Bain Clarkson Ltd v Owners of Sea Friends
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LLOYD,LORD JUSTICE NOURSE,SIR CHRISTOPHER SLADE |
| Judgment Date | 12 April 1991 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1991] EWCA Civ J0412-4 |
| Docket Number | 91/0363 |
| Date | 12 April 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1991] EWCA Civ J0412-4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMIRALTY COURT
(MR JUSTICE SHEEN)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Lloyd
Lord Justice Nourse
Sir Christopher Slade
91/0363
MR NIGEL MEESON, instructed by Messrs Ince & Co. (Haywards Heath), appeared for the Appellant (Plaintiff).
This is an urgent ex parte application, which we are hearing on Friday afternoon, relating to a vessel called the Sea Friends. According to the latest information, that vessel is due to arrive in Garston today and to remain there for three days, so it may be that it would in ordinary events have left before Monday. The plaintiffs are Bain Clarkson Ltd, a well-known firm of Lloyds brokers who have incurred a liability to Lloyds underwriters in respect of the hull insurance on the vessel. The amount of their claim is $15,615. The writ was issued on 5th April. The question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to arrest the vessel on its arrival at Garston. That depends upon whether the plaintiffs' claim is a claim as agent in respect of disbursements made on account of a ship within the meaning of section 20 subsection (2) (p) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
The Admiralty Registrar has decided the point against the plaintiffs. So has the Admiralty judge, Mr Justice Sheen. The Registrar had some doubt whether an insurance broker is an agent within the meaning of the subsection at all. There is a note in the White Book which suggests, on the authority of an unreported case called The Corona Energy 1977 folio no. 174, that a managing agent may be an agent and that the word "agent" is not limited or confined to a ship's agent in the ordinary sense. But to hold that the word covers an insurance broker is, as the Registrar thought, to stretch the language of the paragraph still further.
Having expressed that doubt, the Registrar went on to decide that the disbursement was not a disbursement on account of the ship. It may have been a disbursement in respect of the ship, but that is not what the paragraph provides. I guote from the note of the Registrar's judgment as follows:
"So far as the evidence goes, it is not concerned with operational aspects of a ship's life and was a payment made to protect the financial interest of the owners. I would draw a distinction between money advanced to keep a ship seaworthy and trading and money advanced to protect the financial interests of the owners unconnected with the life of a ship."
Mr Justice Sheen dismissed the appeal. He had two grounds. The first was the same as that on which the Registrar had decided the case. But there was another ground to which the learned judge referred.
Section 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 , like its predecessor, section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956, is founded on the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships, signed at Brussels on May 10th 1952. In the case of Gatoil International Inc. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. [1985] A.C. 255, the question arose whether insurers could enforce a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Opal Maritime Agencies Pty Ltd v Skulptor Konenkov
- Empire Shipping Company Inc. v The Shin Kobe Maru
-
Stellar Ocean Transport Llc v The Owners And/or Demise Charterers Of The Ship Or Vessel “Ruby Star
...LR 3 A & E 516, 522; The Decurion (No.2) [2013] 2 HKLRD 930 para. 14, and some clearly outside it e.g. insurance: The Sea Friends [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 322. 16. Secondly, the summary of accounts show that what actually happened was that Stellar Ocean used the receipts in respect of the vesse......
-
The "PWM Supply" ex "Crest Supply 1"
...shipowner’s financial comfort and not to keep the insured vessel going: see Bain Clarkson Ltd v The Owners of the Ship “Sea Friends” [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 322. In an English case, The “Westport” (No. 3) [1966] 1 Lloyds’ Rep 342, Hewson J held that ship management fees fall within the ambit o......