Bistricic v Rokov [1976] HCA 54

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ. Bistricic v Rokov [1976] HCA 54

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Oct. 21 Barwick C.J.

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this appeal by my brother Mason. I entirely agree with what he has written and do not wish to add anything on my own behalf. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

Stephen J.

Having had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by each of my brothers Mason and Jacobs I agree that, as they both propose, this appeal should be dismissed. I do so for the several and quite distinct reasons stated in each of their respective reasons for judgment, with each of which I am in agreement.

Mason J.

The appellant Bistricic commenced an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the respondents who were the owners of the ship John Dory claiming damages for personal injuries sustained by him as a member of the crew when the ship was moored in Sydney Harbour. The respondents then commenced in the same Court an Admiralty action against the appellant seeking limitation of their liability to the appellant under s. 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 Imp.. If the respondents are successful in their action their liability to the appellant will be limited to the amount of $1,489.75 as calculated according to the section as it was originally enacted. If the appellant is successful in his action in recovering damages without limitation of liability under s. 503 the damages will be assessed at a figure substantially exceeding this amount.

Before 1958 s. 503(1) provided, so far as material:

The owners of a ship, British or foreign, shall not, where all or any of the following occurrences take place without their actual fault or privity; (that is to say,)