Hays Chemical Distribution supplied drums of hydrochloric acid to Transco for onward shipment to purchasers in Libya in the M.V. Orjula. LP, the bareboat charterers of the vessel, supplied Hays with a couple of containers which they had leased from third parties. Hays stuffed them, and Transco shipped them from Felixstowe. When the Orjula called at Rotterdam, both containers were found to be leaking acid. The Dutch authorities insisted they be offloaded; when they were, it became clear that the staging on which the drums had been stowed was inadequate and had collapsed. LP were put to the expense of (1) cleaning up the ship, (2) decontaminating the containers and drums, (3) re-stuffing the containers properly, and (4) having them taken to Antwerp for oncarriage to Benghazi on board another vessel (the Orjula having already left). There was presumably no difficulty over claiming these costs in contract from Transco as shippers:2 but LP also claimed them in negligence from Hays. Hays applied to have this action dismissed, saying that LP’s loss was purely financial, and hence they owed LP no duty of care.

Two of Mance, J.’s conclusions can be dealt with pretty smartly. On (1), he held that contamination of any substantial nature amounted to physical damage and not mere financial loss, even in the absence of permanent disfigurement. It followed that LP, who were in possession of the vessel, had title to sue on any reckoning for the cost of cleaning her up. As for (4), by contrast, he could see no basis for a claim in tort: the loss was clearly economic, and there was no way it could be tied to any claim for physical damage to anything. These points are not very controversial: and, if one may say so, his Lordship’s adoption of a common sense, rather than a philosophical, analysis of “damage” for (1) must be right. Dangerous cargo cases have to be susceptible of straightforward negotiation and settlement: semantic nit-picking over the difference between damage and other