Levenspiel v Grinter

Case [2021] NSWLC 11


Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Levenspiel v Grinter [2021] NSWLC 11
Hearing dates: 8 November 2021; 15 November 2021 (written submissions); 21 November 2021 (further written submissions); 13 December 2021 (costs submissions); 21 December 2021 (further costs submissions)
Date of orders: 22 December 2021 (final orders)
Decision date: 22 December 2021
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Nash LCM
Decision:

The final orders of the Court are as follows:

(1)   Judgment and verdict for the Defendant;

(2)   Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim filed 8 November 2019 is dismissed;

(3)   The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis up to 12 May 2020; and

(4)   The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis from 13 May 2020 (including the costs of the costs application).

Catchwords:

Civil claim – Collision between unmanned marine vessels – Negligence – Non-delegable duty of care – Breach of duty – Damages – Expert evidence in the Local Court – Joint Reports – Costs

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Ports and Maritime Administration Regulation 2012 (NSW)

Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bettergrow Pty Ltd v NSW Electricity Networks Operations Pty Ltd as trustee for NSW Electricity Networks operations Trust t/as TransGrid (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 514

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520

Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258

Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553

Field v Dettman [2013] NSWCA 147

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672

Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery (2007) 230 CLR 22

McLaughlin v Dungowan Manly Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 306

NMFM Property Pty Ltd v Citibank Ltd (No. 10) [2000] FCA 1558

Reed v Warburton [2011] NSWCA 98

Sovar v Henry Lane Pty Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 397

Woodhouse v Fitzgerald and McCoy (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 450

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Max Levenspiel (Plaintiff)
Geoffrey Grinter (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J Levingston, Barrister (Plaintiff)
Mr B Lloyd, Barrister (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Vaarzon-Morel Solicitors (Plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/00351814
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

A.    BACKGROUND

  1. The figurative expression - “like ships passing in the night” – is well known. These proceedings, however, arise because 2 private marine vessels unfortunately did not pass in the night. Rather, they arise as a result of what was, in fact, either a late night or an early morning collision between 2 unattended and unmanned marine vessels on Brisbane Water near Point Frederick. The plaintiff owned one of the vessels and the defendant owned the other. For ease of understanding, I will refer to the plaintiff, and his vessel, as ‘Mr Levenspiel’ and ‘Mr Levenspiel’s vessel’ respectively, and the defendant, and his vessel, as ‘Mr Grinter’ and ‘Mr Grinter’s vessel’ respectively.

  2. In summary, it is not in dispute that Mr Grinter’s vessel, which he had named ‘Siesta’, broke loose…

Continue reading Levenspiel v Grinter

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Levenspiel v Grinter [2021] NSWLC 11
Case
[2021] NSWLC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Levenspiel v Grinter involved a collision between two unmanned marine vessels, resulting in damages. The plaintiff, Levenspiel, filed a claim against the defendant, Grinter, alleging negligence and a breach of a non-delegable duty of care. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought compensation for the damages caused by the collision. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Additionally, the court had to consider the admissibility and weight of expert evidence provided by both parties.

The court examined the circumstances of the collision and the applicable legal principles governing the duty of care owed in such scenarios. It found that the defendant did not owe a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff, as the collision was not due to a dangerous instrumentality or an activity that posed an unusual risk. The court also considered the expert evidence presented by both parties, ultimately determining that the evidence provided by the defendant's expert was more persuasive and reliable. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the defendant had not breached any duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's Statement of Claim filed on 8 November 2019. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis up to 12 May 2020, and on an indemnity basis from 13 May 2020, including the costs of the costs application. This decision highlights the importance of establishing the existence and scope of a duty of care in maritime collision cases and the role of expert evidence in determining liability.

Orders

Orders of the court

The final orders of the Court are as follows:

(1) Judgment and verdict for the Defendant;

(2) Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim filed 8 November 2019 is dismissed;

(3) The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis up to 12 May 2020; and

(4) The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis from 13 May 2020 (including the costs of the costs application).

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.