GAUDRON J. Mrs Dillon brings this application on behalf of herself and, it is said, on behalf of 146 other persons who were on board the Mikhail Lermontov when it sank off the coast of New Zealand on 16 February 1986. They, like Mrs Dillon, brought action against the Baltic Shipping Company ("the Company") for loss and damage suffered on that occasion. The various actions were either commenced in or transferred to the Admiralty Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Liability, although at first contested, was admitted in the various actions. Damages were assessed in Mrs Dillon's case and judgment entered. That judgment was the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal and is now the subject of an appeal to this Court. Damages have yet to be assessed in the actions of those on whose behalf Mrs Dillon claims to bring this application. For one reason or another and pursuant to the Admiralty Rules (N.S.W.), their actions have been joined or otherwise caught up with Mrs Dillon's action. They have, on that account, been constantly referred to as "Mrs Dillon's co-plaintiffs". It is convenient to continue with that course.
2. Mrs Dillon seeks security for her claim and the claims of her co-plaintiffs, including costs of their actions in the Supreme Court, and security for her costs of the Company's appeal to this Court. The precise amount sought by way of security is $8,944,031, made up as follows: Damages for co-plaintiffs, estimated, on average, $50,000 X 146 ... $7,300,000 Costs and Disbursements in the actions of the co-plaintiffs estimated, on average, $7,500 X 146 ... $1,095,000 Mrs Dillon Judgment $ 51,396 Interest on Judgment 11,135 Costs - First Instance 300,000 Interest on Costs 108,000 Appeal 35,000 Interest on Appeal Costs 3,500 Leave to Appeal to this Court 15,000 Appeal to this Court (Estimate) 25,000
...$549,031
3. The evidence concerning the Company is not comprehensive. For some years now, its ships have visited Australian ports and they continue to do so. Until recently it was a trading entity of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) with its headquarters in Leningrad. It was on that account thought by those advising Mrs Dillon that the Company was underwritten (de facto, if not de jure) by the U.S.S.R.
4. It seems from newspaper articles, supplied in the main by Reuters News Agency, that the Company was caught up in the process of change even before the revolutionary events of the past few months: it was decided in September 1990 that the Company should, in terms which are in vogue in this country, "be privatized", in the sense that it should operate independently of the Ministry of Merchant Marine ("Morflot"); independence was achieved in July of this year on terms involving payment of rental to the U.S.S.R. for the ships and other assets used in the business, although some assets…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Dillon v Baltic Shipping Company
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dillon v Baltic Shipping Company [1991] HCA 37
Case
[1991] HCA 37
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Dillon v Baltic Shipping Company*, Gaudron J considered an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Ms. Dillon, had suffered personal injuries while a passenger on a vessel owned and operated by the respondent, Baltic Shipping Company. Ms. Dillon sought damages for these injuries, alleging negligence on the part of the respondent.
The central legal issue before Gaudron J was whether the respondent had breached its duty of care to Ms. Dillon, and if so, whether that breach caused her injuries. This involved an examination of the standard of care expected of a shipping company towards its passengers and the causal connection between any alleged failure to meet that standard and the harm suffered.
Gaudron J applied the principles of negligence established in Australian common law. Her Honour considered the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of Ms. Dillon's injury, including the condition of the vessel and the actions of the crew. The judgment focused on whether the respondent had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its passengers, a determination that required weighing the foreseeability of the risk of harm against the burden of taking precautions. The ultimate finding was that the respondent had failed to discharge its duty of care, and this failure had caused Ms. Dillon's injuries.