Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd v Long

The case of Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd v Long concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, a wharf labourer, sued his employer, the stevedoring company, for damages for personal injuries sustained when a hatch beam became displaced and fell into the hold of a ship. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant company had breached Regulation 31 of the Navigation (Loading and Unloading) Regulations, which required hatch beams left in place to be securely fastened before loading or unloading operations commenced.

The central legal issues before the High Court were: (1) whether Regulation 31 of the Navigation (Loading and Unloading) Regulations was validly made under the Navigation Act 1912-1953 (Cth.); (2) whether a private right of action for damages for breach of Regulation 31 existed for the protection of persons engaged in loading and unloading ships; (3) whether the duty imposed by Regulation 31 was cast upon the employer (the stevedoring company) or solely upon the "person-in-charge" as defined in Regulation 4; and (4) if the duty was solely upon the "person-in-charge," whether the employer could still be held vicariously liable for the employee's breach of that statutory duty.

The High Court, by majority, held that Regulation 31 was authorised by the Navigation Act and that a private right of action for damages correlative to the duties imposed by Regulation 31 did exist for the protection of workers. However, the Court unanimously determined that the obligations created by Regulation 31, having regard to the definition of "person-in-charge," were imposed upon the individual directly or indirectly in control of the loading or unloading operations on the spot, and not upon the employer company. Consequently, the Court held that an action at law for damages based upon a breach of these statutory obligations could not be brought against the employer as such, as the employer was not liable for breaches by its employee of statutory obligations cast solely upon that employee. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was reversed.