Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Potter J. |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1996 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty) |
| Date | 27 February 1996 |
Admiralty Court of the Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Potter
Nuisance - damage to river barge from fireworks display actionable
Damage to a floating barge moored in a river was actionable as a private nuisance.
The Admiralty Court of the Queen's Bench Division so held in an action by Crown River Cruises Ltd for damage caused to their vessels by Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd in negligence, nuisance and under the principle laid down inRylands v FletcherELR ((1868) LR 3 HL 330) and against the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority for negligent failure properly to extinguish a fire.
The relevant vessels were a permanently moored dumb barge, used as a mooring from which passenger vessels operated, and a passenger vessel. Both were in the River Thames close to the Battle of Britain firework display in 1990. They had not been required to move but had been warned of falling debris by the Port of London Authority.
A small fire, which was attended by the second defendants, began upon the dumb barge and it was common ground that it had been caused by hot and burning debris falling in the course of the display.
Later that evening the passenger vessel returned to moor alongside the barge as was usual. Several hours later fire broke out on that vessel and substantial damage was also caused to the barge.
Mr Timothy Brenton for the plaintiffs; Mr Sebastian Neville-Clark for Kimbolton Fireworks; Mr Nigel Wilkinson, QC and Ms Kerstin Boyd for the fire authority.
MR JUSTICE POTTER said that the first defendants, who had great experience of siting and organising grand firework displays, had taken the understandable but none the less foreseeable and unjustifiable risk of some damage occurring in the course of the display, relying on the attendance of the second defendants. They had taken no steps to inspect the contents of the vessels for flammable material and in the circumstances the first defendants had been negligent. His Lordship accepted expert evidence that the fire on board the passenger vessel was as a result of the second defendants' negligent failure properly to extinguish the original fire.
His Lordship went on to consider the claim in both public and private nuisance. The second defendants had submitted that since the essence of nuisance was a condition or activity which interfered with the use or enjoyment of land, it was not an action which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and Others
- Jan de Nul (UK) Ltd v NV Royale Belge
-
Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK Plc [QBD (Comm)]
...the part of Mr Nash: see below. 55 Yet another witness not called by Total. 56 See also Clerk & Lindsell 19th Ed para 21–23 57 Crown River v Kimbolton [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 533 58 Although issues have arisen as regards the recoverability of economic loss. 59 [1905] 2 K.B. 597 60 [1969] ......
-
Saatchi & Saatchi Pte Ltd and Others v Tan Hun Ling (Clarke Quay Pte Ltd, Third Party)
...the plaintiff loss. 26 Potter J in Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd and London Fire & Civil Defence Authority [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 533, in referring to the above speech, accepted and observed that it was more difficult to establish a break in the chain of causation when the......