Pondcil Pty Ltd & Anor v Tropical Reef Shipyard Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 918

JUDGMENT No. sosctds Sone! ood Stee

No. QG 97 of 1994

et et et et ee

INTHE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: PONDCIL PTY LIMITED and STARLINE RENTALS PTY LTD

Appellants

AND: TROPICAL REEF SHIPYARD PTY LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM: WILCOX, SPENDER & HILL JJ 3 BRISBANE DATE: 10 NOVEMBER 1994

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J: In my view the appeal must be dismissed. I do not see any necessity or advantage in going through the matters of fact found by his Honour. They have not been challenged in

any material respect today.

The primary argument put by the appellants is that his Honour erred in failing to deal with the case on the basis that the respondent was under a continuing duty of supervision after the ship had been unslipped and taken to the Trinity wharf. It is said by counsel for the appellants that, if that

duty had been carried out in a proper way, the respondents

2. would have realised that the stern tube had not been fully filled with grease and accordingly one of the two essential pre~conditions for the damage would not have occurred. Counsel concedes that there was no express agreement between the parties that Mr Allderice, or anybody else on behalf of the respondent, should have a continuing role in the work that was being done by Mr Laskey, the appellant's employee, at Trinity wharf. No doubt it would have been easy for an arrangement to that effect to have been made. Apparently Trinity wharf was only a few hundred metres from the slipway and there would have been no great difficulty in Mr Allderice going across there and inspecting what was done. But the fact is, apparently, that no such agreement was made. Accordingly

the appellant has to fall back on an implication of such a