chapter  4
What kind of damage did Southport Corporation suffer: physical damage or economic loss? 5 Read Benjamin v Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400 in the law report. Why did Devlin J not draw an analogy with this case rather than with the traffic accident cases? 6 Did Esso have control of the tanker? Under what circumstances should control, of itself, give rise to liability on the part of the person in control when the thing controlled does damage? Should something more than control itself be required before one can attribute liability? (Cf Chapter 7.) 7 Do Esso and Cambridge Water (see p 665), when taken together, reject, as a matter of common law, the principle that it is the polluter who should pay?
Pages 5

This was an appeal to the Privy Council in respect of an action, brought in the Hong Kong courts, for a Mareva injunction to freeze the assets of two defendants who had allegedly misappropriated the claimant’s money. One defendant succeeded in Hong Kong in getting the injunction set aside on the ground that the injunction claim was not associated with any action for substantive relief in Hong Kong. A majority of the Privy Council dismissed an appeal.