Point Frederick: Max Levenspiel loses lawsuit against Geoffrey Grinter over yacht, jetty damage

A wealthy yacht owner who refused to pay an insurance excess of $3000 when a neighbour’s cruiser crashed into his boat sued for damages. It didn’t quite go to plan.

Max Levenspiel could have paid an excess of $3000 to lodge a claim through his insurance company for damages when a neighbour’s motor cruiser broke its mooring and crashed into his yacht and private jetty at Point Frederick.

But after phoning the motor cruiser’s owner, who told him to essentially go away and speak to his insurance company, he decided to sue him in court for damages.

Two years later it has become a very costly decision for Mr Levenspiel after a Local Court Magistrate ruled in favour of the defendant Geoffrey Grinter and ordered Mr Levenspiel to pay his legal costs.

Gosford Local Court heard Mr Grinter’s 1991 Riviera 27 Flybridge cruiser named “Siesta” was moored off Point Frederick when it was hit by bad weather overnight on March 7, 2019, and the mooring’s swivel broke, sending the vessel floating into Mr Levenspiel’s yacht and private jetty about 230m away.

Damage to Mr Grinter's Flybridge cruiser after it collided with Mr Levenspiel’s yacht. The cruiser was written off by Mr Grinter’s insurance company Picture: supplied

The court heard the Siesta caused $37,998.50 damage to Mr Levenspiel’s 15.3m ocean-going yacht named “Investigator” and his jetty.

“The figurative expression `like ships passing in the night’ is well known,” Magistrate Scott Nash said in his reasons for his decision.

“These proceedings, however, arise because two private marine vessels unfortunately did not pass in the night.”

Mr Grinter had his mooring inspected almost a year to the day before the collision by Brisbane Waters Moorings Salvage and Service, which laid the mooring in 1979 and continued to service it ever since.

The court heard the source of the swivel joint’s failure was a weld that held the centre bolt in place.

The swivel joint’s centre bolt failed when the welding broke. Picture: supplied.

Mr Levenspiel’s lawyers argued the weld failed because of significant wear, rust, electrolysis and degradation.

“Mr Levenspiel further submitted that the swivel’s failure was avoidable because the deteriorated condition of the swivel was obvious on inspection by any competent mooring contractor such as Mr Grinter’s contractor Brisbane Water Moorings,” Magistrate Nash said.

“Mr Levenspiel argued Brisbane Water Moorings had inspected the mooring on March 8, 2018 and that its deteriorated condition must have been obvious, but no action was taken, and that the swivel was not in `as new condition at the time of the incident’.

“By this description, Mr Levenspiel argued Mr Grinter owed him a non-delegable duty of care to ensure his mooring was serviced with reasonable care and skill.”

Mr Grinter’s lawyers argued the swivel’s failure was a “latent defect” of the weld, which was “unforeseeable as it could not be discovered by inspection or customary testing methods”.

Mr Grinter's ”Siesta” after the collision with Mr Levenspiel’s yacht, “Investigator” who’s mast is visible in the background. Picture: Max Levenspiel.

His lawyers argued the mooring had been inspected less than 12 months prior to the collision and he was not negligent or in any way responsible for any damage to Mr Levenspiel’s yacht and jetty.

Magistrate Nash said a non-delegable duty of care was marked by a special relationship where there was an assumed responsibility of one party and a dependence or vulnerability of the other, such as an employer to employee, hospital to patient or school to student.

He said Mr Grinter had no such non-delegable duty of care to Mr Levenspiel in respect to any “negligent acts or omissions” by Brisbane Water Moorings or its principal David Clements and dismissed Mr Levenspiel’s statement of claim.

On Monday Magistrate Nash gave both parties until December 20 to file submissions about legal costs before he would rule on an amount to be paid.

Outside court Mr Levenspiel told the Express Advocate he got Mr Grinter’s number from another neighbour after the collision and rang him.

He said Mr Grinter, a barrister who lived in Sydney, told him to speak to his insurance company.

He said he sued Mr Grinter because “he was the owner of the boat” and could not understand how the Magistrate ruled in Mr Grinter’s favour.

Mr Levenspiel said his own legal costs had come to about $60,000.

Asked why he didn’t simply go through his insurer Mr Levenspiel said he had a high excess of $3,000 which he didn’t want to pay given he believed it was Mr Grinter’s fault.

“I’m not happy about it,” he said.