Morrison v Peacock [2002] HCA 44

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ

ANTHONY MORRISON APPELLANT

AND

HAROLD ANTHONY PEACOCK & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Morrison v Peacock [2002] HCA 44

9 October 2002

S184/2001

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside order of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal made on 30 October 2000 in so far as it ordered that question (i)(a) of the questions reserved be answered "Yes", and in its place order that question (i)(a) be answered as follows:

Question (i)(a):

As a matter of law can the wear and tear in consequence of which oil escapes come within the word "damage" under s 8 of the Marine Pollution Act 1987 (NSW)?

Answer to question (i)(a):

In that section, "damage" means a sudden change in the condition of the ship or its equipment that was the instantaneous consequence of some event, whether the event was external or internal to the ship or its equipment. The Court considers the question otherwise not appropriate to answer.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation:

R J Ellicott QC with A L Hill for the appellant (instructed by Abbott Tout)

C G Gee QC with G J Nell for the respondents (instructed by Ebsworth & Ebsworth)

Intervener:

R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with R M Mitchell intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Morrison v Peacock

Environmental law – Marine pollution – Discharge of oil from ship – Exception where discharge in consequence of damage other than intentional damage.

Statutes – Construction – Damage – Damage to the ship or its equipment – Wear and tear.