Snia Viscosa Soci Canadian American Shipping Company Ltd v Steamship ‘Woron’
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1927 |
| Date | 05 July 1927 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Lords Haldane, Sumner, Shaw, Merrivale, and Warrington
Snia Viscosa Soci Canadian American Shipping Company Limited v. Steamship Woron
Lapraik v. Burrows; The AustraliaENR 13 Moore P. C. 132
Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 27), s. 2, sub-ss. 2 and 3
Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5, c. 49), s. 22, sub-s. 1(a) (XII.)
Canada Admiralty jurisdiction Breach of Charter-party
Decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada affirmed.
322 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. P.C.] SNIA VISCOSA SOCIETA NAZIONALE INDUSTRIA &C. v. SHIP " YURI MARU "- [P.C. May 17, 19, 20, and July 5, 1927. (Present: Lords HALIDANE, SUMNER. SHAW, MERRIVALE, AND WARRINGTON.) SNIA VISCOSA SOCIETA NAZIONALE INDUSTRIA APPLICATION VISCOSA V. SHIP "YURI MARU." CANADIAN AMERICAN SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED V. STEAMSHIP " WORON." (a) ON APPEAL FROM THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA. Canada - Admiralty jurisdiction - Branch of charter-party Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (53 &. 54 Vict. c. 27), s. 2, sub-ss. 2 and 3-Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5, C. 49), s. 22, sub)-s. 1 (a) (XII.). Sect. 2, sub-sect. 2, of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 provides that: " The jurisdiction of a Colonial Court of Admiralty shall . . . be over the like places, persons, mutters, and things as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England, whether existing by virtue of any statute or otherwise." Held, that the true intent of the Act of 1890 was to define as a maximum of jurisdictional authority for the courts to be set up thereunder, namely, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England as it existed at the time when the Act was passed. What should from time to time be added or excluded was left for independent legislative determination. The Exchequer Court of Canada in Admiralty has therefore no jurisdiction to try an action in rem for damages for breach of a "charter-party', the defendants not being domiciled and the cause of action not having arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, but the ship having been arrested within those limits. Decisions of the Exchequer Court of Canada affirmed. APPEALS in two cases from judgments of the Exchequer Court of Canada in Admiralty. The two appeals, which were heard together, each raised the question whether the Exchequer Court of Canada had jurisdiction in Admiralty to entertain an action in rem instituted against a ship to recover damages for breach of a charter-party, irrespective of residence of the defendant or place of origin of the alleged cause of action, and to order the arrest of a vessel within its area. In one case the owners of the ship were a joint stock company registered in England; in the other case the vessel was the property of owners domiciled in Japan. By sect. 2, sub-sect. 2, of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 "the jurisdiction of a Colonial Court of Admiralty shall ... be over the like places, persons, matters and things as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England, whether existing by virtue of any statute or otherwise . . ." By sect. 3: " The legislature of a British possession may by any colonial law (a) declare any court of unlimited civil jurisdiction . . to be a Colonial Court of Admiralty . . . and limit, territorially or otherwise, the extent of such jurisdiction." By sect, 3 of the Admiralty Act (R. S. Can. 1906, c. 141), the Exchequer Court was " within Canada " created a Colonial Court of Admiralty, with all the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred by the Act of 1890. By sect. 22, sub-sect, 1 (a) (XII.), of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to Admiralty matters was extended to " any claim (1) arising out of an agreement relating to the use or hire of a ship; or (2) relating to the carriage of goods in a ship." The Exchequer Court of Canada held that the plain reading of the Act of 1890 restricted the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court to that of the High Court in Admiralty as it existed in 1890, that the Act of 19255 not only lacked words but also " necessary intendment " to bring it into force in Canada, and that the Exchequer Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action. The plaintiffs in each action appealed to His Majesty in Council. Sir John Simon, K.C., G. P. Langton, K.C., and Wilfrid Barton for the first appellants. W. Martin Griffin (of the Canadian Bar) for the second appellants. Porter, K.C. and W. Lennox McNair for the first respondents. Sir Leslie Scott, K.C. and Sir Robert Aske for the second respondents. The considered opinion of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Merrivale.-These appeals arc brought against judgments of the Exchequer Court of Canada in Admiralty by plaintiffs who had sued out in the District Court of British Columbia writs in rem and warrants of arrest, (a) Reported by EDWARD J. M. CHAPLIN, ESQ., Barrister-at-Law...
To continue reading
Request your trial