GREYCLIFFE'S TURN

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 846, 14 December 1929, Page 11

GREYCLIFFE'S TURN

QUESTION OF WARNING THE TAHITI MORE LEGAL ARGUMENT Reed. 9.45 a.m. SYDNEY, Today. Argument was continued in the. Court of Admiralty, before Mr. Justice Halse Rogers, concerning the Greycliffe disaster. Mr. Manning, for Sydney Ferries, Ltd., submitted that the fact of the Tahiti being in the charge of a pilot at the time of the disaster did not exonerate the master or owners from liability. Dr. Brissenden, K.C., for the Union Steam Ship Company, argued on the validity of the various regulations relating to Sydney Harbour, also the Mercantile Shipping Act, and the State and Federal Navigation Acts. He said he could not assail his Honour’s findings of fact, unless he assailed the question of speed. Mr. Justice Halse Rogers interjected that a 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 entitled to do so. He added that the master of any vessel was bound to know what was behind him before he turned. Concluding his address, Dr. Brissenden 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 a pilot, and submitted that the pilot was entitled to receive the assistance of the officers of the vessel, and if the captain knew he was travelling at more than eight knots, he should have told the pilot. Mr. Manning insisted that a following vessel should, under the regulations, acquaint the leading vessel of its position. The hearing was adjourned.