The saga of the fishing vessel Isothel presents an interesting illustration of the way in which the courts might treat an insured who seemingly shows little interest in the safety of his property on the basis that, if something goes wrong, the insurance company will pay. The loss of the vessel on the Queensland coast in 1981 has also provided the courts with an opportunity of considering the terms of s. 61(2)(a) of the Australian Marine Insurance Act 1909, which is in precisely identical terms to s. 55(2)(a) of the English Act of 1906.

The Isothel was a 13-metre diesel-powered fishing vessel owned by Mr R. G. Wood and his two sons. One of the sons was not involved at all in the matters leading to the litigation, but the other son, aged 23, had been skipper of the vessel for some four months when, on 17 May 1981, the vessel set sail from Brisbane to travel to fishing grounds many hundreds of kilometres to the north. On board was the 23-year-old skipper and a crew of three comprising one deck hand just approaching his 16th birthday, another deck hand aged 17, and a 21-year-old cook. The youngest of this crew had in fact had some experience at sea from an early age and was capable of working the motor and the bilge pumps, but neither of the other members of the crew had any experience at all on board a fishing vessel. None of the crew members was capable of undertaking any repairs to the motor, nor was any of them capable of working the ship’s radio.

Leaving Brisbane at 0300 hours, the vessel made progress during the day but, having encountered a problem with the bilge pump, the skipper sought out an anchorage in the evening. His intention was to proceed with the journey on the following day, but his intention was foiled when the main engine would not start. He then set off to shore in a dinghy accompanied by one of the crew but, on the way to shore, the dinghy was swamped and its outboard motor rendered inoperative. Having nonetheless reached shore, he was able to communicate with his father for assistance and also to arrange for the dinghy’s outboard motor to be taken away for repair. The skipper’s father duly arrived later in the day and, in another boat borrowed for the occasion, both he and the skipper returned to the Isothel. The problems with the main engine and the bilge pump were rectified and the skipper and his father then returned to shore leaving the three inexperienced crew members on board. Over the next three days, the father’s only involvement was to increase the insurance cover on the vessel, while his skipper son went home. During this period, the weather blew up and, by the evening of the third day, the skipper, knowing from news reports that cyclonic winds were expected in the area, simply assumed that the crew would have abandoned ship, and tucked himself up in bed. In fact, the crew had indeed abandoned the vessel, which subsequently broke anchor, stranded, and became a constructive total loss. Perhaps not surprisingly in these circumstances, the defendant underwriter denied liability, in consequence of which the three insured brought an action in the Supreme Court of Queensland.