Guderjahn v Matilda Cruises Pty Limited & 1 Or; Matilda Cruises Pty Limited v Ledden [2006] NSWCA 107

Guderjahn v Matilda Cruises Pty Limited & 1 Or; Matilda Cruises Pty Limited v Ledden [2006] NSWCA 107

Both Mr Guderjahn and Matilda Cruises were equally responsible for the collision due to failures in maintaining a proper lookout and operating in the correct channel; there should be no distinction between their degrees of negligence. The assessment of damages by the trial judge was not manifestly unreasonable. Tax return figures are not strictly determinative for assessment of loss, but the assessment must be based on credible and sufficient evidence.

Parties
Appellant (ca 40365/05): Ralph Guderjahn; First Respondent (ca 40365/05) & Appellant (ca 40356/05): Matilda Cruises Pty Limited; Second Respondent (ca 40365/05) & Respondent (ca 40356/05): Clint Ledden
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal on apportionment of liability allowed; appeals on assessment of damages dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Damages, Lookout Obligations on Water, Collision at Sea
Torts Maritime Law Negligence Apportionment of Liability Damages Lookout Obligations on Water Collision at Sea

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Guderjahn

Appellant (ca 40365/05)

Matilda Cruises Pty Limited

First Respondent (ca 40365/05) & Appellant (ca 40356/05)

Clint Ledden

Second Respondent (ca 40365/05) & Respondent (ca 40356/05)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper apportionment of liability between ferry operator and dinghy operator in a collision
  2. 2 Assessment of economic and non-economic damages arising from personal injury

Ratio Decidendi

Both Mr Guderjahn and Matilda Cruises were equally responsible for the collision due to failures in maintaining a proper lookout and operating in the correct channel; there should be no distinction between their degrees of negligence. The assessment of damages by the trial judge was not manifestly unreasonable. Tax return figures are not strictly determinative for assessment of loss, but the assessment must be based on credible and sufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal on apportionment of liability allowed; appeals on assessment of damages dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal by Mr Guderjahn on the apportionment of liability is allowed.
  • The order made by the trial judge apportioning liability between Mr Guderjahn and Matilda Cruises is set aside.