Treeve v Blue Star Line (Aust) Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 20

Treeve v Blue Star Line (Aust) Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 20

The defendant company was a distinct entity from the shipowner and was only a ships' agent and stevedore. At the time of the accident it had merely employed a contractor at the master's request to perform work aboard a fully manned ship under the master's command, and its marine superintendent's later inspection of the work did not give it possession, occupation or control of any part of the ship. Therefore it owed no occupier's duty to the plaintiff as an invitee, and the verdict for the plaintiff could not stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in an Action for Damages for Personal Injuries / Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Setting Aside a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Entering a Verdict for the Defendant
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['duty of Occupier to Invitee' 'possession, Occupation or Control of Premises' "ship's Agent Liability" 'personal Injuries Aboard Ship']
['tort Law' 'negligence' "occupiers' Liability"] ['duty of Occupier to Invitee' 'possession, Occupation or Control of Premises' "ship's Agent Liability" 'personal Injuries Aboard Ship']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in an Action for Damages for Personal Injuries / Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Setting Aside a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Entering a Verdict for the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant company had possession, occupation or control of the ship or any relevant part of it so as to owe the plaintiff a duty as occupier to an invitee.' "Whether a verdict for the plaintiff could stand where the defendant was a ship's agent rather than the shipowner." 'Whether it was proper to leave to the jury a case that the plaintiff may have grasped a bar standing upright from zinc ingots rather than the pleaded stanchion case.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant company was a distinct entity from the shipowner and was only a ships' agent and stevedore. At the time of the accident it had merely employed a contractor at the master's request to perform work aboard a fully manned ship under the master's command, and its marine superintendent's later inspection of the work did not give it possession, occupation or control of any part of the ship. Therefore it owed no occupier's duty to the plaintiff as an invitee, and the verdict for the plaintiff could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']