Trawler ’beyond salvage’

Press, 24 October 1980, Page 9

Trawler ’beyond salvage’

Greymouth -reporterA witness told the High 'Court in Greymouth .vested day that the fishing trawler Ajax, which sank at its berth on August 8, 1978, was beyond salvage a few days later because of damage from rough seas.

Mr Justice Cook is hearing a claim by Marley Seafoods (Jackson Bay), Ltd, (Mr C. B. Atkinson, with him, Mr G. P. F. Thompson) against Mr D. M. Sisson (Mr B. M. Nordgren). The plaintiff’s claim is that Mr Sisson’s trawler, the Kainga broke from its moorings and struck the plaintiffs boat the Ajax, causing it to sink. The claim is for a total of $75,000, including $65,000 for the boat, $4OOO for loose fittings and $6OOO for loss of fishing returns. The hearing which began on Wednesday will continue today. Hugh Carrick McLellan, a fisherman, said he was told of the sinking of the Ajax on the morning. He went out in a dinghy and attached a line to its mast to prevent it drifting further. On the following day, August 10, the wind had died down, and he dived to inspect the damage with another diver. The conditions were murky and both divers had held hands to keep contact, and they felt their way around the vessel. The Ajax was lying on its starboard side, there [ was broken planking around i the stern, and the hull was damaged. At the time conditions were not suitable for salvage.

1 -He went down again a I few days later with other divers and saw further damage through the action of the sea. The ballast was [spilling out, the engine was I also moving out, and the [wheelhouse had gone. He I advised Mr R. S. Marley not to go ahead and put a tender in for the salvage. He did not think there was any possibility of salvaging it at any stage.

To Mr Nordgren, he said that when he first saw it the masts were standing upright in the water. He had been engaged in the morning by an insurance assessor to make the initial dive. The damage to the stern planking was near the water line and would have contributed to the sinking. The greater damage found later was the result of shallow water and running seas. Graham Donald Winches-) ter, a fisherman with 29 years experience, said that the Nelson firm, which built the Ajax, was well known for its good construction. The Ajax had been specially built for working in Cook Strait which was “infamous for its bad weather,” and which required a “good boat.” He was familiar with the vessel, having slipped it once, and considered it to be sound. A 17-metre Kauri-hul-led vessel, with the type of engines installed on the Ajax, would have been worth more than $65,000. To build it today would possiblv cost $200,000. To Mr Nordgren, the witnses agreed that no two

boats were the.same, but a kauri-hulled. Gardiner-pow-ered vessel was “still a valuable commodity.” Mr Nurdgren: Even though' it was built 20 years earlier) for 10,000 pounds? — Yes, that is correct.

Adrian K ith Warren, the marine surveyor at Grey-I mouth, said that he had in-j spected the Ajax a year before the mishap and considered it to be sound. He told Mr Nordgren that < if he had found electrolysis! in the brass, he would have' withdrawn some fastenings’ for a closer examination. i Raymond Frederick Sanderson, a former naval commander and now an insurance assessor, said the ; divers had reported that the ; stem was open to the sea, and planking broken on the I starboard side. i He found the wheelhouse it top. the bulwark and plan- , king on the beach. A salvage was seriously investigated < and potabilities studied, but •it was finally determined,! that it was a complete des- i tructive loss. “Very little” would have been salvaged if 1 the job had to await the ar- I rival of he.cy machinery. ’ The Ajax 'was under-insured. [< but he put an estimate of.r $65,000 on the less of the| vessel. [' The witness said that he: I interviewed the crew of theil Kaingo and took a statement;! from them. ’ To Mr Nordgren. he said ( he had not seen the vessel , before it sank, and had made his estimate on the figures f and descriptions given to :

i him. Asked if he considered the Ajax to he deficient. . Commander Sanderson said i that it was subject to ma- ‘ rine division survey, and [would have to meet its Siam , dards. He did not consider ’that the Ajax required radar.

e In opening for the defend--lant, Mr Nordgren said it -[was conceded that the - Kainga left its mooring and •[came into contact with the Ajax, hut responsibility t could not be put on the si defendant if he had taken all ?' reasonable steps to prevent s’it. i It was further claimed - that the defendant was using - only one anchor, but it was ■ tied fore and aft. The > defendant had no reason to ? anticipate . extraordinary , weather conditions. In the > buffeting which the boat re'ceived, the bowling jumped ■lout of’ position, chafed • against the bow, breaking it t finally and drifting around . on the rearline. A crew member on board I'had checked the vessel sev- • eral times during the night, ’ the last time being at I a.m. f He awoke at 3 am. to a ■ bumping noise. On in- , vestigating the Kainga be- . I came tangled in about 40 f,metres of stern line of the ■| Ajax. While in this position, [the Kainga came down on J the Ajax stern. If a 2ft Ginjjhole in the bow had been J caused by the col” ion, the water would have poured in 1 then, and the Ajax would ' have sunk immediately, rath- ' er than it still being afloat i about 6 a.m.