Stankowski v Commonwealth of Australia - [2004] NSWSC 198

CITATION: Stankowski v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] NSWSC 198 revised - 24/03/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 29/09/2003 - 02/10/2003, 07/10/2003 - 08/10/2003, 10/10/2003, 13/10/2003 - 17/10/2003, 20/10/2003 - 22/10/2003, 20/11/2003, 16/12/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

DECISION: (1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $377,851.14; (2) The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

CATCHWORDS: Negligence - Maritime collision - Collision - Voyager - Melbourne - Psychological injury - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - PTSD - Loss of chance - Pension - Damages

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s 72

CASES CITED: Malec v JC Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638

PARTIES :
Stephen Stankowski
Commonwealth of Australia

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 21240/95

COUNSEL: Mr AG Melick SC, Dr K Sant - Plaintiff
Mr RJ Burbidge QC, Mr GT Johnson - Defendant

SOLICITORS: James Taylor & Co - Plaintiff
Australian Government Solicitor - Defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

O’Keefe J

22 March 2004

21240/95 STEPHEN STANKOWSKI v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

JUDGMENT

Background

1 The worst peacetime maritime disaster in the history of the Royal Australian Navy occurred at 8.56pm on Monday 10 February 1964. At that time the destroyer HMAS Voyager (Voyager) was engaged in night flying exercises with other vessels of Her Majesty’s Royal Australian Navy. These included the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne (Melbourne). During the course of these exercises it became necessary for Voyager to change position, moving from the starboard side of Melbourne to its port side. For reasons that have never been adequately explained, despite enquiries by the Navy and two Royal Commissions, Voyager accelerated and cut sharply across the bows of Melbourne. At the time, the signal for Melbourne to steam full-speed ahead on both engines had been given and although this had not taken effect, Melbourne was nonetheless proceeding at 22 knots.

2 The two vessels collided. The bow of Melbourne struck Voyager at the after end of her bridge, at a time when she was almost at right angles to Melbourne. The force of the impact heeled Voyager sharply onto her starboard side. Debris from Voyager was thrown up onto Melbourne’s Flight Deck. High-pressure steam and black smoke cascaded from one of Voyager’s ruptured boilers. The momentum of Melbourne (a vessel of 16,000 tons standard; 19,950 tons deep load) was sufficient to push the smaller vessel, Voyager (approximately 3,000 tons) bodily through the water until Voyager broke in two. When this occurred, her bow section passed down the port side of Melbourne; her stern section down the starboard side.

3 The bow section of Voyager turned over on its side off the port quarter of Melbourne and sank about 10 minutes later taking down with it a large number of Voyager’s crew. Voyager’s stern section, with the stern facing aft scraped slowly down Melbourne’s starboard side, emitting quantities of steam and black smoke. Melbourne’s engines were reversed and the vessel was brought to rest with Voyager’s stern section some 600 feet (one cable;…

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 Stankowski v Commonwealth of Australia 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: [2004] NSWSC 198
Decision Date: 22 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stankowski v Commonwealth of Australia concerned a maritime collision that occurred off the coast of Melbourne. The plaintiff, Mr Stankowski, was a passenger on a vessel that collided with a ship operated by the Commonwealth. Mr Stankowski sustained psychological injuries, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as a result of the collision. He sought damages from the Commonwealth for negligence, claiming that the collision was caused by the ship's improper navigation and that the Commonwealth had failed to take reasonable care in the operation of the vessel. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the Commonwealth was liable for Mr Stankowski's injuries and, if so, what damages he was entitled to recover.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the Commonwealth was negligent in the operation of the ship that collided with Mr Stankowski's vessel. The court had to consider whether the ship's crew had breached their duty of care by failing to navigate the vessel properly, and whether this breach caused Mr Stankowski's injuries. Another key issue was the extent of Mr Stankowski's injuries and whether they were reasonably foreseeable as a result of the collision. The court also had to consider whether Mr Stankowski was entitled to recover damages for the loss of a chance of avoiding the psychological injuries he sustained.

In its judgment, the court found that the Commonwealth was indeed negligent in the operation of the ship that collided with Mr Stankowski's vessel. The court held that the ship's crew had breached their duty of care by failing to navigate the vessel properly, and that this breach caused Mr Stankowski's injuries. The court also found that Mr Stankowski's psychological injuries were reasonably foreseeable as a result of the collision, and that he was entitled to recover damages for the loss of a chance of avoiding those injuries. The court awarded Mr Stankowski damages for his psychological injuries, as well as for the loss of a chance of avoiding those injuries. The court also found that Mr Stankowski was entitled to recover damages for the loss of a pension he would have received had he not been injured in the collision.

In summary, the court held that the Commonwealth was liable for Mr Stankowski's injuries and awarded him damages for his psychological injuries, as well as for the loss of a chance of avoiding those injuries. The court also found that Mr Stankowski was entitled to recover damages for the loss of a pension he would have received had he not been injured in the collision. The case serves as an important reminder of the duty of care owed by operators of maritime vessels and the potential consequences of failing to take reasonable care.

Orders