HARBOUR COLLISION

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 70, 16 December 1929, Page 7

HARBOUR COLLISION

ARGUMENT IN GREYCLIFFE TAHITI CASE

STEAMER’S RIGHT TO TURN WITHOUT WARNING

(United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.)

Sydney, December 14.

Argument was continued in the Admiralty Court on the Greycliffe disaster case.

Mr. Manning, for Sydney Fefries, Limited, submitted that the fact of the Tahiti being in charge of a pilot at the time of the disaster did not exonerate the master or the owners from liability. Dr. Brissenden, K.C., for the Union Company, argued on the validity of various regulations relating to Sydney Harbour; also the Mercantile Shipping Act and the State and Federal Navigation Acts. He said that he could not assail His Honour’s findings of fact, unless he assailed the question of speed. Mr. Justice Haise Rogers interjected that the great part of the case turned on whether the Greycliffe was entitled in the circumstances to make her turn without warning. Dr. Brissenden submitted that she was not. He added that the master of any vessel was bound to know what was behind him before he turned. Dr. Brissenden, in concluding his address, contended that any action of the Tahiti must be supposed to have been taken by her with the knowledge that the Greycliffe was aware of her presence.

Mr. Manning, in reply, claimed that the Harbour Trust regulations were valid. He also discussed the duties and functions of the pilot, and submitted that the pilot was entitled to receive the assistance of officers of the vessel, and, if the captain knew he was travelling over eight knots, be should have told the pilot. Mr. Manning insisted that the following vessel should, under the regulations, acquaint the leading vessel of its position. The case was adjourned.