TASMAN ORIENT LINE CV V NEW ZEALAND CHINA CLAYS LIMITED AND OTHERS SC 39/2009
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved the specific grounds to be argued on appeal, centring on whether the Master's post‑grounding conduct disentitles the carrier to protection under Article IV, Rule 2(a) of the Hague‑Visby Rules and related questions of bona fides, barratry and evidential onus.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 39/2009
- Parties
- Appellant: Tasman Orient Line CV; Respondent: New Zealand China Clays Limited and Others
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 July 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Hague Visby Rules, Article IV Rule 2(a), Barratry, Master's Conduct, Causation, Onus of Proof
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tasman Orient Line CV
Appellant
New Zealand China Clays Limited and Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave to Appeal Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the Master's conduct following the grounding disentitle the appellant to protection of Article IV, Rule 2(a) of the Hague‑Visby Rules?
- 2 Were the Master's decisions following the grounding bona fide for the safety of the ship, crew and cargo?
- 3 Did the Master's conduct amount to barratry?
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved the specific grounds to be argued on appeal, centring on whether the Master's post‑grounding conduct disentitles the carrier to protection under Article IV, Rule 2(a) of the Hague‑Visby Rules and related questions of bona fides, barratry and evidential onus.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Approved grounds of appeal as set out in the judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
TASMAN ORIENT LINE CV V NEW ZEALAND CHINA CLAYS LIMITED AND OTHERS SC 39/2009 1 July 2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 39/2009 [2009] NZSC 70BETWEEN TASMAN ORIENT LINE CV Appellant AND NEW ZEALAND CHINA CLAYS LIMITED AND OTHERS Respondents Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Wilson JJ Counsel: B D Gray QC for Appellant P R Rzepecky and M A Flynn for Respondents Judgment: 1 July 2009JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A. Leave to appeal is granted. B. The approved grounds are: (a) As the appellant's ground, did the conduct of the Master following the grounding disentitle the appellant to the protection of Article IV, Rule 2(a) of the Hague Visby Rules? (b) As the respondents' additional grounds in support of the judgment of the Court of Appeal: (i) Were the decisions of the Master following the grounding made bona fide for the safety of the ship, the crew and the cargo? (ii) Did the conduct of the Master amount to barratry?(iii) Did the appellant fail to discharge the onus of proving where the damage occurred and what caused it? (iv) Did the appellant fail to establish that it was not at fault?Solicitors: DLA Phillips Fox, Auckland for Appellant McElroys, Auckland for Respondents