Claim over lost boat

Press, 23 October 1980, Page 5

Claim over lost boat

Greymputh reporter A claim based oh an assertion that the loss of the fishing trawlfer Ajax at" Jacksons Bay bn August 8, 1978, was caused by another.vessel, the Kainga, breaking its moorings and driving into it, is being heard, in the High Court at Greymouth before Mr Justice Cook. Marley ‘ Seafoods (Jacksons Bay), Ltd (Mr C. B. Atkinson, with him Mr G. P. F. Thompson, both of Christchurch) is claiming against Mr D. M. Sissons (Mr B. M. ■ Nordgren, of Auckland).. The claim for damages says that the vessel at the time was estimated to be worth $65,000, including fittings, plus $4OOO worth of additional [..loose equipment and a loss of fishing returns estimated at $6OOO. The defence was that, first the Kainga did not sink the Ajax, second that it was an act of God, third that the Ajax was improperly moored, and fourth that

even if there was a collision the vessel was not worth the amount of '.lie claim. Mr Atkinson said that Mr R. S. Marley had bought the 17-metre trawler Ajax, in 1963. It was built, of kauri, had a hardwood frame and was equipped with all types of fishing equipment. As the first fisherman to permanently moor at Jacksons Bay, he had the choice of berths. Other fishermen then began berthing permanently there.

In August, 1978, the plaintiff was engaged in crayfishing, The defendent’s vessel Kainga,. which had visited the bay on a number of occasions, had a tendency to drag its moorings. ’ The Ajax was securelymoored on the evening in question 1 with two anchors and tied by a cable. Anchor lights were displayed and the sea was calm. The Kainga, having dragged its anchor, was moored on the permanent berth of another vessel. During the evening it

rained heavily. A breeze sprang up and strengthened to about 15 knots by 8,30 a.m. . A school bus driver would say that at that time she saw only, the , mastheads of the Ajax, it having sunk. The Kainga was on the beach, having broken its moorings. The plaintiff expected the defendant to approach him, but he did not until the next day, when the defendant had admitted it was his vessel which had broken loose apd drifted onto the Ajax. The plaintiff tiad considered salvage, but the king pest had been torn out, and the Ajax was already breaking up when investigated by a diver. ’ • ,r. Mr Atkinson said that the defendant had a large, steel fishing vessel which he should have known could cause damage if it was drifting. It was tied only to the buoy line, rather than the mooring line.

(Proceeding)