JUDGMENT

Terrell A-G CJ:

VD Knowles (with him R Ramani) for the plaintiff-appellant: There is a cause of action shown on the plaint: Read v. Brown, 22 QBD 128 All the facts stated in the plaint are admitted by the defendants-respondents and therefore it is admitted that they were in possession of the films. Plaintiff-appellant's position is that of a bailor invitee. The films were destroyed by fire whilst in the possession of the defendants-respondents and therefore the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, which absolves the plaintiff-appellant from pleading negligence. A contract is established on the pleadings because it is admitted that the plaintiff-appellant had to produce his films. When so produced there is a contract that the defendants-respondents will look after the films with reasonable care and return them to the plaintiff-appellant.

The Public Authorities Protection Enactment (Cap. 30) and the Government Suits Enactment (Cap. 17) were not pleaded in the written statement of defence. In any event sub-section (ii) of s. 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Enactment does not apply to suits against Government. If it did apply it would have the effect of leaving subj