This case involved a claim made by the owners of the motor launch Daphne against the owners of the steam tug Gusty (the first defendants) and the owners of the motor vessel Daniel M (the second defendants).

The Gusty was navigating upriver in Greenwich Reach while towing a petrol barge, and the Daniel M was proceeding from the south side of the river. While attempting to head down the river, the Daniel M collided with the port side of the Gusty, creating a hole and causing the engine room to fill with water. Upon hearing cries for assistance from the Gusty, the master of the Daphne immediately proceeded towards the vessels to save those on board and prevent loss of life. Subsequently, the Daniel M released itself from the Gusty, resulting in the Gusty colliding with the Daphne and inflicting the damage which is the subject of this claim.

Held: The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against the second defendants.

The Judge acknowledged that the collision between the Daphne and the Gusty was not a result of negligence on the part of either the Gusty or the Daphne. Furthermore, he recognised that the initial collision between the Daniel M and the Gusty was solely caused by the negligence of the Daniel M.

Regarding the second collision, the Court found that the Daniel M was also liable for the damage to the Daphne, because it owed a duty of care not only to the Daphne but also to any other ship lawfully navigating the waters of the Thames in its vicinity.

Lastly, the Judge considered whether the Daphne, in its actions, acted as a volunteer and assumed the risk of sustaining damage while coming to the assistance of the Gusty, or whether it acted under some duty. The master of the Daphne had clearly concluded that the Gusty and those on board were in great danger, even if he had not heard the hailing. Section 6 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (UK) (the 1911 Act) applied to vessels transiting the Thames at Greenwich. Section 6(1) of the 1911 Act, which gives domestic effect to art 8 of the Collision Convention 1910, provides:

The master or person in charge of a vessel shall, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his own vessel, her crew and passengers (if any), render assistance to every person even if such person be a subject of a foreign State at war with His Majesty, who is found at sea in danger of being lost, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

Section 6(2) clarifies that compliance with these provisions by the master or person in charge of a vessel shall not affect the right to salvage. Section 6(2) seems to indicate that a duty is thrown on the master of the vessel to render assistance to every person at sea in danger of being lost, because it clearly states that, whatever s/he does on that duty, s/he is still to be regarded as a volunteer so far as salvage is concerned. It is a well known principle of law that a salvor has to be a volunteer; if s/he has a duty to do what s/he does, s/he cannot claim salvage.