CAM & SONS PTY LIMITED v SARGENT S7/1940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PEE 2

NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY.

CAM _& SONS PTY. LIMITED.

ve

SARGENT.

ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY DIXON J. AT SYDNEY ON 1st AUGUST,

1940.

CAM & SONS PTY. LTD. ve SARGENT

ORAL JUDGMENT DIXON J.

I agree. The proceedings are based upon an award of the Commonwealth Court of Cénciliation and Arbitration, but the award was not put in evidence. We have not, therefore, the advantage of knowing its exact terms. We are told, however, that in the view of the parties the liability of the defendant depends upon the existence between it and the plaintiff of the relationship of master and servant. The course of business between the parties, viewed from the outside, would appear to suggest that the plaintiff was no more than the master of the ship ownegby the defendant, occupying the ordinary positién of a master. But an agreement is relied upon by the defendant in order to show that xxak the true relationship was something else. That agreement purports to demise the ship to a partnerskip consisting of the master and fers; of the ship, all apparently being treated as jointly suntributing constituting the charterers or hirers of the ship and in that respect as standing on an equality. The clause in which that is done merely speaks of the partnership hiring the ship. There is no hire specified and there are no words which expressly put the possession of the ship in the partnership. The agreement

shows that the ship was to be loaded and discharged by the

CR eS ee a ree ne ee cra owners and it may be doubted whether on the whole agreement,

notwithstanding the use of the word "hire", an intention

appears of completely depriving the owners of control and

placing the exclusive possession of the ship in the master

and crew forming the so-called partnership.

An examination of the provisions of the agreemmnt