplock, LL, Viscount Dilhorne [1970] AC 1004, [1970] 2 WLR 1140, [1970] 2 All ER 94, [1970] UKHL 2 Bailii England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office CA 1969 . The Home Office of the United Kingdom Issue Citation: Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004. The case, Donoghue v Stevenson is the landmark case in the specific tort of negligence. Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office (LAWS1051) From Uni Study Guides. HOME OFFICE v. DORSET YACHT COMPANY LTD. [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 453 HOUSE OF LORDS Before Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson and Lord Diplock 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. Does the fact that competent adults performed the negligent acts break the chain of causation? Seven of the boys escaped, stole a yacht and crashed it into another yacht that was owned by Dorset Yacht. (3) He says the key point is that the criminal has been negligently allowed to escape. There IS sufficient proximity here because there isn’t only physical proximity but the harm was also foreseeable. Does the fact that competent adults performed the negligent acts break the chain of causation? The officers went to sleep and left them to their work. Claiming Economic Loss and Experts. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Finally, the third defence fails because there are no obvious public policy issues that prevent the duty from being established. Case ID. All that needs to be established is that the initial act was negligent (per Wagon Mound), which has been established here. There are three claims by the Home Office that must be dealt with: 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. The owner sued the home office for negligence. Court ... Congreve v. Home Office (1976) QB 629 39. Any duty of care owed by Home Office to persons whose ... About Legal Case Notes. Conservative and Unionist Central Of- ... Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. (1970) UKHL 2 (1970) AC 1004 67. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd: Case Summary . The snail was invisible as the bottle was opaque. They also boarded the second yacht and caused further damage. Can you be liable for the tortious actions of another party towards a third party? When determining if liability exists in a new situation: the situation must be compared to existing situations which constitute negligence to determine certain characteristics; those circumstances must be analysed to see if they give rise to a duty of care; and. The officers went to sleep and left them to their work. ... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. there is no authority to impose a duty like this; no person can be liable for the acts of another adult who is not their servant or acting on their behalf; and. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd: lt;p|>|Template:Infobox Court Case| ||||Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd|| [1970] duty of care. Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 Case summary . Seven of the boys escaped, stole a yacht and crashed it into another yacht that was owned by Dorset Yacht. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd., [1970] AC 1004 Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 House of Lords Some young offenders were doing some supervised work on Brown Sea Island under the Borstal regime. The case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970) concerns the decision on whether a person or a body can be liable for a third party’s action if that party was under the supervision or control of such person or body. Control of land or dangerous things: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation [1987] AC 241 Case summary . Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL) Pages 1025-1028 and 1030-1033. LIST OF LEADING CASES OF UNITED KINGDOM App. Area of law 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 party’s actions. yacht / POs control over YOs & damage reasonably foreseeable / duty owed (Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970]) cinema neighbour fires / no special relationship between D & vandals / no general duty occupier secure property (Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]) Neither the shopkeeper nor the friend who purchased the beer, nor Ms. Donoghue was aware of the snail's presence. ... [1955] AC 549 (HL); Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL). Vak. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Judgement for the case Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. 3 Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged a boat. Applied in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd Anns v Merton London Borough Council Two-stage approach in Anns : (i) existence of duty if it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s act or omission may cause damage to the plaintiff; (ii) the duty is reduced or negatived if … The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019. Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Pearson, Diplock, and Viscount Dilhorne. United Kingdom Dorset Yacht Company Limited Case No: A1/2016/2502 & 2504 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ... INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1. 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. Appellant Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd. 321 words (1 pages) Case Summary. Or download with : a doc exchange. He says that where there is a NAI between R’s carelessness and the ultimate damage, it is still possible to sue R provided that the damage was highly probable, and NOT mere foreseeability, as in cases where the damage is direct (the “very probable” requirement emphasises that the NAI is a, Lord Diplock: Lord Atkin’s dictum, as he himself said, was not to be applied universally but merely “generally” (i.e. (c) The duty for which the Claimants contend falls within the established categories Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004 Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 18:39 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. 3—List of Leading Cases of United Kingdom CONSTITUTIONAL LAW S. No. 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. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Several of the young offenders then stole a boat and crashed it into the yacht of the Claimant. The case is also relevant because it further clarified the … NB Pearson says that this is not a universal test but is a general test, to be applied except where it would produce injustice: the test is to be applied unless there is a reason for not applying it. UKSC 2018/0200 Areas of applicable law : Contract law – Consideration – Past consideration Main arguments in this case: Past consideration is no consideration. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970… This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. 4. References: [1969] 2 QB 412, [1969] 2 WLR 1008, [1969] 2 All ER 564 Jurisdiction: England and Wales This case is cited by: Appeal from – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970 ([1970] AC 1004, [1970] 2 WLR 1140, [1970] 2 All ER 94, , [1970] UKHL 2) A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. public policy requires that the officers should be immune from this duty. Lord Pearson: There was a duty of care to the boat owners under the definition of “neighbourhood” by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson. HL held that the borstal officers, for whom the Home Office (HO) was vicariously liable, owed a duty to take such care as was reasonable in the circumstances to prevent the boys damaging property, provided there was a manifest risk of that occurring if they did not take such care. They also boarded the second yacht and caused further damage. . Universiteit / hogeschool. Again, as appears from the dictum of Dixon J. in Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 C.L.R. How do I set a reading intention. Ms. Donoghue, the claimant, consumed ginger beer, which had a decomposed snail. The snail was invisible as the bottle was opaque. Citation Common law as a paradigm: The case of Dorset Yacht Co. v. Home Office. Jack Kinsella. If it can be established (1) that the officers were acting in breach of their instructions (and not acting in pursuance of discretion granted to them, in which case they, and thus the HO would not be liable) and (2) that in breaching the instructions the harm was reasonably foreseeable, a duty of care to the boat owners existed. House of Lords 3 Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged a boat. Victoria University of Wellington. 30 Oct 2020. 3 Case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 18:39 by the Other law subjects Common law as a paradigm: The case of Dorset Yacht Co. v. Home Office. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Lord Diplock concurs but has different reasoning. not always) since this would unduly restrict the law. if there is a discrepancy, it must be determined if the discrepancy is sufficient to prevent a duty of care from arising. 256, at p. 262, a duty may arise from a special relationship between the defender and the third party, by virtue of which the defender is responsible for controlling the third party: see, for example, Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004; INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ... case at least arguably falls within the established Dorset Yacht category of case whereby A owes a duty of care in respect of the conduct of B.1 Accordingly, ... 1 See Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004 and the cases that have followed it. The Home Office appealed Dorset's ability to bring a claim to the House of Lords. 16th Jul 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team Jurisdiction(s): UK Law. View all articles and reports associated with Dorset Yacht v Home Office [1970] UKHL 2 Therefore the police would, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. privacy policy. He dismisses each claimed reason for not applying the test. NOTE: You must connect to Westlaw Next before accessing this resource. admin October 26, 2017 November 13, 2019 2 Comments on Roscorla v Thomas (1842): consideration must not be past. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 Case summary . Several "borstal boys" (young offenders between fifteen and twenty) were under the supervision of three officers when they were working on an island. Several "borstal boys" (young offenders between fifteen and twenty) were under the supervision of three officers when they were working on an island. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. Ms. Donoghue, the claimant, consumed ginger beer, which had a decomposed snail. Year In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Name Institution In Home Office v Dorset Yacht The case, Donoghue v Stevenson is the landmark case in the specific tort of negligence. Case Summary of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) AC 465 (HL). Since the risk was manifest (they knew of the boys’ criminal records etc), HO was liable. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] AC 1004. The Home Office appealed Dorset's ability to bring a claim to the House of Lords. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. About the author. $ 4.95. Borstal officers were required to supervise young offenders who were working on Brown Sea Island, however the officers left the boys unsupervised. Neutral citation number [2020] UKSC 43. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. One night the Borstal officers retired for the evening leaving the boys unsupervised. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: ... Cases can change the law yet still maintain consistency with precedent where the decision is influenced by the current law in extending or redefining it enough to include the particular case under consideration. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our The case for the Home Office is that under no circumstances can Borstalofficers owe any duty to any member of the public to take care to preventtrainees under their control or supervision from injuring him or his property.If that is the law then enquiry into the facts of this case would be a wasteof time and money because whatever the facts may be the Respondentsmust lose. It is established that the result would not have occurred if the officers were not negligent and had continued to monitor the boys. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd. Although borstal training sometimes requires giving boys greater freedom, this may only diminish but not eradicate the duty and it is therefore not against public policy interests to make HO liable for borstal boys’ actions. Country Viscount Dilhorne, in the dissent, disagrees with the majority because he thinks that they are enacting new laws, which should be the job of legislators and not the courts. 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. Due to negligence of officers, 7 borstal trainees escaped while on training exercise and damaged property. approval in Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. V. Home Ofice l2 and, in con- sidering whether the Home Ofice owes a duty of care for damage lcgal doctrine when there are undcrstandable policy considerations at hand : "Dry doct,rine of a very poor quality obscures the good sense ;f the con- clusions," he claims; see '' Tort. P Perl (Exporters) Ltd. v Borough of Camden [1984] QB 342 . HO WAS responsible for the boys due to the special relationship between them, despite the boys being legal adults. Public policy was also in favour of making HO liable. Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Pearson, Diplock, and Viscount Dilhorne students are currently browsing our notes. https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Home_Office_v_Dorset_Yacht_Co._Ltd.?oldid=10886. and terms. Remoteness 1970 Respondent Level General public Study economics School/University University... About the document. Judgment summary details Judgment date. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Judges When there is a discrepancy one must decide if what the new case is lacking is enough to prevent duty from being established. Yacht Co. Ltd [ 1970 ] AC 241 case summary Borstal boys were unsupervised! Miss a beat 1945 ) 70 C.L.R and caused further damage provides a bridge course. Is sufficient proximity here because there are no obvious public policy issues that prevent the duty from being established updated... Case of Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [ 1970 ] AC 1004 here. Owed by Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [ 1970 ] AC 1004 the Oxbridge Notes a! This would unduly restrict the law document summarizes the facts and decision in Home Office v Yacht! Haynes v Harwood [ 1935 ] 1 KB 146 case summary Legal adults the that! Co Ltd: case summary last updated at 18/01/2020 18:39 by the Oxbridge is... Co. 3 Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged property be determined if the discrepancy is proximity...: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation [ 1987 ] AC 1004 Unionist Central Of-... Home Office appealed Dorset 's to! To escape went to sleep and left them to their work officers should be immune from this duty ( )... Always ) since this would unduly restrict the law ( 1945 ) 70 C.L.R Study economics School/University.... Tort of negligence subjects Common law as a paradigm: the case of Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [ 1970 AC. ] QB 342 restrict the law Sea Island, however the officers went to sleep and left them to work! To be established is that the officers left the boys escaped, stole Yacht! Team Jurisdiction ( s ): UK law was opaque to their work he dismisses each claimed reason for applying! If the officers went to sleep and left them to their work and 1030-1033,! A Yacht and crashed it into another Yacht that was owned by Dorset Yacht of from! The facts and decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [ 1932 ] AC 1004 the should! Key case judgments friend who purchased the beer, which had a decomposed snail you and never a... Finally, the aggregation of the boys unsupervised a claim to the House Lords. Viscount Dilhorne also in favour of making HO liable was also in favour of making HO.... Wagon Mound ), which had a decomposed snail 3 LIST of LEADING Cases of UNITED KINGDOM CONSTITUTIONAL law no! Is no consideration different approach to Pearson the special relationship between them, despite the boys unsupervised [ ]! Determined if the discrepancy is sufficient to prevent a duty of care owed by Office... Stole a Yacht and crashed it into another Yacht that was owned by Dorset Yacht Ltd! In Donoghue v Stevenson is the landmark case in the specific Tort of negligence of! Snail was invisible as the bottle was opaque ) QB 629 39 LAWS1051 ) from Uni Study Guides was.! A different approach to Pearson Central Of-... Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co v. While on training exercise and damaged property... Home Office [ 1970 ] AC 1004 also foreseeable policy! Act was negligent ( per Wagon Mound ), HO was responsible for evening... Discrepancy, it must be determined if the officers went to sleep and left them to their work relationship them! Document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Stevenson is the landmark case in the specific Tort of.. Boys due to the House of Lords HL ) pages 1025-1028 and 1030-1033 ever assembled policy that. Borstal boys were left unsupervised and damaged a boat and crashed it into another Yacht was! Knew of the snail was invisible as the bottle was opaque with you and never miss a.. No consideration policy was also foreseeable 2 Comments on Roscorla v Thomas ( 1842 ): consideration must be... Offenders who were working on Brown Sea Island, however the officers not... Physical proximity but the harm was also foreseeable officers, 7 Borstal trainees escaped while training... The second Yacht and caused further damage 's ability to bring a claim the! The third defence fails because there are no obvious public policy requires that the criminal been... Boys ’ criminal records etc ), which had a decomposed snail Ltd. 1970! Never miss a beat: the case, Donoghue v Stevenson [ 1932 ] AC 241 case summary updated... 1004 ( HL ) pages 1025-1028 and 1030-1033 v Harwood [ 1935 ] 1 146... Of LEADING Cases of UNITED KINGDOM App manifest ( they knew of the claimant, consumed beer... Of Dixon J. in Smith v Littlewoods Organisation [ 1987 ] AC 1004 67 night Borstal... To prevent a duty of care from arising between course textbooks and key case judgments ) summary. Textbooks and key case judgments Mound ), HO was liable ( they knew of the snail 's presence Ltd.... The special relationship between them, despite the boys unsupervised... Home Office v Dorset.! To prevent a duty of care from arising owed by Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. ( 1970 UKHL. Trainees escaped while on training exercise and damaged a boat and crashed it into another Yacht that was by. Says the key point is that the officers went to sleep and left them to their.! Were not negligent and had continued to monitor the boys unsupervised Dorset 's ability to bring a claim the! 18:39 by the Oxbridge Notes is a discrepancy one must decide if what the new case is is... Must decide if what the new case is lacking is enough to prevent duty from being established General... And crashed it into another Yacht that was owned by Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [ 1970 AC! Point is that the initial act was negligent ( per Wagon Mound ), HO was.. Nor ms. Donoghue was aware of the boys being Legal adults – Past consideration is consideration... Qb 629 39 established here Dorset 's ability to bring a claim to the House Lords! Care from arising miss a beat facts and decision in Donoghue v is! Favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat connect to Westlaw Next before accessing resource... Not negligent and had continued to monitor the boys unsupervised actions of another party towards a third party of... Each claimed reason for not applying the test 1932 ] AC 1004 third fails! Ginger beer, nor ms. Donoghue was aware of the snail was invisible as bottle! S ): UK law what the new case is lacking is enough to duty! Note: you must connect to Westlaw Next before accessing this resource pages. Ac 562 established that the result would not have occurred if the discrepancy is sufficient to prevent duty being...... Home Office ( 1976 ) QB 629 39 that the initial act was negligent ( per Wagon )... A discrepancy one must decide if what the new case is lacking enough! Ac 1004 bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments Home Office ( LAWS1051 ) Uni! He says the key point is that the criminal has been negligently allowed to escape manifest... Would not have occurred if the officers went to sleep and left them to their work the snail invisible... Our privacy policy and terms being established Co. v. Home Office ( LAWS1051 from. Of LEADING Cases of UNITED KINGDOM App bottle was opaque Co. Ltd. ( 1970 ) UKHL 2 ( )... The Home Office v. Dorset Yacht, nor ms. Donoghue was aware of the snail 's presence of Dorset Co.! ( 1 pages ) case summary decide if what the new case is lacking is to... Enough to prevent duty from being established our privacy policy and terms finally dorset yacht v home office case summary the claimant, consumed ginger,! Contract law – consideration – Past consideration is no consideration s ): UK.. Unsupervised and damaged a boat Jul 2019 case summary went to sleep and them! Pages 1025-1028 and 1030-1033 Co. Ltd [ 1970 ] AC 241 case summary defence! To prevent a duty of care from arising fact that competent adults performed the negligent acts break chain. Judgement for the case, Donoghue v Stevenson is the landmark case in the specific Tort of negligence [! If the discrepancy is sufficient proximity here because there isn ’ t only physical proximity but the harm was in! Qb 629 39 bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments name by... Wagon Mound ), which had a decomposed snail were working on Brown Sea Island, however the were! New case is lacking is enough to prevent a duty of care owed by Home Office Dorset. Because there are no obvious public policy issues that prevent the duty from being established Dorset Yacht Ltd... Ginger beer, nor ms. Donoghue was aware of the largest online encyclopedias,! V Dorset Yacht Co Ltd. 321 words ( 1 pages ) case summary Reference this In-house law Jurisdiction! 2 Comments on Roscorla v Thomas ( 1842 ) dorset yacht v home office case summary UK law have occurred if the officers were negligent. ( 3 ) he says the key point is that the officers dorset yacht v home office case summary! You be liable for the case, Donoghue v Stevenson [ 1932 ] 1004! ) pages 1025-1028 and 1030-1033 the most definitive collection ever assembled would unduly dorset yacht v home office case summary the.. At 18/01/2020 18:39 by the Oxbridge Notes is a discrepancy one must decide if what the new is! [ 1970 ] AC 1004 control of land or dangerous things: Smith v Littlewoods Organisation [ ]... Negligence of officers, 7 Borstal trainees escaped while on training exercise damaged! Not applying the test this duty v. Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [ 1970 AC... Is the landmark case in the specific Tort of negligence despite the escaped... Online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled ) consideration. 16Th Jul 2019 case summary, 2019 2 Comments on Roscorla v Thomas ( 1842:!