The Pellworm
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1920 |
| Date | 21 April 1920 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Sir Henry Duke, P.
The Pellworm and other Vessels
Vrow Anna CatharinaENR 5 C. Rob. 15
The Dusseldorf ante, p. 84 122 L. T. Rep. 237 (1919) p. 245
The ValeriaELR ante, p. 55 122 L. T. Rep. 751 (1920) P. 81
The Anne 1818, 3 Wheaton's Reports U.S. 435
The BangorELR 114 L. T. Rep. 1212 (1916) P. 181
The Twee GebroedersENR (3 C. Rob. 162)
The ZamoraDID=ASPM 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 330 114 L. T. Rep. 626 (1916) 2 A. C. 77, 166
United States v. The Schooner Peggy 1803, 1 Cranch's American Law Reports, 2nd edit., p. 103
Prize Court Rules 1914, Order XXIX.
Treaty of Peace with Germany, art. 297, and Annex 3 to Part 8.
Prize Court Enemy vessel Capture in neutral territorial waters
MARITIME LAW CASES. 101 Adm.] The Pellworm and other Vessels. [Adm. Wednesday, April 21, 1920. (Before Sir Henry Duke, P.) The Pellworm and other Vessels. (a) Prize Court-Enemy vessel-Capture in neutral territorial waters - Requisition by Admiralty- Claim for restitution by neutral Government - Prize Court Rules 1914, Order XXIX.-Treaty of Peace with Germany, art. 297, and Annex 3 to Part 8. Two German merchant vessels were captured by British warships in July 1917 after a chase which ended in Dulch territorial waters. Lord Stcrndale held in subsequent proceedings (The Pellworm, 14 Asp Mar. Law Cas. 490; 121 L. T. Rep. 488) in prize that there had been an uninten-tional violation of Dutch neutrality, and he therefore (a) Reported by Sinclair Johnston, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 102 MARITIME LAW CASES. Adm.] The Pellworm and other Vessels. [Adm. dismissed the claim of the Crown for condemnation and that of the Netherlands Government for damages and costs. Further consideration was adjourned, as the vessels had been requisitioned by the Admiralty under Prize Court Rules 1914, Order XXIX., upon the usual undertaking for payment of appraised values. Two of the vessels were subsequently sunk by enemy submarines. The Netherlands Government claimed release of the vessels and compensation. Held, that the capture created no proprietary right in the Netherlands Government, and that the claim was a claim in the right of the disseised enemy owners; that the requisition by the Crown was effectual to vest the properly in the vessels in the Crown; that the claim was therefore for restitution in value by the payment of the appraised values of the vessels to a neutral Sovereign for the use of German owners; that such sums were within art. 297 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, and must be retained to be dealt with pursuant to the Treaty. The claim of the Netherlands Government dismissed. Action for condemnation. Claim by Netherlands Government for restitution. R. A. Wright, K,G and Bischop for the Netherlands Government. Sir Gordon Hewarl (A.-G.), Sir E. M. Pollock (S.-G.), Butler Aspinall, K.C., and Dunlop,?? C. for the Crown. The facts and argument are fully set out?? is Lordship's judgment. Sir Henry Duke, P.-This is a claim of the Netherlands Government, on behalf of her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, in respect of the seizure of four German steamships, the Pellworm, the Marie Horn, the Heinz Blumberg, and the Breitzig, with their cargoes of fuel, which was made by ships of his Majesty's Navy on the 17th July 1917. The ships were brought in forthwith for condemnation, and a cause of condemnation was duly commenced on the 25th July 1917.* On the 31st July 1917, upon application by the Admiralty pursuant to Prize Court Rules 1914, Order XXIX., leave was given to requisition the ships and their cargoes subject to appraisement and the usual undertakings and on the 11th A??g after appraisement, the snips were released to the Admiralty upon the undertaking of the Procurator-General for payment of the appraised values as the court might direct. The cargoes were also delivered to the Admiralty. In Dec. 1917, the Netherlands Government appeared in the several causes and made claims for release of the ships with costs, damages and expenses on the ground that the seizures had been made in the territorial waters of the Netherlands. There are claims to the cargoes by or on behalf of various claimants, but no evidence with regard to these were brought to my notice. Three of these claimants are neutrals. In July last the claims in relation to the ships were heard by Lord Sterndale, who found that the seizure had, in each case, been made within the territorial waters of the Netherlands, but without any intention to violate the neutrality of Holland. Lord Sterndale made a declaration as to the locality of the seizures, rejected the claims for damages and costs, and reserved further consideration of the cause. Upon further consideration evidence was received as to certain material events subsequent to the seizure. As to the several ships, it was shown that the Pellworm and the Marie Horn. were employed after delivery to the Admiralty as colliers plying between Wales and North France; the Pellworm until the 9th Oct. 1917, when she was sunk by an enemy submarine without warning and eighteen of the crew were drowned; the Marie Horn until the 8th May, 1918, when she was sunk by an enemy submarine without warning and two of her crew were drowned. The Heinz Blumberg and the Breitzig, after being employed by the Admiralty on various duties, were at the date of the hearing before me engaged in the British coasting trade. Between the hearing before Lord Sterndale and the further consideration of the case the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, which was signed at Versailles on the 28th June 1919, had been ratified, and Annex 3 to Part 8 and art. 297 thereof have a bearing upon the present claims. By Annex 3 to Part 8 Germany ceded to the Powere the property in all German-owned ships of 1600 tons and upwards, and in one-half, reckoned in tonnage, of all German-owned ships between 1000 and 1600 tons, and undertook within two months of the coming into force of the Treaty to deliver the ships so ceded. By art. 297 Germany ceded to the Powers respectively the right to retain and liquidate all property and interests within their territories belonging to German subjects at the date of the coming into force of the Treaty, leaving the expropriated owners to look to the German State for compensation in respect of such expropriation. An order of His Majesty in Council, dated the 11th Aug. 1919, made in pursuance of the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, has provided official agencies in this country for dealing with the property and interests in the United Kingdom which pass under the Treaty. Of the ships here in question, one, the Heinz Blumberg, was of 1600 tons gross measurement or more, but for reasons which will appear I do not find it necessary to deal separately with the cases of the several vessels. The claimants delivered particulars of the relief claimed by them in consequence of the decision of Lord Sterndale. The claims include delivery up of the ships in like condition as at the time of capture; compensation for user of the ships since the requisition; compensation in value for the cargoes requisitioned; and the values of the ships lost. The answer made on the part of the Crown allege3 in respect of the ships the release and delivery to the Admiralty under Orders of the court for requisition of all four and the sinking of the Pettworm and Marie, Horn by enemy action, " in flagrant contradiction with the rules of International Law." It admits the delivery under requisition and the disposal and consumption of the requisitioned cargoes. As to ships and cargoes and all claims in respect of them, the answer further sets up Annex 3 to Part 8 and art. 297 of the Treaty of Versailles, and submits that in the events that have happened no order should be made for delivery or payment to the claimants. Counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cukurova Finance International Ltd and Cukurova Hiolding A.S. v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd
...[1895] 2 Ch 581, 590–592, A Compendium of Modern Equity, Andrew Thompson (1899), pp.264–265 and Snell's Principles of Equity (18th ed. (1920), p.347. 120 An important limitation on Equity's power to grant relief against forfeiture was that it did not apply to breaches of covenant not involv......
-
Cukurova Finance v Alfa Telecom
... [1895] 2 Ch 581, 590–592, A Compendium of Modern Equity, Andrew Thompson (1899), pp.264–265 and Snell's Principles of Equity (18 th ed. (1920), p.347. 120 An important limitation on Equity's power to grant relief against forfeiture was that it did not apply to breaches of covenant not invo......
-
The Pellworm
...C. 1034) and The Valeria 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 218; 124 L. T. Rep. 806; (1921) 1 A. C. 477) applied. Judgements of the Prize Court (15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 101; 123 L. T. Rep. 685; (1920) P. 347) varied. 470 MARITIME LAW CASES. Priv. Co.] The Pellworm and other ships. [PRIV. Co. Monday, Feb. ......
-
The Dusseldorf
...Rob. 15 The AnnaENR 5 C. Rob. 373 The Lokken 26th July 1918 The ValeriaELR 122 L. T. Rep. 751 (1920) P. 81 The PellwormDID=ASPMELR 14 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 490 123 L. T. Rep. 685 (1920) P. 347 The FranciskaENR 10 Moore, P. C. 73 Prize Court Territorial waters of neutral country Rights of neutr......
-
Le directeur general des elections du Canada : responsabilites et independance.
...en chancellerie. Cette charge a été abolie par la Loi des élections fédérales en 1920. (5.) Canada, Chambre des communes, Débats, 11 mars 1920, p. 347. (6.) Canada, Loi des élections fédérales. 10-11 George V [1920] aliénas 19(1)b) et c). [C'est nous qui (7.) Élections Canada, L'histoire du......