Townsville Harbour Board v Scottish Shire Line Ltd

The Townsville Harbour Board (the Board) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the liability of Scottish Shire Line Ltd. (the owners) for damage caused to the Board's breakwater by the owners' steamship, the Banffshire. The Board claimed damages under section 196 of the Harbour Boards Act 1892 (Qld). The owners' defence was that the ship was under the sole control of a compulsory pilot at the time of the incident, and the damage was caused solely by the pilot's acts or defaults, not by any negligence of the owners, master, or crew.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the owners of a vessel are liable for damage caused to a Harbour Board's property when the vessel is in the charge of a compulsory pilot, and whether the provisions of the Harbour Boards Act 1892 (Qld) and the Navigation Acts Amendment Act 1911 (Qld) altered the common law position regarding such liability. Specifically, the Court had to determine if section 196 of the Harbour Boards Act 1892 imposed an absolute liability on shipowners for damage caused by their vessels, irrespective of fault, or if it merely provided a procedural mechanism for recovering damages for which someone was already liable at common law.

The High Court, by a majority, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland and dismissed the appeal. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. held that the owners were not liable. They reasoned that section 196 of the Harbour Boards Act 1892, which was substantially similar to section 74 of the English Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, should be interpreted in light of the House of Lords' decision in *River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson*. This interpretation suggested that the section did not create a new form of absolute liability but rather made owners liable for damage caused by their vessels where someone was already liable at common law. Since the damage was caused by a compulsory pilot, whose employment was mandated by law, the owners were not liable, akin to a situation of *vis major*. They also noted that the *Navigation Acts Amendment Act 1911* (Qld), which removed civil remedies against pilots, did not alter this outcome, as the compulsory nature of pilotage itself relieved the owner of liability. Isaacs J. reached the same conclusion, finding that the provisions of the *Navigation Acts Amendment Act 1911* specifically relieved the owners of liability in this circumstance.