The collapse caused fatalities and injuries, and was the subject of a criminal prosecution. The collapse was caused by similar conceptual misunderstandings on the part of the designers and the independent checkers. The primary causes are explained and non-causative actions, omissions and events, which were put to the jury, are discussed. The principal issue before the jury was whether and under what circumstances a port operator is responsible for the mistakes of his engineering advisers and suppliers. Also, there was prolonged legal argument on the meaning of ‘reasonably practicable’ and ‘on whether ,design was part of the owner’s ‘undertaking’.