Federal Court of Australia

Search: website | cases | judgments | library catalogues

h
h

 Home arrow Information for practitioners arrow Admiralty and maritime matters

Recent case law

spacer arrow Commonwealth of Australia
spacer arrow Australian states and territories
spacer arrow United Kingdom
spacer arrow New Zealand
spacer arrow Singapore
spacer arrow Hong Kong
spacer arrow Canada
spacer arrow United States
spacer arrow South Africa

Commonwealth of Australia

26 Feb 2010: The Ship “Gem of Safaga” v Euroceanica (UK) Ltd [2010] FCAFC 14
ADMIRALTY – appeal against decision refusing to set aside writ in rem issued against surrogate ship under s 19 of Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) – where Memorandum of Agreement for purchase of surrogate ship originally included "relevant person" under s 19(a) as sole purchaser, but Addendum to Memorandum of Agreement included relevant person as nine-tenth purchaser and third party as one-tenth purchaser – where purchase price for surrogate ship paid by loan for which both purchasers were jointly and severally liable – whether third party was legal and beneficial owner of one-tenth of surrogate ship – whether definition of "owner" in s 19(b) includes part owner – whether relevant person was "owner" under s 19(b) by reason of law of country in which ship was registered, or by reason of ownership rights conferred on relevant person by Co-ownership Agreement, or by reason of estoppel

arrow 23 Dec 2009: EMAS Offshore Pty Ltd v The Ship “APC Aussie 1” (No 2) [2009] FCA 1583
ADMIRALTY –– arrest –– costs of arrest, custody and release of ship –– payment in compliance with demand by Marshal –– plaintiff pays pursuant to an undertaking given under r 41 of the Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth) –– defendant/relevant person pays money into court as security for the plaintiff's claim, and also pays money demanded by Marshal pursuant to an undertaking given under r 53 in order to obtain release of ship –– ship released after payments and r 53 undertaking by defendant/relevant person –– as a result the amount of the cost of custody of the ship paid twice in compliance with the rr 41 and 53 undertakings –– r 41 undertaking not provide for demand by Marshal for costs of release –– r 53 undertaking not provide for demand by Marshal for costs of arrest –– Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) s 34 providing limited rights against plaintiff for wrongful arrest.
Held: The costs and expenses of the arrest be paid out of the amount provided to the Marshal by the plaintiff; the defendant’s payment to the Marshal should bear all other costs and expenses of the Marshal, including those in connection with keeping the ship and its release; the equivalent of the amount paid for the costs of the arrest should be added, from money paid to Marshal by defendant/relevant person, to security paid into court

arrow 15 Dec 2009: Beluga Shipping GmbH v Suzlon Energy Ltd (No 4) [2009] FCA 1568

arrow 9 Dec 2009: Euroceanica (UK) Ltd v The Ship “Gem of Safaga” [2009] FCA 1467
ADMIRALTY –– ARREST –– meaning of the expression “the owner” in s 19(b) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) –– 9 of 10 shares in arrested ship registered on Indian Register of Shipping in name of relevant person: 1 share registered in name of company of which director was managing director of relevant person –– whether 1 share held beneficially by registered shareholder or on resulting trust –– purchase initial ship in sole name of relevant person –– before completion relevant person procures amendment to purchase agreement to add nominee as additional purchaser –– evidence nominee given the one share. ADMIRALTY –– ARREST –– jurisdiction –– Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) s 19(b) –– "the owner" in s 19(b) means sole owner, thus not permitting arrest of sister ships when relevant person consisted of more than one person –– beneficial ownership sufficient to constitute ownership under s 19(b). ADMIRALTY –– ARREST –– challenge to jurisdiction –– Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) s 19(b) –– plaintiff arrests ship as sister ship for general maritime claim –– relevant person owner of 9 of 10 shares in a ship registered in India –– other registered shareholder was stranger to plaintiff's claim –– whether relevant person was the owner of the ship –– relevant person gave 1 share in ship to other shareholder for no consideration before completion –– relevant person substantial company arranged all finance for purchase and managed ship as part of its business –– other shareholder never received any payment, other than credits in relevant person’s accounts–– no explanation of, or direct evidence of reason for involvement of other shareholder –– relevant person, as sole owner, employed masters. ADMIRALTY –– ARREST –– meaning of “in control of” in s 19(a) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) –– whether relevant person was “in control of” two other ships at the time plaintiff’s general maritime claim under s 4(3)(f) arose for default in payment of hire by its subsidiary named as charterer in charterparties for those two ships –– whether side letter to charterparties providing that relevant person was ultimately responsible for true fulfilment of charterers’ obligations put it in control of or made it charterer of the two ships under s 19(a) –– relevant person controlling appointment of masters, officers of chartered ships, their commercial operation and giving voyage instructions.
Held: relevant person was the owner of arrested ship; other share held on resulting trust for it, relevant person in control of two chartered ships. Arrest proved to be within jurisdiction.
Words and Phrases: "the owner", "charterer", "in control of"

arrow 6 Nov 2009: Beluga Shipping GmbH v Suzlon Energy Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1347

arrow 30 Oct 2009: Beluga Shipping GmbH v Suzlon Energy Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1346

arrow 25 Sep 2009: BHBP Freight Pty Ltd v Cosco Oceania Chartering Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1087
AGENCY – warranty of authority – shipbroker purportedly acting for one party but actually acting for another – measure of damages. TRADE PRACTICES – misleading conduct – damages recoverable under s 82 – whether possible to avoid operation of s 82(1B) by claiming compensation under s 87. ADMIRALTYshipbroking contract – implication of terms – no implied obligation to provide copies of documents relating to charterparty – implication of term requiring broker to exercise reasonable skill and care – whether term breached. WORDS AND PHRASES“sponsorship, approval or affiliation” – whether agency relationship constitutes approval or affiliation

arrow 25 Sep 2009: Qenos Pty Ltd v Ship 'APL Sydney" [2009] FCA 1090

arrow 18 Sep 2009: Beluga Shipping GmbH v Suzlon Energy Ltd [2009] FCA 1020

arrow 18 Sep 2009: Sumitomo Corporation v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Emmagracht [2009] FCA 1127
COSTS –– proper approach to admiralty and commercial litigation –– goods transported under bill of lading incorporating Himalaya clause –– shipper and consignee sued ship owner and stevedore for damage to cargo –– stevedore successful in obtaining consent orders on motion dismissing proceedings against it based on Himalaya clause –– stevedore not furnishing critical evidence or information until after motion filed –– whether stevedore should have its costs –– importance of parties cooperating to identify the real issues in dispute –– duty to resolve uncontentious issues at an early stage of litigation –– stevedore awarded 75% of its costs of the proceedings.

arrow 31 Jul 2009: EMAS Offshore Pte Ltd v The Ship "APC Aussie 1" [2009] FCA 872
ADMIRALTY –– proceeding in rem –– procedure –– application to amend writ after arrest –– adding new claim for indemnity –– relevant person –– construction of ‘maritime claim’ and ‘cause of action’ in s 18 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) –– whether the plaintiff can amend writ to add new claim for indemnity, in respect of liability arising in foreign proceedings, against demise charterer as relevant person after termination of charterparty. ADMIRALTY –– proceeding in rem –– procedure –– Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) s 18 –– proceeding in rem commenced against demise charter –– charterparty terminated –– owner offering security for plaintiff’s claim in writ naming demise charterer as relevant person –– purpose of proceedings in admiralty not to put pressure on person not under a liability to the plaintiff. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –– amendment of document –– Federal Court Rules O 13 –– interaction of the Rules with the Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth) –– admiralty writ –– amendment to originating process to add new cause of action –– whether amendment to add claim to admiralty writ where relevant person is no longer demise charter would be appropriate in all the circumstances –– discretion to allow amendment. Held: application refused, plaintiff not permitted to add new claim to writ in rem against demise charterer after the demise charterparty has been terminated

Australian states and territories

arrow 11 Nov 2009: CSL Australia Pty v Formosa [2009] NSWCA 363
FEDERAL JURISDICTION – Federal jurisdiction exercised by State Courts – Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction – matter arising under a law of the Parliament. NEGLIGENCE – duty of care – duty of ship owner and operator to stevedore – duty to exercise care in respect of the safety of stevedores coming on board ship in order to undertake loading and unloading – nature and scope of duty - relationship between obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 (Cth) and the common law duty of care – no statutory cause of action – impact on duty of care of delegated legislation imposing conformable obligations on another person – Marine Orders Part 32 under Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) – Marine Orders do not terminate the duty of care. NEGLIGENCE – breach of duty - breach in failing to sweep the iron ore slurry from the deck – breach in failure to direct use of other side of the deck - breach not a failure to warn - evidence before primary judge supported finding of breach.

arrow 31 Jul 2009: Inco Ships Pty Ltd v Barber [2009] TASSC 55
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – sentencing orders – fines – amount – corporation fined under Commonwealth law – increased maximum fine for corporation.

United Kingdom

arrow 17 Dec 2009: National Navigation Co v Endesa Generation SA [2009] EWCA 1397 (Civ)

arrow 17 Dec 2009: Global Process Systems Inc & Anor v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad [2009] EWCA 1398 (Civ)

arrow 26 Nov 2009: Ocean Crown, the owners of the vessel & Ors c Five Oceans Salvage Consultants [2009] EWHC 3040 (Admlty)

arrow 30 Oct 2009: Petroleo Brasilieiro SA v ENE Kos 1 Ltd [2009] EWCA 1127 (Civ)

arrow 31 Jul 2009: Lansat Shipping Co Ltd v Glencore Grain BV [2009] EWCA 855 (Civ)

arrow 23 Jul 2009: E.N.E. Kos v Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobas) [2009] EWHC 1843 (Comm)

arrow 17 Jul 2009: Dornoch Ltd & Ors v Westminster International BV & Ors [2009] EWHC 1782 (Admlty)

 

New Zealand

(No recent cases)

 

Singapore

(No recent cases)

 

Hong Kong

arrow 16 Dec 2009: Lei Shing Hong Credit Ltd v Mei Kwan Engineering Co Ltd and Others [2009] HKCFI 1156

arrow 25 Nov 2009: Sun Wai Wah Transportation ltd v Cheung Kee Marine Services Co Ltd and Another [2009] HKCFI 1098

arrow 29 Sep 2009: Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd v The Owners and/or demise charters of the ship or vessel “Jin Kang (ex “Canton Trader”) [2009] HKCFI 926

arrow 7 Sep 2009: Nanjing Iron & Steel Group International Trade Co Ltd and Others v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd and Another [2009] HKCFI 826

arrow 4 Sep 2009: Star Line Traders Ltd v Transpac Container System Ltd t/a Blue Anchor Line [2009] HKCFI 825

arrow 4 Aug 2009: Yip Kam and Another v Zhongshan Foodstuffs & Aquatic Import & Export Group Co Ltd of Guangdong and Another [2009] HKCFI 647

arrow 8 Jul 2009: Synehon (Xiamen) Trading Co Ltd v American Logistics Ltd [2009] HKCFI 533

 

Canada

22 Dec 2009: Aozora Bank Ltd v Yosemite Ltd [2009] FC 1307

10 Dec 2009: Morecup Holdings Ltd v Island Tug & Barge Ltd [2009] BCSC 1692

 

United States

8 Jul 2009: Transfield ER Cape Ltd. v Industrial Carriers Inc. F.3d 2009 WL 1940859 C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2009

 

South Africa

28 Jan 2010: Brobulk Ltd v Gregos Shipping Ltd and Others [2010] ZAKZDHC 2

26 Nov 2009: Lauritsen Bulkers A/S v MV “Chenebourg”; Maple Maritime Inc v E.A.S.T. International Ltd (in liq.) [2009] ZAKZDHC 73

5 Nov 2009: Lamonica v Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2009] ZAWCHC 179

30 Oct 2009: Lykes Lines Ltd LLC v Vereeniging Meat Packers [2009] ZAKZDHC 48

29 Oct 2009: Terra Marine SA v MV Iran Dastghayb and Others [2009] ZAKZDHC 47

28 Oct 2009: TMT Bulk Co Ltd v Bukers Laden Abroad [2009] ZAWCHC 158

 

 

back to top

 

Home | What's new | the Court | Information for litigants | Information for practitioners | Information for students | Filing, forms, fees and costs | Court lists and hearings | Court documents and transcript | eCourt | Judgments | Library catalogues | Legal research links | Contact the Court's registries | Translation services

Translation services

© Federal Court of Australia 1996 -
Privacy | Copyright | Disclaimer | Site index | Ask a question | Feedback | About this site
Updated March 11, 2010