The Newbattle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1884 |
| Date | 1884 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Foreign Government - Counter-claim - Security for Damages - 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 34.
The Court has jurisdiction by 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 34, to order a plaintiff in an action for damage by collision to give security for damages to a defendant who brings a counter-claim. The Court can exercise this power when such plaintiff is a foreign sovereign whose ship cannot be arrested.
MOTION to rescind an order of the registrar made on the 21st of December, by which he ordered all proceedings in an action for damage by collision to be stayed until the plaintiffs gave security to answer the defendants' counter-claim.
The action was brought by the owners, master and crew of the Louise Marie against the Newbattle, the owners of which vessel had given bail. The Louise Marie, it was admitted, was the property of the King of the Belgians, and a public vessel of that government employed as a mail packet for mails, passengers, and merchandize between Dover and Ostend. The defendants counterclaimed, and on application to the registrar he made the order against which the plaintiffs appealed.
Aspinall, for the motion. The Court has no jurisdiction to make such an order, except in a cross action under the
Barnes, for the defendants. The Admiralty Court Act, s. 34, applies to a counter-claim as much as to a simple cross action, they are in fact the same. It has been decided that a foreign government may be ordered to give security for costs: The Republic of Costa Rica v. ErlangerF3; therefore the Court has power to and should order security for damages to be given.
BUTT, J. I think that in this case there is no reason for interfering with the order of the registrar. It is said that the plaintiffs are a foreign government, this fact does not appear on affidavit, but it has been assumed during the argument, and I assume it now. The question then is whether a foreign government having voluntarily begun an action in this country and arrested the defendants' ship, is entitled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TMSF v Wisteria Bay Ltd
...Jo. 1091, applied. (5) Ministère de la Culture &c. de France v. Lielb, The Times, December 24th, 1981, considered. (6) Newbattle, TheELR(1885), 10 P.D. 33, not followed. (7) Parkinson v. Myer Wolff & Manley, English Court of Appeal (Civil Div.), April 23rd, 1985, unreported, dicta of Kerr, ......
- Duff Development Company v Kelantan Government
-
Owners of the Philippine Admiral v Wallem Shipping (Hong Kong) Ltd (The Philippine Admiral)
...2 All E.R. 274, C.A. Mellenger v. New Brunswick Development Corporation [1971] 1 W.L.R. 604; [1971] 2 All E.R. 593, C.A. Newbattle, The (1885) 10 P.D. 33, C.A. Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hyderabad [1957] Ch. 185; [1956] 3 W.L.R. 667; [1956] 3 All E.R. 311; [1957] Ch. 185; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 217; [......
-
Duff Development Company v Kelantan Government
...treatment that the Sovereign submitting to the jurisdiction has been ordered to give security for costs and also security for damages ( see Newbattle L.R. 10 P.D.), and it is difficult to find any principle on which such orders should be permitted if the Sovereign was not liable to the ordi......