Lavington International Ltd v Bareboat [QBD (Admiralty)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | David Steel J |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty) |
| Date | 11 April 2001 |
Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court).
David Steel J.
N Meeson (instructed by Ince & Co) for the claimant.
N Tamblyn (instructed by Andrew Jackson & Co) for the intervenor.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Edinburgh Castle, TheUNK[1999] 2 Ll Rep 362.
Equator, TheUNK(1921) 9 Ll L Rep 1.
Fairport, The (No. 5)UNK[1967] 2 Ll Rep 162.
Foong Tai v BuchheisterELR[1908] AC 458.
Gatoil International Inc v Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance CoELR[1985] AC 255.
Lyons, TheUNK(1887) 6 Asp M C 199.
Mogileff, TheELR[1921] P 236.
Queen of the South, TheELR[1968] P 449.
Riga, TheELR(1872) LR 3 A & E 516.
River Rima, TheUNK[1988] 2 Ll Rep 193.
St Lawrence, TheELR(1880) 5 PD 250.
Shipping Arrest of ship Claim under agreement to supply crew Whether claim was in respect of goods or materials supplied to ship for her operation or maintenance Whether provision of crew services was supply of necessaries Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 20(2)(m).
This was an application by shipowners to strike out proceedings in rem on the ground that the claim fell outside the provisions of s. 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
The claimants claimed that they had agreed to supply crew and crew services to the defendant as the demise charterer of two tugs. The claimants arrested the two vessels on the basis of their claims in respect of unpaid invoices for crew services said to have been supplied in 1999 and 2000. The vessel's owner applied to strike out the proceedings on the ground that the claim in rem was not within s. 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The claimants relied on s. 20(2)(m) on the basis that their claims were in respect of goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance.
Helddismissing the application:
1. Despite the use of the words goods or materials which might suggest the supply of purely physical items, the derivation of s. 20(2)(m) indicated that a claim in respect of goods and materials supplied to a ship for her operation and maintenance was the equivalent of what used to be called a claim for necessaries (but without the restrictions which formerly applied to such a claim under s. 22(1)(a)(vii) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925). (The River RimaUNK[1988] 2 Ll Rep 193applied.)
2. The provision of crew services (or the payment of wages in that respect) was a supply of necessaries. The supply of necessaries had always been given a broad construction and could include personal services. It had also been conceded or assumed in a number of cases that an advance of wages constituted a claim for necessaries or that a claim for the provision of crew services was within s. 20(2)(m). (The RigaELR(1872) LR 3 A & E 516, The EquatorUNK(1921) 9 Ll L Rep 1, The Fairport (No. 5)UNK[1967] 2 Ll Rep 162 and The Edinburgh CastleUNK[1999] 2 Ll Rep 362considered).
3. Accordingly the claimants' claims fell within s. 20(2)(m).
David Steel J:
1. The applicants, Linelevel Ltd (Linelevel), the owners of Nore Challenger and Nore Commander, having been given leave to be joined as a party to these proceedings pursuant to Admiralty Practice Direction, para. 6.8, have now applied to strike out the proceedings on the grounds the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim in rem, it being submitted that the claim falls outside the provisions of s. 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
2. For the purposes of this application, the court must assume that the claimants' case as propounded in the claim form, the affidavits to lead the warrants of arrest and the particulars of claim is well founded. By virtue of two claim forms dated 24 July 2000, the claimants' claim is said to arise out of an agreement dated 1 October 1999 whereby the claimants agreed to supply crew and crew services to the defendant, the latter being described as the owners and/or bareboat charterers of the vessels.
3. There are two affidavits dated 2 October 2000 pertaining to the arrest of the two vessels. They are in near identical terms and refer to claims of 31,533.21 and 31,577.96 respectively. The claims are said to arise in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Alexandrea
...Courts to come within the English equivalent of this statutory provision. Again, in The "Nore Challenger" and "Nore Commander" [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 103, the word "goods" was construed to include the supply or provision of 27. That said, par. (l) plainly contemplates a defined link between ......
-
Atlas Baltic Oü v The Owners and All Persons Claiming an Interest in the M/v “Lady Magda”
...a ship or her owner.” Although 1(k) may appear to be narrower in its scope than section 31 of the 1867 Act, in The Nore Challenger [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 667, the Admiralty Court (Steel J) construed “ goods or materials” as incorporating all 12 Referring to J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956......
-
Stellar Ocean Transport Llc v The Owners And/or Demise Charterers Of The Ship Or Vessel “Ruby Star
...in rem jurisdiction of the court e.g. provision of crew services: The Edinburgh Castle [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 362; TheNore Challenger [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 103, and bunkers: The Riga (1872) LR 3 A & E 516, 522; The Decurion (No.2) [2013] 2 HKLRD 930 para. 14, and some clearly outside it e.g. i......
-
Oceanic Group Pte Ltd And Another v The Owners And/or Demise Charterers Of The Ship Or Vessel “Oriental Dragon
...claims for services e.g. stevedoring services or services of crew and officers: The Edinburgh Castle supra; The Nore Challenger [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 103. d. No distinction is to be drawn between a claim by the person who actually supplied the goods materials or services to the ship and a cl......
-
Ship Managers Find Port Of Refuge Before The Hong Kong Courts
...the meaning of the words "goods or materials supplied to a ship" (The Edinburgh Castle [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 362; The Nore Challenger [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 103). Hong Kong law recognises that no distinction is to be drawn between a claim by the person who actually supplied the goods, material......