Commonwealth v Verwayen

Last updated

Commonwealth v Verwayen
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case name Commonwealth v Bernard Leonardus Verwayen
Decided5 September 1990
Citations [1990] HCA 39, (1990) 170  CLR  394
Court membership
Judges sitting Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ

Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, [1] is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. [2] In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. [1] Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. [1] However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. [1] This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel. [3]

Contents

Background

Bernard Verwayen was an electrical mechanic in the RAN serving on HMAS Voyager, and was injured in the collision with HMAS Melbourne on 10 February 1964. He later sued the government for damages for his injuries.

Prior Proceedings

Horace Parker was one of the men on the Voyager who died as a result of the collision. Parker had previously been a Chief Electrician in the Navy however he had been discharged and was a civilian working as a Technical Officer at the Naval Dockyard, Williamstown. Voyager had refitted at Williamstown and Parker was on board to make adjustments to her electrical weapon control system. His widow brought a claim in the original jurisdiction of the High Court and the Commonwealth admitted that Parker's death was caused by the negligence of some member or members of the Navy. Windeyer J noted that no one could bring an action for negligence based on anything done in the course of war operations, but that members of the armed services are liable to civilians injured by negligent acts during peacetime. Because Parker was a civilian the Australian Government was liable. [4] Windeyer J however made the following obiter dicta observation:

... as I see the matter at present, the law does not enable a serving member of any of Her Majesty's forces to recover damages from a fellow member because acts done by him in the course of his duty were negligently done. [4]

Despite this case however, the Australian Government adopted a policy that when sued by a member of the military it would not challenge whether a member of the military could sue for damage caused by the negligence of another member of the military. [5] : 119  In 1981 the Australian Government changed its policy and asked the High Court to decide that question. In 1982 the High Court unanimously held that a member of the military could sue for damage caused by the negligence of a fellow member. [5] Gibbs CJ put it succinctly, noting that a civilian could recover damages caused by the negligence of a member of the military. Similarly a member of the military could recover damages caused by the negligence of a civilian. There was no principle or policy reason why a person could not recover damages if both were members of the military. [5] : 119  Each member of the high Court reached the same conclusion on essentially the same reasoning, expressly leaving open the question of whether the position was different if it involved, war-like activities or training in conditions simulating war. [5]

This opened the possibility of members of the military injured in the Melbourne–Voyager collision to sue for damages. There were however two issues that had to be overcome, (1) the question of whether the collision occurred when training in conditions simulating war, [6] and (2) that 20 years had passed since the incident such that the limitation period had expired. [2]

Proceedings

The solicitors for Verwayen had acted for a number of survivors following the Groves decision. In September 1984 they wrote to the Australian Government Solicitor prior to Verwayen commencing proceedings, who responded that the Australian Government intended to admit negligence and to waive the limitation period. [7] In November 1984 Verwayen commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria. In January 1985, the crown solicitor wrote to Verwayen's solicitor stating: "As you have pointed out, the Commonwealth has admitted negligence and is not pressing the statutory limitation period as a defence. Nevertheless, it still expects claimants to show that they have suffered injury ... and to prove the extent of their injuries and resultant loss, in order to justify an award of damages." In March 1985 the Commonwealth filed its defence which admitted that the collision was caused by the negligence of naval officers and crew and did not plead that the action was commenced outside of the time limit. [7] In November 1985 the government changed its policy to defend proceedings on the basis that it did not owe a civil duty of care to servicemen engaged in operational training.

The matter was given an expedited hearing and was set to be heard by a jury at the end of May 1986. A few days before the hearing the government sought to amend its defence. A Master gave the government permission to amend its defence which caused the trial to be abandoned. Far from being an expedited hearing, this was followed by series of court cases and appeals, in relation to the manner of trial, [8] and discovery. [9]

In December 1987 O'Bryan J noted that Verwayen was below deck and not performing any combat activity and held that the duty of navigating a naval vessel with reasonable skill was no different during the training exercise to the duty existing at other times at sea such that there was no public policy reason why Verwayen should be prevented from claiming in negligence, [7] : 14  that the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) [2] applied, that the waiver of the limitation defence was unilateral and voluntary such that the government could withdraw the waiver. [7] : 31  In relation to the doctrine of estoppel O'Bryan J held that promissory estoppel, [10] did not arise because there was no legal relationship and no consideration and that the only way Verwayen altered his position in reliance on the promise was by incurring legal costs. [7] : 36-7  Despite giving judgement for the government and dismissing Verwayen's claim, O'Bryan J was critical of the government's change of position, [7] : 31  and ordered the government to pay Verwayen's costs. [11]

Verwayen lodged an appeal to the Full Court. There was a significant change in the law of estoppel two months after the judgment of O'Bryan J, in that the High Court handed down its decision in Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher , [12] where the High Court held that promissory estoppel could constitute a cause of action, where the conduct of the other party was unconscionable. [13] The majority of the Supreme Court, Kaye & Marks JJ, applied the High Court's decision from Walton Stores, holding "In our view, such proofs are met here. There can be little doubt, for example, that the promise by the respondent to admit the claim and not to plead the statute was made deliberately and with the knowledge and intention that the appellant pursue his claim and have his damages assessed. The respondent, we repeat, signed a certificate of readiness and joined more than once in an application by the appellant for a speedy hearing of an assessment of damages." They also held that there was "nothing in the admitted facts to suggest that at the time of collision Voyager was engaged in a military manoeuvre as such or otherwise doing anything which could remotely be described as training for battle." The majority allowed the appeal, which meant that the proceedings had to go to trial on the issues of negligence and damages. King J dissented on the basis that Verwayen could be put in the same position he was in as if the promise had not been made by the Commonwealth paying his legal costs. [14]

The Commonwealth appealed to the High Court.

Argument

The Commonwealth was represented by Michael Black QC who argued that the detriment suffered by Verwayen was incurring legal costs such that the payment of those costs would put him in the same position as if the promise had not been made. The remedy granted by the Supreme Court was disproportionate to the detriment suffered by Verwayen. The Commonwealth also argued that did not owe a duty of care to Mr Verwayen because at the time of the collision the warships were engaged in naval training exercises simulating combat conditions. [15]

Thomson QC , who had appeared for Verwayen at first instance and on appeal, argued that the Full Court of the Supreme Court had correctly applied the law regarding estoppel and that the Commonwealth had waived the limitations defence. [15]

High Court Decision

The majority of the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commonwealth was barred from pleading a limitation defence to Verwayen's claim in negligence. Each of the seven High Court judges gave their own judgment and each differed in relation to their reasons. Two judges, Deane J and Dawson J held that estoppel prevented the Commonwealth from relying on the limitation defence, two judges Toohey J and Gaudron J held that the Commonwealth had waived its right to rely on the limitation defence. None of the judges considered the combat exercises defence separate from the questions of estoppel and waiver. Gageler and Lim describe the judgement as an illustration of collective irrationality, in that while four judges agreed as to the result, the respondent prevailed despite having a majority against him on each issue. [16]

Summary [16]
JudgeEstoppelWaiverResult
Mason CJ NoNoAppeal upheld
Brennan J NoNoAppeal upheld
Deane J YesNoAppeal dismissed
Dawson J YesNoAppeal dismissed
Toohey J NoYesAppeal dismissed
Gaudron J NoYesAppeal dismissed
McHugh J NoNoAppeal upheld

Estoppel

Equitable estoppel operates where a party makes a representation as to a future state of affairs and the other party relies upon that representation to their detriment. [17] Deane J noted that as an equitable remedy, "an estoppel in equity may not entitle the party raising it to the full benefit of the assumption upon which he relied. The equity is said 'not to compel the party bound to fulfil the assumption or expectation; it is to avoid the detriment which, if the assumption or expectation goes unfulfilled, will be suffered by the party who has been induced to act or to abstain from acting thereon' ... To avoid the detriment may, however, require that the party estopped make good the assumption... But, depending upon the circumstances of the case, the relief required may be considerably less." [1] : 454  The Court accepted that Mr Verwayen had relied on an assumption that the Commonwealth would not dispute liability and which the Commonwealth's conduct had induced him to adopt. The purpose of the remedy was to prevent the detriment caused by that reliance. What divided the Court was the extent to which Mr Verwayen had established that he had suffered increased stress, anxiety and ill health as a result of his reliance on the assumption. [18]

Deane J and Dawson J each held that the doctrine of estoppel prevented the Commonwealth from disputing its liability to Verwayen. Dawson J held that "By falsely raising his hopes, the [Commonwealth] led [Mr Verwayen] to continue with the litigation and forgo any exploration of the possibility of settlement thereby subjecting himself to a prolonged period of stress in an action in which the damages claimed were for, amongst other things, a high level of anxiety and depression. I would hold that the appellant was estopped from insisting upon the statute of limitations, and would observe that the equity raised by the [Commonwealth's] conduct was such ... that it could only be accounted for by the fulfilment of the assumption upon which [Mr Verwayen's] actions were based" [1] : 462  Deane J went further, adopting an expectation based approach to relief, holding that the assumption should be made good unless that would cause injustice to the person who made the representation. [18] Mr Verwayen had "expended both time and money thereon. Far more important, he subjected himself to the stress, anxiety and inconvenience which were inevitably involved in the pursuit of the proceedings." [1] : 454 

Gaudron J adopted a similar approach to Deane J, that the assumption should be made good unless there was an exception. Gaudron J held that the exception was based on avoiding the detriment, stating "The substantive doctrine of estoppel permits a court to do what is required to avoid detriment and does not require the making good of the assumption on which it is founded in every case. Even so, it may be that an assumption should be made good unless it is clear that no detriment will be suffered other than that which can be compensated by some other remedy". Because of her views on waiver, Gaudron J did not decide the matter on this basis. [1] : 487 

Each of the dissenting judges did so on the basis that estoppel was intended to avoid the detriment and that because there was no evidence of non-financial loss, compensation for costs was sufficient to avoid that detriment. [18] : 824 

Toohey J did not deal with the question of estoppel, but hold that the remedy is a means of avoiding detriment and that in this case it may be achieved by compensating Mr Verwayen for his costs in pursuing the action. [1] : 487 

Waiver

Toohey J and Gaudron J found that Commonwealth had waived its right to rely on the limitation defence. [19] Toohey J limited his consideration to waiver as it exists within the adjudicative process, holding that in that sense waiver "may be found in the deliberate act of a defendant not to rely upon a defence available to him". The Commonwealth had, by it words and actions unequivocally renounced both the limitations defence and the combat exercise defence. Waiver in this sense could not be withdrawn. [1] : 472 

Similarly Gaudron J held that "a party to litigation will be held to a position previously taken (that position having been intentionally taken with knowledge) if, as a result of that earlier position, the relationship of the parties has changed." [1] : 484 

The history of the expression "waiver" was considered in detail by Mason CJ, noting the robust criticism of the expression waiver, both academically, [20] and judicially. [21] [22] [23] and describing it as an "imprecise term capable of describing different legal concepts, notably election and estoppel". [1] : 406  Mason CJ noted the expanding role of estoppel as the rationale for many of the authorities dealing with waiver and limited his consideration to the category of waiver described as election, being a choice between alternative rights that are inconsistent with one another, and, having chosen one, abandons the other. [1] : 406-7  [19]

Deane J held that the "somewhat arbitrary doctrine of waiver is being increasingly absorbed and rationalized by the more flexible doctrine of estoppel by conduct" such that, like Mason CJ, he saw waiver as being confined to cases of election. [1] : 449 

The other three judges took a broader view of waiver. [19] Brennan J held that the doctrines of estoppel, waiver and election were distinct and that waiver was the unilateral divestiture of rights. A mere intention not to exercise a right is not immediately effective to divest or sterilize that right, as a right is waived only when the time comes for its exercise and the party for whose sole benefit it has been introduced knowingly abstains from exercising it. In this case because the Commonwealth was given leave to amend to plead the limitation defence, the time for waiving the defence had not arrived. [1] : 427-8  Dawson J also held that a waiver, being the non-insistence upon a right either by choice or by default, existed outside of election or estoppel. He held that, like Brennan J, leave to amend meant that the right had not been waived. [1] : 459 

McHugh J also held that there was cases of waiver that could not accurately be categorised as estoppel or election. The Commonwealth's capacity to plead the defence was governed by the principles covering the right to amend. Once the Commonwealth was given leave to amend, the question of waiver did not apply. [1] : 498-9  [19]

Aftermath

Verwayen later received an Order of Australia Medal for his works in assisting other services personnel.

Related Research Articles

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel</span> Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel in English law</span>

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

Volenti non fit iniuria is a Roman legal maxim and common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk".

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. The corresponding Ex turpe causa non oritur damnum, "From a dishonourable cause, no damage arises" is a similar construction. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

In English law, loss of chance refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation. The general rule is that while a loss of chance is compensable when the chance was something promised on a contract it is not generally so in the law of tort, where most cases thus far have been concerned with medical negligence in the public health system.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

<i>Combe v Combe</i> English legal case

Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 is a famous English contract law case on promissory estoppel. An ex-wife tried to take advantage of the principle that had been reintroduced in the High Trees case to enforce her husband's promise to give her maintenance. The Court held that promissory estoppel could not be applied. It was available only as a defence and not as a cause of action.

Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the right to a speedy trial. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that a defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy Trial Act. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a partial concurrence, objecting to Alito's use of legislative history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good faith (law)</span> Implied covenant of honesty and fair dealing in contract law

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.

<i>Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher</i> Australian contracts case involving the department store

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher, is a leading case in Australian contract law. The Australian High Court decided that estoppel, in certain circumstances, could be a cause of action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

<i>Northern Territory v Mengel</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Northern Territory v Mengel, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 19 April 1995. The decision dealt with the conceptual framework of tort law and held that liability under tort depended on the plaintiff establishing the defendant was either negligent or intended to cause harm to the plaintiff. It overruled the decision in Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proprietary estoppel</span>

Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eggshell skull</span> Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

Jennings v Rice is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel.

Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held 6-3 that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages.

<i>March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

March v Stramare Pty Ltd Pty Ltd was a High Court of Australia case decided in 1991 on Australian tort law. The case considered the conditions required for causation to be established in tort law, the limitations of the "but for" test and the significance of an intervening act by a third party in determining causation. In this case, the High Court held that, although it was useful in clarifying the facts of the case, the but-for test was not the exclusive test in determining causation as it posed difficulties in attributing responsibility for damages in two key types of cases. The first was in cases when attributing responsibility in cases where the damage was caused by the negligence of more than one party, and the second was in cases where the damage resulted from an intervening act. Instead, the court favoured a case-by-case basis approach in attributing legal responsibility for causation, which took both common sense principles and public policy concerns into consideration when coming to a decision.

<i>Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Commonwealth v Verwayen (Voyager case) [1990] HCA 39 , (1990) 170 CLR 394(5 September 1990), High Court.
  2. 1 2 3 Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 5 Contracts and Torts.
  3. ↑ Keane, Ronan (19 December 2017). "27 - Estoppel in Equity". Equity and the Law of Trusts in Ireland (3 ed.). Dublin, Ireland: Bloomsbury. p. 471. ISBN   9781526502537.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  4. 1 2 Parker v Commonwealth [1965] HCA 12, (1965) 112 CLR 295 at pp 301-2, High Court
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Groves v Commonwealth [1982] HCA 21, (1982) 150 CLR 113 at pp 118-9, 133-4, 136, 137, High Court
  6. ↑ subsequently referred to as "the Groves defence" by reference to Groves v Commonwealth. [5]
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Verwayen v Commonwealth [1987] VicSC 562 (4 December 1987), Supreme Court (Vic).
  8. ↑ Verwayen v Commonwealth, unreported Supreme Court (Vic), Vincent J 10 September 1986; overturned on appeal in Verwayen v Commonwealth [1988] VicRp 29, [1988] VR 203(21 May 1987), Supreme Court (Full Court) (Vic). [7]
  9. ↑ Verwayen v Commonwealth [1987] VicSC 181 (18 May 1987), Supreme Court (Vic).
  10. ↑ Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130.
  11. ↑ Verwayen v Commonwealth [1987] VicSC 616 (18 December 1987), Supreme Court (Vic)
  12. ↑ Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7 , (1988) 164 CLR 387(19 February 1988), High Court (Australia).
  13. ↑ Iles, Alistrair. "Case Notes: The Commonwealth v Verwayen" (PDF). (1991) 18(1) Melbourne University Law Review 186.
  14. ↑ Verwayen v Commonwealth [1989] VicRp 63 , [1989] VR 712(17 November 1988), Supreme Court (Full Court) (Vic).
  15. 1 2 Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 at pp. 397-400.
  16. 1 2 Gageler, S & Lim, B (2014). "Collective Irrationality and the Doctrine of Precedent". Melbourne University Law Review. (2014) 38 Melbourne University Law Review 525.
  17. ↑ Weeks, G. "Estoppel and public authorities: examining the case for an equitable remedy" (PDF). [2010] University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series 70.
  18. 1 2 3 Robertson, A. "Satisfying the Minimum Equity: Equitable Estoppel Remedies After Verwayen" (PDF).(1996) 20 Melbourne University Law Review 805.
  19. 1 2 3 4 Cain, T E, Estoppel and Waiver: The Commonwealth v Verwayen in the High Court (PDF) (1990) 2 Bond Law Review 241.
  20. ↑ Ewart, John S (1917). Waiver distributed among the departments, election, estoppel, contract, release (PDF). Harvard University Press. Retrieved 10 October 2018.
  21. ↑ Bysouth v Shire of Blackburn and Mitcham (No 2) [1928] VicLawRp 81 , (1928) VLR 562 at p 579, Supreme Court (Vic,Australia)
  22. ↑ Larratt v Bankers and Traders' Insurance Co [1941] NSWStRp 34 , (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 215 at p 226, Supreme Court (NSW,Australia)
  23. ↑ Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd [1971] AC 850 per Lord Diplock at pp 882-3.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.