Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4

ORDER Appeal allowed. Order that the appellant pay 75 per cent of the respondent's costs of the appeal. Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in so far as it dismissed the appeal to that Court. In lieu of that part of the order of the Court of Appeal so set aside, make the following orders:

(i) Appeal allowed.

(ii) Set aside so much of the judgment of Carruthers J. as ordered that the defendant (the appellant in this Court) pay to the plaintiff (the respondent in this Court) the sum of $51,396.

Direct the parties to bring in, within twenty-one days, minutes of order as to the sum to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in accordance with the judgment of this Court. In lieu of so much of the judgment of Carruthers J. referred to above, judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $49,497.00 together with interest thereon from 20 November 1989 to the date of payment in accordance with the Supreme Court of New South Wales Practice Notes.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1993, Feb. 10 Mason C.J.

This is an appeal by the owner and operator of a cruise vessel, the " Mikhail Lermontov ", which, on 16 February 1986, struck a shoal off Cape Jackson, on the north-eastern tip of the South Island of New Zealand, was holed and sank. The cruise commenced in Sydney on the evening of 7 February 1986 and was scheduled to end on the vessel's return to Sydney on the morning of 21 February 1986. The respondent was a passenger on the vessel. She lost possessions and suffered certain injuries as a result of the sinking. Together with 122 other passengers, she commenced proceedings in the Admiralty Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the appellant and its agent, Charter Travel Co. Ltd. The latter was not a party to this appeal. For the purpose of determining the issue of liability, all proceedings were consolidated in a single action in the name of the respondent. The trial judge (Carruthers J.) ordered a separate trial on the issue of liability. The appellant at first contested liability but, at a late stage, made certain admissions of negligence. The trial judge then proceeded to determine the extent of the appellant's liability, if any, to pay damages to the respondent and entered judgment in favour of the respondent. Included in the award of damages were amounts of $1,417 described as "Restitution of fare" and $5,000 described as "Compensation for disappointment and distress at the loss of entertainment [and facilities for enjoyment which had been promised]".