347:
110:
31:
307:
in
Admiralty but had the assistance of two assessors to advise him upon matters requiring nautical or other professional knowledge and arrived at a conclusion of fact upon conflicting testimony, it would need a very clear case of error for this Court, without the assistance of any assessors, to reverse such a finding.
306:
While I think the onus lay throughout the case upon the appellant to satisfy the Court that there was no fault upon him which directly caused the collision, the learned judge has affirmatively found that there was such fault; and where the trial judge, as here, is not only an experienced local Judge
328:
In their
Lordships' view the real question is that which Mr Justice Demers proposed to himself and which the Supreme Court of Canada also proposed to themselves: "Has the defendant established that this was an inevitable accident?" It was contended by the learned counsel that there was no duty upon
333:
in the Basin. Their
Lordships, however, are of opinion that whatever may have been the right of the defendant, after he had received notice from the Harbour authorities, to expect an empty berth, he had no right to expect an empty Basin, or a Basin either devoid of ships or with ships absolutely
301:
held that when a vessel under steam collides with a moored vessel, the commander of the vessel under steam is presumed liable for the collision, and has the onus of proving that he was not negligent. Wake-Walker had not done so. In summary, the majority stated:
346:
445:
277:(Quebec Admiralty District), assisted by two nautical assessors. The plaintiffs alleged that the collision was caused solely by the improper and negligent navigation and mismanagement of
338:
Therefore, the Privy
Council agreed with the courts below that Wake-Walker had not discharged the onus to prove that the accident had been inevitable.
195:
50:
354:
In spite of the finding of liability, Wake-Walker continued to rise in the Royal Navy. Promoted to rear-admiral in 1939, he was involved in
450:
460:
133:
320:, including Canada. His appeal was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The opinion was delivered by
316:
Wake-Walker then appealed to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the
455:
281:
by Wake-Walker. In his defence, Wake-Walker pleaded inevitable accident, said to be caused by the maneuvering of the
363:
274:
285:, which Wake-Walker was trying to avoid hitting. On June 21, 1935, Demers J. held that Wake-Walker was liable.
294:
199:
105:
149:
317:
225:
395:
355:
371:
298:
218:
129:
35:
109:
367:
366:
in 1942, and he was heavily involved in creating the flotilla of landing craft needed for
321:
164:
125:
411:
78:
141:
439:
188:
191:
137:
61:
Captain W. F. Wake-Walker O.B.E. R.N. v
Steamer Colin W. Limited and others
229:
194:
concerning the issue of inevitable accident. The case was decided by the
359:
30:
240:. After entering the basin, it attempted to avoid colliding into the
237:
233:
446:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada
362:
in 1940. Ships under his command played a key role in hunting the
297:
upheld the finding of liability. In his opinion for the majority,
345:
244:, but it subsequently collided with an oil bunkering steamer, the
248:, which was securely moored at the time of the collision. The
228:
was entering the Market (or
Victoria) Basin in the harbour of
350:
Vice
Admiral Sir W Frederic Wake-Walker, Third Sea Lord, 1944
396:
Captain W. F. Wake-Walker v. Steamer Colin w. Ltd, SCR 624.
273:
The admiralty action was heard by Mr. Justice Demers of the
41:, the ship commanded by Captain Wake-Walker in the collision
427:
The
Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution
312:
Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
170:
160:
155:
121:
116:
101:
90:
85:
74:
66:
56:
46:
23:
429:(Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), pp. 4–9, 42.
326:
304:
8:
29:
20:
198:, in an appeal affirming a ruling by the
256:sued Wake-Walker for the damages to the
383:
196:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
51:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
425:James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan,
407:
405:
403:
329:him to anticipate the movement of the
391:
389:
387:
7:
95:Wake-Walker v. Steamer Colin W. Ltd.
176:Admiralty law; inevitable accident
81:, 2 DLR 753 (PC), 58 Ll L Rep. 11
413:Wake-Walker v Steamer Colin W. Ltd
14:
16:Admiralty case from Canada – JCPC
370:in North Africa, and later the
264:Decisions of the Canadian courts
108:
1:
224:under the command of Captain
184:Wake-Walker v SS Colin W Ltd
24:Wake-Walker v SS Colin W Ltd
477:
206:The collision between HMS
451:1937 in Canadian case law
275:Exchequer Court of Canada
252:sank. The owners of the
175:
28:
295:Supreme Court of Canada
293:On a 3-2 majority, the
289:Supreme Court of Canada
200:Supreme Court of Canada
106:Supreme Court of Canada
461:Canadian tort case law
351:
336:
309:
349:
358:, the evacuation of
318:British Commonwealth
226:Frederic Wake-Walker
217:On August 13, 1934,
150:Captain W.R. Chaplin
145:Nautical Assessors:
456:Admiralty case law
352:
372:Normandy landings
342:Subsequent career
180:
179:
468:
430:
423:
417:
415:, UKPC 49 (PC).
409:
398:
393:
356:Operation Dynamo
130:Lord Blanesburgh
117:Court membership
112:
33:
21:
476:
475:
471:
470:
469:
467:
466:
465:
436:
435:
434:
433:
424:
420:
410:
401:
394:
385:
380:
368:Operation Torch
344:
331:Saguenay Trader
322:Viscount Sankey
314:
291:
283:Saguenay Trader
271:
269:Exchequer Court
266:
260:and its cargo.
242:Saguenay Trader
215:
165:Viscount Sankey
148:
146:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
126:Viscount Sankey
42:
17:
12:
11:
5:
474:
472:
464:
463:
458:
453:
448:
438:
437:
432:
431:
418:
399:
382:
381:
379:
376:
343:
340:
313:
310:
290:
287:
270:
267:
265:
262:
214:
204:
187:is a Canadian
178:
177:
173:
172:
168:
167:
162:
158:
157:
153:
152:
147:Captain Mackay
142:Lord Macmillan
134:Lord Merrivale
123:
122:Judges sitting
119:
118:
114:
113:
103:
99:
98:
92:
88:
87:
83:
82:
76:
72:
71:
70:April 15, 1937
68:
64:
63:
58:
57:Full case name
54:
53:
48:
44:
43:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
473:
462:
459:
457:
454:
452:
449:
447:
444:
443:
441:
428:
422:
419:
416:
414:
408:
406:
404:
400:
397:
392:
390:
388:
384:
377:
375:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
348:
341:
339:
335:
332:
325:
324:which noted:
323:
319:
311:
308:
303:
300:
296:
288:
286:
284:
280:
276:
268:
263:
261:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
213:
209:
205:
203:
201:
197:
193:
190:
189:admiralty law
186:
185:
174:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:Case opinions
154:
151:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
120:
115:
111:
107:
104:
102:Appealed from
100:
96:
93:
91:Prior actions
89:
84:
80:
77:
73:
69:
65:
62:
59:
55:
52:
49:
45:
40:
39:
32:
27:
22:
19:
426:
421:
412:
353:
337:
334:motionless.
330:
327:
315:
305:
292:
282:
278:
272:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
220:
216:
211:
207:
183:
182:
181:
94:
86:Case history
60:
37:
18:
258:Maplebranch
254:Maplebranch
250:Maplebranch
246:Maplebranch
212:Maplebranch
161:Decision by
440:Categories
378:References
374:on D-Day.
138:Lord Atkin
97:, SCR 624
219:HMS
75:Citations
36:HMS
364:Bismarck
299:Davis J.
230:Montreal
210:and the
171:Keywords
360:Dunkirk
79:UKPC 49
67:Decided
279:Dragon
238:Canada
234:Quebec
221:Dragon
208:Dragon
38:Dragon
47:Court
192:case
442::
402:^
386:^
236:,
232:,
202:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
