Volume Four - An Era of Change, Uncertainty, Depression & War - The proceedings in London - Penarth Dock Engineering v Pounds . . .

What benefit has the defendant obtained by having the use of it for this time? If he had moved it elsewhere, he would have had to pay, on the evidence, £37 - 10s a week for a berth of this kind. But the damages are not put as high as that, and the damages are to be assessed in accordance with law as I have stated it at the rate of £32 - 5s a week for the period commencing Aug. 9, 1962, which I would let run to Mar. 25, 1963, because the dock has now been removed.”

The text is taken from page 361 of the court transcript. The court held that the pontoon should be removed in a reasonable time-scale and ruled that 12 months was reasonable in this case; “after this time the defendant was a trespasser and the plaintiff entitled to damages.” A logical conclusion would be that Penarth Dock Engineering set out to court to enforce the removal of the pontoon knowing that it was physically impossible to achieve. If they had won their mandatory injunction, Pounds would have been placed in a position with the court that it could not reasonably act upon the judgement and this would possibly have placed them in contempt of court. Quite clearly a financially based judgement was appropriate in the circumstances and the damages would have been of the order of 30 weeks or so x £32 - 5s, about £967 - 10s plus costs.

So it is clear that by 25th March 1963, Pounds had instigated the removal of the plant rooms, its main superstructure the “wall” and deck fittings from the pontoon and sunk the remainder of it in the dock. This provided the mechanism to relinquish responsibility for its removal to the Portsmouth yard and also limited their liability for payment of berthing charges. Since the pontoon was no longer berthed at the quayside it, in essence had been “removed”, thus satisfying their contractual obligations. The obvious disadvantage of this action was that they would have to write-off the purchase price versus the salvage value of the pontoon. Who undertook these actions on their behalf or, if they undertook the actions directly is not known. Also, whether or not, they undertook these actions with the knowledge and agreement of the port authorities, local council authority and other interested parties remains for future research. The judgement, set in motion a chain of reactions which has probably cost the public purse millions of pounds to-date.

To sumarise : 'Penarth Dock Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Pounds [1963] ; the plaintiffs won damages assessed on the basis of the benefits derived by the defendant by failing to remove their pontoon from the plaintiff’s dock, by which they became trespassers.'