Justice Rares, (Convener)
Justice Buchanan
Registrar Hedge
Registrar Tesoriero
Andrew Low, (Associate to Justice Rares)
Stephen Williams
Francois Balme
Present from the Profession:
Jason Buttigieg
Edward Cox
Geoff Farnsworth
Lorraine Hui
Derek Luxford
Maurice Lynch
Danella Wilmshurst
Apologies:
Terri Bell
Nathan Cecil
Theresa Dinh
Frazer Hunt
Joe Hurley
Michael McHugh
Greg Nell SC
Previous Meeting
1. Minutes of previous meeting adopted.
Agenda Items for Discussion:
2. Short demonstration of the eLodgment system
A short demonstration of the Court new eLodgment system was given.
3. National Admiralty Seminar
Justice Rares reminded attendees of the National Admiralty Seminar which is to take place on 9 November 2010 and briefly mentioned the topics.
4. Sending files to Registry where incident occurred after arrest conducted in NSW Registry.
This item was on the agenda on 17 June 2010 and was asked to be included again. The comments in the minutes on that day were:
“Justice Rares noted the practice of dealing with an arrest filed in one State is to send the file to where the ship is located once the urgent aspect is over.
Alexander Street SC commented that this should be done as soon as possible so that experts can be engaged. This issue was discussed. There was concern that the place of arrest might be fortuitous and have no connection to the issues in the proceedings or the lawyers who had been engaged. An example was the arrest of APL Sydney in Brisbane for damage done to the pipeline in Port Phillip Bay. It was suggested that as a matter of practice, the issue should be raised by practitioners early on in proceedings.”
Justice Rares said that practitioners should raise this issue with the Court straight away. Once file is transferred it will stay in the registry to which it was transferred. The Court’s policy is that the file should be transferred to the registry where the ship under arrest is located. The reason is that the registry Admiralty convening judge often has daily contact with the local marshals and others who are closer to where the ship physically is. It is more difficult for both judges and the court staff to manage issues relating to arrests from a distance in a different registry.
If there is later a contest as to where the substantive in personam proceedings should be heard then a decision will be made in the interests of justice. Derek Luxford commented that where the parties want a case to be should be a paramount point. Justice Rares said that if both parties want the matter to be in Sydney the judge will take it into and give proper weight to it. A decision will be made where the interests of justice lies.
Derek Luxford commented that London as a jurisdiction of choice deal with matters which have nothing to do with England. Often Admiralty disputes are litigated or arbitrated in venues that have no connection with the parties or the ship. A practitioner commented that even during an active arrest, matters can still effectively be dealt with by the parties in Sydney. Danella Wilmshurst asked if a party was disadvantaged if the directions hearing was by videolink. Tony Tesoriero read out some comments that been supplied by MLAANZ members relating to this point. Justice Rares said that MLAANZ can provide him, if they wish, with a report raising any further concerns with these issues.
5. Review of Practice Note ADM1. Is it working for cargo claims? Is it saving costs?
Justice Rares said that the practice note requires the parties to do certain things to assist the Court. Does it need tweaking? He said that it seems to be doing what it was meant to do. There was no comment from practitioners.
6. Next meeting
It was thought that the next meeting should be set for the first half of 2011. Tony Tesoriero will notify practitioners by email.
