The facts of the case were that, during the night of 31 May 1980, while the Talisman was trawling off the Shetland Islands, she sank due to an ingress of seawater into the engine room. The pursuer, who was the owner and skipper of the vessel, was alerted by one of his crew that water was collecting in the engine room. He went to look and found more water than he expected to find. The pursuer believed he had a choice as to whether to close the seacocks or leave them open and give the pumps an opportunity to get rid of the water. The pursuer was under the impression that, to operate the pump, the seacocks had to remain open; and so he left them in that position. His impression was that the water was neither going up nor going down. He then went up on deck to check that the pumps were working, which they were. As a precaution, the pursuer then called the skipper of a nearby trawler, the Boy Graham, on VHF, informed him that the Talisman was taking on water and asked him to stand by. He then returned below. There was a lot more water in the engine room. Realizing the seriousness of the situation, the pursuer ordered that the nets be cut away from the vessel so that she could run for shore. However, that proved impossible. He radioed the skipper of the Boy Graham, telling him to stand by to pick up the crew and himself. The Boy Graham duly rescued the crew and the pursuer, along with some of the Talisman’s navigational equipment, charts and logs.

The defenders argued that the pursuer had not used all reasonable endeavours to save the Talisman, first, by failing to close the seacocks when he had appreciated that water was entering the vessel and, secondly, by failing to send out a Mayday signal.

The House of Lords rejected both arguments. The test of whether the assured had used all reasonable endeavours to save his vessel was an objective one, directed at what an ordinary competent fishing boat skipper might reasonably be expected to do in the same circumstances. Their Lordships then considered the role that