Treeve v Blue Star Line (Australia) Pty Ltd

The appellant, William Henry Treeve, a carpenter employed by a contracting firm, sued the respondent, Blue Star Line (Australia) Pty Ltd, for damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell into a ship's hold. Treeve alleged that he fell because a metal bar, described as a stanchion, which he grasped for support while descending into the hold, gave way as it was not properly secured. He claimed the respondent was the occupier of the ship and he was an invitee, and that the respondent was negligent in failing to warn him of an unusual danger. The Supreme Court of New South Wales had set aside a jury verdict in favour of the appellant and entered a verdict for the respondent.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent company was an occupier of or in control of the ship, or any part of it, such that it owed a duty of care to the appellant as an invitee. The court also considered whether there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the respondent, particularly in relation to the alleged unsecured stanchion or an alternative suggestion of a bar protruding from a pile of pig iron.

The court held that, on the evidence, there was no basis to conclude that the respondent company was an occupier of or in control of the ship or any part of it. The respondent acted as a ship's agent and stevedore, and while its marine superintendent instructed the contracting firm to perform repairs and inspected the work, ultimate control and possession of the vessel remained with the shipowner. The court found that the respondent's involvement did not extend to the degree of possession or control required to establish it as an occupier under the principles of occupiers' liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the jury's verdict might have been based on the speculative suggestion of a bar protruding from pig iron, which was not part of the case as presented by the plaintiff or met by the defendant. The court also found a lack of satisfactory evidence of negligence in any event.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to set aside the jury's verdict and enter a verdict for the respondent.