Rivergate Marina and Shipyard Pty Ltd v Morphett

Link copied
Case Copied 86 min read

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

  1. 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.

  1. In late 2010, the boat came into the plaintiff’s shipyard on…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2017] QDC 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rivergate Marina and Shipyard Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Morphett, seeking damages for the alleged negligent loss of a boat. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether Rivergate Marina and Shipyard Pty Ltd, as bailees, exercised reasonable care in the storage and maintenance of the boat, and whether the damages awarded were appropriate.

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.