JUDGMENT OF COURT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 150, 21 December 1929, Page 9

JUDGMENT OF COURT

BOTH VESSELS TO BLAME

LIABILITY FOR LOSSES

United Press Association—By Electric TeHgraph—Copyright. SYDNEY, 20th December. Mr. Justice Halse Bogers deliverei his judgment in the Admiralty Court to-day in the «i 30,000 claim by" Sydney Ferries,. Limited, against the Union Company, the owners of the Tahiti, for the loss of the ferry steamer Greycliffe on 3rd November, 1927, in Sydney Harbour. Ho hold that both vessels were guilty of negligence. He apportioned the negligence in the ratio of threefifths against the-^ Greycliffe and twofifths against the Tahiti, and held that flic plaintiffs were entitled to recover two-fifths of their loss. He said that both the Greycliffe and the Tahiti were guilty of negligence—the Tahiti byreason of excessive speed, and the omission to warn the Greycliffe of her approach; the Greycliffe, because it made an unexpected and unnecessary turn to port without its master looking to see whether any ship was close behind, and without giving any warning of her. turn. Since, however, there would have have, been no actual collision but for the turn of the Greycliffe —although the Tahiti would have passed uncomfortably close to her— slightly greater negligence was found against the Greyeliffo than against the Tahiti. TAHITI NOT IMMUNE. The Judge found that at all relevant times the Tahiti was compulsorily ia charge of a pilot; that all rfrders given, by the pilot were promptly obeyedthat the master of the Tahiti was ia as favourable a position as the pilot to determine whether any risk of navigation was being incurred; that thera was no interference with the pilot, and no warning as to excessive Iroeed or possibility of danger. On the facts the Judge found that the defence of compulsory pilotage had not been made out. On the contrary, he held that'the master of the Tahiti should have warned the pilot of the danger arising' from, excessive speed. This was a case where the master should have made sure that the pilot not only saw what was going on, but appreciated the position. He allowed the- pilot to take his own course without question and without warning and therefore the Tahiti was not en, titled to immunity claimed for her under this defence.

His Honour found on the question of damage that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover two-fifths of their loss.- The judgment is to date from the first day of the next law term.