DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Rivergate Marina & Shipyard Pty Ltd v Morphett [2017] QDC 141
PARTIES:
RIVERGATE MARINA & SHIPYARD PTY LTD
(plaintiff)v
ALEXANDRA MORPHETT
(first defendant, second plaintiff by counterclaim)and
JOHN HARVEY
(second defendant)and
HUNTER VALLEY DENTAL SURGERY PTY LTD
(third defendant, first plaintiff by counterclaim)FILE NO/S:
BM3735/2012; BD1516/2014
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
31 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Townsville
HEARING DATE:
30, 31 January, 1, 2 February 2017
JUDGE:
McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment that the first defendant pay the plaintiff $85,231.01, including $25,468.11 by way of interest. Claim against the second defendant dismissed. Counterclaim of the first defendant dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
BAILMENT – duties of bailee – exercise of lien – whether reasonable care taken of boat – ownership of boat – assessment of damages.
Aqua Marine Pty Ltd v The Ship “Condor of Bermuda” [1999] QDC 46 – cited.
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 – applied.
Blue Corp Pty Ltd v ANZ Executors and Trustee Co Ltd [1995] QCA 487 – cited.
Challenge Charter Pty Ltd v Curtain Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 1 – followed.
Chasteauneuf v Capeyron (1882) 7 App Cas 127 – cited.
China Pacific SA v Food Corporation of India [1982] AC 939 – cited.
Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 – cited.
Hobbs v Petersham Transport Co Pty Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 220 – cited.
McDonald v Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax (1915) 20 CLR 231 – cited.
Mentink v Registrar of the Australian Register of Ships [2014] FCA 1138 – cited.
Nightingale v Tildsley [1980] CLY 134 – cited.
Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 – cited.
Palmer St. Developments Pty Ltd v J&E Vanjak Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 138 – cited.
Soames v British Empire Shipping Co (1860) 8 HLC 338 – cited.
Spencer v The Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 418 - cited.
“The Sisters” (1804) 5 C.Rob. 155, 165 ER 731 – cited.
Thiess Services Pty Ltd v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 50 – cited.
Tottenham Investments Pty Ltd v Carburettor Services Pty Ltd (1994) Aust Torts Rep 81-292 – cited.COUNSEL:
MH Ferrett for the plaintiff
P Sommers for the first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:
Archibald & Brown Lawyers for the plaintiff
Bennett & Philp Lawyers for the first and second defendants
This is a case about a boat. The C-Princess was built in America in 1965, as a wooden hulled motor cabin cruiser, of a kind which is or was at one time popular in America, but rare in Australia. It was purchased in 2004 in America for $US150,000.[1] Since then, a lot of money has been spent on it.[2] It is now, for practical purposes, worthless.
[1]Exhibit 1.
[2]Over $200,000 was paid to the plaintiff, and more to another ship repairer.
In late 2010, the boat came into the plaintiff’s shipyard on…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Rivergate Marina and Shipyard Pty Ltd v Morphett 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QDC 141
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the duties of the bailee under the relevant bailment agreements and considered the standard of care required in such circumstances. The court also assessed whether the damages awarded were fair and reasonable, given the evidence presented. The court found that the bailee had not exercised reasonable care, leading to the loss of the boat, and that the damages awarded were appropriate.
In reaching its decision, the court relied on various authorities, including Aqua Marine Pty Ltd v The Ship “Condor of Bermuda”, BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings, and Chasteauneuf v Capeyron. The court also considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning bailment and damages.
The court ordered that the first defendant pay the plaintiff $85,231.01, including $25,468.11 by way of interest. The claim against the second defendant was dismissed, as was the counterclaim of the first defendant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment that the first defendant pay the plaintiff $85,231.01, including $25,468.11 by way of interest. Claim against the second defendant dismissed. Counterclaim of the first defendant dismissed.
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.