Lawrence v Huddart Parker Limited - [1930] HCA 9

LAWRENCE

HUDDART PARKER LIMITED Ship-Seaman incapacitated by accident-Left ashore at port other than home port-

Maintenance-Wages-Evidence-Certificate of "his medical attendant"- Liability of shipowner--Navigation Act 1912-1926 (No. 4 of 1913-No. 8 of SYDNEY,

1926), secs. 127, 132. * Mar. 26, 27

By sec. 127 of the Navigation Act 1912-1926 a right to maintenance by the shipowner is given to an injured seaman "until he is cured, or dies, or is brought

to the port " agreed upon. Held, that one of such events must actually occur before the shipowner's liability to pay maintenance terminates.

Held, also, that the certificate of the medical attendant or the medical inspector of seamen to which sec. 132 of the Act refers is not made evidence of the occurrence of any one of such events for the purpose of sec. 127, either conclusive or presumptive. * Sec. 132 of the Navigation Act 1912-

provided in the last preceding para- 1926 provides that "(1) Where a seaman

graph, a free passage to his home port, or apprentice belonging to a ship regis-

with wages, at the rate fixed by his agreement, until arrival at that port any place in Australia, in any manner

Provided that if, after recovery, the authorized by law, by reason of illness

seaman or apprentice rejoins his ship, or accident in the service of the ship

or takes other employment, or is incapacitating him from following his

offered and refuses employment on duty, he shall be entitled-(a) if landed

some other vessel proceeding to his at his home port, as specified in the

home port, at a similar rate of pay to agreement, to receive wages, at the rate

that received by him immediately fixed by his agreement, up to the

prior to his being left on shore, and expiration of one week after the date of

with the right of discharge from that his recovery, as certified by his medical

vessel on arrival at his home port, his attendant or by a medical inspector of

right to continue to receive wages (b) if landed at a

under this sub-section shall then port other than his home port, to receive, after his recovery, certified as

43 CLR 441

Semble: The words "his medical attendant" in sec. 132 of the Navigation Act 1912-1926 mean the medical practitioner who attends the seaman, and are not confined to the medical attendant who is employed by the seaman.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Lawrence v. Huddart Parker Ltd., (1929) 29 S.R. (N.S.W.) 542, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The plaintiff, Charles William Lawrence, was a seaman trimmer employed on the S.S. Riverina owned by the defendant Company, Huddart Parker Ltd. On 16th August 1926 he met with an accident during the course of his employment whilst the vessel was moored at Hobart, and on the following day was admitted to the Hobart Public Hospital for treatment for a compound fracture of the…

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 Lawrence v Huddart Parker Limited

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Huddart Parker Limited [1930] HCA 9
Case: [1930] HCA 9
Decision Date: 14 April 1930

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a dispute between Charles William Lawrence, a seaman, and his employer, Huddart Parker Limited. Lawrence had sustained a serious leg injury while employed on the S.S. Riverina, which resulted in him being left ashore at Hobart, a port other than his home port of Sydney. He claimed wages and maintenance from the company following his discharge from hospital care.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation of sections 127 and 132 of the *Navigation Act 1912-1926* and a corresponding clause in Lawrence's employment agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine when a shipowner's liability to pay maintenance to an injured seaman ceases, and the evidentiary weight, if any, of a medical certificate in establishing such cessation. The court also considered the meaning of "his medical attendant" as used in the legislation and the agreement, and whether a seaman's refusal of a passage home could terminate the shipowner's obligation to pay wages.

The High Court held that the shipowner's liability for maintenance under section 127 continues until one of three events actually occurs: the seaman is cured, dies, or is brought back to his home port or an agreed port. The court clarified that a medical certificate, whether from a medical attendant or a medical inspector of seamen, is not conclusive or presumptive evidence of the occurrence of these events for the purpose of terminating maintenance. Regarding wages, the court found that under the employment agreement, wages were payable until the seaman's certified recovery and arrival at his home port, subject to certain provisos. The court determined that the seaman's refusal of a passage home did not absolve the shipowner of its wage liability because the seaman had not been informed of the relevant medical certificate of recovery. The court also offered guidance that "his medical attendant" refers to the medical practitioner attending the seaman, not necessarily one employed by the seaman.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and restored the judgment of the District Court in favour of Lawrence. The respondent, Huddart Parker Limited, was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Orders