Hillen and Pettigrew v I.C.I. (Alkali) Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
JudgeLord Atkin,Lord Tomlin
Judgment Date04 Jul 1935
Judgment citation (vLex)[1935] UKHL J0704-1

[1935] UKHL J0704-1

House of Lords

Lord Atkin.

Lord Tomlin.

Lord Thankerton.

Lord Wright.

Lord Alness.

Hillen and Another
I.C.I. (Alkali) Ltd.

After hearing Counsel for the Appellants, as well on Tuesday the 28th and Thursday the 30th, as on Friday the 31st, days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of William John Hillen, of 34, Benedict Street, Bootle, in the County of Lancaster, and Luke Pettigrew, of 57, Orwell Road, Kirkdale, in the County of Lancaster, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 13th of November 1933, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of I.C.I. (Alkali) Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 13th day of November 1933, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Lord Atkin .

My Lords,


I am asked to say that my noble and learned friends Lord Thankerton and Lord Wright concur in the opinion which I am about to deliver.

My Lords,


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal who reversed a judgment for the two Plaintiffs given by Mr. Justice Goddard at a trial in Liverpool with a common jury. The two Plaintiffs, now Appellants, were dock labourers employed by the Pacific Steam Navigation Co. to load the s.s. "Darro." They were members of a stevedores' gang working under a foreman named Senior. On the day in question they were directed to assist in loading cargo on the "Darro" from the barge "Hibernia" lying alongside. The "Hibernia" was owned by the Respondents and her cargo consisted of soda in kegs and bags, the kegs being on top. She had one hold and a hatch 41 feet long and about 11 feet 6 inches wide which was covered by 20 hatch covers. There were two hatchway beams athwart the hatch and fore and aft beams in three sections which passed along the centre of the hatch resting on the crossbeams, and served to support the hatch covers when in position. They had to be removed when the barge was being loaded or unloaded. The hatch had coamings about 1 foot 3 inches high. The hold was about 15 feet deep. The barge had a crew of three, master, mate and engineer. The stevedore foreman required the bags to be hoisted on the "Darro" before the kegs. The kegs were therefore placed apparently by hand on the narrow deck of the barge, a passage about 3 feet wide; and the bags were conveyed to the "Darro" in canvas slings carried by the ship's derricks. The barge cargo for the "Darro" was contained in the after third of the hold, abaft the after transverse beam. The remainder of the hold was occupied by cargo for two other vessels to which the barge was to proceed after completing her discharge to the "Darro." After the bags for the "Darro" had been transported in the slings the crew of the barge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • R v Jones (John)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 9 March 1976
    ...being a trespasser. 20 In our view the passage there referred to is consonant with the passage in the well known case of Hillen and Pettigrew v. I.C.I. (Alkali), Limited (1936) Appeal Cases at page 65 where, in the speech of Lord Atkin these words appear: "My Lords, in my opinion this ......
  • British Railways Board v Herrington
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 2 December 1970
    ...an interpretation is permissible remains the problem. In a puzzling passage in Hillen & Pettigrew v. I.C.I. (Alkali) Ltd. (1936 Appeal Cases 65), decided within a few years of Donoghue v. Stevenson, Lord Atkin went so far as to say: "I know of no duty to a trespasser owed by the oc......
  • Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and another
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 31 July 2003
    ...into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters". This quip was used by Lord Atkin in Hillen v ICI (Alkali) Ltd [1936] AC 65, 69 to explain why stevedores who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it nevertheless became trespas......
  • Videan v British Transport Commission
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 May 1963
    ...the House of Lords which indicate that foreseeability and not occupation was the test of the liability of the Defendants. 39 In Hillen and Pettigrew v. I. C. I. 1936 Appeal Cases, page 65, the appellants were stevedores injured by falling into a barge whose hatch covers gave way. They were ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT