Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 & 5)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 April 2000 |
| Date | 07 April 2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Aiken
Tort - wrongful interference with goods - foreseeability test for issues of remoteness
The test of foreseeability for issues of remoteness for damage in wrongful interference with goods cases should replace the question whether the damage was the direct or direct and natural result of the tort.
Mr Justice Aiken so held in the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division when he dismissing the claim of Kuwait Airways Corporation, against Iraqi Airways Company for damages for the loss of 10 civil aircraft removed by invading Iraqi forces from Kuwait airport which, on the direction of the Iraqi Government were later incorporated into the defendant's fleet.
The original writ including the State of Iraq as the second defendant was held by the House of Lords not to have been served on the tate (The Times July 26, 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 1147).
Mr Nicholas Chambers, QC, Mr Christopher Greenwood, QC, Mr Joseph Smouha and Mr Sam Wordsworth for Kuwait Airways; Mr David Donaldson, QC, and Stephen Nathan, QC, for the defendant.
MR JUSTICE AIKEN said that the more the cases on causation, new intervening event and remoteness were considered, the more it was clear that these cases were all aspects of one broader question that had plagued the courts, whether the claim was made in contract or tort.
Many cases dealing with causation in tort established clearly that a court had to consider two aspects: first, whether the damage alleged was in fact caused by the tort complained of and second, if it was, then whether the defendant was liable for the damage.
It was impossible to formulate verbally a single test of how the court should determine, whether a particular act or omission was an incidental connection or was causally relevant or was one of the crucial causes of the damage claimed.
When it was alleged that a new intervening event prevented the defendant from being liable for the damage claimed the court was entitled to ask a number of questions about the new event, such as: what had been done or omitted; who or what had been involved; had the act or omission been involved in the new event foreseeable to the original wrongdoer.
In considering whether the rationale for the foreseeability test of remoteness that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Petrotimor Companhia De Petroleos S.A.R.L. v Commonwealth
- Fairfax Gerrard Holdings Ltd and Others v Capital Bank Plc
-
The Cherry
... ... board the vessels from Kuwait to the port of Fujairah in the United Arab ... Greek company called Dynacom Tankers Management Ltd. They were ... by Metro from Kuwait Petroleum Corporation ... (‘KPC’) on FOB Kuwait terms. These ... accordance with the arrangements described in 4, BTC had, at the instance of the ... respondents, ... Airways ... Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co [2002] 2 WLR ... ...
-
Van Zyl and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others
... ... 306) ... (4) International minimum standards pertaining to ... claim, the wronged foreign person or company had to have South African nationality, the ... the following dicta of Lord Nicholls in Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Co. (Nos 4 ... ...