Mooring Dragging, 2nd Update – Auckland Council’s Liability

Foolish for Auckland Council to have delayed accepting liability for irresponsible negligence

Mooring Dragging, 2nd Update – Auckland Council’s Liability
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
In an update 23rd Oct’14 it was posted that after asking for further information, the Legal Aid office had passed the file over to a Specialist Advisor for perusal.
Today after nearly 3 weeks, a response arrived asking for credible evidence that the type of anchor & the way it was laid on the seabed meant that the mooring was not fit for purpose & as a result Classique was damaged. This would be the basis for a claim under the Consumer Guarantees Act.
A further requirement to be answered by that assessor, is whether the hirer of the mooring could reasonably rely on the skill & judgment of the Auckland Council in relation to the fitness for purpose of the mooring.
So there’s an interim grant to begin a High Court action.
It has been foolish for Auckland Council Insurers to have delayed accepting liability for the irresponsible negligence of the Harbour masters mooring personnel & their contractors. Costs & damages are increasing daily for eventual recovery.
1: In 2000 the equipment for 6 moorings was organized & deployed in the area out from Bayswater Marina.
2: Each 2 or 3 years, there was the mandatory lifting & servicing
of each mooring by the Auckland Council, apart from the unscheduled occasions for repairs, entanglements etc
3: If the Auckland Council approved the initial equipment, that would absolve the Contractor from that aspect but more than likely, the contractor would have been involved as an advisor.
4: Contractors may have changed over the years, therefore a subsequent contractor would have been responsible for knowing what equipment was required & advising Auckland Council of the inappropriate equipment.
5: In this case not only was inappropriate equipment redeployed but it was not laid in accordance with the requirement for that type of equipment.
6: It was a special purpose unidirectional single fluke anchor normally used on opposite sides of an oil rig & tensioned to it.
7: Alternatively it might be used in a river flowing in 1 direction only, without an upper fluke presenting a danger to other vessels in reducing depth of water.
8: The Auckland harbour situation had tides in 2 opposite directions & wind from multi directions.
9: The single fluke was pointing skywards either because it wasn’t laid correctly or because it was not suited to the location & it flipped when pulled from a wrong direction.
10: It was improperly regarded as a mooring with a 100 ton rating.
11: Classique is well within that specification at about 45 ton with minimum windage compared with commercial vessels the mooring might normally be expected to hold.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

Mooring still attached with a weak chain link which would’ve broken if the mooring had held.
Mooring Dragging, 2nd Update - Auckland Council’s Liability, 3In1

Mooring Dragging, 2nd Update – Auckland Council’s Liability

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge