Fisher v "Oceanic Grandeur"

Link copied
Case Copied 64 min read

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stephen J.

FISHER v. THE "OCEANIC GRANDEUR"

(1972) 127 CLR 312

20 October 1972

Shipping and Navigation—Practice

Shipping and Navigation—Salvage—Salvage reward—Danger to salved vessel—Immobilization of vessel—Loss of use to owners—Relevance to salvage services—Voluntary nature of services—Effect of agreement between owners of vessels upon right of master and crew to salvage reward—Consent of master of salved vessel to salvage service—Factors relevant to assessment of reward. Practice—Action—Costs—Admiralty jurisdiction—Payment into Court—Salvage—Apportionment between claimants—Rules of the High Court, 0. 23, r. 6 (2).

Decisions


July 25.
STEPHEN J. delivered the following written judgment : -
In these two actions, which were, by consent, tried together, the plaintiffs comprise the master, officers and crew of the tanker, Leslie J. Thompson, who claim from the owners of Oceanic Grandeur salvage reward for salvage services rendered by them to that vessel. No claim is made in these proceedings in respect of salvage services to the cargo and the plaintiffs are claiming to enforce rights independent of those of the owner of Leslie J. Thompson, that owner itself makes no salvage claim. (at p315)

2. Just after 0300 hours on the morning of 3rd March 1970 the tanker, Oceanic Grandeur, while steaming from Dumai in Sumatra to Brisbane, the weather being fair and the sea calm, struck and passed over an uncharted rock in the Torres Straits and immediately began to take water in her forward tanks. Speed was reduced and while the extent of the damage was being ascertained, she steamed on at reduced speed and came to anchor some thirty minutes later in shallow water some five nautical miles to the east. (at p316)

3. By the time the vessel had anchored, it was obvious that her hull forward was holed in several places ; sea water had entered a large number of her tanks and she had developed a marked list to port and was also down by the stem with the consequence that aft of the break in the fo'c'sle her deck on the port side was awash for some hundreds of feet, her port side rails being completely submerged for a considerable distance aft of the fo'c'sle. (at p316)

4. The Oceanic Grandeur is a very large tanker of Liberian registry with Chinese master and crew, being over 58,000 tons dead weight and whose hull is almost 750 feet long and almost 110 feet broad. She has a total of seventeen large tanks, occupying the whole of her hull space forward of the engine room and crew's quarters, which are situated in the stern of the vessel. Of these seventeen tanks, only thirteen are designed for the carriage of cargo. Two tanks in the bows, the fore peak tank in the extreme bows and the deep tank just aft of it, are used only as ballast tanks. The remaining fifteen tanks are placed, from fore to aft, in five sets of three, each set of three comprising two wing tanks, on the port and starboard, and a centre tank,…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fisher v "Oceanic Grandeur" and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1972] HCA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Fisher v "Oceanic Grandeur"* concerned a dispute between the owner of a vessel, the "Oceanic Grandeur", and a party claiming damages. The specific nature of the dispute involved a claim for loss or damage allegedly sustained by the plaintiff. The matter came before Stephen J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had established a valid claim for damages against the owner of the "Oceanic Grandeur" under the relevant maritime law principles. This required the court to consider the nature of the alleged loss or damage and the legal basis upon which liability could be imposed on the vessel's owner.

Stephen J's reasoning focused on the evidence presented and the applicable legal tests for establishing liability in such maritime claims. The judgment would have examined the specific facts giving rise to the claim and assessed whether those facts met the legal threshold for awarding damages. The principles applied would have been those governing maritime torts or contractual liabilities, depending on the precise nature of the dispute.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.