GREYCLIFFE VERDICT

Hokitika Guardian, 21 December 1929, Page 5

GREYCLIFFE VERDICT

£12,000 FOR OWNERS'. TO BE PAID BY U.S.S. COY. (Australian Press Association) SYDNEY, Dec. 20. In connection with the Greycliffe disaster. Mr Justice llalse-Rogers dot livered his judgment in the Admiralty Court to-day in the £30,000 claim by the Sydney Ferries Ltd. against the Union Steam Ship Company, owners of the liner Tahiti, for the loss of the ferry steamer Greycliffe, on November 3rd. 1927. in Sydney harbour. 'file Judge held that both vessels were guilty of negligence. He apportioned the negligence in the ratio of three-fifths against the Greycliffe and two-filths against the Tahiti, and be held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover two-fifths of their loss. The Judge said that both the Greycliffe- and the Tahiti were guilty of negligence—the Tahiti by reason of her excessive speed and her omission to warn the 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 actual collision but for tiie turn of the Greycliffe—although the Tahiti would have passed uncomfortably close to her—slightly greater negligence was found against the Gi’eycliffe than against the Tahiti. The Judge said lie found that at all revelant times, the Tahiti was compulsorily in charge of a. pilot; that all the 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 the excessive speed or the possibility of danger On these facts the Judge found that a defence of compulsory pilotage bad not been made out. On the contrary, be held that the master of the Tahiti should have warned the pilot of the danger arising from the 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 bad allowed the pilot to take his own course, without question, and without warning, and therefore the Tahiti was not entitled to the 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 next law term.