Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v Rawlings

The appeal concerned a claim for false imprisonment brought by the respondent, a passenger on the applicant's cruise ship, against the applicant cruise line. The respondent had been detained in a guest cabin for five days while the ship was at sea, pending its return to port so that an alleged sexual assault could be investigated by local police. The primary judge had found in favour of the respondent.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the captain of the cruise ship was justified in detaining the respondent for the preservation of order and discipline or for the safety of the vessel or persons on board, and whether the defence recognised in *Hook v Cunard Steamship Co* was part of Australian common law and, if so, whether it required a subjective belief by the captain that detention was necessary. The Court also considered the applicable law to a tort committed on the high seas, where the law of the flag had not been pleaded or proved, and the primary judge had applied the substantive law of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal held that the defence relied upon by the applicant, as articulated in *Hook v Cunard Steamship Co*, was not part of Australian common law. The Court reasoned that the power to detain a passenger on a ship on the high seas was a matter of common law, and that such detention would only be lawful if it was reasonably necessary for the preservation of order and discipline or the safety of the vessel or persons on board. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that the detention of the respondent was reasonably necessary for these purposes, particularly given the availability of other measures. Furthermore, the Court determined that the primary judge had erred in applying the substantive law of New South Wales, as the law of the flag should have been considered, although it ultimately found this error did not affect the outcome of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment for the respondent and the order for costs in the District Court, dismissed the statement of claim, and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding and the appeal.