Mandic v Nautilus Marine Services Pty Ltd - [2016] QDC 2

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mandic v Nautilus Marine Services Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 2

PARTIES:

ANTHONY MANDIC

Applicant

V

NAUTILUS MARINE SERVICES PTY LTD

Defendant

FILE NO:

No. 382 of 2011

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

15 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATES:

30 November, 1, 2 and 3 December 2015

JUDGE:

Judge C F Wall QC

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $227,602.37 plus costs to be assessed on the standard basis unless agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – work performed on sea strainer of plaintiff’s vessel – vessel later sank due to sea strainer cap lifting – whether defendant negligent in failing to properly secure sea strainer cap.

CASES:

Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470
Richard Evans v Astley [1911] AC 674
Cofield v Waterloo Case Co. Ltd (1924) 34 CLR 363

Davis v Bunn (1936) 56 CLR 246

COUNSEL:

Mr G. Coveney for the Plaintiff

Mr P. Woods for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Minter Ellison for the Defendant

Introduction

Lisa May sank at its mooring at Hope Island Resort Marina (HIRM) very quickly in the early hours of 4 November 2010 between about 5 and 6.30am. The plaintiff says this was because the defendant didn’t properly secure the aft port sea strainer cap after working on the strainer and was for that reason negligent and in breach of its contract to carry out the work with reasonable professional care, skill and diligence. The aft port sea strainer is exhibit 2. Quantum is agreed at $227,602.37.

Preliminary findings

Because of their relevance to the determination of liability I should first record some preliminary findings.

Chris Egan of Gold Coast City Marina (GCCM) on behalf of the plaintiff, requested the defendant, through its director John Billett, to inspect and clean the boat’s sea strainers, check valves and check for engine corrosion after GCCM had carried out anti-fouling on the boat. The plaintiff says someone from the defendant rang him (after being contacted by GCCM) and he arranged the work during this phone call. Egan can’t remember and my impression was that Mr Billett had a better memory of events than the plaintiff.

The work on the boat was probably not the first job on 28 October 2010 for the defendant’s employees, Geoff Morris and Martin Appenzeller, by reference to the time Mr Billett rang the plaintiff, 11.17am (from phone records). Morris and Appenzeller are probably mistaken about this being their first job for the day. The job sheet requested they attend to the work “Thursday morning please” not that it be their first job for that day. This was not a big job.[1]
[1] The total cost was $126.50 (Invoice)

The batteries on the boat were flat when Morris and Appenzeller arrived to start work. Morris, a mechanic then with 10 years experience working on recreational vessels, and Appenzeller an electrical engineer who had then worked for the defendant for about 9 years were well…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mandic v Nautilus Marine Services Pty Ltd 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: [2016] QDC 2
Decision Date: 15 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mandic v Nautilus Marine Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, a mariner, brought an action against the defendant, a marine services company, alleging that they were negligent in their work on the sea strainer of his vessel. The plaintiff’s vessel subsequently sank due to the sea strainer cap lifting. The primary focus of the case was to determine whether the defendant had breached their duty of care by failing to properly secure the sea strainer cap, which in turn led to the vessel's sinking.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether there was a breach of that duty, and if such a breach caused the plaintiff's loss. The court needed to examine the standard of care expected in the marine industry, the specific duties of the defendant in performing their work on the sea strainer, and the causation between the alleged breach and the subsequent damage.

The court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and that this duty was breached by failing to properly secure the sea strainer cap. The court concluded that the defendant's actions directly caused the sea strainer cap to lift and the vessel to sink, leading to the plaintiff's loss. As a result, the court awarded judgment to the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff was awarded $227,602.37 in damages, with costs to be assessed on the standard basis unless the parties agreed otherwise.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $227,602.37 plus costs to be assessed on the standard basis unless agreed.

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.

CITATION:	Mandic v Nautilus Marine Services Pty Ltd [2016] QDC 2
PARTIES:	ANTHONY MANDIC Applicant V NAUTILUS MARINE SERVICES PTY LTD Defendant
FILE NO:	No. 382 of 2011
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	15 January 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATES:	30 November, 1, 2 and 3 December 2015
JUDGE:	Judge C F Wall QC
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $227,602.37 plus costs to be assessed on the standard basis unless agreed.
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – work performed on sea strainer of plaintiff’s vessel – vessel later sank due to sea strainer cap lifting – whether defendant negligent in failing to properly secure sea strainer cap.
CASES:	Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470 Richard Evans v Astley [1911] AC 674 Cofield v Waterloo Case Co. Ltd (1924) 34 CLR 363 Davis v Bunn (1936) 56 CLR 246
COUNSEL:	Mr G. Coveney for the Plaintiff Mr P. Woods for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the Plaintiff Minter Ellison for the Defendant