SYDNEY FERRY DISASTER

Evening Star, Issue 20364, 21 December 1929, Page 15

SYDNEY FERRY DISASTER

CLAIM AGAINST UNIDN COMPANY ADMIRALTY COURT'S JUDGMENT Pres* Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. SYDNEY, December 20. Mr Justice Halse Rogers delivered judgment in the Admiralty Court today in the £30,000 claim by Sydney Ferries, Ltd., against the Union Company, owners of the Tahiti, for tho loss of the ferry steamer Greycliffe on November 3, 1927, in Sydney Harbour. Ho held that both vessels were guilty of negligence, and he apportioned the negligence in tho ratio of three-fifths against the Greycliffe and two-fifths against the Tahiti, and he held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover twofifths of their loss. He said that, both the Greycliffe and the Tahiti were guilty of negligence, tho Tahiti by reason of' her excessive speed and the omission to warn tho Greycliffe of her approach; tho Greycliffe because she made an unexpected and unnecessary turn to port without her master looking to see whether any ship was close behind and without giving any warning of her turn. Since, however, there would have been no collision but for the turn of the Greycliffe—although the Tahiti would have passed uncomfortably close to her—slightly greater negligence was fouqd against the Greycliffo than against the Tahiti. The judge found that at all relevant times tli© Tahiti was compulsorily in charge of a pilot, that all orders given by the pilot were promptly obeyed., that the master of the Tahiti was in as favourable a position as the pilot to determine whether any risk of navigation was being incurred, that there was no interference with the pilot and no warning as to excessive speed or possibility of danger. On these facts the judge found that the defence of compulsory pilotage was not made out; on tho contrary, ho held that the master of the Tahiti should have warned the pilot of tho danger arising from excessive speed. This was a case where tho master should have made sure that the pilot not only saw what was going on, but appreciated The position. Ho allowed the pilot to take his own course without question and without warning, and therefore tho Tahiti was not entitled to the immunity claimed for her under this defence. His Honour found on, tho question of damage that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover twolit ths ot their loss. The judgment is to date from tho first day of the next law term.