Shipping law [Fourth edition.] 9780455238739, 0455238731

Citation preview

Shipping Law

Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited 19 Harris Street Pyrmont NSW 2009 Tel: (02) 8587 7000 Fax: (02) 8587 7100 [email protected] http://www.thomsonreuters.com.au For all customer inquiries please ring 1300 304 195 (for calls within Australia only)

INTERNATIONAL AGENTS & DISTRIBUTORS

NORTH AMERICA Thomson Reuters Eagan United States of America

ASIA PACIFIC Thomson Reuters Sydney Australia

LATIN AMERICA Thomson Reuters São Paulo Brazil

EUROPE Thomson Reuters London United Kingdom

Shipping Law

MARTIN DAVIES MA (Oxon), BCL (Oxon), LLM (Harvard)

Admiralty Law Institute Professor of Maritime Law, Tulane University Director, Tulane Maritime Law Center Professorial Fellow of The University of Melbourne

ANTHONY DICKEY, QC

FOURTH EDITION

LAWBOOK CO. 2016

Published in Sydney by Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited ABN 64 058 914 668 19 Harris Street, Pyrmont, NSW National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Davies, Martin, 1957– author. Shipping law / Martin Davies and Anthony Dickey. 4th edition. ISBN: 9780455226767 (paperback) Includes index. Maritime law—Australia. Dickey, Anthony, 1943– author. 343.94096 © 2016 Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Editor: Corina Brooks Product Developer: Paul Gye Publisher: Anne Murphy Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd, Riverwood, NSW This book has been printed on paper certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). PEFC is committed to sustainable forest management through third party forest certification of responsibly managed forests. For more info: http://www.pefc.org

Preface When we wrote the Preface to the third edition of this book, we ruefully noted that nine years had passed between publication of the second and third editions, and we expressed the wish that it would not take nine years to produce the next edition. Well, as it turned out, it didn’t. It took twelve years, half a generation. In that same Preface, we quoted the Bellman’s words from Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Hunting of the Snark” — “What I tell you three times is true”. Sadly, but predictably, many of the things we told you in the third edition (they were all true, yes they were) are no longer true a dozen years later. It would be tedious to list every one of the significant changes to the law that have occurred since the last edition, and we strive never to be tedious (although that is sometimes difficult). It would, however, be remiss of us not to mention at least some of the major recent (or recent-ish) developments that are referred to in this edition, if only to highlight how much this book has been transformed from its humble beginnings in the first edition in (can this really be right?) 1990. This edition deals with (among many other things): the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and its effect on ship registration and mortgages; the comprehensive revision of matters affecting navigation (and collisions) in the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth) and the Navigation Regulation 2013 (Cth); Australia’s implementation of the 1996 Protocol to the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, its denunciation of the original Convention, and the “tacit amendment” increases to the limits in 2015; the epochal changes to marine insurance made by the Insurance Act 2015 (UK) and the possibility that Australia may follow suit in amending the pro-insurer law of marine insurance; Australia’s adoption of the Bunker Convention 2001 and its implementation of Annex VI of MARPOL, dealing with air pollution (which led to the renaming of the pollution chapter); and the adoption of the York-Antwerp Rules 2016 relating to general average. Rather to our surprise, one thing that did remain constant between the third edition and this one was the involvement of our editor, Corina Brooks. The American poet John Godfrey Saxe said (in a quotation often attributed to the first German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck) that laws are like sausages, in that our respect for them diminishes the more we know about the process of making them. The task of getting a book from final manuscript to eventual publication is, if anything, even more ghastly than sausage-making or the legislative process. Like a sausage-eater, you, the reader, are better off not knowing what editors like Corina Brooks must do to guide their unenthusiastic authors through the processes necessary to get to the final product. Rest assured that her work has always been literally exemplary, a model for other editors to emulate, and we thank her for it. In addition to our joint expression of thanks to Corina Brooks, Anthony would like to thank the Hon Justice Rein, the Admiralty Judge of the Supreme Court of

vi

Preface

New South Wales, Ms Lucinda McIntyre, the Registrar of Ships, and Mr Prasanthen Athipar, Manager, Marine Environment Salvage and Intervention, Australian Maritime Safety Authority, for their assistance in preparing the chapters that he wrote. Martin would like, once again, to thank his friend, mentor and Tulane colleague Bob Force both for knowing everything about maritime law and for his generosity in sharing that knowledge and so many other things. Martin would also like to thank Ernie van Buuren and the other members of Ernie’s team at Norton Rose Fulbright (and, before that, Blake Dawson Waldron), for a never-ending stream of fascinating questions from real cases that enhanced his understanding of how maritime law works in practice. Lastly, Martin would like to express his love and admiration for his wife Erinn and his four daughters (four! another big change since the last edition!) Lydia, Gloria, Julia, and Eleanor. As in previous editions, we would also like sincerely to thank ourselves, for each writing those chapters of the book that the other did not want to write. Anthony wrote Chapters 1–10, 20 and 21. Martin wrote Chapters 11–19. The law is stated as it appeared to us in January 2016, with the exception of references to the York-Antwerp Rules 2016, which were inserted into the text at a very late stage of production, after their adoption in New York on 8 May 2016.

MARTIN DAVIES ANTHONY DICKEY New Orleans and Perth May 2016

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................... v Table of Cases ...................................................................................................... ix Table of Statutes ................................................................................................ lxxi 1 Characteristics of a Ship ............................................................................ 1 2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia ...................................... 19 3 Registration of Ships ................................................................................. 51 4 Consequences of Registration .................................................................. 77 5 Property, Ownership and Title ................................................................ 93 6 Acquisition of Property in Ships ........................................................... 113 7 Introduction to Charges over Ships ...................................................... 127 8 Maritime Liens ........................................................................................ 133 9 Possessory Liens and Bottomry ............................................................. 169 10 Mortgage of Ships ................................................................................... 175 11 Introduction to Carriage of Goods by Sea ........................................... 191 12 Bills of Lading, Sea Waybills and Other Sea-Carriage Documents . 203 13 Voyage Charterparties ............................................................................ 367 14 Time Charterparties ................................................................................ 465 15 Collisions and Liability for Damage ..................................................... 577 16 Limitation of Liability ............................................................................ 625 17 Marine Insurance .................................................................................... 679 18 General Average ....................................................................................... 761 19 Pollution from Ships ............................................................................... 781 20 Salvage ...................................................................................................... 861 21 Wrecks ...................................................................................................... 907 Appendix 1: Conlinebill 2016 ........................................................................ 921 Appendix 2: Combiconbill 2016 .................................................................... 927 Appendix 3: Linewaybill 2016 ....................................................................... 933 Appendix 4: Combiconwaybill 2016 ............................................................. 939

viii Table of Contents

Appendix 5: Congenbill 2016 ......................................................................... 945 Appendix 6: Gencon 94 .................................................................................. 951 Appendix 7: NYPE 2015 ................................................................................ 961 Appendix 8: Institute Cargo Clauses (A) 2009 .......................................... 1027 Appendix 9: York-Antwerp Rules 2016 ...................................................... 1031 Index ................................................................................................................ 1043

Table of Cases A A Gagniere & Co v Eastern Co of Warehouses (1921) 7 Ll L Rep 188 ................................... 12.840 A Gagniere & Co v Eastern Co of Warehouses (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 365 ................................... 12.840 A Meredith Jones & Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd (The Apostolis) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 241 ........................................................................................................................................... 12.400 A Meredith Jones & Co Ltd v Vangemar Shipping Co Ltd (The Apostolis) (No 2) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 337 ................................................................................................................................... 13.560 A Raptis & Son v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346 ....................................... 2.110, 2.220, 2.260 A/B Nordiska Lloyd v J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd (1925) Com Cas 307 ............................... 13.210 A/S Awilco v Fulvia SpA di Navigazione (The Chikuma) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 371 ............ 14.310, 14.440 A/S Gunnstein & Co K/S v Jensen, Krebs and Nielsen (The Alfa Nord) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 434 ................................................................................................................................... 13.660 A/S Hansen-Tangens Rederi III v Total Transport Corp (The Sagona) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 194 ......................................................................................................... 14.360, 14.380, 14.390 A/S Iverans Rederi v KG MS Holstencruiser Seeschiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co (The Holstencruiser) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 378 ............................................................................ 14.410 AB Marintrans v Comet Shipping Co Ltd (The Shinjitsu Maru No 5) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 568 ...................................................................................................................... 13.560, 14.400 ABC Shipbrokers v The Ship Offi Gloria [1993] 3 NZLR 576 ................................................... 8.590 AET Inc Ltd v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The Eagle Valencia) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 257 ........ 13.200, 13.490 AIC Ltd v Marine Pilot Ltd (The Archimidis) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 597 .................................. 13.50 ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Cawood [1987] 1 Qd R 131 ........................................................... 13.440 APC Marine Pty Ltd v Ship APC Aussie 1 [2009] FCA 690 ..................................................... 14.450 ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England (The Amer Energy) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 ................................................................................................................................... 14.240 Abrahams v Herbert Reiach Ltd [1922] 1 KB 477 ........................................................ 13.520, 13.540 Abt Rasha, The [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 575 ................................................................................... 18.60 Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd (The Product Star) (No 2) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 397 ........................................................................................... 14.290, 14.300, 14.370 Ace Imports Pty Ltd v Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro (1987) 10 NSWLR 32 ... 12.160, 12.210 Achille Lauro Fu Gioacchino & C v Total Societa Italiana per Azioni [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 247 ...................................................................................................................... 12.330, 13.620 Acraman v Johnston (1871) 5 SALR 65 ...................................................................................... 12.420 Acrux, The [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 405 ................................................................ 8.470, 10.320, 10.370 Acrux, The [1965] P 391 ................................................................................................................ 8.230 Action Navigation Inc v Bottigliere di Navigazione SpA (The Kitsa) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432 ...................................................................................................................... 14.270, 14.330 Action SA v Britannic Shipping Corporation Ltd (The Aegis Britannic) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 481 ................................................................................................................................... 13.570 Action SA v Britannic Shipping Corporation Ltd (The Aegis Britannic) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 119 .................................................................................................................................... 13.570 Actis Co Ltd v Sanko Steamship Co Ltd (The Aquacharm) [1982] 1 WLR 119; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7 .................................................................................. 12.300, 13.600, 14.110, 14.330, 20.150 Acwoo International Steel Corp v Toko [sic] Kaiun Kaisha Ltd 840 F 2d 1284 (6th Cir 1988) ............................................................................................................ 12.170, 12.560 Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd [1959] AC 133 ......... 13.600, 14.150 Adler v Dickson [1955] 1 QB 158 ...................................................................... 12.740, 12.840, 15.20

x

Table of Cases

Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of SS Chekiang [1926] AC 637 ...................................... 15.170 Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of SS Susquehanna [1926] AC 655 ................................. 15.170 Admiralty Commissioners v Page [1918] 2 KB 447 ................................................................... 20.220 Admiralty Commissioners v SS Volute [1922] 1 AC 129 ........................................................... 15.150 Admiralty Commissioners v Valverda (Owners) [1938] AC 173 ............. 8.20, 8.190, 20.660, 20.670 Advertising Department Pty Ltd v Ship MV Port Phillip (2004) 141 FCR 251 ......................... 5.190 Aegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (The Aegean Sea) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39 ............................................................ 13.60, 14.380, 16.50, 16.90, 16.100, 16.120, 19.240 Aegnoussiotis Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v A/S Kristian Jebsens Rederi of Bergen (The Aegnoussiotis) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 268 ................................................................ 14.440, 14.550 Aetna Insurance Co v M/V Lash Italia 858 F 2d 190 (4th Cir 1988) .......................... 12.340, 12.560 Afovos Shipping Co SA v R Pagnan and F Lli (The Afovos) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 335 ....... 14.450 Africano, The [1894] P 141 ............................................................................................................ 8.620 Agapatos v Agnew (The Aegeon) [2003] QB 556 ......................................................... 17.620, 17.630 Agapitos v Agnew (The Aegeon) (No 2) [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 54 .......................................... 17.620 Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 .............................................................................................. 12.270 Aglaia, The (1888) 13 PD 160 ..................................................................................................... 20.140 Agnew v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2001] 2 AC 710 ................................................... 14.560 Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products v Sociedad Financiera De Bienes Raices SA (The Aello) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65 .................................................................. 13.170 Agrosin Pte Ltd v Highway Shipping Co Ltd (The Mata K) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 614 ........ 12.130, 12.210 Ahmad v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (2005) 222 ALR 338 .................................... 12.340, 12.670, 12.780 Aichhorn & Co KG and Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd v The Ship MV Talbot (1974) 132 CLR 449 ........................................................................................................................... 8.40, 8.100 Aitchison v Lohre (1879) 4 App Cas 755 .................................................................................... 20.440 Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418 ................................... 12.90, 12.590 Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 90 .......................................... 12.90 Akedian Co Ltd v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd [1999] 1 VR 80 .............................. 17.100, 17.110 Akerblom v Price, Potter, Walker & Co (1881) 7 QBD 129 ......................................... 20.130, 20.360 Aktieselskabet Olivebank v Dansk Svovlsyre Fabrik [1919] 2 KB 162 ...................................... 13.60 Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd [1927] 1 KB 352 ................................................................. 13.540 Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v Bajamar Compania Naviera SA (The Torenia) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 210 ........................................................................................................ 12.280, 12.370 Al Battani, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219 ......................................................... 12.90, 12.700, 12.710 Alamo Chemical Transport Co v M/V Overseas Valdes 469 F Supp 203 (ED La 1979) ......... 15.140 Albacora SRL v Westcott & Laurance Line Ltd [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 53 ............................... 12.310 Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero (Owners): The Albazero [1977] AC 774 ....................... 12.840 Albazero, The [1977] AC 774 ...................................................................................................... 12.680 Albion, The (1861) Lush 282; 167 ER 121 ................................................................................. 20.460 Albion, The (1872) 3 VR (A) 1 .......................................................................................... 8.300, 8.570 Albionic, The [1942] P 81 ............................................................................................................ 20.290 Aldebaran Compania Maritima SA Panama v Aussenhandel AG Zurich [1977] AC 157 ........ 13.180, 13.280 Alexander, The (1812) 1 Dods 278; 165 ER 1310 .......................................................................... 8.70 Alexandros Shipping Co of Piraeus v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA of Geneva (The Alexandros P) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 421 ................................................................ 13.560, 14.400 Alfen, The (1857) Swab 189; 166 ER 1088 ................................................................... 20.210, 20.220 Alfred C Toepfer Schiffahrtsgesellschaft GmbH v Tossa Marine Co Ltd (The Derby) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 ......................................................................................................... 14.110, 14.120 Algrete Shipping Co Inc v International Oil Pollution Fund (The Sea Empress) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 123 ................................................................................................................................... 19.230 Algrete Shipping Co Inc v International Oil Pollution Fund (The Sea Empress) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 327 ...................................................................................................................... 19.230, 19.330 Alhambra, The (1881) 6 PD 68 ...................................................................................................... 13.90 Alimport v Soubert Shipping Co Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 447 ............................................... 12.200 Aline, The (1839) 1 W Rob 111; 166 ER 514 .............................................................................. 8.390

Table of Cases xi All Commodities Supplies Co Ltd v M/V Acritas 702 F 2d 1260 (5th Cir 1983) .................... 12.490 Allanah Pty Ltd v The Ship Amanda N (1989) 21 FCR 60 ......................................................... 8.620 Alletta, The [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 40 ................................................................................ 8.450, 8.490 Allgemeine Versicherungs-Gesellschaft Helvetia v Administrator of German Property [1931] 1 KB 672 ........................................................................................................................................... 17.440 Allied Chemical Corp v Hess Tankship Co 661 F 2d 1044 (5th Cir 1981) ............................... 15.140 Allied Chemical International Corp v Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro 775 F 2d 476; 1986 AMC 826 (2d Cir 1985) ................................................................................................ 12.770 Allison Pty Ltd v Lumley General Insurance Ltd (2006) 200 FLR 394; 14 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-708; [2006] WASC 104 ..................................................................................................... 17.220 Allseas Maritime SA v M/V Mimosa 574 F Supp 844 (SD Tex 1983) ..................................... 15.140 Alma Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Mantovani (The Dione) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 115 ............................................................................................ 14.210, 14.220, 14.230, 14.240 Alstom Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Co (No 2) [2013] FCA 116 ............ 17.270, 17.280, 17.290, 17.310 Alstom Ltd v Sirakas [2012] NSWSC 1064 ................................................................................ 13.440 Alternative Glass Supplies v M/V Nomzi 1999 AMC 1080 (SDNY 1999) ................. 12.340, 12.560 Aluminios Pozuelo Ltd v S/S Navigator 407 F 2d 152; 1968 AMC 2532 (2d Cir 1968) ........ 12.560 Alvion Steamship Corporation Panama v Galban Lobo Trading Co SA of Havana (The Rubystone) [1955] 1 QB 430 ..................................................................................................................... 13.270 Amarantos Shipping Co Ltd v South Australia (2004) 89 SASR 438 ............................ 16.20, 16.100 Ambatielos, The; The Cephalonia [1923] P 68 ............................................................................. 8.320 American Farmer, The (1947) 80 Ll L Rep 672 ......................................................................... 20.200 American Home Assurance Co v MV Zim Jamaica 296 F Supp 2d 494 (SDNY 2003) .......... 12.160 American Home Assurance Inc v Internaves Shipping Corp 985 F Supp 1154; 1998 AMC 2266 (SD Fla 1997) .......................................................................................................................... 12.620 American Marine Corp v Barge American Gulf III 100 F Supp 2d 393 (ED La 2000) ........... 12.300 American Overseas Marine Corp v Golar Commodities Ltd (The LNG Gemini) [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113 .................................................................................................................................... 14.400 Amstelslot, The (see Union of India v NV Reederij Amsterdam [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 539) .. 12.300 Anapolis, The; The Golden Light; The HM Hayes (1861) Lush 355; 167 ER 150 .................. 20.410 Andalusian, The (1878) 3 PD 182 ...................................................................................... 1.240, 1.250 Anders Utkilens Rederi A/S v Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation of Tunis (The Golfstraum) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 97 ........................................................................................................ 14.190 Anders Utkilens Rederi A/S v O/Y Lovisa Stevedoring Co A/B (The Golfstraum) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 547 ................................................................................................................................... 14.300 Anderson v Attorney General of New Zealand (The Danica Brown) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 264 ................................................................................................................................... 12.300 Anderson v Hillies (1852) 12 CB 499; 138 ER 1002 ................................................................. 12.640 Anderson v Morice (1874) LR 10 CP 58 .................................................................................... 17.300 Anderson v United Insurance Co (1876) 2 VLR (L) 129 ........................................................... 17.150 Anderson’s (Pacific) Trading Co Pty Ltd v Karlander New Guinea Line Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 870 ...................................................................................... 11.70, 12.810, 12.820, 15.190 Andre & Cie SA v Orient Shipping (Rotterdam) BV (The Laconian Confidence) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 139 ................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Andre Toulemonde Wool Co Pty Ltd v Knutsen Offshore (Panama) SA (unreported, WA SC, Anderson J, 26 June 1998) .......................................................................................... 12.300, 18.70 Andrea Merzario Ltd v Internationale Spedition Leitner Gesellschaft GmbH [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 490 ........................................................................................................................................... 13.660 Aneroid, The (1877) 2 PD 189 ....................................................................................................... 8.630 Angel Bell, The [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 491 ......................................................................... 4.90, 10.40 Anglo-Danubian Transport Co Ltd v Ministry of Food (1950) 83 Ll L Rep 137 ........... 13.50, 13.70, 13.410 Anglo-Indian, The (1868) 8 SCR 102 ................................................................................ 8.440, 8.450 Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co v Adamastos Shipping Co [1957] 2 QB 233 ................................. 12.370 Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd v Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd [1957] 2 QB 255 ................... 14.130 Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd v Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd [1959] AC 133 ...................... 14.130

xii Table of Cases Anglo Irish Beef Processors International v Federated Stevedores Geelong [1997] 2 VR 676 .......................................................................................................... 12.370, 12.580, 12.590 Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549 ............. 13.130 Ann Stathatos, The (see Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (1950) 83 Ll L Rep 228) ........................................................................................................ 14.380 Annangel Glory Compania Naviera SA v M Golodetz Ltd (The Annangel Glory) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.560 Annefield, The [1971] P 178 ........................................................................................................ 12.720 Antaios (No 2), The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 235 .......................................................................... 14.460 Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB [1985] AC 191 .................................... 14.460 Antares II and Victory, The [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 482 .............................................................. 15.105 Antclizo Shipping Corp v Food Corp of India (The Antclizo) (No 2) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 485 ...................................................................................................................... 13.200, 13.660 Antclizo Shipping Corp v Food Corp of India (The Antclizo) (No 2) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558 ......................................................................................................... 13.200, 13.220, 13.660 Anthanasopoulos v Moseley (2001) 52 NSWLR 262 ................................................................. 15.170 Antigoni, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 209 .......................................................... 12.300, 12.370, 12.480 Antiparos ENE v SK Shipping Co Ltd (The Antiparos) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 237 ................... 13.50 Antonow v Leane (1989) 53 SASR 60 ........................................................................................ 15.110 Anvil Knitwear Inc v Crowley American Transport Inc 2001 AMC 2382 (SDNY 2001) ....... 12.430, 12.490 Aqualon (UK) Ltd v Vallana Shipping Corp [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 669 ................................... 12.840 Aquila, The (1798) 1 C Rob 37; 165 ER 87 .................................................................... 20.630, 21.70 Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Co v Luxor Trading Corp (The Al Bida) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 124 ................................................................................................................................ 14.80, 14.100 Aramis, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213 ....................................................................................... 12.680 Argonaut Navigation Co Ltd v Ministry of Food (The SS Argobec) [1949] 1 KB 572 ........... 13.560 Aries Tanker Corporation v Total Transport Ltd (The Aries) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 ........ 12.580, 13.660 Arkle v Henzell (1858) 8 El & Bl 828; 120 ER 309 .................................................................... 3.410 Armadillo, The (1841) 1 W Rob 215; 166 ER 566 ......................................................................... 9.50 Armement Adolf Deppe v John Robinson & Co Ltd [1917] 2 KB 204 .................................... 13.200 Armour & Co v Walford [1921] 3 KB 473 ................................................................................. 12.270 Aro Co Ltd, Re [1980] Ch 196 ............................................................................. 8.620, 8.630, 16.250 Arosa Kulm (No 2), The [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 97 ...................................................................... 8.230 Arosa Star, The [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 396 ................................................................................... 8.330 Arrow Shipping Co Ltd v Tyne Improvement Commissioners: The Crystal [1894] AC 508 ..... 21.70 Asfar & Co v Blundell [1896] 1 QB 123 .................................................................................... 13.660 Asia Star, The [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 121 ...................................................................................... 14.30 Asiatic Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Commonwealth (1956) 96 CLR 397 ............ 2.290, 2.310, 16.20 Associated Metals & Minerals Corp v M/V Arktis Sky 1991 AMC 1499 (SDNY 1991) ........ 12.720 Associated Metals & Minerals Corp v M/V Arktis Sky 978 F 2d 47; 1993 AMC 509 (2d Cir 1992) .............................................................................................................. 12.310, 12.450 Associated Packaging Pty Ltd v Sankyo Kaiun Kabushiki Kaisha [1983] 3 NSWLR 293 ...... 12.150 Astro Amo Compania Naviera SA v Elf Union SA (The Zographia M) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 382 ................................................................................................................................... 14.310 Asturias, The 40 F Supp 168 (SDNY 1941) ................................................................................ 12.410 Athamas (Owner) v Dig Vijay Cement Co Ltd (The Athamas) [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 287 ...... 13.90, 13.640 Athanasia Comninos, The (1979) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 277 ....................................... 13.520, 14.380 Athenian Tankers Management SA v Pyrena Shipping Inc (The Arianna) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 376 ...................................................................................................................... 14.110, 14.120 Athens Maritime Enterprises Corp v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Andreas Lemos) [1983] QB 647; [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 483 .................................... 17.10, 17.220 Atkins v Fibre Disintegrating Co 2 Ben 381; 2 F Cas 78 (EDNY 1868) (No 601) ...... 13.70, 14.300 Atkins v Fibre Disintegrating Co 85 US (18 Wall) 272 (1873) ...................................... 13.70, 14.300

Table of Cases xiii Atkins International HA v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The APJ Priti) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37 .......................................................................................................................... 13.50 Atkinson v Maling (1788) 2 TR 462; 100 ER 249 ....................................................................... 6.190 Atkinson, Assignees of Sleddon v Bell (1828) 8 B & C 277; 108 ER 1046 ................................. 6.40 Atlantic & Great Lakes Steamship Corp v Steelmet Inc 565 F 2d 848 (2nd Cir 1977) ............. 13.30 Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co Inc v Hallam Ltd (The Lucy) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 188 .... 14.280, 14.290 Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc v Didymi Corp (The Didymi) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 97 ....................................................................................................................................... 14.80 Atlantic Marine Transport Corp v Coscol Petroleum Corp (The Pina) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 246 .......................................................................................................................... 14.30, 14.80 Atlantic Marine Transport Corp v Coscol Petroleum Corp (The Pina) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 103 ............................................................................................................. 14.30, 14.80, 14.100 Atlantic Maritime Co Inc v Gibbon [1954] 1 QB 88 .................................................................. 17.310 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co v Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH 313 F 2d 872 (7th Cir 1963) ..... 12.340, 12.560 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co Inc v CSX Lines LLC 432 F 3d 428; 2006 AMC 1 (2d Cir 2005) ........................................................................................................................... 12.510 Atlantic Oil Carriers Ltd v British Petroleum Co (The Atlantic Duchess) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55 ..................................................................................................................................... 13.520 Atlas, The (1827) 2 Hagg Adm 48; 166 ER 162 ................................................................... 9.50, 9.70 Atlas, The (1862) Lush 518; 167 ER 235 ......................................................... 20.240, 20.250, 20.550 Atlas, The 93 US (3 Otto) 302; 23 L Ed 863 (1876) .................................................................. 15.140 Atlasnavios Navegaçao Lda v Ship Xin Tai Hai (2012) 291 ALR 795 ..................................... 16.260 Atlasnavios Navegaçao Lda v Ship Xin Tai Hai (No 2) (2012) 215 FCR 265 ............ 16.250, 16.260 Attica Sea Carriers Corp v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 250 ...................................................................................................................... 14.250, 14.510 Attorney-General v Australian Agricultural Co (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 571 .................................. 2.210 Attorney-General v Glen Line Ltd (1930) 37 Ll L Rep 55 ........................................................ 17.440 August 8, The [1983] 2 AC 450 ....................................................................................................... 8.40 Augusta, The (1813) 1 Dods 283; 165 ER 1312 ............................................................................. 9.50 Auguste Legembre, The [1902] P 123 ......................................................................................... 20.410 Aurora Borealis Compania Armadora SA v Marine Midland Bank NA (The Maistros) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 646 ...................................................................................................................... 14.520 Austin Friars, The (1894) 10 TLR 633 ........................................................................................ 13.200 Australasian Steam Navigation Co v Smith (1886) 7 LR (NSW) 207 ....................................... 15.100 Australasian United Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Shipping Control Board (1945) 71 CLR 508 .................................................................................................................................... 11.70 Australia, The [1927] AC 145 ...................................................................................................... 15.105 Australia Star, The (1940) 67 Ll L Rep 110 ................................................................................ 12.300 Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v Green [1971] 1 QB 456 .......................................... 18.40 Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v O’Reilly (1962) 107 CLR 46 .......................... 2.40, 2.70 Australian Fisheries Management Authority v Su (2009) 176 FCR 95 .......................... 19.70, 19.130 Australian General Electric Pty Ltd v AUSN Co Ltd [1946] SASR 278 ..................... 12.150, 12.470 Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 29 ................................. 2.60 Australian Oil Refining Pty Ltd v Cooper (1987) 11 NSWLR 277 ............................................. 19.40 Australian Robinson v Western Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 ................................................. 20.400 Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485 ....... 12.610 Australian Shipping Commission v Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd [1988] VR 29 .......... 12.580, 12.590 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 ........ 2.30, 2.40, 2.60, 2.70, 2.190, 2.210, 2.220 Australian Tallow & Agri-Commodities Pty Ltd v Malaysia International Shipping Corp (2001) 50 NSWLR 576 ............................................................................................................................ 12.640 Australian United Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Ship William E Burnham (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 225 .............................................................................................................................. 20.140 Australian Wheat Board v Reardon Smith Line Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 233 ................................... 13.50 Automatic Totalisators Ltd v Oceanic Steamship Co [1965] NSWLR 702 ............................... 12.100

xiv Table of Cases Automatic Tube Co Pty Ltd v Adelaide Steamship (Operations) Ltd [1966] WAR 103 .......... 12.590, 12.600 Aviles v S/S San Juan 1991 AMC 2681 (SDNY 1991) .............................................................. 12.560

B BHP Trading Asia Ltd v Oceaname Shipping Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 211 ............. 12.10, 12.20, 12.300, 12.640, 12.680, 12.720, 12.760, 12.810, 13.600 BHPB Freight Pty Ltd v Cosco Oceania Chartering Pty Ltd (No 4) (2009) 263 ALR 63 ....... 13.440 BNP Paribas v Pacific Carriers Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 451 .......................................................... 12.770 BP North American Petroleum v Solar S/T 250 F 3d 307; 2001 AMC 1844 (5th Cir 2001) ... 15.170 BP Oil International Ltd v Target Shipping Ltd (The Target) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 245 .......... 13.30 BP Oil International Ltd v Target Shipping Ltd (The Target) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 561 ........ 13.660 BS & N Ltd (BVI) v Micado Shipping Ltd (Malta) (The Seaflower) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 341 ........................................................................................................................ 14.70, 14.140 Babatsikos v Car Owners’ Mutual Insurance Co Ltd [1970] VR 297 ....................................... 17.100 Baggermaatschappij Boz & Kalis BV v Australian Shipping Commission (1980) 54 ALJR 382 ................................................................................................................................. 15.110 Baker v Adam (1910) 15 Com Cas 227 ........................................................................................ 17.80 Ballantyne & Co v Paton & Hendry 1912 SC 246 ..................................................................... 13.650 Ballast Trailing NV v Decca Survey Australia Ltd (unreported, NSW Sup Ct, 1980) .............. 16.170 Ballast Trailing NV v Decca Survey Australia Ltd (unreported, NSW Sup Ct CA, 1981) ....... 16.170 Balli Trading Ltd v Afalona Shipping Co Ltd (The Coral) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ... 12.310, 12.450 Bally Inc v M/V Zim America 22 F 3d 65; 1994 AMC 2762 (2d Cir 1994) ............................ 12.210 Balnaves v Smith [2011] 2 Qd R 17 ............................................................................................ 15.130 Bamburi, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 312 ..................................................................................... 17.400 Bamfield v Goole and Sheffield Transport Co Ltd [1910] 2 KB 94 .......................................... 12.630 Banana Services Inc v M/V Fleetwave 911 F 2d 519; 1991 AMC 439 (11th Cir 1990) .......... 12.280 Banana Services Inc v M/V Tasman Star 68 F 3d 418; 1996 AMC 260 (11th Cir 1995) ........ 12.400 Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co [1919] AC 435 ................................................................. 14.480 Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Chrismas (The Kyriaki) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 137 ...................................................................................................................... 17.370 Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1 .................................................... 2.60 Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Assoc (Bermuda) Ltd [1990] 1 QB 818 .... 17.90 Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Assoc (Bermuda) Ltd [1992] 1 AC 233 ... 17.90, 17.570 Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 ....... 8.80, 8.330, 8.380, 8.450, 8.590, 9.50, 9.70, 10.20 Banner v Berridge (1881) LR 18 Ch D 254 ................................................................................ 10.310 Banque Financiere de la Cite SA v Westgate Insurance Co Ltd [1991] 2 AC 249 ................... 17.630 Banque Keyser Ullman SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd [1990] 1 QB 665 ......... 17.90, 17.100 Banque Keyser Ullman SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd [1991] 2 AC 249 ......... 17.90, 17.100 Barber v Meyerstein (1870) LR 4 HL 317 .................................................................................. 12.770 Barclay v Penberthy (2012) 246 CLR 258 ............................................ 15.50, 15.180, 16.100, 19.230 Barclay & Co Ltd v Poole [1907] 2 Ch 284 ............................................................................... 10.370 Barclay Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v British National Insurance Co Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 514 ............................................................................................................................ 17.100 Barclays Bank Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 .......... 12.770 Barde AS v ABB Power Systems (The Barde Team) (1995) 69 FCR 277 ...... 16.40, 16.160, 16.220, 19.260, 19.280 Barefoot, The (1850) 14 Jur 841 .................................................................................................. 20.410 Barker v M’Andrew (1865) 18 CB (NS) 759; 144 ER 643 .......................................... 13.130, 13.140 Barker v Moore & McCormack Inc 40 F 2d 410 (2nd Cir 1930) .............................................. 14.330 Barker v Stickney [1919] 1 KB 121 ............................................................................................ 10.230 Barker v Windle (1856) 6 El & Bl 675; 119 ER 1015 .................................................. 13.530, 14.100 Barns v Barns (2003) 196 ALR 65 .............................................................................................. 15.190 Barque Strathearn C Ltd v McIlwraith McEacharn & Co Ltd (1895) 16 LR (NSW) 94 ......... 15.170

Table of Cases xv Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling & Fishing Co Ltd [1933] AC 402 ....................................... 3.510 Barron v Stewart: The Panama (1870) LR 3 PC 199 ..................................................................... 9.50 Batis Maritime Corp v Petroleos de Mediterraneo SA (The Batis) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 345 .................................................................................................. 13.50, 13.60, 13.70, 13.410 Batthyany v Bouch (1881) 50 LJQB 421 .................................................................. 5.170, 6.90, 6.100 Baumwoll Manufactur von Carl Scheibler v Furness [1893] AC 8 ................................ 12.810, 15.20 Beal v Horlock [1915] 3 KB 627 ................................................................................................... 3.510 Beaverford (Owners), The v The Kafiristan (Owners) [1938] AC 136 ......................... 20.320, 20.530 Bedeburn, The [1914] P 146 ......................................................................................................... 20.360 Bedouin, The [1894] P 1 ............................................................................................................... 17.110 Behn v Burness (1863) 3 B & S 751; 122 ER 281 ......................................................... 13.110, 14.60 Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649 ............................................................... 5.10, 6.20 Belcore Maritime Corp v F Lli Moretti Cereali SpA (The Mastro Giorgis) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 66 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Beldis, The [1936] P 51 ............................................................................................... 8.40, 8.90, 8.100 Bell v Mansfield (1893) 19 VLR 165 ................................................................................... 4.50, 4.180 Bell, Assignee of Batley v Bank of London (1858) 28 LJ Ex 116 .............................................. 3.230 Beltana, The [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 531 ......................................................................... 12.590, 12.600 Beluga Shipping GmbH v Headway Shipping Ltd (No 1) [2008] FCA 1791 ...... 11.20, 12.20, 12.40, 12.140, 12.200, 12.640 Belyando Shire Council v Rivers (1908) 2 QJPR 47 .................................................................. 19.240 Ben Line Steamers Ltd v Pacific Steam Navigation Co (The Benlawers) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 51 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.410 Ben Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v An-Board Bainne (The C Joyce) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285 ..... 14.420 Benjamin v M/V Balder Eems 639 F Supp 1497; 1987 AMC 52 (SDNY 1986) ...................... 12.440 Benwell Tower, The (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 ........................................ 10.170, 10.280, 10.290, 10.310 Benyon v Cresswell (1848) 12 QB 899; 116 ER 1107 ...................................................... 6.100, 6.190 Benyon & Co v Godden & Son; HR Evans (Third Party) (1878) 3 Ex D 263 ......................... 10.280 Berger and Light Diffusers Pty Ltd v Pollock [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 442 ................... 17.100, 17.350 Berkshire, The [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 185 ................................................................................... 12.820 Berliner Bank AG v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd; The Rama [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 ..... 8.150, 8.160 Biddulph v Bingham (1874) 2 Asp MLC 225 ............................................................................. 12.100 Bineta, The [1967] 1 WLR 121 ...................................................................................................... 5.210 Bingle v Ship Queen of England (1862) 1 SCR (NSW) Eq 47 .................................... 20.410, 20.520 Binladen BSB Landscaping v M/V Nedlloyd Rotterdam 759 F 2d 1006; 1985 AMC 2113 (2d Cir 1985) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130 ................................. 13.520, 13.540 Bird v Appleton (1800) 8 TR 562; 101 ER 1547 ........................................................................ 17.610 Birmingham Southeast LLC v M/V Merchant Patriot 2003 AMC 1559 (SD Ga 2000) ............. 18.70 Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552 ....................................................... 2.290, 2.310, 8.130, 16.20 Bizley & Co Pty Ltd v Transcontinental Services Ltd (The Protea Trader) (1992) (unreported, NSW Sup Ct, Carruthers J, 10 April 1992) ..................................................................................... 12.830 Black King Shipping Co Ltd v Massie (The Litsion Pride) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437 ........... 17.100 Blackburn v Haslam (1888) 21 QBD 144 ................................................................................... 17.100 Blackgold Trading Co Ltd of Monrovia v Almare SpA di Navigazione of Genoa (The Almare Seconda and Almare Quinta) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 433 ........................................ 13.140, 14.180 Blane Steamships Ltd v Minister of Transport [1951] 2 KB 965 ................................. 14.480, 17.440 Blenden Hall, The (1814) 1 Dods 414; 165 ER 1361 ................................................................. 20.420 Blitz, The [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 441 ................................................................................ 7.110, 10.370 Blue Anchor Line Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH (The Union Amsterdam) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 432 ...................................................................................................................... 13.470 Blue Nile Shipping Co Ltd v Iguana Shipping and Finance Inc (The Darfur) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 469 ........................................................................................................................................... 16.100 Bluecorp Pty Ltd (In liq) v ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd (1995) 127 FLR 120 ................ 6.190 Blunden v Commonwealth (2003) 218 CLR 330; 78 ALJR 236 ............. 4.100, 4.130, 15.10, 16.250 Blyth Shipbuilding & Dry Docks Co Ltd, Re; Forster v Blyth Shipbuilding & Dry Docks Co Ltd [1926] Ch 494 ............................................................................................................................. 6.30

xvi Table of Cases Board of Trade v Hain Steamship Co [1929] AC 534 ................................................................ 17.310 Boiler ex Elephant (1891) 64 LT 543 .......................................................................................... 20.480 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 ...... 1.320, 2.90, 2.100, 2.110, 2.220, 2.250, 2.260, 4.90, 20.190 Boon and Cheah Steel Pipes Sdn Bhd v Asia Insurance Co Ltd [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 452 ... 17.340 Borealis AB v Stargas Ltd: The Berge Sisar [2002] 2 AC 205 .......... 12.100, 12.670, 12.680, 12.760 Borgship Tankers Inc v Product Transport Corp Ltd (The Casco) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 565 ................................................................................................................................... 14.160 Boston Corp v France, Fenwick & Co Ltd (1923) 15 Ll L Rep 85 ........................................... 17.440 Bostonian, The v The Gregersö: The Gregersö [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 220 ............................... 20.330 Bouillon et Cie v Lupton (1863) 15 CB (NS) 113; 143 ER 726 ............................................... 12.300 Boukadoura Maritime Corp v SA Marocaine de l’Industrie et du Raffinage (The Boukadoura) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 393 ............................................................................ 12.100, 12.110, 14.420 Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Co (Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 461 ................................................................................................................................... 16.100 Bowbelle, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 532 ....... 12.530, 16.10, 16.70, 16.160, 16.220, 16.240, 19.280 Bradley v H Newsom Sons & Co [1919] AC 16 ............................................................. 20.630, 21.70 Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co v MV Kalantiao 1987 (4) SA 250 ............................................... 8.590 Bramley Moore, The [1964] P 200 ................................................................................... 16.10, 16.170 Brandt v Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1924] 1 KB 575 ....... 12.150, 12.680 Branston, The (1826) 2 Hagg Adm 3n; 166 ER 146 .................................................................. 20.300 Brass v Maitland (1856) 6 El & Bl 470; 119 ER 940 ................................................... 12.630, 12.650 Bray v Macdonald (1867) 1 SALR 20 ........................................................................................... 5.190 Breckwoldt v Colonial Guano Co Ltd (1890) 16 VLR 166 ........................................................ 13.110 Breffka & Hehnke GmbH & Co KG v Navire Shipping Co Ltd (The Saga Explorer) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401 ........................................................................................... 12.100, 12.110, 12.170 Breydon Merchant, The [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 373 .... 16.90, 16.100, 16.110, 16.140, 16.150, 16.160 Breynton (Owners) v Theodoridi & Co (1924) 19 Ll L Rep 409 .............................................. 13.470 Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) 173 CLR 231 ......................... 12.590, 12.830 Brig Byron, The (1879) 2 NSWR (Adm) 1 ................................................................................... 15.40 Brimnes: Tenax Steamship Co Ltd, The v The Brimnes (Owners) [1975] QB 929 ..... 14.310, 14.440 British Inventor, The (1933) 46 Ll L R 137 ................................................................................ 20.160 British Steamship Owners’ Association v Chapman & Son (1935) 52 Ll L Rep 169 ..... 1.280, 3.510 British Trade, The [1924] P 104 ......................................................................................... 8.230, 8.260 British Transport Docks Board v Owners of the Proceeds of Sale of the Charger and Other Vessels: The Charger and Other Vessels [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 670 ...................................................... 7.90 British West Indies Produce Inc v S/S Atlantic Clipper 353 F Supp 548; 1973 AMC 163 (SDNY 1973) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.810 British and Mexican Shipping Co Ltd v Lockett Brothers Co Ltd [1911] 1 KB 264 ............... 13.270 Broadmayne, The [1916] P 64 .......................................................................................................... 8.80 Brodie v Howard (1855) 17 CB 109; 139 ER 1010 ..................................................................... 5.130 Broken Hill Co Pty Ltd v Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft [1980] 2 NSWLR 572 .................. 12.820 Brond v Broomhall [1906] 1 KB 571 ............................................................................................ 3.370 Broomfield v Southern Insurance Co Ltd (1870) LR 5 Ex 196 ................................................... 3.510 Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1 ............................................................................ 16.50 Brostrom & Son v Louis Dreyfus & Co (1932) 44 Ll L Rep 136 ............................................. 14.300 Brown v Mallett (1848) 5 CB 599; 136 ER 1013 ......................................................................... 21.70 Brown v Owner of Lighter No 6 (1910) 10 SR (NSW) 905 ........................................... 15.40, 15.110 Brown v Ship Darnholme (1922) 23 SR (NSW) 195 .................................................... 20.130, 20.140 Brown v Ship Honolulu Maru (1924) 24 WN (NSW) 309 ......................................................... 20.450 Brown v Stapylton (1827) 4 Bing 119; 130 ER 713 ................................................................... 20.100 Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 ............... 10.170, 10.180, 10.190, 10.210, 10.220, 10.290 Brown v The Ship Honolulu Maru (1924) 24 WN (NSW) 309 ................................................. 20.460 Brown, Jenkinson & Co Ltd v Percy Dalton (London) Ltd [1957] 2 QB 621 .......................... 12.110 Brown Boveri (Australia) Pty Ltd v Baltic Shipping Co (1989) 15 NSWLR 448; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 518 ...................................................................................................................... 12.550, 13.440

Table of Cases xvii Browner International Ltd v Monarch Shipping Co Ltd (The European Enterprise) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 185 ..................................................................... 12.530, 12.710, 13.20, 16.10, 16.160, 19.280 Brownsville Holdings Ltd v Adamjee Insurance Co Ltd (The Milasan) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 458 ...................................................................................................................... 17.300, 17.620 Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 ............................................... 15.180, 15.190, 16.100, 19.230 Bua International Ltd v Hai Hing Shipping Co Ltd (The Hai Hing) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 300 ................................................................................................................................... 12.590 Building Construction Employees and Builders’ Labourers’ Federation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 ......................................................... 2.220 Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd v Boneset Shipping Co Ltd (The Pamphilos) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 681 ........................................................................................................................ 14.80, 14.510 Bulk Chartering and Consultants Australia Pty Ltd v T & T Metal Trading Pty Ltd: The Krasnogrosk (1993) 31 NSWLR 18 ......................................................................................... 12.90 Bulk Ship Union SA v Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd (The Pearl C) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 533 .. 14.80, 14.90 Bulk Shipping AG v Ipco Trading SA (The Jasmine B) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 39 ........ 13.50, 13.60, 13.70, 13.410 Bulk Transport Group Shipping Co Ltd v Seacrystal Shipping Ltd (The Kyzikos) [1989] AC 1264 ..................................................................................................................... 13.170, 13.180 Bulmer, The (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 163; 166 ER 59 ....................................................................... 8.240 Bunge Corp v M/V Furness Bridge 558 F 2d 790 (5th Cir 1977) ............................................... 13.50 Bunge Edible Oil Corp v M/V Torm Rask 756 F Supp 261 (ED La 1991) ................. 12.340, 12.620 Bunge Edible Oil Corp v M/V Torm Rask 949 F 2d 786 (5th Cir 1992) .................... 12.340, 12.620 Bunge SA v ADM Do Brasil Ltda (The Darya Radhe) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 175 .................. 12.650 Bunge SA v Kyla Shipping Co Ltd (The Kyla) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 565 .............................. 14.480 Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484 ................. 5.130, 5.180, 5.190, 5.200, 10.30, 10.240, 10.370 Burley v The Ship Texaco Southampton [1981] 2 NSWLR 238 ................................................ 20.480 Burnard v Aaron (1862) 31 LJCP 334 ........................................................................................... 11.70 Burns Philp & Co Ltd v Nelson and Robertson Pty Ltd (1958) 98 CLR 495 .......................... 15.230 Bus v Sydney County Council (1989) 167 CLR 78 .................................................................... 15.110 Butterfield v Forrester (1809) 11 East 60; 103 ER 926 .............................................................. 15.130 Byrne v Schiller (1871) LR 5 Ex 319 .......................................................................................... 13.660 Bywell Castle, The (1879) 4 PD 219 ........................................................................................... 15.110

C C-ART Ltd v Hong Kong Islands Line America SA 940 F 2d 530; 1991 AMC 2888 (9th Cir 1991) .......................................................................................................................... 12.770 C & CJ Northcote v Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 .................................................................... 8.50, 8.200, 8.320, 8.330, 8.410, 8.450, 8.620 C/V Scheepvaartonderneming Ankergracht v Stemcor (A/Asia) Pty Ltd (2007) 160 FCR 342 .................................................. 12.280, 12.300, 12.310, 12.360, 12.370, 12.470, 12.490 CA Stewart & Co v Phs van Ommeren (London) Ltd [1918] 2 KB 560 .................................. 14.320 CA Venezolana de Navegacion v Bank Line Ltd (The Roachbank) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 337 ................................................................................................................................... 14.330 CCR Fishing Ltd v Tomenson Inc (The La Pointe) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 89 ............. 17.220, 17.290 CMA CGM SA v Classica Shipping Co Ltd [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 50 ....................................... 16.50 CMA CGM SA v Classica Shipping Co Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460 ........... 14.380, 16.50, 16.90, 16.100, 19.50 CMA CGM SA v Ship Chou Shan (2014) 224 FCR 384 ................................................ 15.10, 16.250 CMA CGM SA v Ship Chou Shan (2014) 311 ALR 234 ........................................................... 16.250 CPC Consolidated Pool Carriers GmbH v CTM Cia Transmediterranea SA (The CPC Gallia) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 68 .......................................................................................................... 13.30 CS Butler, The (1874) LR 4 A & E 238 ........................................................ 1.10, 1.180, 16.20, 16.80 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 .................................. 16.250, 16.260 CV Scheepvaartonderneming Flintermar v Sea Malta Co Ltd (The Flintermar) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 409 ................................................................................................................................... 14.400

xviii Table of Cases Cactus Pipe & Supply Co v M/V Montmartre 756 F 2d 1103; 1985 AMC 2150 (5th Cir 1985) .......................................................................................................................... 12.810 Caemint Food Inc v Lloyd Brasileiro Cia de Navegaçao 647 F 2d 347; 1981 AMC 1801 (2d Cir 1981) ........................................................................................................................... 12.120, 12.150 Cairnbahn, The [1914] P 25 ......................................................................................................... 15.160 Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd [1973] 2 NSWLR 89 ....... 13.390 Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976) 136 CLR 529 ........... 8.40, 15.50, 15.180, 15.190, 16.100, 16.170 Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649 .................................. 15.50, 19.230 Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd v BHP Transport Ltd (The Iron Gippsland) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 335 ...................................................................................................................... 12.310, 12.390 Caltex Singapore Pte Ltd v BP Shipping Ltd [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 286 .................................. 16.240 Calypso, The (1828) 2 Hagg Adm 209; 166 ER 221 .................................................................. 20.170 Calyx, The (1910) 27 TLR 166 .................................................................................................... 20.130 Camelia, The (1883) 9 PD 27 ...................................................................................................... 20.250 Campbell Mostyn (Provisions) Ltd v Barnett Trading Co [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65 ................ 15.170 Canada Rice Mills Ltd v Union Marine and General Insurance Co Ltd [1941] AC 55 ........... 12.410, 12.420, 17.300 Canada and Dominion Sugar Co Ltd v Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship Ltd [1947] AC 46 ................................................................................................................................ 12.100, 12.150 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v The Orion Expeditor (1991) 43 FTR 284 ....... 8.650, 10.20 Canadian National Railway v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co [1992] 1 SCR 1021 ...................... 15.180 Canadian National Steamship Co v Watson [1939] 1 DLR 273 ................................................... 4.130 Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd v Canadian Transport Co Ltd [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 ..... 14.330 Canadian Transport Co v Court Line [1940] AC 934 .................................................... 13.560, 14.400 Candlewood Navigation Corporation v Mitsui Osk Lines (The Mineral Transporter and The Ibaraki Maru) [1986] AC 1 ......................................................................... 13.440, 15.170, 15.190, 19.240 Cantiere Navale Triestina v Handelsvertretung der Russe Soviet Republik Naphtha Export [1925] 2 KB 172 ....................................................................................................................... 13.410, 13.470 Cape Packet, The (1848) 3 W Rob 122; 166 ER 909 ................................................................. 20.550 Capital Coastal Shipping Corp v Hartford Fire Insurance Co 378 F Supp 163; 1974 AMC 2039 (ED Va 1974) .......................................................................................................................... 17.580 Capitan San Luis, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 573 ...................................................................... 16.160 Captain Gregos, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 63 ........................................................................... 12.610 Carboex SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 379 .................. 13.380 Care Shipping Corp v Itex Itagrani Export SA [1993] 1 QB 1 ....................... 14.200, 14.550, 14.560 Care Shipping Corp v Latin American Shipping Corp [1983] QB 1005 ......... 14.260, 14.550, 14.560 Caresse Navigation Ltd v Zurich Assurances Maroc (The Channel Ranger) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 256 ........................................................................................................................................... 12.720 Carga del Sur Compania Naviera SA v Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd (The Seafort) [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147 ................................................................................................................................... 13.180 Cargill BV v S/S Ocean Traveller 726 F Supp 56; 1989 AMC 953 (SDNY 1989) .................. 12.590 Cargill Ferrous International v M/V Sea Phoenix 325 F 3d 695 (5th Cir 2003) ....................... 12.720 Cargill Inc v M/V Golden Chariot 31 F 3d 316; 1995 AMC 1077 (5th Cir 1994) ................... 12.720 Cargill Inc v Rionda de Pass Ltd (The Giannis Xilas) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 ................... 13.350 Cargill International SA v CPN Tankers Ltd (Bermuda) (The OT Sonja) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 435 ...................................................................................................................... 13.530, 12.580 Cargo Ships El-Yam Ltd v Invoer-En Transport Onderneming Invotra NV [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 39 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.100 Cargo ex Capella (1867) LR 1 A & E 356 .................................................................................. 20.530 Cargo ex Galam (1863) Br & Lush 167 .......................................................................................... 9.30 Cargo ex Port Victor [1901] P 243 .............................................................................................. 20.570 Cargo ex Schiller (1877) 2 PD 145 ..................................... 8.190, 8.210, 20.10, 20.30, 20.630, 21.70 Cargo ex Sultan (1859) Swab 504; 166 ER 1235 ........................................................................... 9.60 Caroline, The (1861) Lush 334; 167 ER 149 .............................................................................. 20.230 Carrie, The [1917] P 224 .............................................................................................................. 20.310

Table of Cases xix Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd v Patrick Operations Pty Ltd (The Cape Comorin) (1991) 24 NSWLR 745 ................................................................................................... 12.530, 12.570, 12.740, 12.840 Carron Park, The (1890) 15 PD 203 .............................................................................................. 18.70 Carruthers v Sheddon (1815) 6 Taunt 14; 128 ER 937 ................................................................. 17.40 Carso, The 53 F 2d 374 (2d Cir 1931) ........................................................................................ 12.150 Case v Davidson (1816) M & S 79; 105 ER 980 ....................................................................... 17.440 Case v Davidson (1820) 2 Brod & B 379; 129 ER 1013 ........................................................... 17.440 Cash Logistics Pty Ltd v Nelson [2015] SASC 117 ................................................................... 12.840 Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration v Bouygues Offshore SA (No 4) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 507 ........................................................................................... 16.40, 16.100 Castel Electronics Pty Ltd v TCL Airconditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd [2013] VSC 92 ........... 12.270 Castle Insurance Co Ltd v Hong Kong Islands Shipping Co Ltd [1984] AC 226 ........... 18.30, 18.50 Caterpillar Overseas SA v Marine Transportation Inc 900 F 2d 714 (4th Cir 1990) ................ 12.560 Catherine, The (1847) 3 W Rob 1 ........................................................................................ 8.450, 9.70 Catherine, formerly the Croxdale, The (1851) 15 Jur 231 ........................ 8.470, 9.50, 10.320, 10.370 Cattle v Stockton Waterworks Co Ltd (1875) LR 10 QB 453 ...................................... 15.190, 19.230 Cavcar Co v M/V Suzdal 723 F 2d 1096; 1984 AMC 609 (3d Cir 1983) ................................ 12.810 Cayo Bonito, The [1904] P 310 ................................................................................................... 20.200 Cebu, The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 302 ............................................................... 14.260, 14.550, 14.560 Cebu, The (see Care Shipping Corp v Latin American Shipping Corp [1983] QB 1005) ........ 14.560 Cebu (No 2), The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 316 ................................................... 14.200, 14.550, 14.560 Cebu (No 2), The (see Care Shipping Corp v Itex Itagrani Export SA627 [1993] 1 QB 1) .... 14.560 Cella, The (1888) 13 PD 82 ....................................................................................... 8.50, 8.410, 8.620 Celthene Pty Ltd v WJK Hauliers Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 606 ................................................... 12.740 Celtic King, The [1894] P 175 ........................................................................................ 10.190, 10.210 Central Argentine Railway Ltd v Marwood [1915] AC 981 ....................................................... 13.380 Central National-Gottesman Inc v M/V Gertrude Oldendorff 204 F Supp 2d 675; 2002 AMC 1477 (SDNY 2002) ........................................................................................................................... 12.810 Century Textiles and Industry Ltd v Tomoe Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd (The Aditya Vaibhav) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 573 ...................................................................................................... 14.320 Century Textiles and Industry Ltd v Tomoe Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd (The Aditya Vaibhav) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 63 ........................................................................................................ 14.320 Cepheus Shipping Corp v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Plc (The Capricorn) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 622 ............................................................................................................ 17.30, 17.60 Cero Navigation Corp v Jean Lion & Cie (The Solon) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 292 .... 13.380, 13.390, 13.460 Cerro Colorado, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 ................................................... 8.470, 10.320, 10.370 Cerro Sales Corp v Atlantic Marine Enterprises Inc 403 F Supp 562; 1976 AMC 375 (SDNY 1975) ........................................................................................................................... 12.600 Champion, The [1934] P 1 ............................................................................................................. 1.180 Chandler v Blogg [1898] 1 QB 32 ................................................................................................. 1.280 Chapman Marine Pty Ltd v Wilhelmsen Lines A/S [1999] FCA 178 . 12.90, 12.370, 12.550, 12.560, 12.740, 12.820 Chappel v Comfort (1861) 10 CB (NS) 802; 142 ER 669 ......................................................... 12.710 Chappell v Bray (1860) 6 H & N 145; 158 ER 60 ....................................................................... 5.130 Charles Goodfellow Lumber Sales Ltd v Verreault [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 185 ......................... 12.410 Charles Nelson Co v Ship Keishin Maru (1921) 22 SR (NSW) 102 ......................................... 15.110 Charlotte, The (1848) 3 W Rob 68; 166 ER 888 ................................ 20.130, 20.140, 20.200, 20.210 Charlotte Wylie, The (1846) 2 W Rob 495; 166 ER 842 ........................................................... 20.140 Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London & China v Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1883) 10 QBD 521 ......................................................................................... 4.50, 4.90, 4.110 Chartered Trust and Executor Co v London Scottish Assurance Corp Ltd (1923) 39 TLR 608 .................................................................................................................................... 17.40 Chasteauneuf v Capeyron (1882) 7 App Cas 127 ................................................................ 6.10, 8.470 Chattahoochee, The 173 US 540; 19 S Ct 491; 43 L Ed 801 (1899) ........................................ 15.140 Cheerful, The (1885) 11 PD 3 ........................................................................................... 8.190, 20.250

xx Table of Cases Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury v Ceylon Shipping Lines Ltd (The Madeleine) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 224 ............................................................................................ 13.600, 14.110, 14.170, 14.180 Chellew Navigation Co Ltd v AR Appelquist Kolimport AG (1933) 38 Com Cas 218 ........... 14.510 Chembulk Trading LLC v Chemex Ltd 393 F 3d 550 (5th Cir 2004) ......................... 14.550, 14.560 Chenoweth v Summers [1941] ALR (CN) 364 ........................................................................... 19.240 Chief Collector of Taxes Papua New Guinea v TA Field Pty Ltd (1975) 49 ALJR 351 .......... 13.440 Chieftain, The (1863) Br & Lush 212; 167 ER 340 .......................................................... 8.380, 10.20 Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp v Marine Transportation Co Ltd (The Hermosa) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.150 Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp v Marine Transportation Co Ltd (The Hermosa) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 570 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.150 China, The 74 US 53; 2002 AMC 1504 (1868) ............................................................................ 15.30 China Metal Industries Co Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corp Berhad (1998) 196 CLR 161 ........................................................................................................................................... 12.300 China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp v Evlogia Shipping Co SA (The Mihalios Xilas) [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 303 ............................................................................ 14.320, 14.440, 14.470 China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172 .......... 2.150, 2.290, 2.310, 16.10, 16.20, 16.30, 16.100, 19.250 China Ocean Shipping Co v The Owners of the Vessel Andros (The Xingcheng) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 210 ................................................................................................................................... 12.620 China Offshore Oil (Singapore) International Pte Ltd v Giant Shipping Ltd (The Posidon) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 697 ...................................................................................................................... 13.530 Ching Sheng Fishery Co Ltd v United States 124 F 3d 152 (2d Cir 1997) .............................. 15.110 Chiswell Shipping Ltd v National Iranian Tanker Co (The World Symphony and World Renown) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 115 ............................................................... 14.210, 14.220, 14.230, 14.240 Christianborg, The (1885) 10 PD 141 ............................................................................................ 8.540 Christie & Vesey Ltd v Maatschappij Tot Exploitatie van Schepen en Andere Zaken, Helvetia NV (The Helvetia-S) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 540 ............................................................ 13.140, 14.180 Chubu Asahi Cotton Spinning Co Ltd v The Ship Tenos (1968) 12 FLR 291 .......................... 12.390 Chung Chi Cheung v The Queen [1939] AC 160 ........................................................................... 4.90 Cia Sud Americana Vapores v MS ER Schiffahrtsgesellshaft mbH & Co KG [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 66 ............................................................................................................................................. 14.400 Cia Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Sinochem Tianjin Import and Export Corp (The Aconcagua) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .......................................................................................................... 12.650 Ciampa v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1915] 2 KB 774 .............. 12.440, 13.600, 14.110 Citadel Insurance Co v Atlantic Union Insurance Co SA [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 543 ............... 17.160 Citibank NA v Hobbs Savill & Co Ltd (The Panglobal Friendship) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368 ................................................................................................................................... 14.570 Cities Service Transportation Co v Gulf Refining Co 79 F 2d 521; 1935 AMC 1513 (2d Cir 1935) ............................................................................................................................. 13.90 City Centre Cold Store Pty Ltd v Preservatrice Skandia Insurance Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 739 ............................................................................................................................ 17.310 City of Brisbane, The (1884) 5 LR (NSW) (P & D) 21 ............................................................. 20.150 City of Chester, The (1884) 9 PD 182 ......... 20.210, 20.240, 20.260, 20.450, 20.470, 20.480, 20.490 Clara Killam, The (1870) LR 3 A & E 161 ....................................................................... 8.130, 8.160 Clarke v Spence (1836) 4 Ad & E 448; 111 ER 855 ............................................................ 6.30, 6.40 Clarke v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1914) 18 CLR 142 .................................... 2.190 Classic Maritime Inc v Lion Diversified Holdings Bhd [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 59 .................... 14.240 Claude R Ogden & Co Pty Ltd v Reliance Fire Sprinkler Co Pty Ltd [1973] 2 NSWLR ....... 17.100 Clay v Snelgrave (1700) 1 Ld Raym 576; 91 ER 1285 ................................................................ 8.270 Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International Ltd (The Alaskan Trader) (No 2) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 645 ...................................................................................................................... 14.250, 14.480 Cleobulus Shipping Co Ltd v Intertanker Ltd (The Cleon) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 586 ............ 13.660 Cleopatra, The (1878) 3 PD 145 ....................................................................................... 20.80, 20.490 Clerco Compania Naviera SA v The Food Corporation of India (The Savvas) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 22 ............................................................................................................................................. 13.330 Clifton, The (1834) 3 Hagg Adm 117; 166 ER 349 ......................................... 20.140, 20.460, 20.490

Table of Cases xxi Clot v Compagnie Commerciale du Nord (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 380 ............................................. 12.840 Clothing Management Technology Ltd v Beazley Solutions Ltd [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571 .. 17.140, 17.380, 17.390, 17.440 Coates v Charles Porter & Sons Pty Ltd (unreported, WA Sup Ct, 1990) ................................. 19.240 Cobban v Downe (1803) 5 Esp 41; 170 ER 731 ........................................................................ 12.100 Cobelfret (UK) Ltd v Austen & Butta (Sales) Pty Ltd (unreported, NSWCA, Kirby P, Preistely and Meagher, JJP, 1 January 1991) ............................................................................................... 13.550 Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA (The Lowlands Orchid) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 317 ................................................................................................................................... 13.310 Cobelfret NV v Cyclades Shipping Co Ltd (The Linardos) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 28 ............. 13.200 Coca Cola Co v SS Norholt 333 F Supp 946; 1972 AMC 388 (SDNY 1971) ......................... 14.150 Cochran v Retberg (1800) 3 Esp 121; 170 ER 560 .................................................................... 13.250 Cockburn v Alexander (1848) 6 CB 791; 136 ER 1459 ............................................................. 14.500 Collaroy, The; Harris v Robertson (1887) 3 WN (NSW) 97 ............................................. 8.240, 8.300 Collier, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 83 ............................................................................................. 20.570 Collins v Lamport (1865) 34 LJ Ch 196 ........................................................... 10.180, 10.190, 10.210 Collins v Simpson Steamship Co (1907) 24 TLR 178 .................................................................. 3.510 Colonial Bank (now Bank of Boston Connecticut) v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (The Dominique) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 431 .................................................................................. 13.660 Colonial Insurance Co of New Zealand v Adelaide Marine Insurance Co (1886) 12 App Cas 128 .................................................................................................................................... 17.190 Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1931) 32 SR (NSW) 245 ............................................................................ 12.460, 12.580, 12.620 Colorado, The (1922) 13 Ll L Rep 474 .............................................................................. 8.650, 10.20 Colorado, The [1923] P 102 ........................................................................................................... 8.330 Coltman v Chamberlain (1890) 25 QBD 328 .................................................................... 1.40, 10.140 Colvin v Newberry and Benson (1832) 1 Cl & Fin 283; 6 ER 923 ................................... 5.50, 5.100 Comalco Aluminium Ltd v Mogal Freight Services Pty Ltd (1993) 113 ALR 677 .................. 12.840 Comandate Marine Corporation v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45 .............. 8.40 Comandate Marine Corporation v Ship Boomerang I (2006) 151 FCR 403 ...................... 5.50, 5.100 Commercial Steamship Co v Boulton (1875) LR 10 QB 346 ....................................... 13.250, 13.440 Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 .............................................................................. 12.280 Commonwealth v Burns Philp & Co (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 307 ....... 12.280, 12.300, 12.370, 12.390, 12.400, 13.600 Commonwealth v WMC Resources Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 1 ......................................................... 2.370 Compagnie Algerienne de Meunerie v Katana Societa di Navigazione Marittima SpA (The Nizeti) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 132 ......................................................................................... 13.120, 13.600 Compagnie Generale Maritime v Diakan Spirit SA (The Ymnos) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 574 .. 14.20, 14.100 Compagnie Général Transatlantique v Owners of the FT Barry; Compagnie Général Transatlantique v Owners of the Spray: The Amérique (1874) LR 6 PC 468 ............................................... 20.480 Compagnie Primera de Navagaziona Panama v Compania Arrendataria de Monopolio de Petroleos SA [1940] 1 KB 362 ............................................................................................................... 13.620 Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes v Wilson (1954) 94 CLR 577 .......................... 12.90, 12.270 Compania Argentina De Navigacion de Ultramar v Tradax Export SA (The Puerto Rocca) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 252 ...................................................................................................................... 13.200 Compania Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1965] 1 QB 101 ..... 12.590, 12.670 Compania Continental del Peru SA v Evelpis Shipping Corp (The Agia Skepi) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 467 ................................................................................................................................... 12.680 Compania Importada de Arroces Collette y Kamp SA v Peninsular and Orient Steam Navigation Co (1927) 28 L1 L Rep 63 ........................................................................................................... 12.250 Compania Maritima San Basilios SA v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd [1977] QB 49 ............................................................................................................. 17.270, 19.240 Compania Naviera Aeolus SA v Union of India [1964] AC 868 ............................................... 13.460 Compania Naviera Azuero SA v British Oil & Cake Mills Ltd [1957] 2 QB 293 .................... 13.280 Compania Naviera General SA v Kerametal Ltd (The Lorna I) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 373 .... 13.660

xxii Table of Cases Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v Bowaters Lloyd Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd [1955] 2 QB 68 ........................................................................................................................................ 13.70 Compania Naviera Nedelka SA v Tradax International SA (The Tres Flores) [1974] QB 264 .................................................................................................................................... 13.200 Compania Naviera Vascongada v SS Christina [1938] AC 485 ..................................................... 8.40 Compania Naviera Vasconzada v Churchill and Sim [1906] 1 KB 237 ..................................... 12.150 Compania Portorafti Commerciale SA v Ultramar Panama Inc (The Captain Gregos) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 ........................................................................................... 12.370, 12.580, 12.610 Compania Portorafti Commerciale SA v Ultramar Panama Inc (The Captain Gregos) (No 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 395 ..................................................................................................... 12.580, 12.680 Compania Sud Americana de Vapores v Shipmair BV (The Teno) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 289 ................................................................................................................................... 14.320 Compania de Navigacion Zita SA v Louis Dreyfus & Cie [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 472 ........... 13.330, 13.350 Complaint of Murmansk Shipping Co, In re 2002 AMC 2495 (ED La 2002) .......................... 15.140 Complaint of Tecomar SA (The Tuxpan), Re 765 F Supp 1150 (SDNY 1991) ........................ 12.410 Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226 ................................................................................................................ 17.10, 17.640 Conet, The [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 195 ............................................................................................. 9.50 Conoco Britannia, The [1972] 2 QB 543 ......................................................................................... 8.40 Consolidated Investment & Contracting Co v Saponaria Shipping Co Ltd (The Virgo) [1978] 1 WLR 986 ................................................................................................................................. 12.580 Container Transport International Inc v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 476 ......................................................................................... 17.100, 17.110 Contender 1 Ltd v LEP International Pty Ltd (1988) 63 ALJR 26 ............................................ 12.810 Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co of Chicago v Alliance Assurance Co Ltd (The Capt Panagos DP) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470 ................................................................................ 17.290 Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co of Chicago v Alliance Assurance Co Ltd (The Captain Panagos DP) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 33 ............................................ 17.10, 17.220, 17.290 Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co of Chicago v Bathurst (The Capt Panagos DP) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 625 ............................................................................................. 17.1017.140 Continental Pacific Shipping Ltd v Deemand Shipping Co Ltd (The Lendoudis Evangelos II) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 404 ....................................................................................................... 14.80, 14.260 Contship Containerlines Ltd v PPG Industries Inc 442 F 3d 72 (2d Cir 2006) ........................ 12.650 Cook v Dredging & Construction Co Ltd [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 .............................. 1.210, 1.260 Corbett v Pearce [1904] 2 KB 422 ................................................................................................ 1.240 Corfu Island, The (see Compania de Navigacion Zita SA v Louis Dreyfus & Cie [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 472) .................................................................................................................................. 13.350 Cornish Shipping Ltd v International Nederlanden Bank NV 53 F 3d 499 (2d Cir 1995) ....... 14.560 Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes v Royal Mail Lines Ltd (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 188 ................................................................................................................................... 12.480 Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer Queen of the South: The Queen of the South [1968] P 449 ................................................................................................... 8.470, 10.320, 10.370 Cory Brothers & Co v Stewart (1885) 2 TLR 508 ..................................................................... 10.190 Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd v Team-Up Owning Co Ltd (The Saldanha) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 187 ................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Cosmar Compania Naviera SA v Total Transport Corp (The Isabelle) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 366 ................................................................................................................................... 13.180 Cosmar Compania Naviera SA v Total Transport Corporation (The Isabelle) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81 ............................................................................................................................................. 13.410 Cosmar Compania Naviera SA v Total Transport Corporation (The Isabelle) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 366 ........................................................................................................................................... 13.410 Cosmos Bulk Transport Inc v China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp (The Apollonius) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53 .................................................................... 14.70, 14.80, 14.100, 14.330 Cossman v West; Cossman v British America Assurance Co (1887) 13 App Cas 160 .............. 3.510, 20.410, 20.420, 20.630, 21.70 Courier, The (1862) Lush 541; 167 ER 244 .................................................................................. 8.170

Table of Cases xxiii Court Line Ltd v Dant & Russell Inc (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 212 ................................................. 14.330 Court Line Ltd v The King (1945) 78 Ll L Rep 390 .................................................... 17.380, 17.390 Couthino Caro & Co v M/V Sava 849 F 2d 166; 1988 AMC 2941 (5th Cir 1988) ................. 12.560 Cowas-Jee v Thompson (1845) 5 Moo PC 165; 13 ER 454 ...................................................... 12.100 Cox, Patterson & Co v Bruce & Co (1886) 18 QBD 147 .......................................................... 12.260 Craddock International Inc v WKP Wilson & Son Inc 116 F 3d 1095; 1998 AMC 1107 (5th Cir 1997) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 Craig v Associated National Insurance Co Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 209 ... 17.220, 17.270, 17.290, 17.340 Craighall, The [1910] P 207 ................................................................................................ 1.210, 1.260 Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 305 ...................................... 17.620 Craven v Ryder (1816) 6 Taunt 433; 128 ER 1103 .................................................................... 12.100 Cremer v General Carriers SA (The Dona Mari) [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 366 ............................ 12.150 Crew, Widgery & Co v Great Western Steamship Co [1887] WN 161 ..................................... 12.440 Cristie, The [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 100 ........................................................................................ 17.580 Croft v Dunphy [1933] AC 156 ........................................................ 2.200, 2.210, 2.220, 2.240, 2.250 Crooks v Allan (1879) 5 QBD 38 ......................................................................... 12.30, 12.270, 18.80 Crossfield & Co v Kyle Shipping Co Ltd [1916] 2 KB 885 ...................................................... 12.220 Crowe v Commonwealth (1935) 54 CLR 69 ................................................................................. 2.200 Cuba, The (1860) Lush 14; 167 ER 8 ......................................................................................... 20.450 Culling v Culling and Nicholson [1896] P 116 ............................................................................. 4.140 Cumbrian, The (1887) 6 Asp MLC 151 ........................................................................... 8.190, 20.570 Cummins Sales & Service Inc v London & Overseas Insurance Co 476 F 2d 498 (5th Cir 1973) .......................................................................................................................... 12.150 Cunard Carrier, Eleranta and Martha, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 261 ....................................... 13.570 Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97 .......................................... 8.120, 8.160, 8.380, 8.390, 8.420, 10.20 Curtis & Sons v Mathews [1919] 1 KB 425 ............................................................................... 12.430

D D/S A/S Idaho v Peninsular and Orient Steam Navigation Co (The Strathnewton) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 296 ................................................................................................................................... 14.150 D/S A/S Idaho v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co (The Strathnewton) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 219 ........................................................................................................ 14.400, 14.410 DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA (The Andra) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 587 ..... 13.450 Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v Ship Go Star (2011) 283 ALR 255 ................................................... 14.200 Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v Ship Go Star (2012) 207 FCR 220 .............. 11.90, 14.10, 14.170, 14.200, 14.560, 19.50 Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd v Klipriver Shipping Ltd (The Kapitan Petko Voivoda) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ............................................................................................... 12.340, 12.530, 12.570 Dagmar, The (1929) 141 LT 271 .................................................................................................... 1.300 Dahl v Nelson, Donkin & Co (1881) 6 App Cas 38 ....................................................... 13.90, 13.640 Dairy Containers Ltd v The Ship Tasman Discoverer [2005] 1 NZLR 433 .............................. 12.550 Daisy Philippine Underwear Co v United States Steel Products Co 11 F Supp 175 (SDNY 1935) ........................................................................................................................... 12.390 Dalgety & Co Ltd v Aitchison: The Rose Pearl (1957) 2 FLR 219 . 8.50, 8.330, 8.410, 8.450, 8.620 Dalwood Marine Co v Nordana Line A/S (The Elbrus) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315 ................. 14.180 Dampskibsselskabet Danmark (Owners of SS Helge) v Christian Poulsen & Co 1913 SC 1043 .......................................................................................................................... 13.380 Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Andre & Cie [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 287 ............................ 14.250 Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd (2013) 216 FCR 469 ......................................................................................................................... 12.90, 13.20 Dampskibsselskabet Torm A/S v Australian Wheat Board [1981] VR 145 ............................... 13.380 Danae Shipping Corp v TPAO (The Daffodil B) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 498 ............................ 12.330 Dantzic Packet, The (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 383; 166 ER 447 ......................................... 20.420, 20.630 Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco (Australia) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 ..... 12.340, 12.780, 13.620 Darrah, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359 .......................................................................... 13.180, 13.280 Dataforce Pty Ltd v Brambles Holdings Ltd [1988] VR 771 ..................................................... 14.440

xxiv Table of Cases Datas Industries Ltd v OEC Freight (HK) Ltd 2000 WL 1497843 (SDNY 2000) ...................... 12.20 Daval Aciers D’Usinor et de Sacilor v Armare SRL (The Nerano) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 50 . 12.720 Daval Steel Products v MV Acadia Forest 683 F Supp 444; 1988 AMC 1669 (SDNY 1988) . 12.530 David Agmashenebeli, The [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92 ................................................... 12.100, 14.420 Davies v Mann (1842) 10 M & W 546; 152 ER 588 ................................................................. 15.150 Davies v National Fire and Marine Insurance Co of New Zealand [1891] AC 485 ................. 17.150 Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696 ................................ 14.480 Dawson Line Ltd v Aktiengesellschaft Adler Fuer Chemische Industrie [1932] 1 KB 433 ..... 14.420 De Clermont v General Steam Navigation (1891) 7 TLR 187 ................................................... 12.100 De Mattos v Gibson (1858) 4 De G & J 276; 45 ER 108 ............................... 10.220, 10.230, 10.350 De Vaux v Salvador (1836) 4 Ad & El 420; 111 ER 845 .......................................................... 17.220 Delantera Amadora SA v Bristol Channel Ship-repairers Ltd and Swansea Dry Dock Co: The Tatingaki [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 372 .......................................................................................... 9.10 Delos, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 703 ......................................................................................... 12.720 Deltamax Freight System v M/V Aristotelis 1999 AMC 1789 (CD Cal 1998) ......................... 12.340 Demand Shipping Co Ltd v Ministry of Food Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (The Lendoudis Evangelos II) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 304 ........................................... 18.70, 18.80 Demsey & Associates Inc v S/S Sea Star 461 F 2d 1009; 1972 AMC 1440 (2d Cir 1972) .... 12.310, 12.810 Den Norske Afrika Og Australie Linie v Port Said Salt Association Ltd (1924) 20 Ll L Rep 184 ................................................................................................................................... 13.140 Dependable Marine Co Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 550 .... 1.20, 1.210, 1.220 Deutsche Ost-Afrika-Linie GmbH v Legent Maritime Co Ltd [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 71 ......... 14.380 Deutsche Shell Tanker Gesellschaft mbH v Placid Refining Co 993 F 2d 466; 1993 AMC 2141 (5th Cir 1993) ........................................................................................................................ 18.20, 18.70 Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 ..................... 5.10, 6.20, 6.190, 8.620 Diamond, The [1906] P 282 ......................................................................................................... 12.400 Diana, The (1862) Lush 539; 167 ER 243 .................................................................................... 8.170 Diana Co Maritime SA of Panama v Subfreights of SS Admiralty Flyer 280 F Supp 607 (SDNY 1968) ........................................................................................................................................ 14.470 Dias, The [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 60 ............................................................................................. 17.290 Dias Compania Naviera SA v Louis Dreyfus Corporation (The Dias) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 325 ......................................................................................................... 13.430, 13.450, 13.460 Dickenson v Lano (1860) 2 F & F 188; 175 ER 1017 ............................................................... 12.630 Dickinson v Kitchen (1858) 8 El & Bl 789; 120 ER 293 ............................................. 10.170, 10.290 Dickinson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 500 ............................................. 16.100 Dictator, The [1892] P 304 .................................................................................................... 8.40, 8.540 Didymi Corp v Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc (The Didymi) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 108 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.80 Director General of the India Supply Mission for and on behalf of the President of the Union of India v S/S Maru 459 F 2d 1370; 1972 AMC 1694 (2d Cir 1972) ...................................... 12.390 Doak v Weekes (1986) 82 FLR 334 .................................................... 17.270, 17.580, 17.600, 17.610 Dolphin Hellas Shipping SA v Itemslot SA (The Aegean Dolphin) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 178 ........................................................................................................................ 14.80, 14.100 Dolphin Tanker SrL v Westport Petroleum Inc (The Savina Caylyn) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 550 ................................................................................................................................... 14.140 Domett v Beckford (1833) 5 B & Ad 521; 110 ER 883 ............................................... 12.630, 12.640 Domingo de Larrinaga, The (see Willcox, Peck & Hughes v Alphonse Weil & Bros 24 F 2d 587; 1928 AMC 64 (SDNY 1927)) .................................................................................................. 18.60 Dora, The (1925) 21 Ll L Rep 204 ................................................................................. 13.410, 13.470 Dorsid Trading Co v SS Rose 343 F Supp 617 (SD Tex 1972) ................................................. 12.170 Dow Chemical (Nederland) BV v BP Tanker Co Ltd (The Vorras) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 579 ................................................................................................................................... 13.300 Dow Europe SA v Novoklav Inc [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 306 ..................................................... 14.300 Dowthorpe, The (1843) 2 W Rob 73; 166 ER 682 ..................................... 8.380, 8.390, 8.450, 10.20 Druid, The (1842) 1 W Rob 391; 166 ER 619 .................................................................. 8.150, 15.20

Table of Cases xxv Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc v Fayette International Holdings Ltd (The Bulk Chile) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 38 .......................................................................................................... 12.810, 14.560 Du Moulin v Druitt (1860) 13 Ir CLR 212 ................................................................................... 4.140 Du Pont de Nemours International SA v S/S Mormacvega 493 F 2d 97; 1974 AMC 67 (2d Cir 1974) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.340 Duc d’Aumale (No 2), The [1904] P 60 ...................................................................................... 20.530 Dudgeon v Pembroke (1877) 2 App Cas 284 .............................................................................. 17.310 Duferco International Steel Trading v T Klaveness Shipping A/S 333 F 3d 383 (2d Cir 2003) . 13.50 Duferco Steel Inc v M/V Kalisti 121 F 3d 321; 1998 AMC 171 (7th Cir 1997) ...................... 12.720 Duke of Bedford, The (1829) 2 Hagg Adm 294; 166 ER 251 ......................... 9.50, 9.80, 9.90, 10.20 Dundee, The (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 109; 166 ER 39 ........................................................................ 8.70 Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600; 7 ER 825 ................................................................... 12.840 Dunne v Australasian Steam Navigation Co (1876) 14 SCR (NSW) (L) 131 ........................... 13.620 Durra v Bank of NSW [1940] VLR 170 ..................................................................................... 19.240

E ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH (The Ladytramp) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 660 ................................................................................................ 12.440, 13.50, 13.70, 13.410 ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH (The Ladytramp) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412 ................................................................................................................................... 13.390 ED Sassoon & Co v Western Assurance Co [1912] AC 561 ...................................................... 12.410 EL Oldendorff & Co GmbH v Tradax Export SA (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] AC 479 .. 13.10, 13.170, 13.200, 13.590 EMI (New Zealand) Ltd v William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd [1976] NZLR 566 ................... 12.840 ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA v Chevron USA Inc (The Luxmar) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 542 ................................................................................................................................... 14.180 Eagle Terminal Tankers Inc v Insurance Co of USSR Ltd 637 F 2d 890; 1981 AMC 137 (2d Cir 1981) .......................................................................................................................................... 18.20 Earthworks and Quarries Ltd v FT Eastment & Sons Pty Ltd [1966] VR 24 ........................... 19.240 East West Corp v Dkbs 1912 [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239 .............................................. 12.770, 12.780 Eastern Mediterranean Maritime (Liechtenstein) Ltd v Unimarine SA (The Marika M) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 622 ...................................................................................................................... 14.330 Ebsworth v Alliance Marine Insurance Co (1873) LR 8 CP 596 ...................................... 17.40, 17.50 Edelweiss (USA) Inc v Vengroff Williams & Associates Inc 2007 AMC 1080 (Sup Ct NY 2007) ...................................................................................................................... 12.20, 12.100 Eden, The (1846) 2 W Rob 442; 166 ER 822 ............................................................................... 15.30 Edmond Weil Inc v American West African Line Inc 147 F 2d 363; 1945 AMC 191 (2d Cir 1945) .............................................................................................................. 12.280, 12.410 Edso Exporting LP v Atlantic Container Line AB 471 Fed Appx 8; 2012 AMC 1811 (2d Cir 2012) ........................................................................................................................... 12.560 Edwards v Quickenden and Forester [1939] P 261 ................................................ 1.180, 1.200, 1.310 Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide Salvage & Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 517 ...................................................................................................... 14.480 Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management SA: The Giannis NK [1998] AC 605 ............. 12.650 Efploia Shipping Corp Ltd v Canadian Transport Co Ltd (The Pantanassa) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 449 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.200 Egon Oldendorff v Libera Corp [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 380 ......................................................... 13.30 Eitzen Bulk AS v TTMI SARL (The Bonnie Smithwick) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 407 .............. 14.520 El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2003] FCA 588 ....... 12.640, 12.680 El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (2004) 140 FCR 296 .............. 12.40, 12.510, 12.520, 12.640, 12.680 Elbe Maru, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 206 ................................................................................. 12.820 Elbe Shipping SA v Giant Marine Shipping SA [2008] FCA 1135 ............................................. 15.40 Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439; 232 ALR 694 ..... 1.240, 1.250, 2.150, 7.30, 7.40, 8.10, 8.160, 8.340, 8.360, 8.640, 9.70, 19.210, 20.10, 20.350 Elder, Dempster & Co v Paterson, Zochonis & Co [1924] AC 522 .......................................... 13.600

xxvi Table of Cases Elena D’Amico, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75 ........................................................................... 13.550 Elena Shipping v Aidenfeld Ltd (The Elena) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425 .................................. 13.660 Elin, The (1882) 8 PD 39 ............................................................................................................... 8.420 Elin, The (1883) 8 PD 129 ............................................................................................................. 8.420 Eliza, The (1862) Lush 536; 167 ER 242 .................................................................................... 20.200 Ellerman Lines Ltd v Lancaster Maritime Co Ltd (The Lancaster) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 497 ......................................................................................................... 14.540, 14.560, 14.570 Elliott Steam Tug Co Ltd v Admiralty Commissioners; Page v Admiralty Commissioners [1921] 1 AC 137 .................................................................................................................................... 20.570 Ellis Shipping Corp v Voest Alpine Intertrading (The Lefthero) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 599 .... 13.660 Ellis Shipping Corp v Voest Alpine Intertrading (The Lefthero) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 109 ..... 13.90, 13.220, 13.460, 13.470, 13.660 Elmville (No 2), The [1904] P 422 ................................................................................................ 8.230 Emeraldian Ltd Partnership v Wellmix Shipping Ltd (The Vine) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 301 .. 13.170 Emile Galline, The [1903] P 106 ................................................................................................. 20.410 Emilie Millon, The [1905] 2 KB 817 ................................................................................... 7.90, 10.20 Emma, The (1844) 2 W Rob 315; 166 ER 774 ........................................................................... 20.620 Emmco Insurance Co v Wallenius Caribbean Line SA 492 F 2d 508 (5th Cir 1974) .............. 12.510 Emperor Goldmining Co Ltd v Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd [1964] NSWR 1243 .. 17.220 Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 ..... 2.130, 2.150 Empresa Central Mercantil de Representaçoes Ltda v Republic of the United States of Brazil 257 F 2d 747 (2d Cir 1958) .............................................................................................................. 12.510 Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos “Alimport” v Iasmos Shipping Co SA (The Good Friend) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 586 ......................................................................................... 12.300, 12.370 Empresa Cubana de Fletes v Kissavos Shipping Co SA (The Agathon) (No 2) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 183 ................................................................................................................................... 14.290 Empresa Cubana de Fletes v Lagonisi Shipping Co Ltd [1971] 1 QB 488 ............................... 14.440 Empress Assurance Corp v Bowring & Co Ltd (1906) 11 Com Cas 107 ................................. 17.160 Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc v S/S Hong Kong Producer 422 F 2d 7 (2d Cir 1969); [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 536 ...................................................................................................................... 12.340 Ene Kos 1 Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (No 2) [2012] 2 AC 164 .... 14.310, 14.380, 14.440, 14.470 English Electric Valve Co Ltd v M/V Hoegh Mallard 814 F 2d 84; 1987 AMC 1351 (2d Cir 1987) ........................................................................................................................... 12.340 Enichem Anic SpA v Ampelos Shipping Co Ltd (The Delfini) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 252 ...... 12.760 Environment Protection Authority v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 502 .. 19.40 Erichsen v Barkworth (1858) 3 H & N 894; 157 ER 730 .......................................................... 12.770 Eridania SpA v Rudolf A Oetker, Flensburger Ubersee-Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG (The Fjord Wind) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191 ...................................................... 14.150, 12.300, 12.720 Eschersheim, The [1976] 1 WLR 430 ............................................................................................ 8.160 Esso Belgium (see United States v Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co 343 US 236; 72 S Ct 666; 96 L Ed 907 (1952)) ........................................................................................................................ 15.140 Esso Bernicia, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 8 .................................................................................. 15.30 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd (The Esso Bernicia) [1989] AC 643 ............. 15.30 Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corp [1956] AC 218 ......................................................... 19.210 Etablissement Biret Et Cie SA v Yukiteru Kaiun KK and Nissui Shipping Corporation (The Sun Happiness) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 381 ...................................................................... 13.480, 13.650 Etablissements Georges Et Paul Levy v Adderley Navigation Co Panama SA (The Olympic Pride) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 67 ......................................................................................................... 13.110 Eurico SpA v Philipp Bros (The Epaphus) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215 ...................................... 13.200 Europa, The [1908] P 84 ............................................................................................................... 12.300 European & Australian Royal Mail Co v Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co (1866) 14 LT 704 .................................................................................................................................. 1.280, 6.100 European Bank Ltd v Evans (2010) 240 CLR 432; 264 ALR 1 ................................................ 13.440 Eurysthenes, The (see Compania Maritima San Basilios SA v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd [1977] QB 49) .............................................................. 19.240, 17.270 Eva, The [1921] P 454 ......................................................................................................... 8.410, 8.650 Evans & Associates v European Bank Ltd (2009) 255 ALR 171 .............................................. 14.240

Table of Cases xxvii Ever Success, The [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 824 ........................................................ 8.190, 8.240, 8.250 Evera SA Commercial v North Shipping Co Ltd [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 367 .............. 13.100, 13.130 Evpo Agnic, The [1988] 1 WLR 1090 ............................................................................................. 4.90 Exercise Shipping Co Ltd v Bay Maritime Lines Ltd (The Fantasy) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 235 ...................................................................................................................... 13.560, 14.400 Exmar BV v National Iranian Tanker Co (The Trade Fortitude) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 169 .... 13.660 Exmar NV v BP Shipping Ltd (The Gas Enterprise) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 352 .......... 14.80, 14.100 Explorer, The (1870) LR 3 A & E 289 .......................................................................................... 8.140

F F Kanematsu & Co Ltd v The Ship Shahzada (1956) 96 CLR 477 ................ 12.330, 12.340, 13.620 FAI Traders Insurance Co Ltd v Savoy Plaza Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 469 .................................. 14.300 FD Lambert, The [1917] P 232n .................................................................................................... 21.70 FMC Corp v S/S Marjorie Lykes 851 F 2d 78; 1988 AMC 2113 (2d Cir 1988) ...................... 12.560 Fair Work Ombudsman v Pocomwell Ltd (No 2) (2013) 218 FCR 94 ............... 8.240, 2.110, 21.120 Fairbridge v Pace (1844) 1 Car & K 317; 174 ER 828 ................................................ 13.160, 13.210 Fairport (No 3), The [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 253 ........................................................................... 8.230 Fairport (No 5), The [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 162 ........................................................................... 8.330 Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co (1886) 34 Ch D 234 .................................................. 20.440 Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd v Chimo Shipping Ltd [1974] SCR 933; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 469 ................................................................................................................................... 12.740 Falstria, The [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 495 ........................................................................... 16.30, 19.250 Fanchon, The (1880) 7 PD 173 ....................................................................................... 10.190, 10.200 Fanti, The [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191 ............................................................................................ 17.10 Farenco Shipping Co Ltd v Daebo Shipping Co Ltd (The Bremen Max) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 ........................................................................................................... 12.770, 14.360, 14.380 Father Thames, The [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 364 .............................................................................. 5.50 Federal Airports Corp v Makucha Developments Pty Ltd (1993) 115 ALR 679 ...................... 14.440 Federal Bulk Carriers Inc v C Itoh & Co Ltd (The Federal Bulker) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103 ................................................................................................................................... 12.720 Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc [1979] AC 757 .......... 14.320, 14.560 Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA [1978] AC 1 ............. 11.50, 13.170, 13.180 Federal Commerce and Navigation Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri, Benfri and Lorfri) [1978] QB 927; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132 .......................................................................... 14.320, 14.460 Federal Insurance Co v Union Pacific Railroad Co 651 F 3d 1175 (9th Cir 2011) ..... 12.740, 12.820 Fenix, The (1855) Swab 13; 166 ER 992 ......................................................................... 20.630, 21.70 Fenton v Queensland Insurance Co Ltd (1915) 11 Tas LR 125 .................................... 17.220, 17.330 Fenwick v The Glencaim (1899) 15 WN (NSW) 166 ................................................................ 20.130 Ferguson and Hutchinson, Ex parte (1871) LR 6 QB 280 ......................................... 1.10, 1.20, 1.180 Feronia, The (1868) LR 2 A & E 65 ............................................................................................. 8.280 Ferrier-Watson v McElrath (2000) 26 Fam LR 169 .................................................................... 16.250 Ferrostaal Inc v MV Sea Phoenix 447 F 3d 212; 2006 AMC 1217 (3d Cir 2006) ................... 12.560 Fetim v Oceanspeed Shipping BV (The Flecha) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 612 ............................. 12.820 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 ....... 13.660, 14.480 Fieldhouse v Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 25 FCR 187 .................................................... 15.190 Filikos Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Shipmair BV (The Filikos) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 9 .... 14.400 Finix, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 16 ............................................................................................ 13.180 Finlay v Liverpool and Great Western Steamship Co Ltd (1870) 23 LT 251 ............................ 12.440 Finnish Government v H Ford and Co Ltd (1921) 6 LI L Rep 188 .......................................... 13.130 Finora Co Inc v Amitie Shipping Ltd 54 F 3d 209 (4th Cir 1995) ............................................ 14.550 Fire Brigades Board v Elderslie Steamship Co (1899) 15 WN (NSW) 320 .............................. 20.330 Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co v Tropical Shipping & Construction Co 254 F 3d 987 (11th Cir 2001) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 Firma C-Trade SA v Newcastle Protection & Indemnity Association [1991] 2 AC 1 ................ 17.10

xxviii

Table of Cases

First National Bank of Chicago v West of England Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) (The Evelpidis Era) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 54 ................................................ 17.80 Fisher v Fisher (1929) 165 NE 460 ............................................................................................... 4.140 Fisher v The Oceanic Grandeur (1972) 127 CLR 312 .......... 20.130, 20.170, 20.240, 20.270, 20.310, 20.350, 20.410, 20.460, 20.490 Fisher, Renwick & Co v Calder & Co (1896) 1 Com Cas 456 .................................................. 12.220 Fishman & Tobin Inc v Tropical Shipping & Construction Co Ltd 240 F 3d 956; 2001 AMC 1663 (11th Cir 2001) ........................................................................................................................ 12.560 Five Steel Barges (1890) 15 PD 142 .............................................................................. 20.380, 20.570 Fleece, The (1850) 3 Wm Rob 278; 166 ER 966 ....................................................................... 20.420 Fletcher and Campbell v City Marine Finance Ltd [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 520 ............. 10.30, 10.330 Flint v Christall: The Irrawaddy 171 US 187; 18 S Ct 831; 43 L Ed 130 (1898) ...................... 18.70 Florence, The (1852) 16 Jur 572 ......................................................................... 20.290, 20.450, 21.70 Food Corp of India v Carras Shipping Co Ltd (The Delian Leto) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 496 ...................................................................................................................... 13.200, 13.220 Forbes v Cochrane (1824) 2 B & C 448; 107 ER 450 .............................................. 4.90, 4.100, 5.10 Foreman & Ellams Ltd v Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1928] 2 KB 424 ........................ 12.390 Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd v Richards [1941] 1 KB 225 .............................. 17.120 Fort Sterling Ltd v South Atlantic Cargo Shipping NV (The Finnrose) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 559 ................................................................................................................................... 12.590 Fortuna Seafoods Pty Ltd v Ship Eternal Wind [2008] 1 Qd R 429 .......................................... 15.180 Foster v Colby (1858) 3 H & N 705; 157 ER 651 ..................................................................... 12.710 Foti v Banque Nationale de Paris (No 1) (1989) 54 SASR 354 ................................................ 13.440 Fournier v The Ship Margaret Z [1999] 3 NZLR 111 .................................................................. 8.590 Fowles v Eastern and Australian Steamship Co Ltd [1916] 2 AC 556 ........................................ 15.30 Fox v Nott (1861) 6 H & N 630; 158 ER 261 .............................................................. 12.630, 12.640 Fox and Assocs Inc v M/V Hanjin Yokohama 977 F Supp 1022; 1998 AMC 1090 (CD Cal 1997) ................................................................................................................................. 12.160 Francis v Boulton (1895) 65 LJQB 153 ...................................................................................... 17.350 Francis and Eliza, The (1816) 2 Dods 115; 165 ER 1433 .......................................................... 20.170 Franconia, The (1877) 2 PD 163 .................................................................................................... 8.140 Francosteel Corp v M/V Pal Marinos 885 F Supp 86; 1995 AMC 2327 (SDNY 1995) .......... 12.530 Francosteel Corp v MV Deppe Europe 1990 AMC 2962 (SDNY 1990) ................................... 12.530 Franke v CIC General Insurance Ltd (The Coral) (1994) 33 NSWLR 373 ............................... 17.140 Fraser Shipping Ltd v Colton [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 586 .............................................. 17.360, 17.540 Frazer v Marsh (1811) 13 East 238; 104 ER 362 ................................................................ 5.50, 5.100 Frazer & Co v Cuthbertson (1880) 6 QBD 93 .............................................................................. 5.130 Freedman v The Concordia Star 250 F 2d 867 (2d Cir 1958) ................................................... 12.150 Freeman & Lockyer Ltd v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 ............. 13.30 French v Newgass (1878) 3 CPD 163 ........................................................................................... 14.70 French Marine v Compagnie Napolitaine d’Eclairage et de Chauffage par le Gaz [1921] 2 AC 494 .......................................................................................................... 14.320, 14.480, 14.570 Fri, The 154 F 333 (2d Cir 1907) ................................................................................................ 12.710 Friedlander v Texas & Pacific Railway Co 130 US 416 (1889) ................................................. 12.200 Friend v Metcalfe (1873) 12 SCR (NSW) 169 ............................................................................ 17.150 Frisia, The [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 90 ........................................................................................... 20.510 Frontier International Shipping Corp v Swissmarine Corp Inc (The Cape Equinox) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 390 ................................................................................................................................... 13.380 Frost v Knight (1872) LR 7 Ex 111 ............................................................................................. 13.520 Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU of Spain (The New Flamenco) [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 230 ...................................................................................................... 14.250 Furness Withy (Aust) Pty Ltd v Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd (The Amazonia) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 236 ................................................................................................................................ 12.90, 13.630 Furness Withy (Australia) Pty Ltd v Black Sea Shipping Co (The Roman Karmen) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 644 ...................................................................................................................... 14.100 Fury Shipping Co Ltd v State Trading Corporation of India Ltd (The Atlantic Sun ) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 509 ...................................................................................................................... 13.320

Table of Cases xxix Fusilier, The (1865) Br & Lush 341; 167 ER 391 ......................................................... Future Express, The [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 79 ............................................................... Future Express, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 542 ............................................... 12.100, Fyffes Group Ltd v Reefer Express Lines Pty Ltd (The Kriti Rex) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171 ......................................................................................................... 12.300,

20.120, 20.790 12.100, 12.770 12.760, 12.770 13.120, 13.610

G G & N Angelakis Shipping Co SA v Compagnie National Algerienne de Navigation (The Attika Hope) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 439 ........................................................................................... 14.560 GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 50 .......... 13.70 GF Co v Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd 23 F 3d 1498 (9th Cir 1994) ......................................... 12.170 GH Renton & Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama [1957] AC 149 ..... 12.310, 12.370 GW Grace & Co Ltd v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1950) 83 Ll L Rep 297 ............... 14.280 Gabarron v Kreeft (1875) LR 10 Ex 274 .................................................................................... 12.770 Gaetano and Maria, The (1882) 7 PD 137 ........................................................................... 7.30, 20.10 Gaggin v Moss [1984] 2 Qd R 513 ..................................................................... 16.30, 16.160, 19.250 Galatia, The (1858) Swab 349; 166 ER 1162 ................................................................ 20.360, 20.380 Galaxy Special Maritime Enterprise v Prima Ceylon Ltd (The Olympic Galaxy) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 27 ....................................................................................................................................... 18.80 Gamma-10 Plastics v American President Lines 32 F 3d 1244 (8th Cir 1994) ......................... 12.560 Gapp v Bond (1887) 19 QBD 200 ............................................................................ 1.10, 1.200, 1.210 Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd (The Ocean Victory) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 59 ........................................................................................................................ 14.300 Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd (The Ocean Victory) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 381 .......................................................................................................... 13.70, 14.300 Garden City, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 382 .................................................................. 16.160, 19.280 Gardner v Cazenove (1856) 1 H & N 423; 156 ER 1267 ............................................................ 10.60 Gardner & Sons v Trechmann (1884) 15 QBD 154 ...................................................... 12.710, 12.720 Gardner Smith Pty Ltd v The Ship Tomoe 8 (1990) 19 NSWLR 588 .............. 12.10, 12.700, 13.630 Garnat Trading & Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Baominh Insurance Co [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 492 ................................................................................................................................... 17.150 Gas Float Whitton No 2, The [1896] P 42 ...................... 1.210, 1.220, 20.80, 20.100, 20.120, 20.520 Gas Natural Aprovisionamientos SDG SA v Methane Services Ltd (The Khannur) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 610 ...................................................................................................................... 14.180, 14.190 Gatoil Anstalt v Omenial Ltd (The Balder London) (No 2) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 492 ........... 14.440 Gatoil Anstalt v Omennial Ltd (The Balder London) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 489 ..................... 14.440 Gatoil International Inc v Tradax Petroleum Ltd (The Rio Sun) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 350 ...... 13.80 Gator Shipping Corporation v Trans-Asiatic Oil Ltd SA (The Odenfeld) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 357 ................................................................................................................................... 14.250 Gaudet v Brown: Cargo Ex Argos (1873) LR 5 PC 134 ............................................................ 13.660 Gazelle, The 128 US 474; 2006 AMC 1202 (1888) ................................................................... 14.300 Gebr Broere BV v Saras Chimica SpA [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 436 ........................................... 13.300 Gee-Whiz, The [1951] Lloyd’s Rep 145 ....................................................................................... 8.230 Geestland, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 628 ..................................................................... 20.570, 20.620 Gemma, The [1899] P 285 ............................................................................................................... 8.40 General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp v Tanter (The Zephyr) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 ....................................................................................................................................... 17.90 General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp v Tanter (The Zephyr) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 529 ..................................................................................................................................... 17.90 General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships (1982) 61 FLR 329 ........ 3.30, 3.370, 4.220, 5.190 General Electric Co v Steamship Nancy Lykes 536 F Supp 687; 1982 AMC 1726 (SDNY 1982) ........................................................................................................................... 12.330 General Electric Co v Steamship Nancy Lykes 706 F 2d 80; 1983 AMC 1947 (2d Cir 1983) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.330

xxx Table of Cases General Feeds Inc v Burnham Shipping Corp (The Amphion) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 101 ..... 13.520, 13.630 General Iron Screw Collier Co v Schurmanns (1860) 29 LJ Ch 877 .................... 1.320, 4.90, 20.190 Genessee, The (1848) 12 Jur 401 ................................................................................................... 21.70 Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd (The Baleares) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130 ............................... 13.130 Geogas SA v Trammo Gas Ltd (The Baleares) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215 ... 13.100, 13.120, 13.130, 13.140 George Kallis (Manufacturers) Ltd v Success Insurance Ltd [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 8 ............. 17.190 George Veflings Rederi A/S v The President of India (The Bellami, The Pearl Merchant and the Doric Chariot) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 123 ............................................................................. 13.440 Georgian Maritime Corp v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd (The North Sea) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 324 ................................................................................................................................... 14.180 Georgian Maritime Corp Plc v Sealand Industries Ltd (The North Sea) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21 ........................................................................................................................ 14.180, 14.190 Gerani Compania Naviera SA v Alfred C Toepfer (The Demosthenes V) (No 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 282 ...................................................................................................................... 13.480, 13.560 Germanic, The 196 US 589 (1904) .............................................................................................. 12.390 Gertrude, The (1861) 30 LJPM & A 130 ......................................................................... 20.630, 21.70 Gesellschaft Burgerlichen Rechts v Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag Svea (The Brabant) [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 546 ...................................................................................................................... 14.180 Gibbs v Grey (1857) 2 H & N 22; 157 ER 10 ........................................................................... 14.100 Gibbs v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 604; 77 ALJR 1396 ... 1.320, 4.90, 17.10, 20.190 Gibbs International Inc v Federal Insurance Co 1997 AMC 2954 (DSC 1997) ........................ 12.370 Gibson v Ingo (1847) 6 Hare 112; 67 ER 1103 ............................................................................ 3.400 Gibson v Sturge (1855) 10 Ex 622; 156 ER 588 ........................................................................ 13.660 Giertsen v Turnbull 1908 SC 1101 ................................................................................. 14.120, 14.130 Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd v York Products Pty Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 1262 .............. 12.840 Gilgandra Marketing Co-Operative Ltd v Australian Merchandise Pty Ltd (In liq) (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 69 .............................................................................................................................. 12.640 Gilkison v Middleton (1857) 2 CB (NS) 134; 140 ER 363 ........................................................ 12.710 Gill & Duffus SA v Rionda Futures Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 67 ............................................ 13.650 Gillespie Brothers & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd; Rennie Hogg Ltd (Third Party) [1973] 1 QB 400 .................................................................................................................................... 12.840 Giovanni Dapueto v James Wyllie & Co: The Pieve Superiore (1874) LR 5 PC 482 .... 8.330, 8.630 Gipsy Queen, The [1895] P 176 ................................................................................................... 20.590 Giuseppe di Vittorio, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 .......................................................... 5.50, 5.100 Glasgow Assurance Corp Ltd v William Symondson & Co (1911) 104 LT 254 ....................... 17.100 Glaucus, The (1948) 81 Ll L Rep 262 ........................................................................... 20.140, 20.170 Glebe Island Terminals Pty Ltd v Continental Seagram Pty Ltd (The Antwerpen) (1993) 40 NSWLR 206; [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213 .................................................... 12.370, 12.740, 12.780 Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd (The Happy Day) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 754 ...... 13.210 Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd (The Happy Day) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487 ....... 13.70, 13.160, 13.180, 13.210, 13.650 Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc (The Mass Glory) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 ................................................................................................................................... 13.210 Glencore International v Alpina Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 567 ............. 17.160 Glencore International AG v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 508 ...................................................................................................................... 12.670, 12.770 Glencore International AG v Ryan (The Beursgracht) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 574 .................... 17.160 Glendarroch, The [1894] P 226 .................................................................................................... 12.280 Glenfruin, The (1885) 10 PD 103 ................................................................................... 20.230, 20.310 Glengaber, The (1872) LR 3 A & E 534 ..................................................................................... 20.530 Glicksman v Lancashire and General Assurance Co Ltd [1927] AC 139 .................................. 17.110 Global Mariner and Atlantic Crusader, The [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 699 ..................................... 15.105 Global Process Systems Inc v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Bhd (The Cendor MOPU) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 560 ........................................................................................... 17.270, 17.290, 17.310

Table of Cases xxxi Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v Korea Line Corp (The Wren) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 370 .... 14.250 Glyn, Mills Currie & Co v East and West India Dock Co (1881) 7 App Cas 591 ................... 12.770 Glynn v Margetson & Co [1893] AC 351 ...................................................................... 12.330, 13.620 Godina v Patrick Operations Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 333 ............................................... 12.740 Goldean Falcon, The [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 366 ......................................................................... 20.590 Golden Fleece Maritime Inc v ST Shipping and Transport Inc (The Elli and the Frixos) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119 ...................................................................................................................... 14.100 Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2007] 2 AC 353 .................................................................................................................................... 14.250 Golodetz & Co Inc v Czarnikow-Rionda Co (The Galatia) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 453 .......... 12.160, 12.210 Good Luck, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 238 .................................................................................. 17.90 Good Luck, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191 ..................................................................... 17.90, 17.570 Gordon v Powis (1892) 8 TLR 397 ............................................................................................. 13.210 Goring, The [1987] QB 687 ............................................................................... 20.190, 20.440, 20.480 Goring, The [1988] AC 831 ......................................................................................................... 20.190 Gosper v Sawyer (1985) 160 CLR 548 ....................................................................................... 19.240 Goulandris, The [1927] P 182 ...................................................................................................... 20.660 Goulandris Bros Ltd v B Goldman & Sons Ltd [1958] 1 QB 74 ..................................... 18.30, 18.70 Gould v South Eastern and Chatham Railway Co [1920] 2 KB 186 ......................................... 12.470 Government of Indonesia v The General San Martin 114 F Supp 289 (SDNY 1953) .............. 12.590 Government of Sierra Leone v Marmaro Shipping Co Ltd (The Amazona and Yayamaria) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130 ........................................................................................................ 12.580, 12.590 Gradmann & Holler GmbH v Continental Lines SA 504 F Supp 785 (DPR 1980) ................. 12.170 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540 ...................................... 15.50, 19.230 Grand Champion Tankers Ltd v Norpipe A/S: The Marion [1984] AC 563 .............................. 16.160 Granit SA v Benship International Inc [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 526 ............................................... 13.30 Grant v Norway (1851) 10 CB 665; 138 ER 263 .......................................................... 12.190, 12.200 Grant Smith & Co v Seattle Construction and Dry Dock Co [1920] AC 162 ........................... 12.410 Great China Metal Industries Co Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corp Berhad (1998) 196 CLR 161 .......... 12.280, 12.300, 12.310, 12.360, 12.370, 12.390, 12.400, 12.410, 12.470, 13.600 Great China Metal Industries Co Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corp Berhad (The Bunga Seroja) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455 ............................................................... 12.280, 12.390, 12.470 Great Circle Lines Ltd v Matheson & Co Ltd 681 F 2d 121 (2d Cir 1982) .................... 13.30, 14.30 Great Eastern, The (1867) LR 1 A & E 384 ................................................................................. 8.230 Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd v Far East Chartering Ltd (The Jag Ravi) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 637 ................................................................................................................................... 12.600 Great Eastern Steamship Co, Re; Claim of Williams (1885) 5 Asp MLC 511 ............................ 8.240 Great Eastern Steamship Co, Re; Claim of Williams (1886) 6 Asp MLC 511 ............................ 8.260 Great Elephant Corp v Trafigura Beheer BV (The Crudesky) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ............ 13.200 Green v Briggs (1848) 6 Hare 395; 67 ER 1219 .......................................................................... 5.130 Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61; 10 ER 1216 .......................................................................... 15.240 Grey & Co v Christie & Co (1889) 5 TLR 577 ............................................................ 14.210, 14.230 Grimaldi Compagnia di Navigazione SpA v Sekihyo Lines Ltd (The Seki Rolette) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 638 ................................................................................................................................... 14.160 Gronlund v Hansen (1969) 4 DLR (3d) 435 ...................................................................... 4.100, 4.130 Gross, Assignee of Williams, a Bankrupt v Quinton (1842) 3 Man & G 825; 133 ER 1372 ...... 6.40 Grossner Jens v Raffles Holdings Ltd [2004] 1 SLR (R) 202 ...................................................... 13.30 Groupe Chegaray/V De Chalus v P & O Containers 251 F 3d 1359; 2001 AMC 1858 (11th Cir 2001) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 Groves Maclean & Co v Volkart Brothers (1884) 1 TLR 92 ..................................................... 13.200 Groves Maclean & Co v Volkart Brothers (1885) 1 TLR 454 ................................................... 13.200 Guardian Industries Pty Ltd v Transport & General Insurance Co Ltd [1965] NSWR 1430 ... 17.270 Guildfaxe, The (1868) LR 2 A & E 325 ........................................................................................ 8.140 Guinomar of Conakry v Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd (The Kamsar Voyager) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 57 .......................................................................................................................... 18.70

xxxii

Table of Cases

Gulf & Fraser Fishermen’s Union v Calm C Fish Ltd, Phillipson, Doving O’Brien and O’Brien: The Calm C [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 188 .................................................................... 10.300, 10.310 Gulf Shipping Lines Ltd v Compania Naviera Alanje SA (The Aspa Maria) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 643 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.220 Gustaf, The (1862) Lush 506; 167 ER 230 ............................................................... 8.190, 8.400, 9.30

H H, In re [1996] AC 563 ................................................................................................................ 17.290 HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v Waterwell (1998) 43 NSWLR 601 ............ 17.290, 17.310 HMS London [1914] P 72 ............................................................................................................ 15.170 HMS Thetis (1833) 3 Hagg Adm 14; 166 ER 312 ............................................................ 8.190, 20.10 HMS Thetis (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 228; 166 ER 390 ........................................................ 20.630, 21.70 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341; 156 ER 145 ............................ 12.680, 13.140, 13.550, 14.240 Hain Steamship Co Ltd v Minister of Food (1949) 82 Ll L Rep 386 ....................................... 13.330 Hain Steamship Co Ltd v Tate and Lyle Ltd (1936) 55 Ll L Rep 159; 41 Com Cas 350 ....... 12.710, 13.620 Hair and Skin Trading Co Ltd v Norman Airfreight Carriers Ltd [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 443 .. 12.840 Halcyon Skies, The [1977] QB 14 ...................................................................................... 8.230, 8.260 Halcyon Steamship Co Ltd v Continental Grain Co (1943) 75 Ll L Rep 80 ............... 14.280, 14.320 Hall v Hyman [1912] 2 KB 5 ...................................................................................................... 17.420 Hallett v Bousfield (1811) 18 Ves 187; 34 ER 288 ....................................................................... 18.80 Hamburg Star, The [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 399 ............................................................................ 12.800 Hamilton v Baker: The Sara (1889) 14 App Cas 209 ................................................................... 8.260 Hamilton, Fraser & Co v Pandorf & Co (1887) 12 App Cas 518 .............................................. 12.410 Hamilton and St John, The [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 883 ............................................................... 20.160 Hams v CGU Insurance Ltd [2002] NSWSC 273 ....................................................................... 17.310 Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd v Zenith Chartering Corp (The Mercedes Envoy) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 559 ............................................................................................................................................. 14.30 Hannibal, The; The Queen (1867) LR 2 A & E 53 ..................................................................... 20.320 Hansen Development Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd [1999] NSWCA 186 .............................................................................................................................. 17.10 Harlow, The [1922] P 175 ................................................................................................... 1.10, 16.170 Harman v Clarke (1815) 4 Camp 159; 171 ER 51 ..................................................................... 13.650 Harman v Mant (1815) 4 Camp 161; 171 ER 52 ........................................................................ 13.650 Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 ......... 8.10, 8.20, 8.30, 8.50, 8.170, 8.450 Harmony Shipping Co SA v Saudi-Europe Line Ltd (The Good Helmsman) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 377 ................................................................................................................. 14.200, 14.330, 14.520 Harpers Trading (Singapore) Pte Ltd v RFL International Ltd (The Planeta) (unreported, NSW Sup Ct, Carruthers J, 12 December 1994) ..................................................................................... 12.300 Harris v Best, Ryley & Co (1892) 68 LT 76 .................................................................. 13.470, 13.560 Harris and Dixon v Marcus Jacobs & Co (1885) 15 QBD 247 ................................................. 14.190 Harrison v Garthorne (1872) 26 LT (NS) 508 ................................................................ 13.130, 13.140 Harriton v Stephens (2006) 226 CLR 52 .......................................................................... 15.50, 19.230 Hartmann v Konig (1933) 50 TLR 114 ....................................................................................... 12.670 Hasbro Industries Inc v M/S St Constantine 705 F 2d 339; 1983 AMC 1841 (9th Cir 1983) .......................................................................................................................... 12.400 Hathesing v Laing (1873) LR 17 Eq 92 ...................................................................................... 12.100 Havhelt, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 523 ...................................................................................... 12.590 Hawaiian and Guamanian Cabotage Antitrust Litigation, In re 647 F Supp 2d 1250 (WD Wash 2009) .......................................................................................................................................... 14.60 Hawkspere Shipping Co Ltd v Intamex SA 330 F 3d 225 (4th Cir 2003) ................................ 12.720 Hayes-Leger Associates v M/V Oriental Knight 765 F 2d 1076; 1986 AMC 1724 (11th Cir 1985) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 .......................................................................... 19.40 Heather Bell, The [1901] P 143 ................................. 10.180, 10.190, 10.210, 10.220, 10.250, 10.350

Table of Cases xxxiii Heather Bell, The [1901] P 272 ......................................................................... 10.180, 10.190, 10.340 Heavy Industries Ltd v Klipriver Shipping Ltd (The Kapitan Petko Voivoda) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 12.530 Hedges & Son v The London & St Katherine Docks Co (1885) 16 QBD 597 ........................... 1.200 Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC (2007) 164 FCR 1 ......................................................................... 12.840 Heilbutt v Hickson (1872) LR 7 CP 438 ......................................................................................... 6.40 Heinrich, The (1872) LR 3 A & E 505 ............................................................................................ 7.70 Heinrich Bjorn, The (1885) 10 PD 44 ........................................................................................... 8.630 Heinrich Hanno & Co BV v Fairlight Shipping Co Ltd (The Kostas K) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 231 ................................................................................................................................... 13.640 Heinz Horn, The [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 191 ............................................................................... 13.600 Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd v Sun Alliance Australia Ltd (The Icebird) (unreported, Vic Sup Ct, 1991) ............................................................................................................................. 17.90, 17.100 Helios, The 115 F 705 (2d Cir 1902) ............................................................................................. 13.50 Hellenic Dolphin, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 336 ......................................................... 12.280, 12.300 Helme v Smith (1831) 7 Bing 709; 131 ER 274 .......................................................................... 5.130 Henderson & Co v Comptoir d’Escompte de Paris (1873) LR 5 PC 253 ................................. 12.760 Henderson Bros v Shankland & Co [1896] 1 QB 525 ................................................................ 17.420 Henriksens Rederi A/S v THZ Rolimpex (The Brede) [1974] QB 233 ..................................... 13.660 Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 ........................................................................................... 16.250 Hepburn v A Tomlinson (Hauliers) Ltd [1966] AC 451 .................................................... 17.40, 17.50 Herceg Novi and Ming Galaxy, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 454 ................................... 16.160, 16.240 Hercules Inc v Stevens Shipping Co Inc 698 F 2d 726; 1983 AMC 1786 (5th Cir 1983) ....... 12.620 Hersey, The (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 404; 166 ER 455 ................................................... 9.50, 9.80, 10.20 Hestia, The [1895] P 193 .............................................................................................................. 20.660 Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (2000) 173 ALR 263 ........ 12.10, 12.270, 12.700, 12.710, 12.720, 14.420 Hi-Fert Pty Ltd v Kiukiang Maritime Carriers Inc (No 5) (1998) 90 FCR 1 ................ 12.90, 12.720 Hibbs v Ross (1866) LR 1 QB 534 ............................................................................................... 5.220 Hightime Investments Pty Ltd v Adamus Resources [2012] WASC 295 ................................... 13.440 Hilditch Pty Ltd v Dorval Kaiun KK (No 2) (2007) 245 ALR 125 ...... 11.20, 12.40, 12.100, 12.280, 12.310, 12.370, 12.450, 12.620, 12.670, 12.710, 12.760 Hill Harmony, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 147 ...................................... 13.620, 14.10, 14.280, 14.360 Hines Exports Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (2000) 209 LSJS 127; [2000] SADC 71 .................................................................................................................... 12.270, 12.610 Hines Exports Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (2001) 80 SASR 268 ......... 12.270, 12.610 Hispanica de Petroleos SA v Vencedora Oceania Navigacion SA (The Kapetan Markos NL) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 211 ................................................................................................................... 12.590 Hochster v De la Tour (1853) 2 El & Bl 678; 118 ER 922 ....................................................... 13.520 Hodgkin, Ex parte; Re Softley (1875) LR 20 Eq 746 ....................................................... 1.250, 10.70 Hodgson and Wife v Stawell (1856) 1 VLT 51 ............................................................................. 4.140 Hodson v Owners of the Ship Super Sport (1990) 26 FCR 157 ..................... 20.220, 20.480, 20.520 Hofflinghouse & Co Ltd v C-Trade SA (The Intra Transporter) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 158 ..... 11.70, 13.30 Hogarth v Miller, Brother & Co [1891] AC 48 ........................................................................... 14.330 Holderness v Lamport (1861) 29 Beav 129; 54 ER 576 .............................................................. 5.190 Hollandia, The [1983] 1 AC 565 .................................................................................................... 12.40 Holmes v Norton (1870) 1 AJR 93 ....................................................................................... 8.280, 9.50 Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2004] 1 AC 715 ...... 12.370, 12.810, 12.820, 12.830, 12.840 Hong Kong Kapok Vacuum Flask Enterprises Pty Ltd v Megavest International Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 330 .................................................................................................................................. 13.440 Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 ....... 13.130, 13.600, 14.20, 14.100, 14.110, 14.120, 14.130 Hooper v Gumm; McLellan v Gumm (1867) 2 Ch App 282 .......................................... 6.190, 10.370 Hooshmand and Ghasmezadegan, In the Marriage of [2000] FLC 93-044 ................................. 4.140 Hope, The (1873) 1 Asp MLC 563 .................................................................................................. 9.70

xxxiv

Table of Cases

Horlock v Beal [1916] AC 486 ...................................................................................................... 3.510 Horlock, The (1877) 2 PD 243 .............................................................................. 5.180, 5.190, 10.240 Horn v Cia de Navegacion Fruco SA 404 F 2d 422 (5th Cir 1968) ............................ 13.600, 14.150 Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v Fairfield Industries Inc No 09-2905; 2010 WL 2008971 (ED La 17 May 2010) ............................................................................................................................ 14.30 Hourani v T & J Harrison (1927) 28 L1 L Rep 120 ................................................................... 12.490 Household Financial Services Ltd v Island and River Trading Pty Ltd [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 10 ........................................................................................................................... 5.190, 5.200, 6.60 Houston & Co v Sansinena & Co (1893) 7 Asp MLC 311 ........................................................ 12.700 Houston City, The (see Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (1956) 93 CLR 577) ................................................................................................................................... 13.70 Howard Smith Industries Ltd v Melbourne Harbor Trust Commissioners [1970] VR 406 ....... 15.100 Howden Brothers Ltd v Ulster Bank Ltd and Hugh Boyd and the Olderfleet Shipbuilding and Engineering Co Ltd [1924] 1 Ir R 117 ............................................................................. 6.30, 6.40 Howden and Ainslie, Ex parte; Re Litherland (1842) 2 Mont D & De G 574 ......................... 10.280 Howmet Corp v Tokyo Shipping Co 318 F Supp 658; 1971 AMC 1993 (D Del 1970) ........... 12.590 Howmet Corp v Tokyo Shipping Co 320 F Supp 975; 1971 AMC 1987 (D Del 1971) ........... 12.590 Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd (The Ho Feng 7) [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 637 ...................................................................................................................... 17.570, 17.600 Hubble & Co v Thomas (1890) 24 SALR 102 .................................................................. 15.30, 15.40 Huddart Parker Ltd v Ship Mill Hill and her Cargo (1950) 81 CLR 502 .................... 20.640, 20.670 Hudson v Bilton (1856) 6 El & Bl 565; 119 ER 975 ................................................................. 13.590 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 .................................................................................... 14.300 Hume v Palmer (1926) 38 CLR 441 .................................................................................. 2.270, 16.20 Hunter v Fry (1819) 2 B & Ald 421; 106 ER 420 ...................................................................... 13.530 Hunter Grain Pty Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (1993) 117 ALR 507 ........ 12.10, 12.110, 12.150, 12.450, 12.700, 12.810 Huppert v Stock Options of Australia Pty Ltd (1965) 112 CLR 414 ........................................... 14.70 Hur v Samsun Logix Corp (2015) 109 ACSR 137 ....................................................................... 16.70 Hurst v Usborne (1856) 18 CB 144; 139 ER 1321 ....................................................................... 14.70 Hussain v Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd ILR (1960) Ker 1028 .............................................. 12.550 Hutchinson, Ex parte (1871) LR 6 QB 280 ....................................................................... 16.20, 16.80 Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (The Pacific Champ) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 320 .......................................................................................................... 14.30, 14.190 Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Dartbrook Coal (Sales) Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 115 .. 13.520, 13.550 Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Gesuri Chartering Co Ltd (The Peonia) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100 ............................................................. 14.10, 14.170, 14.210, 14.220, 14.230, 14.240, 14.360 Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Karander Maritime Inc (The Niizuru) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 66 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.180 Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Trafigura Beheer BV (The Gaz Energy) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 211 ............................................................................................................................................. 14.80

I I Congreso del Partido [1978] QB 500 ............................................................................................ 5.50 I/S Rederiet Erik B Kromann v Ocean Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd (The Hermann C Boye) (unreported, WA Sup Ct, 1991) ..................................................................................... 13.30, 14.30 IC Potter, The (1870) LR 3 A & E 292 ....................................................................................... 20.380 ICL Shipping Ltd v Chin Tai Steel Enterprise Co Ltd (The ICL Vikraman) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21 ..................................................................................................................................... 16.230 ITT Rayonier Inc v Southeastern Maritime Co 620 F 2d 512; 1981 AMC 854 (5th Cir 1980) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.620 Ida, The (1860) Lush 6; 167 ER 3 ................................................................................................. 8.150 Ilyssia Compania Naviera SA v Bamaodah (The Elli 2) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107 ................ 12.680 Immacolata Concezione, The (1883) 9 PD 37 ..................................................................... 7.70, 8.230

Table of Cases xxxv Immer (No 145) Pty Ltd v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) (1993) 182 CLR 26 ...................................................................................................................................... 13.70 Imperial Oil Ltd v The Expo Spirit (1987) 80 NR 259 ....................................................... 1.220, 8.70 Inca Cia Naviera SA v Mofinol Inc (The President Brand) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338 ............ 13.190 Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v Seacarriers Count Pte Ltd (The Count) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 72 ............................................................................................................................................... 13.70 India, President of v Davenport Marine Panama SA (The Albion) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365 ...................................................................................................................... 13.200, 13.220 India, President of v Diamantis Pateras (Hellas) Marine Enterprises Ltd (The Nestor) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 649 ........................................................................................................ 13.200, 13.220 India, President of v Hariana Overseas Corp (The Takafa) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 536 ............ 13.610 India, President of v Jebsens (UK) Ltd (The General Capinpin, Proteus and Free Wave) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .......................................................................................................................... 13.350 India, President of v Lips Maritime Corp [1988] AC 395 ............................................. 13.440, 13.660 India, President of v Metcalfe Shipping Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 289 ............................... 12.700, 13.630 India, President of v Moor Line Ltd (1958) 99 CLR 185 .......................................................... 13.560 India, President of v NG Livanos Maritime Co (The John Michalos) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 188 ................................................................................................................................... 13.460 India, Republic of v India Steamship Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] AC 878 ............................................ 8.40 India, The (1842) 1 W Rob 406; 166 ER 625 ............................................................................... 8.190 India, Union of v EB Aaby’s Rederi [1975] AC 797 .................................................................... 18.30 India, Union of v NV Reederij Amsterdam [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 539 ..................................... 12.300 India, Union of v NV Reederij Amsterdam [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 223 ..................................... 12.300 Indonesia, Government of v The General San Martin 114 F Supp 289 (SDNY 1953) ............. 12.590 Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale and Cerealfin SA v Alexander G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co, Panchristo Shipping Co SA and Bula Shipping Corporation: The Choko Star [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 516 ................................................................................................................................... 20.430 Ingersoll Milling Machine Co v Granger 833 F 2d 680 (7th Cir 1987) .................................... 16.260 Inna, The [1938] P 148 .......................................................................................... 8.190, 8.420, 20.660 Innisfallen, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 72 ............................................................................. 5.170, 10.60 Insurance Company of North America v MV Atlantic Corona 704 F Supp 528; 1989 AMC 875 (SDNY 1989) ........................................................................................................................... 12.530 Insurance Company of North America v S/S American Argosy 732 F 2d 299; 1984 AMC 1547 (2d Cir 1984) .................................................................................................................................. 12.810 Interbulk Ltd v Ponte Dei Sospiri Shipping Co (The Standard Ardour) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 159 ................................................................................................................................... 14.160 Intercargo Insurance Co v Container Innovations Inc 100 F Supp 2d 198; 2000 AMC 2395 (SDNY 2000) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 Interim Advance Corp Pty Ltd v Fazio [2008] WASCA 140 ....................................................... 19.40 International Bulk Carriers (Beirut) SARL v Evlogia Shipping Co SA (The Mihalios Xilas) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 186 ..................................................................................................... 14.440, 14.530 International Factors (Singapore) Pty Ltd v Speedy Tyres Pty Ltd [1991] Tas R (NC) N9 ..... 13.440 International Fina Services AG v Katrina Shipping Ltd (The Fina Samco) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 344 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.130 International Packers London Ltd v Ocean Steam Ship Co Ltd [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 218 .... 12.310 International Sea Tankers Inc v Hemisphere Shipping Co Ltd (The Wenjiang) (No 2) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 400 ...................................................................................................................... 14.480 Interocean Shipping Co v National Shipping and Trading Corp 523 F 2d 527 (2nd Cir 1975) ........................................................................................................................... 13.30 Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co [1917] 2 KB 198 .................................................... 13.450 Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co (1917) 22 Com Cas 200 ........................................ 13.150 Ioannis Daskalelis (see Todd Shipyards Corp, The v Altema Compania Maritima SA) (1973) 32 DLR (3d) 572 ............................................................................................................................ 8.590 Ionides v Universal Marine Insurance Co (1863) 14 CB (NS) 259; 143 ER 445 ..................... 17.290 Irving v Richardson (1831) 2 B & Ad 193; 109 ER 1115 ............................................................ 17.40 Isabella, The (1838) 3 Hagg Adm 428; 166 ER 463 .................................................................. 20.350

xxxvi

Table of Cases

Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The Aquafaith) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.250 Isabelle, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81 ........................................................................................ 13.180 Islamic Investment Co 1 SA v Transorient Shipping Ltd (The Nour) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 13.520 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Ierax Shipping Co of Panama (The Forum Craftsman) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 ........................................................................................... 13.430, 13.460 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (The Anna Ch) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 266 ........................................................................................... 13.220, 13.430, 13.470 Island Tug & Barge Ltd v SS Makedonia (Owners); The Makedonia [1958] 1 QB 365 ......... 20.510 Islander Shipping Enterprises SA v Empresa Maritima del Estado SA (The Khian Sea) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 545 ...................................................................................................................... 14.300 Issaias v Marine Insurance Co Ltd (The Elias Issaias) (1923) 15 Ll L Rep 186 ...................... 17.290 Italmare Shipping Co Ltd v Ocean Tanker Co Inc (The Rio Sun) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 489 ................................................................................................................................... 14.450 Italmare Shipping Co Ltd v Ocean Tanker Co Inc (The Rio Sun) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 404 ................................................................................................................................... 14.450 Itobar Pty Ltd v MacKinnon (1984) 3 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-543 ........................................ 17.100 Itochu International Inc v M/V Western Avenir 1998 AMC 555 (ED La 1998) .......... 12.310, 12.450 Iverson v Rowlands (1886) 12 VLR 57 ........................................................................................... 1.10

J J Gadsden Pty Ltd v Australian Coastal Shipping Commission [1977] 1 NSWLR 575 .......... 12.370, 12.580, 12.820 J Gadsden Pty Ltd v Strider 1 Ltd (The AES Express) (1990) 20 NSWLR 57 ........... 12.830, 14.470 J Gerber & Co v S/S Sabine Howaldt 437 F 2d 580 (2d Cir 1971) .......................................... 12.410 J Kaufman Ltd v Cunard Steam-Ship Co Ltd [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 564 ................................. 12.130 J Vermaas’ Scheepvaartbedrijf NV v Association Technique de L’Importation Charbonniere (The Laga) [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 582 ............................................................................................ 13.380 JCB Sales Ltd v Wallenius Lines 124 F 3d 132; 1997 AMC 2705 (2d Cir 1997) ........ 12.80, 12.530 JI MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA: The Rafaela S [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113 ...................................................................................................................................... 12.10 JI MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA: The Rafaela S [2005] 2 AC 423 .... 11.20, 12.20, 12.140 JJ Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd (The Miss Jay Jay) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 32 ..................................................................................................................................... 17.310 Jackson v Vernon (1789) 1 HBl 115; 126 ER 69 .......................................................................... 10.60 Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba v Gulf Shipping Line Ltd (The Matija Gubec) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 24 ................................................................................................................................ 14.220, 14.230 Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 ........................................................................................ 16.100 Jaggar v QBE Insurance International Ltd [2007] 2 NZLR 336 ................................................ 17.100 James v Commonwealth (1936) 55 CLR 1 ...................................................................................... 2.60 James Morrison & Co Ltd v Shaw, Savill and Albion Co Ltd [1916] 2 KB 783 ..................... 13.620 James N Kirby Pty Ltd v International Cargo Control Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 289 ............... 16.250 James Patrick & Co Ltd v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 650 ..... 16.30, 16.40, 16.160 James Seddon, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 62 ................................................................................... 8.280 James W Elwell, The [1921] P 351 .................................................... 6.190, 8.450, 8.470, 8.530, 9.50 Jan Laurenz, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329 ............................................................................... 15.150 Jane, The (1870) 23 LT 791 ................................................................................................ 5.170, 5.190 Jane and Matilda, The (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 187; 166 ER 67 ....................................................... 8.240 Janet Court, The [1897] P 59 ....................................................................................................... 20.450 Japp v Campbell (1887) 57 LJQB 79 ............................................................................... 5.140, 10.260 Jason, The 225 US 32; 32 S Ct 560; 56 L Ed 969 (1912) ........................................................... 18.70 Jebsen v A Cargo of Hemp 228 F 143 (D Mass 1915) ............................................................... 14.560 Jeffery v Associated National Insurance Co Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 238 ......................................... 17.270

Table of Cases xxxvii Jenny Lind, The (1872) LR 3 A & E 529 .......................................................................... 8.410, 8.650 Jessel v Bath (1867) LR 2 Ex 267 ............................................................................................... 12.200 Jetopay Pty Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association (Europe) OV (1999) 95 FCR 570 .................................................................................................................................. 17.640 Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd v Islamic Solidarity Co Jordan Inc (The MV Jordan II) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 87 ........................................................................................................................ 12.310 Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd v Islamic Solidarity Co Jordan Inc (The MV Jordan II) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 57 .......................................................................................................... 12.310, 12.450 Jockel v Jockel [1963] SR (NSW) 230 ........................................................................................ 15.110 Johanna Oldendorff, The [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285 ................................................................... 13.170 Johanna Oldendorff, The (see EL Oldendorff & Co GmbH v Tradax Export SA [1974] AC 479) ................................................................................................................................... 13.590 John Bullock, The (1870) 9 SCR (NSW) 300 ............................................................................. 20.350 John Carlbom & Co Ltd v Zafiro (Owners): The Zafiro [1960] P 1 ....................... 8.50, 8.410, 8.620 John Cory & Sons v Burr (1883) 8 App Cas 393 ....................................................................... 17.310 John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 .................................................. 8.590, 16.250 John Sharp & Sons Ltd v Ship Katherine Mackall (1924) 34 CLR 420 ............... 2.130, 2.150, 2.270 John and Jane, The (1802) 4 C Rob 216; 165 ER 590 ................................................................. 21.70 Johnson v Black: The Two Ellens (1872) LR 4 PC 161 ................................. 8.20, 8.50, 8.330, 8.450 Johnson v Royal Mail Steam Packet Co (1867) LR 3 CP 38 ..................................................... 10.180 Johnson Matthey & Co v Constantine Terminals Ltd [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 214 ..................... 12.840 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (No 2) (2000) 104 FCR 564 ................................. 15.200 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (No 2) (2000) 97 FCR 175 ................................... 15.200 Johnstone & Wilmot Pty Ltd v Kaine (1928) 23 Tas LR 43 ........................................................ 21.70 Jolly v Young (1794) 1 Esp 186; 170 ER 323 ............................................................................ 14.310 Jones v European & General Express (1920) 25 Com Cas 296 ................................................. 12.840 Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 ........................................................................................ 2.370 Jonge Andries, The (1857) Swa 226; 166 ER 1108 .................................................................... 20.150 Joo Seng Hong Kong Co Ltd v S/S Unibulkfir 483 F Supp 43 (SDNY 1979) ......................... 12.810 Julindur, The (1853) 1 Spinks Ecc & Ad 71; 164 ER 42 ............................................................. 8.220

K K/S Arnt J Moerland v Kuwait Petroleum Corp (The Fjordaas) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 336 ... 13.190, 13.200 K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Lloyd’s Policy No 25T 105847 [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 563 ......................................................................................... 17.630 K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Lloyd’s Policy No 25T 105487 (The Mercandian Continent) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 357 ......................................................... 17.10 K/S Penta Shipping A/S v Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corp (The Saga Cob) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 545 ................................................................................................................................ 13.70, 14.300 KMP Coastal Oil Pty Ltd v Owner of MV Iran Amanat (1997) 75 FCR 78 .............................. 8.620 Kairos Shipping Ltd v Enka & Co LLC (The Atlantik Confidence) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 586 ........................................................................................................................ 16.40, 19.260 Kalamazoo, The (1851) 15 Jur 885 ................................................................................................ 8.540 Kaleej International Pty Ltd v Gulf Shipping Lines Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 569 ......... 12.810, 12.820 Kali Boat Building & Repair Pty Ltd v Motor Fishing Vessel Bosna (1977) 19 SASR 112 ..... 5.190, 5.200 Kamilla Hans-Peter Eckhoff KG v AC Oersleff’s EFTF A/B (The Kamilla) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 238 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.410 Kammerman v Baster (1981) 28 SASR 571 ................................................................................ 15.150 Kanchenjunga, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391 ............................................................................. 13.70 Kanematsu-Gosho Ltd v M/T Messiniaki Aigli 814 F 2d 115 (2d Cir 1987) ............................ 12.510 Kangaroo, The [1918] P 327 ........................................................................................................ 20.410 Kapitan Shvetsov, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 199 ...................................................................... 16.240 Karnak, The (1868) LR 2 A & E 289 .............................................................................................. 9.50

xxxviii

Table of Cases

Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd v Fal Shipping Co Ltd (The Adventure) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 473 ................................................................................................................................... 13.490 Kastor Navigation Co Ltd v AGF MAT [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 296 ................ 17.350, 17.370, 17.440 Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v Bantham Steamship Co Ltd [1938] 1 KB 805 ............... 14.190 Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Co Ltd [1939] 2 KB 544 .................................................................................................................................... 12.430 Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisya v Belships Co Ltd (The Belpareil) (1939) 63 Ll L R 175 ....................................................................................................................................... 12.430 Kay v Wheeler (1867) LR 2 CP 302 ........................................................................................... 12.410 Keane v Australian Steamships Pty Ltd (1929) 41 CLR 484 ..................................................... 12.600 Keith v Burrows (1876) 1 CPD 722 .................................................................... 10.60, 10.270, 10.310 Keith and Wyllie v Burrows and Perks (1877) 2 App Cas 636 ............. 5.60, 10.160, 10.170, 10.180, 10.290 Kent v SS Maria Luisa (No 1) (2002) 130 FCR 1; [2002] FCA 1207 ............................... 5.50, 5.100 Kent v Vessel Maria Luisa (2003) 130 FCR 12 ............................................................................ 17.40 Kenya Railways v Antares Co Pte Ltd (The Antares) (Nos 1 and 2) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 424 ...................................................................................................................... 12.340, 12.620 Kim v Daebo International Shipping Co Ltd (2015) 232 FCR 275 ............................................. 16.70 Kim Meller Imports Pty Ltd v Eurolevant SpA (1986) 7 NSWLR 269 ......................... 12.90, 12.580 King Line Ltd v Moxey, Savon & Co Ltd (1939) 62 Ll L Rep 252 ................... 13.50, 13.70, 13.410 Kingalock, The (1854) 1 Sp Ecc & Ad 263; 164 ER 153 .......................................................... 20.350 Kiriacoulis Lines SA v Compagnie D’Assurances Maritime Aeriennes et Terrestres (The Demetra K) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581 .................................................................................... 17.220, 17.310 Kirknes, The [1957] P 51 ............................................................................................................... 16.90 Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) (1985) 159 CLR 351 ..... 1.10, 2.120, 2.320, 16.20, 16.80 Kish v Taylor & Co [1912] AC 604 ............................................................................................ 13.620 Kleinwort, Cohen & Co v Cassa Marittima of Genoa (1877) 2 App Cas 156 .............................. 9.50 Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Societa di Navigazione Arl (The Elena D’Amico) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75 .......................................................................................................................... 14.70, 14.250 Kodros Shipping Corp v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 ................................................................................................................................... 14.300 Kodros Shipping Corp of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No 2) [1983] 1 AC 736 ................................................................................................................... 13.70, 14.300, 14.480 Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v Johnson (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 434 ........................................ 13.520 Kong Magnus, The [1891] P 223 ........................................................................................ 8.450, 8.490 Konica Business Machines Inc v Vessel Sea-Land Consumer 153 F 3d 1076; 1998 AMC 2705 (9th Cir 1998) .................................................................................................................................. 12.340 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 115 .......... 13.130, 14.20, 14.100 Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 QBD 377 ............................................................................ 12.300, 13.600 Kos, The [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 292 .................................................... 14.310, 14.380, 14.440, 14.470 Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350 ...................................... 13.550, 14.240 Kristiansands Tankrederi A/S v Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Ltd (The Polyglory) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 353 ..................................................................................................................................... 13.70 Kristy Mae, The v The Santa Rita [1984] WAR 95 ........................................... 20.80, 20.490, 20.520 Kruger & Co Ltd v Moel Tryvan Ship Co [1907] AC 272 ........................................................ 14.420 Kuenigl v Donnersmarck [1955] 1 QB 515 ..................................................................................... 3.80 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 ........................... 15.50, 19.230 Kukje Hwajae Insurance Co v M/V Hyundai Liberty 408 F 3d 1250 (9th Cir 2005) .............. 12.560 Kukje Hwajae Insurance Co Ltd v M/V Hyundai Liberty 294 F 3d 826; 2002 AMC 1598 (9th Cir 2002) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 Kuklycz v Kuklycz (1971) 18 FLR 9 ............................................................................................ 4.140 Kum v Wah Tat Bank [1971] Lloyd’s Rep 439 .......................................................................... 12.760 Kuo International Oil Ltd v Daisy Shipping Co Ltd (The Yamatogawa) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39 ........................................................................................................................ 12.300, 12.480

Table of Cases xxxix Kurt A Becher GmbH & Co KG v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA (The World Navigator) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 23 .................................................................................................................... 13.150 Kusel v Atkin (The Catariba) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 749 ........................................................... 17.450 Kuwait Maritime Transport Co v Rickmers Linie KG (The Danah) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 351 ........................................................................................................... 14.10, 14.360, 14.400 Kuwait Petroleum Corp v I & D Oil Carriers Ltd (The Houda) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 333 ... 14.330, 14.360 Kuwait Petroleum Corp v I & D Oil Carriers Ltd (The Houda) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541 ..... 13.80, 14.330, 14.360 Kuwait Rocks Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc (The Astra) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 69 .... 14.310, 14.460, 14.470 Kyzikos, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ............................................................................ 13.170, 13.180 Kyzuna Investments Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Assoc (Europe) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 505 ................................................................................................................................ 17.90, 17.140

L L & M Electrics Pty Ltd v SGIO (Qld) [1985] 2 Qd R 370 ........................................................ 17.60 LD Seals NV v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (The Darya Tara) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 42 .. 14.190, 14.400 LEP International Pty Ltd v Atlanttrafic Express Service Inc (1987) 10 NSWLR 614 ............. 12.810 La Compania Martiartu v Royal Exchange Assurance Corp [1923] 1 KB 650 ......................... 17.290 La Pintada Compania Naviera SA v President of India (The La Pintada) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 37 ..................................................................................................................................... 13.660 Lacon v Liffen (1862) 4 Giff 75; 66 ER 626 ................................................................................ 10.70 Laconia, The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 315 ........................................................................ 14.310, 14.440 Laconia, The (see Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea Carriers Corporation of Liberia [1977] AC 850) .......................................................................................................................................... 14.440 Lady Durham, The (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 .......................... 8.90, 8.220, 8.480, 8.580 Lady Franklin, Re The (1874) 5 AJR 185 ....................................................................................... 9.50 Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v BPS Shipping Ltd (1997) 190 CLR 181 .......... 5.50, 5.100, 16.50, 19.50 Lakeport Navigation Co Panama SA v Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (The Olympic Brilliance) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 205 ...................................................................................................... 13.660 Lambs Head Shipping Co Ltd v Jennings (The Marel) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 402 ..... 17.300, 17.310 Lambs Head Shipping Co Ltd v Jennings (The Marel) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 624 .... 17.220, 17.290, 17.300, 17.310 Landcatch Ltd v International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 552 .. 19.230 Landcatch Ltd v International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 316 ...................................................................................................................... 19.230, 19.330 Lane v Dive Two Pty Ltd (2012) 17 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-294; [2012] NSWSC 104 ........ 17.90, 17.100 Langley, Beldon & Gaunt Ltd v Morley [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 297 ......................................... 12.840 Langton v Horton (1842) 5 Beav 9; 49 ER 479 ............................................................................ 10.60 Lansat Shipping Co Ltd v Glencore Grain BV (The Paragon) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 688 ....... 14.240 Laoulach v El Khoury [2010] NSWSC 1009 ..................................................................... 16.20, 16.80 Larrinaga Steamship Co Ltd v R [1945] AC 246 .......................................................... 14.360, 14.380 Lauritzen Reefers v Ocean Reef Transport SA (The Bukhta Russkaya) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 744 ................................................................................................................................... 14.400 Laveroni v Drury (1852) 8 Ex 166; 155 ER 1304 ...................................................................... 12.410 Law Guarantee & Trust Society v Russian Bank for Foreign Trade [1905] 1 KB 815 ........... 10.180, 10.190 Laws v Smith: The Rio Tinto (1883) 9 App Cas 356 ................................................................... 8.330 Lawson v Dumlin (1850) 9 CB 54; 137 ER 811 .......................................................................... 15.20 Le Jonet, The (1872) LR 3 A & E 556 ........................................................................................ 20.290 Leaders Shoes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co Ltd [1968] 1 NSWR 279 ........................................................................................................................................... 17.200 Leary v Lloyd (1860) 3 El & El 198; 121 ER 409 ....................................................................... 4.180

xl

Table of Cases

Leduc & Co v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475 ......................................................... 12.270, 12.700, 12.710 Lee Cooper Ltd v CH Jeakins & Sons Ltd [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 300 ..................................... 12.840 Lee Cooper Ltd v CH Jeakins & Sons Ltd [1967] 2 QB 1 ........................................................ 12.840 Leeds Shipping Co v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 ........................................................................................................................ 13.70, 14.300 Leesh River Tea Co Ltd v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Chyebassa) [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 450 ...................................................................................................................... 12.300 Leesh River Tea Co Ltd v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Chyebassa) [1967] 2 QB 250 ........................................................................................................................................... 12.300 Leigh & Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd [1986] AC 785 ............................................................................................ 12.830, 12.840, 15.200, 19.230 Lekas & Drivas Inc v Goulandris 306 F 2d 426 (2d Cir 1962) ................................................. 12.440 Lemington, The (1874) 2 Asp MLC 475 ....................................................................................... 8.150 Lempriere v Miller (1871) 2 VR (L) 26 ...................................................................................... 17.340 Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705 ..................... 16.160, 19.280 Leoborg (No 2), The [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 380 ........................................................................... 8.450 Leon Blum, The [1914] P 90 ........................................................................................................ 20.380 Leon Corp v Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc (The Leon) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470 .... 14.320 Leonis Steamship Co Ltd v Rank Ltd [1908] 1 KB 499 ............................................................ 13.200 Lepanto, The [1892] P 122 ............................................................................................................. 21.70 Leslie, Ex parte; Re Drury and Hudson (1833) 3 LJ Bcy 4 ......................................................... 5.130 Leslie Shipping Co v Welstead (The Raithwaite) [1921] 3 KB 420 .......................................... 14.470 Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impreglio SpA [2006] 1 AC 221 ....................... 13.440 Levy v Costerton (1816) 4 Camp 389; 171 ER 124 ...................................................... 13.600, 14.110 Lewis v Rucker (1761) 2 Burr 1167; 97 ER 769 ........................................................................ 17.530 Ley v Delaissé; The Yolaine [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 7 ................................................... 20.480, 20.520 Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918] AC 350 ........ 17.290, 17.310 Li Chia Hsing v Rankin (1978) 141 CLR 182 .............................................................................. 2.110 Lickbarrow v Mason (1794) 5 TR 683; 101 ER 380 .................................................................. 12.760 Liesbosch, Dredger v SS Edison (Owners) [1933] AC 449 ........................................................ 15.170 Life Savers (Aust) Pty Ltd v Frigmobile Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 431 ........................................ 12.740 Limerick SS Co Ltd v Stott & Co Ltd [1921] 2 KB 613 ........................................................... 14.510 Lind v Mitchell (1928) 32 Ll L Rep 70 ....................................................................................... 17.380 Linda Flor, The (1857) Swab 309; 166 ER 1150 .......................................................................... 8.420 Lindsay v Janson (1859) 4 H & N 699; 157 ER 1016 ............................................................... 17.200 Lindsay v Klein: The Tatjana [1911] AC 194 ............................................................................. 12.300 Linelevel Ltd v Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen SA (The Nore Challenger) [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 534 ............................................................................................................................................. 17.40 Linsley v Petrie [1998] 1 VR 427 ................................................................................................ 17.650 Lips, The [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 311 .............................................................................. 13.440, 13.660 Lishman v Christie (1887) 19 QBD 333 ...................................................................................... 12.220 Little Joe, The (1860) Lush 88; 167 ER 46 ................................................................................. 20.200 Liverpool, The [1893] P 154 ........................................................................................................ 20.380 Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner (1860) 29 LJ Ch 827 ............................................................... 5.10 Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Wilson (1872) LR 7 Ch App 507 ...... 10.150, 10.170, 10.270, 10.290 Lloyd v Fleming (1872) LR 7 QB 299 .............................................................................. 17.50, 17.80 Lloyd Royal Belge SA v Stathatos (1917) 34 TLR 70 ............................................................... 14.480 Lloyd del Pacifico v Board of Trade (1930) 35 Ll L Rep 217 ............................................. 5.10, 6.20 Loch Tulla, The (1950) 84 Ll L Rep 62 ...................................................................................... 20.410 Lodza Compania de Navigacione SA v Government of Ceylon (The Theraios) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 209 ...................................................................................................................... 13.150, 13.340 Logs & Timber Products (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Keeley Granite (Pty) Ltd (The Freijo) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .......................................................................................................................... 13.200 Lomonosoff, The [1921] P 97 ......................................................................................... 20.170, 20.400 London County Council v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642 ..................................................................... 10.230 London Explorer, The [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 523 .......................................................... 14.220, 14.240

Table of Cases xli London Explorer, The (see Timber Shipping Co SA v London & Overseas Freighters Ltd [1972] AC 1) ....................................................................................................................................... 14.220 London Merchant, The (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 394; 166 ER 451 .................................................. 20.200 Longford, The (1881) 6 PD 60 ..................................................................................................... 20.620 Lord Citrine (Owners) v Hebridean Coast (Owners): The Hebridean Coast [1961] AC 545 ... 15.170 Lord Strathcona, The [1925] P 143 ................................................................................. 10.220, 10.350 Lord Strathcona Steamship Co v Dominion Coal Co [1926] AC 108 ....................................... 10.230 Lorentzen v White Shipping Co Ltd (1942) 74 Ll L Rep 161 .......................................... 14.70, 14.80 Loretta, The v Bubb [1971] WAR 91 .................................................. 20.240, 20.270, 20.450, 20.490 Losinjska Plovidba Brodarstovo DD v Valfracht Maritime Co Ltd (The Lipa) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 17 ............................................................................................................................................... 14.80 Loucas G Matsas Salvage & Towage Maritime Co v Fund on Sale of the Ionian Mariner (1997) 79 FCR 351 .................................................................................................................................... 8.540 Louis Dreyfus & Cie v Parnaso Cia Naviera SA [1960] 2 QB 49 ............................................ 14.100 Louis Dreyfus & Co v Lauro (1938) 60 LI L Rep 94 ................................................... 13.100, 13.130 Louis Dreyfus & Co v Tempus Shipping Co [1931] AC 726 ..................................................... 12.400 Louis Dreyfus Corp v 27,946 Long Tons of Corn 830 F 2d 1321 (5th Cir 1987) ...................... 18.70 Louise Roth, The [1905] SALR 107 ....................................................................... 8.230, 8.290, 8.450 Louisiana, The 70 US 164; 18 L Ed 85 (1866) ........................................................................... 15.110 Love and Stewart Ltd v Rowtor Steamship Co Ltd [1916] 2 AC 527 ....................................... 12.700 Luckenbach v Pierson 229 F 130 (2nd Cir 1915) ....................................................................... 14.470 Lufty Ltd v Canadian Pacific Railway Co (The Alex) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 106 .................... 12.160 Lukoil-Kalingradmorneft Plc v Tata Ltd (No 2) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 365 ............................. 12.840 Lukoil-Kalingradmorneft Plc v Tata Ltd (No 2) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 129 ............................. 12.840 Lyderhorn Sailing Ship Co Ltd v Duncan Fox Co [1909] 2 KB 929 ........................................ 13.200 Lyric Shipping Inc v Intermetals Ltd (The Al Taha) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 117 ........ 12.330, 13.600, 13.620, 14.150, 14.260 Lyrma (No 1), The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 27 .............................................................................. 20.520 Lyrma (No 2), The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 30 ........................................ 8.420, 20.470, 20.520, 20.660

M M Almojil Establishment v Malayan Motor and General Underwriters Pty Ltd (The Al-Jubail IV) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 637 ......................................................................................... 17.150, 17.600 M Vatan, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 336 .......................................................... 20.520, 20.570, 20.620 MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 150 ...................... 14.240 MH Progress Lines SA v Orient Shipping Rotterdam BV (The Genius Star 1) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 222 .............................................................................................................................. 14.260, 14.410 M’Iver v Humble, Holland & Williams (1812) 16 East 169; 104 ER 1053 ................................ 5.190 MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co v Delumar BVBA (The MSC Rosa M) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399 ................................................................................................................................... 16.160 MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Alianca Bay Shipping Co Ltd (The Argonaut) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 216 ........................................................................................................ 13.560, 14.400 MV DG Harmony, In re 533 F 3d 83; 2008 AMC 1848 (2d Cir 2008) .................................... 12.650 Mac, The (1882) 7 PD 126 ............................................. 1.10, 1.20, 1.180, 1.200, 1.210, 1.240, 1.250 Mac, The (1882) 7 PD 38 ............................................................................................................... 1.200 MacKinnon McErlane Booker Pty Ltd v P & O Australia Ltd [1988] VR 534 ........................ 17.510 Macgregor, The: Heselton’s Claim (1876) 14 SCR 107 .................................................... 8.200, 8.320 Macieo Shipping Ltd v Clipper Shipping Lines Ltd (The Clipper Sao Luis) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 645 .............................................................................................................................. 14.400, 14.410 Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251 ........................................................................................ 14.180 Mackill v Wright Brothers & Co (1888) 14 App Cas 106 .......................................................... 14.100 Mackinnon v Iberia Shipping Co Ltd 1955 SLT 49 ...................................................................... 15.10 Macleod v Attorney-General (NSW) [1891] AC 455 .................................................................... 2.170 Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust PLC (No 3) [1996] 1 WLR 585 ..................... 12.670 Madonna D’Idra, The (1811) 1 Dods 37; 165 ER 1224 ............................................................... 8.230 Maersk Line Ltd v United States 513 F 3d 418; 2008 AMC 278 (4th Cir 2008) ..................... 12.560

xlii Table of Cases Magnolia Shipping Co Ltd of Limassol v Joint Venture of the International Trading and Shipping Enterprises and Kinship Management Co Ltd of Brussels (The Camelia and Magnolia) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 182 ........................................................................................................ 13.180, 13.300 Mahkutai, The [1996] AC 650 ..................................................................................................... 12.740 Maintop Shipping Co Ltd v Bulkindo Lines Pte Ltd (The Marinicki) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 655 ................................................................................................................................... 14.300 Makis, The (see Vlassopoulos v British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co [1929] 1 KB 187) ..................................................................................................................................... 18.20 Malaysia Shipyard and Engineering Sdn Bhd v Iron Shortland (1995) 59 FCR 535 .................. 8.620 Malaysian International Shipping Corp v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Bunga Kenanga) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 518 ...................................................................................................................... 14.500 Malcolmson v Meeson: The Malvina (1863) 1 Moo PCC (NS) 357; 15 ER 736 ....................... 8.170 Mamiye Bros v Barber SS Lines Inc 241 F Supp 99 (SDNY 1965) ......................................... 12.420 Mamiye Bros v Barber Steamship Lines, Inc 360 F 2d 774 (2d Cir 1966) ............................... 12.420 Mammoth Bulk Carriers Ltd v Holland Bulk Transport BV (The Captain Diamantis) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 346 ...................................................................................................................... 14.520 Man Ferrostaal, Inc v MV Akili 704 F 3d 77 (2d Cir 2013) ...................................................... 12.810 Man Ferrostaal, Inc v MV Akili 763 F Supp 2d 599 (SDNY 2011) .......................................... 12.810 Manbre Saccharine Co Ltd v Corn Products Co Ltd [1919] 1 KB 198 ..................................... 15.200 Manchester Ship Canal Co v Horlock [1914] 2 Ch 199 .................. 3.490, 3.510, 3.570, 6.100, 6.190 Manchester Trust v Furness [1895] 2 QB 539 ............................................................................ 12.710 Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd [2003] 1 AC 469 .............................................................................................. 17.90, 17.270, 17.440, 17.630 Manor, The [1907] P 339 .............................................................................................................. 10.250 Mansel Oil Ltd v Troon Storage Tankers SA (The Ailsa Craig) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 384 ..... 13.50, 13.80, 13.140 Mansel Oil Ltd v Troon Storage Tankers SA (The Ailsa Craig) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 371 ..... 13.50, 13.80, 13.140, 14.180, 14.190 Maratha Envoy, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301 .......................................................................... 13.170 Marben Pty Ltd v Alexander (1985) 39 SASR 150 .................................................................... 15.110 Marbienes Compania Naviera SA v Ferrostaal AG (The Democritos) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 149 ............................................................................................ 14.180, 14.210, 14.230, 14.240 Marbig Rexel Pty Ltd v ABC Container Line NV (The TNT Express) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 636 ............................................................................................ 12.120, 12.150, 12.160, 12.210 Marc Rich & Co Ltd v Tourloti Compania Naviera SA (The Kalliopi A) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 101 ................................................................................................................................... 13.460 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 ........................................................ 15.150 March Cabaret Club & Casino Ltd v The London Assurance [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 139 ........ 17.110 Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea Carriers Corporation of Liberia (The Laconia) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395 ...................................................................................................................... 14.460 Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea Carriers Corporation of Liberia (The Laconia) [1977] AC 850 .............................................................................................................................. 14.310, 14.440 Mare Schiffahrtskontor GmbH v M/V Oceanhaven 763 F 2d 633 (4th Cir 1985) .................... 12.440 Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH (The Mihalis Angelos) [1971] 1 QB 164 ................................................................................................................. 13.130, 13.520, 13.540 Marene Knitting Mills Pty Ltd v Greater Pacific General Insurance Ltd [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 631 ................................................................................................................................... 17.100 Mareva Navigation Co Ltd v Canaria Armadora SA (The Mareva AS) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368 ...................................................................................................................... 14.220, 14.330 Margaret, The (1829) 2 Hag Adm 275; 166 ER 244 ....................................................... 5.140, 10.260 Margarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince Steamship Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 219 ..................... 15.200 Margaronis Navigation Agency Ltd v Henry W Peabody & Co of London Ltd [1965] 1 QB 300 ....................................................................................................................... 13.150, 13.520 Margem Chartering Co v Cosena SrL [1997] 2 FC 1001 ............................................................. 14.30 Margem Chartering Co v The BOCSA [1997] 2 FC 1001 ........................................................... 13.30 Margery, The [1902] P 157 ............................................................................................. 20.640, 20.660

Table of Cases xliii Margolle v Delta Maritime Co Ltd (The Saint Jacques II and Gudermes) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 203 ......................................................................................... 16.160, 19.280 Marguerite Molinos, The [1903] P 160 ........................................................................................ 20.200 Maria, The 91 F 2d 810 (4th Cir 1937) ....................................................................................... 12.390 Marie Jane, The (1850) 14 Jur 857 .............................................................................................. 20.230 Marimpex v Compagnie de Gestion et d’Exploitation Ltd (The Ambor and the Once) [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 182 ...................................................................................................................... 14.240 Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 66 ........................................................................................................................ 17.150, 17.600 Marine & Civil Construction Co Pty Ltd v SGS Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 907 ............... 12.740 Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514 .................................................................................................... 1.200, 1.210, 1.240, 1.250 Marine Sulphur Queen, In re 460 F 2d 89 (2d Cir 1972) ........................................................... 12.710 Maritime Transport Overseas GmbH v Unitramp (The Antaios) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 284 .... 14.290 Maritime Union of Australia, Re; Ex parte CSL Pacific Shipping Inc (2003) 214 CLR 397; 77 ALJR 1497 ................................................................................................................ 2.30, 2.40, 2.60 Mark Lane, The (1890) 15 PD 135 .............................................................................................. 20.660 Markappa Inc v NW Spratt & Son Ltd (The Arta) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 534 ................ 11.70, 13.30 Marlex Petroleum Inc v The Ship Har Rai (1984) 4 DLR (4th) 739 ........................................... 8.590 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co Ltd (1860) 2 Giff 457; 66 ER 191 ................................... 10.300 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co Ltd (1861) 3 De G F & J 177; 45 ER 846 ...................... 10.300 Marsden v Reid (1803) 3 East 572-579; 102 ER 716 ................................................................. 17.120 Marshall v Murgatroyd (1870) LR 6 QB 31 ........................................................................ 4.90, 4.100 Marston Excelsior Ltd v Arbuckle, Smith & Co Ltd [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 306 ...................... 12.840 Marstrand Fishing Co Ltd v Beer (The Girl Pat) (1936) 56 Ll L Rep 163 ............................... 17.400 Martin v Leavers (1882) 46 JP 807 ............................................................................................... 1.200 Martin Luther, The (1857) Swab 287; 166 ER 1141 .................................................................. 20.210 Mary Ann, The (1865) LR 1 A & E 8 ........................................................................ 8.20, 8.50, 8.280 Mary Pleasant, The (1857) Swa 224; 166 ER 1107 .................................................................... 20.620 Maréchal Suchet, The [1911] P 1 ................................................................................................. 20.380 Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nuremburg AG v Altikar Pty Ltd [1984] 3 NSWLR 152 ............. 13.440 Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd (The Bunga Melati Dua) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 630 ......................................................................................................... 17.220, 17.330, 17.360 Matthew Short & Associates Pty Ltd v Riviera Marine (International) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 281 ............................................................................................................................ 12.840 Maugham v Sharpe (1864) 17 CB (NS) 443; 144 ER 179 ........................................................... 10.50 Mauritius Oil Refineries Ltd v Stolt-Nielsen Nederlands BV (The Stolt Sydness) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 273 ................................................................................................................................... 14.160 Mawson Steamship Co Ltd v Beyer [1914] 1 KB 304 ............................................................... 13.500 Maxine Footwear Co Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1959] AC 589 ............ 12.300, 12.370, 12.400 Mayne Nickless Ltd v Pegler [1974] 1 NSWLR 228 ................................................................. 17.100 Mayor, &c, of Southport v Morriss [1893] 1 QB 359 .................................................................. 1.240 Mayor (t/as Granville Coaches) v P & O Ferries Ltd (The Lion) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 144 ......................................................................................................... 12.530, 16.160, 19.280 Mbashi, The [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 602 ....................................................................................... 20.240 McDougall v Aeromarine of Emsworth Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1126 ............................... 5.10, 6.20, 6.30 McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1945) 70 CLR 175 ..... 2.130, 2.150, 2.310, 5.50, 5.100, 16.20 McLean v Fleming (1871) LR 2 Sc & Div 128 .......................................................................... 12.200 McLean v Liverpool Association (1883) 9 VLR (L) 93 ............................................................... 18.80 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 ..................................................................................... 15.110 McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 1 ..................... 15.180, 15.190, 19.230 Meandros, The [1925] P 61 ............................................................................ 5.70, 8.80, 8.460, 20.570 Medina, The (1876) 1 PD 272 ..................................................................................................... 20.660 Medina, The (1876) 2 PD 5 ......................................................................................................... 20.660 Mediolanum Shipping Co v Japan Lines Ltd (The Mediolanum) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 .. 14.300

xliv Table of Cases Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 257 .............................................................................................................................. 12.370, 12.650 Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 506 .............................................................................................................................. 12.580, 12.650 Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc (The Reborn) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 639 ............................................................................................................ 13.50, 13.60 Medway Drydock & Engineering Co Ltd v MV Andrea Ursula; The Andrea Ursula [1973] QB 265 ........................................................................................ 5.50, 5.100, 8.150, 15.190 Melbourne Corp v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31 ................................................... 17.10, 17.660 Melhuish v Miller (1865) 3 WW & A’B (E) 61 .......................... 5.50, 5.100, 20.210, 20.240, 20.460 Mencke v A Cargo of Java Sugar 187 US 248 (1902) ................................................................. 13.90 Mendala III Transport v Total Transport Corp (The Wilomi Tenana) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 41 ..................................................................................................................................... 12.100 Mentink v Registrar of the Australian Registrar of Ships (2012) 277 FLR 248 .............. 3.520, 6.190 Merak, The [1965] P 223 .............................................................................................................. 12.720 Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Gibbs (2001) 24 WAR 453 ................................ 17.10 Merchant Prince, The [1892] P 179 ............................................................................................. 15.110 Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Archibald Currie & Co Pty Ltd (1908) 5 CLR 737 ... 2.190 Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association (1913) 16 CLR 664 ........................................................................................................................... 2.190, 4.50 Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 446 ..................................................................................... 1.210, 1.250, 1.260 Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 201 ................................................................................................ 1.220, 1.250 Merit Shipping Co Inc v TK Boesen A/S (The Goodpal) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638 .............. 14.400 Merrimac, The (1868) 18 LT 92 ................................................................................................... 20.300 Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Hay: SS The Countess [1923] AC 345 .................................. 7.90 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Owners of SS Marpessa: The Marpessa [1907] AC 241 .................................................................................................................................... 15.170 Mersey Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Poland (1910) 15 Com Cas 205 .................... 13.590 Mesocap Industries Ltd v Torm Lines 194 F 3d 1342 (11th Cir 1999) ........................ 12.340, 12.620 Messageries Imperiales Co, The v Baines (1863) 7 LT 763 ....................................................... 10.230 Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Co Ltd (The Lehmann Timber) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541 ........................................................................................................................ 13.460, 18.80 Metaxas v Ship The Galaxias [1989] 1 FC 386 ............................................................................ 8.590 Metvale Ltd v Monsanto International SARL (The MSC Napoli) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 246 .. 16.50, 19.50 Meyer v Dresser (1864) 16 CB (NS) 646; 143 ER 1280 ........................................................... 12.700 Michalos v Food Corp of India (The Apollon) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 409 .................. 13.200, 13.220 Midwest Shipping Co Ltd Inc v DI Henry (Jute) Ltd [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 375 .................... 14.360 Milburn & Co v Jamaica Fruit Importing and Trading Co of London [1900] 2 QB 540 ........... 18.70 Milford, The (1858) Swab 362; 166 ER 1167 ............................................................................... 8.290 Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443 ........................................................... 13.440 Minerals and Metals Trading Corp of India v Encounter Bay Shipping Co Ltd (The Samos Glory) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601 ...................................................................................................... 13.660 Minerva, The (1825) 1 Hagg Adm 347; 166 ER 123 ................................................................... 8.260 Minerva, The [1933] P 224 ............................................................................................................. 8.160 Minerva Navigation Inc v Oceana Shipping AG (The Athena) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 673 ...... 14.330 Mining Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, In Re [1999] 1 Qd R 60 ............................................. 17.220 Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 v San Sebastian Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 268 ...................................................................................................... 15.190 Minister of Materials v Wold Steamship Co Ltd [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 485 ............................ 14.130 Minnehaha, The (1861) Lush 335 ..................................................................... 20.350, 20.380, 20.530 Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Ship Novoaltaisk [1972] 2 NSWLR 476 ........................................................................................................................................... 12.390 Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd [1984] AC 676 ................ 12.720, 13.480 Mitchell v Scaife (1815) 4 Camp 298; 171 ER 95 ..................................................................... 12.710

Table of Cases xlv Mitchell v Steel [1916] 2 KB 610 ................................................................................................ 12.650 Mitchell, Cotts & Co v Steel Bros Ltd [1916] 2 KB 610 ........................................................... 12.630 Mitsui & Co Ltd v Novorossiysk Shipping Co (The Gudermes) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 456 ... 12.370 Mitsui & Co Ltd v Novorossiysk Shipping Co (The Gudermes) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 .. 12.370, 12.680 Mitsui OSK Lines (Thailand) Co Ltd v Jack Fair Pty Ltd [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep Plus 55; [2015] FCCA 558 ................................................................................................................................ 12.770 Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd v Garnac Grain Co Inc (The Myrtos) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 449 ....... 13.100, 13.120, 13.130 Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd v The Ship Mineral Transporter [1983] 2 NSWLR 564 ......... 13.440, 15.170, 15.190, 19.240 Mobil Shipping & Transportation Co v Wonsild Liquid Carriers Ltd 190 F 3d 64; 1999 AMC 2705 ...................................................................................................................... 14.150 Modern Fruit and Vegetable Supermarket Pty Ltd v New Zealand Insurance Australia Ltd (unreported, NSW SC, 1991) .................................................................................................. 17.270 Moel Tryvan Ship Co Ltd v Andrew Weir & Co [1910] 2 KB 844 .......................................... 13.140 Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] AC 196 ......................... 13.610 Monica S, The [1968] P 741 .................................................................................... 8.450, 8.620, 8.630 Monica Textile Corp v S/S Tana 952 F 2d 636; 1992 AMC 609 (2d Cir 1991) ....................... 12.560 Monroe Bros Ltd v Ryan [1935] 2 KB 28 ..................................................................... 13.130, 13.140 Mons, The [1932] P 109 .......................................................................................... 8.420, 8.440, 8.620 Monte Ulia (Owners) v Banco (Owners): The Banco [1971] P 137 .............................................. 8.40 Montedison SpA v Icroma SpA (The Caspian Sea) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 91 .......................... 13.660 Mooney v MS Magdalene Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mBH [2014] NSWSC 1277 ........................ 19.390 Moore v Metcalf Motor Coasters Ltd [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 179 .............................................. 16.100 Moore v Metcalf Motor Coasters Ltd [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 264 .............................................. 16.100 Morgan v Castlegate Steamship Co Ltd: The Castlegate [1893] AC 38 ................. 8.90, 8.150, 8.280 Morgan v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 421 ..................................................................... 2.30, 2.40 Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of Ship Skulptor Vuchetich [1997] ACL Rep 270 FC 7 .................................................................................................................................... 8.590 Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd v Ship Skulptor Vuchetich (1996) 62 FCR 602 .......................... 1.40 Morris v Levison (1876) 1 CPD 155 ........................................................................................... 13.130 Morris v Lyonesse Salvage Co Ltd [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 59 ......................... 20.400, 20.630, 20.820 Morrison v Peacock (2000) 50 NSWLR 178 ................................................................................ 19.70 Morrison v Peacock (2002) 210 CLR 274 ....................................................................... 19.70, 19.100 Morrissey v S/S A & J Faith 252 F Supp 54 (ND Oh 1965) ..................................................... 12.440 Mortgages of the Ships Albion, Myrtle and George, Re (1864) 3 SCR 138 ............................... 5.200 Mortimer v Wisker [1914] 3 KB 699 ............................................................................................ 3.490 Moscow V/O Exportkhleb v Helmville Ltd (The Jocelyne) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 121 ........... 12.700 Moss v Smith (1850) 9 CB (NS) 94; 137 ER 827 ...................................................................... 17.410 Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 Aktieselskab [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 837 .. 12.770 Motis Exports Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 Aktieselskab [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 211 .. 12.770, 12.780, 13.620 Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corp of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509 ........................................................................................................................ 13.70 Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corp of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391 .......................................................................................................... 13.70, 14.300 Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1971) 125 CLR 383 .................................................................. 15.170 Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (1996) 140 ALR 57 .............. 17.620 Mucklow, Assignee of Royland v Mangles (1808) 1 Taunt 318; 127 ER 856 .............................. 6.40 Mudlark, The [1911] P 116 ................................................................................................. 1.240, 1.250 Muncaster Castle, The [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 57 ........................................................................ 12.300 Munday v Australian Capital Territory (1998) 99 LGERA 312 ................................................... 21.70 Mutual Export Corp v Asia Australian Express Ltd (The Lakatoi Express) (1990) 19 NSWLR 285 .................................................................................... 12.810, 14.440, 14.550, 14.560 Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York v Ontario Products Co Ltd [1925] AC 344 ............... 17.100 Myrto, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 ................................... 10.180, 10.190, 10.210, 10.220, 10.350

xlvi Table of Cases

N NPL (Australia) Pty Ltd v Kamil Export (Aust) Pty Ltd [1996] 1 VR 538 ................. 12.610, 12.780 NSW Leather Co Pty Ltd v Vanguard Insurance Co Ltd (1991) 25 NSWLR 699 ......... 17.30, 17.40, 17.50, 17.190 NV Bureau Wijsmuller v Owners of the MV Tojo Maru: The Tojo Maru [1970] P 21 ........... 20.240, 20.550 NV Reederij Amsterdam v President of India (The Amstelmolen) [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .... 13.180 Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423 ............................................................ 15.110 Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688 ................. 8.130, 8.140, 8.160 Naim Molvan, Owner of Motor Vessel Asya v Attorney-General for Palestine [1948] AC 351 ...................................................................................................................................... 4.210 Nam Kwong Medicines & Health Products Co Ltd v China Insurance Co Ltd [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 591 .............................................................................................................................. 17.190, 17.200 Namchow Chemical v Botany Bay Shipping Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 523 ........ 12.720, 12.810 Nanfri, Benfri and Lorfri, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581 (CA); [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201 ... 14.320 Nanfri, Benfri and Lorfri, The (see Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc [1978] QB 927) ....................................................................................................................... 14.320 Napier v Hunter [1993] 1 AC 713 ............................................................................................... 17.650 Narada, The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 256 ........................................................................................... 9.20 Narnian Sea, The [1991] AMC 274 ............................................................................................. 14.240 Nasmyth, The (1885) 10 PD 41 ................................................................................................... 20.640 National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455 .................................................................................................................. 17.290 National Oil Co of Zimbabwe (Pte) Ltd v Sturge [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 ........................... 17.280 National Oilwell (UK) Ltd v Davy Offshore Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 582 .............................. 17.40 National Shipping Co of Saudi Arabia v BP Oil Supply Co (The Abqaiq) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18 ..................................................................................................................................... 13.490 National Steamships Co v Watson [1939] 1 DLR 273 ................................................................. 4.100 Navarro v Larrinaga Steamship Co Ltd: The Niceto de Larrinaga [1966] P 80 ........................ 15.230 Navico AG v Vrontados Naftiki Etairia PE [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 379 ..................................... 13.500 Naviera Mogor SA v Societe Metallurgique de Normandie (The Nogar Marin) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412 ......................................................................................................... 12.100, 14.380, 14.420 Naviera de Canarias SA v Nacional Hispanica Aseguradora SA (The Playa de las Nieves) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 457 ...................................................................................................................... 17.270 Navigazione Alta Italia SpA v Svenska Petroleum AB (The Nai Matteini) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 452 ........................................................................................................................................... 12.720 Navios Enterprise and Puritan, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 16 ...................................................... 15.80 Navrom v Callitsis Ship Management SA (The Radauti) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 276 ............... 13.180 Navrom v Callitsis Ship Management SA (The Radauti) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 416 ............... 13.180 Nea Agrex SA v Baltic Shipping Co Ltd [1976] 1 QB 933 ....................................................... 12.590 Nea Agrex SA v Baltic Shipping Co Ltd (The Agios Lazaros) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 47 ........ 14.150 Nelson v Dahl (1879) 12 Ch D 568 ............................................................................................... 13.90 Nelson, The (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 169; 166 ER 61 ......................................................................... 9.50 Nelson & Sons v The Dundee East Coast Shipping Co Ltd (1907) 44 SLR 661 ..................... 14.180 Nelson Pine Industries Ltd v Seatrans New Zealand Ltd (The Pembroke) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 290 ...................................................................................................................... 12.340, 12.530 Nemeth v General Steamship Corp 694 F 2d 609 (9th Cir 1982) ................................ 12.340, 12.560 Neptune, The (1824) 1 Hagg Adm 227; 166 ER 81 ............ 8.90, 8.480, 8.580, 20.10, 20.30, 20.270, 20.290 Neptune, The (1824) 3 Hagg Adm 129; 166 ER 354 ........................................................ 5.60, 10.160 Neptune, The (1842) 1 W Rob 297; 166 ER 583 ....................................................................... 20.550 Nereide SpA di Navigazione v Bulk Oil International Ltd (The Laura Prima) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 13.190 Nesterczuk v Mortimore (1965) 115 CLR 140 ............................................................................ 15.130 Netherlands, State of the v Youell [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 236 .................................................... 17.220

Table of Cases xlvii Neuchatel Swiss General Insurance Co v Vlasons Shipping Inc [2001] VSCA 25 ................... 17.280 New A Line v Erechthion Shipping Co SA (The Erechthion) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 180 ........ 14.380 New Chinese Antimony Co v Ocean Steamship Co [1917] 2 KB 664 ...................................... 12.210 New Holland Australia Pty Ltd v TTA Australia Pty Ltd (The Resolution Bay) (unreported, NSW Sup Ct, Carruthers J, 6 December 1994) ............................................................................... 12.740 New Rotterdam Insurance Co v S/S Loppersum 215 F Supp 563 (SDNY 1963) ..................... 12.410 New South Wales v Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands Case) (1975) 135 CLR 337 ............ 2.30, 2.40, 2.90, 2.110, 2.120, 2.220, 2.240, 2.350, 2.260, 2.370, 15.70, 17.660 New York, The 175 US 187; 20 S Ct 67; 44 L Ed 126 (1899) .................................................. 15.140 New Zealand Insurance Co v South Australian Insurance Co (1878) 1 SCR (NSW) 214 ........ 17.150 New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154 .................................................................................................................................... 12.740 Newcastle & Hunter River Steamship Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) (1921) 29 CLR 357 ... 2.30, 2.40 Newcastle Port Corporation v Pevitt (2003) 58 NSWLR 548 ....................................... 16.100, 16.200 Newman v Walters (1804) 3 Bos & P 612; 127 ER 330 ............................................................ 20.300 Ngo Chew Hong Edible Oil Pte Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Jalamohan) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 443 ........................................................................................................ 12.820, 14.470 Niarchos (London) Ltd v Shell Tankers Ltd [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 496 ...................................... 14.50 Nichimen Co Inc v M/V Farland 462 F 2d 319; 1972 AMC 1573 (2d Cir 1972) .................... 12.310 Nicholson v Chapman (1793) 2 H Bl 254; 126 ER 536 ................................................. 20.80, 20.440 Nicol v Whiteoak (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1486 ............................................................................ 16.20 Nielsen & Co v Wait, James & Co (1885) 16 QBD 67 .............................................................. 13.260 Nightingale, The (1885) 6 LR (NSW) (P & D) 18 ........................................................ 20.290, 20.400 Nikolay Malakhov Shipping Co Ltd v SEAS Sapfor Ltd (1998) 44 NSWLR 371 ..... 12.310, 12.450, 12.580, 12.590, 12.740, 12.830 Nima SARL v The Deves Insurance Public Co Ltd (The Prestrioka) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 327 ...................................................................................................................... 17.190, 17.200 Niobe, The (1888) 13 PD 55 .......................................................................................................... 15.40 Nippon Fire & Marine Insurance 167 F 3d 99 (2d Cir 1999) .................................................... 12.560 Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Acme Shipping Corporation (The Charalambos N Pateras) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 42 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.320 Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Ramjiban Serowgee [1938] AC 429 ..................................................... 12.760 Nippon Yusen Kaisha v SA Marocaine de L’Industrie Du Raffinage (The Tsukuba Maru) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 459 ...................................................................................................................... 13.460 Nippon Yusen Kaisha Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Jalagouri) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 903 ................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Nippon Yusen Kaisha Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Jalagouri) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 515 ................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Nipponkoa Insurance Co Ltd v Norfolk Southern Railway Co 794 F Supp 2d 838 (ED Oh 2012) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.740 Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd v M/V Hyundai Explorer 93 F 3d 641; 1996 AMC 2409 (9th Cir 1996) ............................................................................................................ 12.300, 12.400 Nissho Iwai (Australia) Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corp Berhad (1989) 167 CLR 219 .......................................................... 12.340, 12.600, 12.740, 12.780, 13.620 Nitram Inc v MV Cretan Life 599 F 2d 1359 (5th Cir 1979) ....................................... 12.200, 12.280 Nitrate Corporation of Chile Ltd v Pansuiza Compania de Navegacion (The Hermosa) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 638 ...................................................................................................................... 14.330 Noble Resources Ltd v Cavalier Shipping Corp (The Atlas) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 642 .......... 12.210 Noemijulia Steamship Co Ltd v Minister of Food [1951] 1 KB 223 ........................................ 13.200 Noferi v Smithers [2002] NSWSC 508 ............................................................... 16.10, 16.100, 16.160 Nominal Defendant v Haslbauer (1967) 117 CLR 448 ............................................................... 15.110 Nominal Defendant v MVIT (1982) 45 ALR 697 ....................................................................... 19.240 Noranda Inc v Barton (Time Charter) Ltd (The Marinor) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 301 ...................................................................................................................... 12.580, 14.160 Nord Sea and Freccia del Nord: The Freccia del Nord, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 388 ............ 8.100 Nordglimt, The [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470 ...................................................................................... 8.40

xlviii

Table of Cases

Nordglimt, The [1988] 1 QB 183 ................................................................................... 12.580, 12.590 Norfolk Southern Railway Co v James N Kirby Pty Ltd 543 US 14 (2004) ............................ 12.740 Noritake Co Inc v M/V Hellenic Champion 627 F 2d 724 (5th Cir 1980) ............................... 12.420 North British Fishing Boat Insurance Co Ltd v Starr (1922) 13 Ll L Rep 206 ........................ 17.100 North Coast Steam Navigation Co v Ship Eugene (1909) 9 SR (NSW) 246 .................................................................................................... 20.140, 20.480, 20.490 North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corp (The Western Triumph) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 14.450 North Star, The (1860) Lush 45; 167 ER 24 ................................................................................. 18.80 North Star Shipping Ltd v Sphere Drake Insurance PLC [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 182 ............... 17.100 North Western Salt Co Ltd v Electrolytic Alkali Co Ltd [1914] 461 ......................................... 17.610 North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 201 ................................................................................................ 1.210, 1.260 Northern Shipping Co v Deutsche Seereederei GmbH (The Kapitan Sakharov) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255 ......................................................................................................... 12.300, 12.370, 12.650 Northfield Steamship Co v Compagnie L’Union des Gaz [1912] 1 KB 434 ............................. 13.180 Northumbrian Shipping Co Ltd v E Timm & Son Ltd [1939] AC 397 ..................................... 13.600 Norway and Asia Lines v Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd (1981) 1 BLD 152 ..................................... 12.550 Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd v WH Price Ltd [1934] AC 455 .............. 17.360, 17.440 Noseda v Hoverlloyd Ltd [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 448 .......................................................... 1.220, 8.70 Novologistics SARL v Five Ocean Corp (The Merida) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 274 ...... 13.30, 13.170 Novorossisk Shipping Co v Neopetro Co Ltd (The Ulyanovsk) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425 ... 13.150, 13.190, 13.430, 13.450 Nowy Sacz, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91 .................................................................................. 15.100 Nugent v Goss Aviation [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 222 .................................................................... 19.280 Nugent v Smith (1876) 1 CPD 423 .............................................................................................. 12.420 Nymph, The (1856) Sw 86; 166 ER 1033 ....................................................................................... 9.50

O O’Kane v Jones (The Martin P) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389 ......................................................... 17.40 Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293 ........................................................................................................................ 11.50 Ocean Cargo Lines Ltd v North Atlantic Marine Co 227 F Supp 872 (SDNY 1964) .............. 14.470 Ocean Crown, The [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 468 ............................................................... 20.450, 20.480 Ocean Glory Compania Naviera SA v A/S PV Christensen (The Ioanna) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 164 ................................................................................................ 14.40, 14.80, 14.320, 14.330 Ocean Harvester Holdings Pty Ltd v MMI General Insurance Ltd (2003) 12 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-577; [2003] QSC 262 ........................................................................................................ 17.300 Ocean Harvester Holdings Pty Ltd v MMI General Insurance Ltd (2004) 12 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-592; [2004] QCA 41 ............................................................................................. 17.290, 17.300 Ocean Industries Pty Ltd v Owners of the Ship MV Steven C [1994] 1 Qd R 69 ............ 8.40, 8.620 Ocean Industries Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed t/as Markwell Chandlery) v Owners of the Ship MV Steven C (1991) 104 ALR 353 .......................................................................... 8.620 Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association (Europe) OV v Jetopay Pty Ltd (2000) 120 FCR 146 .................................................................................................................................. 17.640 Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 693 ...................................................................................................................... 14.250, 14.330 Ocean Pride Maritime Ltd Partnership v Qingdao Ocean Shipping Co (The Northgate) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 511 ......................................................................................................... 13.170, 13.210 Ocean Star Tankers SA v Total Transport Corp (The Taygetos) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272 .... 14.290 Ocean Trawling Co Pty Ltd v Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd [1965] WAR 65 .............. 17.620 Oceanfocus Shipping Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (The Hawk) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 176 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.410 Oceangas (Gibraltar) Ltd v Port of London Authority (The Cavendish) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 292 ..................................................................................................................................... 15.30 Oceanic Crest Shipping Co v Pilbara Harbour Services Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 626 .............. 15.30

Table of Cases xlix Oceanic Steam Navigation Co v Mellor (The Titanic) 233 US 718 (1914) ................................ 16.10 Oceanic Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Evans (1934) 50 Ll L Rep 1 ........................................... 17.440 Oceanografia SA de CV v DSND Subsea AS (The Botnica) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 37 .. 13.30, 14.30 Office of Supply, Government of Republic of Korea v New York Navigation Co 469 F 2d 377 (2d Cir 1972) .................................................................................................................................. 12.590 Okmasich v Evans (1980) 25 SASR 481 ....................................................................................... 2.110 Oleo Pty Ltd v Vanguard Insurance Co Ltd (unreported, WA SC, 1991) ..................... 17.270, 17.600 Ollive v Booker (1847) 1 Ex 416; 154 ER 177 ............................................................................ 14.70 Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co (The Mamola Challenger) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 47 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.250 Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v JSC Arcadia Shipping (The Socol 3) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221 .............................................................................................................................. 14.150, 14.260 Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 .................. 5.180, 5.190, 6.60, 10.240 Opal Maritime Agencies Pty Ltd v Baltic Shipping Co (1998) 158 ALR 416 .......................... 13.660 Opal Maritime Agencies Pty Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of MV Skulptor Konenkov (2000) 98 FCR 519 ........................................................................................................ 1.40, 13.660 Optima, The (1905) 10 Asp MLC 147 ........................................................................................... 8.450 Orduna SA v Zen-Noh Grain Corp 913 F 2d 1149 (5th Cir 1990) .............................................. 13.70 Ore Carriers of Liberia Inc v Navigen Co 435 F 2d 549 (2nd Cir 1970) .................................... 13.70 Oregon, The 158 US 186; 15 S Ct 804 (1895) ........................................................................... 15.110 Orica Australia Pty Ltd v Limit (No 2) Ltd (2011) ANZ Ins Cases 61-877; [2011] VSC 65 .. 13.440 Orient Mid-East Lines Inc v Shipment of Rice on Board SS Orient Transporter 496 F 2d 1032; 1974 AMC 2593 (5th Cir 1974) .................................................................................... 18.20, 18.30 Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd v Sea-Land Service Inc 122 F Supp 2d 481; 2001 AMC 1005 (SDNY 2000) ................................................................................................................. 12.560 Orienta, The [1895] P 49 ....................................................................................................... 8.280, 9.50 Oriental Maritime Pte Ltd v Ministry of Food, Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh (The Silva Plana, Bahamastars and Magic Sky) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 371 ....................... 12.700 Orion Insurance Co PLC v M/V Humacao 851 F Supp 575 (SDNY 1994) .............................. 12.370 Orpheus, The (1871) LR 3 A & E 308 .......................................................................................... 8.180 Orr v Dickinson (1859) Johns 5; 70 ER 315 ................................................................................. 5.190 Osmium Shipping Corp v Cargill International SA (The Captain Stefanos) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 46 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Oswald v Australian Steamships Ltd [1914] VLR 329 ............................................................... 15.190 Otal Investments Ltd v MV Clary 494 F 3d 40; 2007 AMC 1817 (2d Cir 2007) .................... 15.110 Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 ................................................ 3.10, 4.50, 4.90, 4.100, 4.110 Ouro Fino, The [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 .................................................................................. 15.150 Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 363 .................................... 14.240 Overseas Commodities Ltd v Style [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 546 .................................................. 17.570 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 ......................................................................................................................... 15.170 Overseas Transportation Co v Mineralimportexport (The Sinoe) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514 ... 13.570 Overseas Transportation Co v Mineralimportexport (The Sinoe) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201 ... 13.570 Ovington Court, The (see Canadian Transport Co v Court Line [1940] AC 934) ....... 13.560, 14.400 Owens v Ship Alexia (1914) 14 SR (NSW) 389 ......................................................................... 20.360 Owneast Shipping Ltd v Qatar Navigation QSC (The Qatar Star) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 350 ................................................................................................................................... 14.180 Owner, Master and Crew of the Tug Maridive VIII v Owners and Demise Charterers of the Oil Rig Key Singapore [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 91 ............................................................................... 20.540 Owners, Charter, Master and Crew of the Ship Margaret Philippa v The Ship MV Santo Rocco Di Bagnara (1991) 101 ALR 491 ...................................................................... 20.230, 20.270, 20.310 Owners, Master and Crew of SS Cartela v Ship Inverness-shire (1916) 21 CLR 387 ............. 20.350 Owners, Master and Crew of SS Nestor v Owners of SS Mungana, Cargo and Freight: The Mungana [1936] 3 All ER 670 ............................................................................................... 20.590 Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Ship or Vessel Makedonia v Makedonia (Owners): The Makedonia [1962] P 190 ................................................................................................. 12.300 Owners of Cargo on Ship Maori King v Hughes [1895] 2 QB 550 .......................................... 13.600

l

Table of Cases

Owners of Cargo on board The Merak v The Merak (Owners): The Merak [1965] P 223 ...... 12.590 Owners of MV Iran Amanat v KMP Coastal Oil Pte Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 130 ................ 3.30, 5.100 Owners of No 7 Steam Sand Pump Dredger v Owners of SS Greta Holme: The Greta Holme [1897] AC 596 ......................................................................................................................... 15.170 Owners of SS Mediana v Owners, Master and Crew of Lightship Comet: The Mediana [1900] AC 113 ........................................................................................................................................... 15.170 Owners of SS Melanie v Owners of SS San Onofre [1925] AC 246 .............. 20.240, 20.250, 20.320 Owners of SS Utopia v Owners of SS Primula: The Utopia [1893] AC 492 .............................. 8.150 Owners of Ship Carina v Owners or Demise Charterers of Ship MSC Samia (1997) 78 FCR 404 .................................................................................................................................... 8.540 Owners of the Motor Vessel Tojo Maru v NV Bureau Wijsmuller: The Tojo Maru [1972] AC 242 ......................................... 16.60, 20.180, 20.240, 20.250, 20.410, 20.550, 20.630, 20.660 Owners of the SS Devonshire v Owners of the Barge Leslie [1912] AC 634 ............................. 15.40 Owners of the SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689 ........................................... 2.30, 2.40, 2.130 Owners of the SS Sappho v Denton: The Sappho (1871) LR 3 PC 690 ......... 20.230, 20.290, 20.310 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 ............ 2.150 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227 .............. 2.150 Owners of the Steamship Gracie v Owners of the Steamship Argentino: The Argentino (1889) 14 App Cas 519 ............................................................................................................................ 15.170 Owners of the Tug Sea Tractor v Owners of the Ship Tramp [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 363 ....... 20.140, 20.160

P P v A [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 415 ........................................................................... 13.50, 13.70, 13.410 P & O Scottish Ferries Ltd v Braer Corp [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 535 ........................................ 19.230 P Samuel & Co Ltd v Dumas [1924] AC 431 ....................................... 17.10, 17.220, 17.290, 17.310 PEP Shipping (Scandinavia) ApS v Normaco Shipping Corp 1997 AMC 2933 (ED La 1997) ............................................................................................................................ 13.30 PNSL Bhd v Dalrymple Marine Services Pty Ltd (The Koumala) [2008] 1 Qd R 511 .............. 15.40 PS Chellaram & Co Ltd v China Ocean Shipping Co [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413 .................... 12.560 PS Chellaram & Co Ltd v China Ocean Shipping Co (The Zhi Jiang Kou) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 493 .............................................................................................................................. 12.560, 12.610 PS Chellaram & Co Ltd v China Ocean Shipping Co (The Zhi Jiang Kou) (unreported, High Court of Aust, 1993) ............................................................................................... 12.560, 12.610, 12.740 Pacific, The (1864) Br & Lush 243; 167 ER 356 ....................................................... 8.20, 8.50, 8.330 Pacific Asia Express Pty Ltd v Renegade Gas Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1188 ........................... 12.640 Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v Bulkhandling Handymax AS (The Triton Lark) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 151 ................................................................................................................................... 14.370 Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v Bulkhandling Handymax AS (The Triton Lark) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 457 ................................................................................................................................... 14.370 Pacific Composites Pty Ltd v Transpac Container System Ltd (unreported, FCA, Tamberlin J, 11 May 1998) ............................................................................................................................... 12.800 Pacific Molasses Co v Entre Rios Compania Naviera SA (The San Nicholas) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 8 ............................................................................................................................................... 12.720 Pacific Sun, The [1983] AMC 830 ............................................................................................... 14.240 Pacol Ltd v Trade Lines Ltd (The Henrik Sij) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 456 ................................ 12.820 Palamisto General Enterprises SA v Ocean Marine Insurance Co Ltd [1972] 2 QB 625 ......... 17.290 Palm Shipping Inc v Kuwait Petroleum Corp (The Sea Queen) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 500 ... 13.190, 13.200 Palmco Shipping Inc v Continental Ore Corp [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 21 ................................... 13.620 Palmer v Rouse (1858) 3 H & N 505; 157 ER 569 .................................. 20.80, 20.630, 21.50, 21.80 Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd [1995] 1 AC 501 .......... 17.100, 17.110 Pan Cargo Shipping Corp v United States 234 F Supp 623 (SDNY 1964) ................................. 13.50 Pan Cargo Shipping Corp v United States 373 F 2d 525 (2d Cir 1967) ..................................... 13.50 Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd (The Trident Beauty) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 443 ......................................................................................................... 14.320, 14.340, 14.470

Table of Cases li Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd (The Trident Beauty) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 365 ......................................................................................................... 14.320, 14.340, 14.470 Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corp v Wright [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365 ................. 17.360, 17.400 Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corp v Wright [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 487 ................. 17.360, 17.400 Panther and the Ericbank, The [1957] P 143 ................................................................................. 15.40 Pantland Hick v Raymond & Reid [1893] AC 22 ....................................................................... 13.360 Papadimitriou v Henderson [1939] 3 All ER 908 ....................................................................... 17.360 Papera Traders Co Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (The Eurasian Dream) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719 ........................................................................................................ 12.300, 12.390 Paragon Oil Co v Republic Tankers SA 310 F 2d 169 (2d Cir 1962) ............................ 13.70, 14.300 Parke, Lacey, Hardie Ltd v The Ship Clan MacFadyen (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 438 .................. 12.390 Parker v Commonwealth (1965) 112 CLR 295 ............................................................................. 8.140 Parlement Belge, The (1880) 5 PD 197 ............................................................................. 8.150, 8.460 Parlux SpA v M & U Imports Pty Ltd (2008) 21 VR 170 ............................................ 12.100, 12.740 Parsons v New Zealand Shipping Co [1901] 1 KB 548 ............................................................. 12.250 Parsons Corp v CV Scheepvaartonderneming “Happy Ranger” (The Happy Ranger) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 357 ........................................................................................................ 12.370, 12.530 Partenreederei M/S Heidberg v Grosvenor Grain and Feed Co Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 287 ................................................................................................................................... 13.570 Paterson (NM) & Sons Ltd v The Birchglen (1990) 36 FTR 92 ................................................. 8.540 Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of the Vessel MV Skulptor Konenkov (1997) 75 FCR 47 ...................................................................................................................... 8.350, 8.370 Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v Ship MV Turakina (No 1) (1998) 84 FCR 493 ................... 8.420 Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v The Turakina (1998) 154 ALR 666 ............................. 5.50, 5.100 Paul v Birch (1743) 2 Atk 621; 26 ER 771 ................................................................................. 14.550 Payabi v Armstel Shipping Corp (The Jay Bola) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 62 ................. 12.580, 12.590 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 ........................................... 2.220, 2.230, 2.240, 2.250, 2.350 Pearl Carriers Inc v Japan Line Ltd (The Chemical Venture) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 508 ........ 14.300 Pearl and Jahre Venture, The [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 188 ............................................................ 15.110 Pelopidas and TRSL Concord, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 675 .................................................. 15.105 Pelton Steamship Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1925) 22 Ll L Rep 510 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.280 Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204 ................................................................ 14.200 Pennsylvania, The 86 US (19 Wall) 125; 22 L Ed 148 (1873) ................................................... 15.110 Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co [2014] 1 SCR 621; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 315 ......................................................................................................... 12.530, 16.160, 19.280 Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd v ICICI Bank [2013] FCA 175 ........................... 19.240 Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (In liq) (2003) 214 CLR 514 .................................................................................................................................. 17.100 Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180 .................................................... 15.180, 16.100, 19.230 Pesquerias y Secaderos de Bacalao de Espana SA v Beer (1946) 79 Ll L Rep 417 ................. 17.440 Pesquerias y Secaderos de Bacalao de Espana SA v Beer [1949] 1 All ER 845; 82 Ll L Rep 501 ...................................................................................................................... 12.430, 17.440 Peter der Grosse, The (1875) 1 PD 414 ......................................................................... 12.120, 12.150 Peters Slip Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1979] Qd R 123 ............................................................ 15.105 Petersen v Union des Assurances de Paris IARD (1995) 8 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-244 ....... 17.310 Petersen v Union des Assurances de Paris IARD (1997) 9 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-366 ....... 17.310 Petition of Frescati Shipping Co Ltd, In re 718 F 3d 184; 2013 AMC 1521 (3d Cir 2013) ..... 13.50, 13.70, 14.300 Petone, The [1917] P 198 ............................................................................................................... 8.450 Petroleo Brasileiro SA v Kriti Akti Shipping Co SA (The Kriti Akti) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 712 ...................................................................................................................... 14.220, 14.240 Petroleo Brasiliero S/A v Elounda Shipping Co (The Evanthia M) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154 . 14.80 Phantom, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 58 ............................................................................ 20.130, 20.660 Phillips Petroleum Co v Cabaneli Naviera SA (The Theodegmon) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 52 ........................................................................................................................ 12.280, 12.300 Phoenix Life Assurance Co v Raddin 120 US 183 (1886) ......................................................... 17.100

lii

Table of Cases

Phoenix Shipping Co v Apex Shipping Corp (The Apex) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 407 .............. 14.290 Pickaninny, The; George Hammond & Co (Interveners) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 533 ...... 8.330, 8.350, 8.620 Pickwick, The (1852) 16 Jur 669 ................................................................................................. 20.630 Pierce v Bemis: The Lusitania [1986] QB 384 ................................................... 20.630, 21.70, 21.180 Piermay Shipping Co SA v Chester (The Michael) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 55 .......................... 17.220 Pindos Shipping Corp v Raven (The Mata Hari) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 449 .............................. 17.90 Pioneer Container, The [1994] 2 AC 324 ....................................................................... 12.830, 12.840 Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 239 ................... 14.100 Piper Aircraft Co v Reyno 454 US 235; 102 S Ct 252 (1981) .................................................. 16.240 Pitman v Universal Marine Insurance Co (1882) 9 QBD 192 .................................................... 17.510 Plainar Ltd v Waters Trading Co Ltd (1945) 72 CLR 304 ......................................................... 15.200 Plakoura Maritime Corp v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd (The Plakoura) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 258 ................................................................................................................................... 13.160 Plastique Tags Inc v Asia Trans Line Inc 83 F 3d 1367; 1996 AMC 2304 (11th Cir 1996) .... 12.160 Plywood Panels Inc v M/V Sun Valley 804 F Supp 804 (ED Va 1992) .................................... 12.170 Podmore v Aquatours Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 111 ........................................ 15.60, 15.100, 15.110 Point Breeze, The (1928) 30 Ll L Rep 229 ................................................................................... 8.540 Point of Pay Pty Ltd, Re [2012] VSC 380 .................................................................................. 16.250 Polish Steamship Co v AJ Williams Fuels (Overseas Sales) Ltd (The Suwalki) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 511 ...................................................................................................................................... 13.30 Polish Steamship Co v Atlantic Maritime Co [1985] QB 41 ............................. 16.30, 16.200, 19.250 Poll v Dambe [1901] 2 KB 579 ..................................................................................................... 8.290 Pollard, Ashby & Co (France) Ltd v Franco-British Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1920) 5 Ll L Rep 286 ........................................................................................................................................... 17.640 Pollux Marine Agencies Inc v Louis Dreyfus Corp 455 F Supp 211 (SDNY 1978) ................... 13.30 Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 ............................................................................................. 1.20, 1.80, 1.210, 1.250, 1.260 Polurrian Steamship Co Ltd v Young [1915] 1 KB 922 ............................................................. 17.400 Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 ................................................................. 2.130 Polzeath, The [1916] P 117 .............................................................................................................. 3.80 Pongola, The (1895) 8 Asp MLC 89 ............................................................................................. 5.130 Ponting v Huddart, Parker & Co Ltd (1897) 22 VLR 644 .................................................... 4.50, 4.60 Porky Products Inc v Nippon Express USA (Illinois) Inc 1 F Supp 2d 227 (SDNY 1997) ...... 11.20, 12.20 Port Caledonia and The Anna, The [1903] P 184 ............................................. 20.200, 20.410, 20.660 Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond & Spraggon (Aust) Pty Ltd (The New York Star) (1980) 144 CLR 300 ............................................................................................................... 12.740 Port Line Ltd v Ben Line Steamers Ltd [1958] 2 QB 146 ......................................................... 10.230 Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 .................................................................................................. 2.230, 2.250, 2.370, 15.70 Port of Geelong Authority v The Bass Reefer (1992) 37 FCR 374 ............................................. 8.330 Portland Fish Co v States Steamship Co 510 F 2d 628 (9th Cir 1974) ........................ 12.130, 12.160 Portolana Compania Naviera Ltd v Vitol SA Inc (The Afrapearl) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 305 ............................................................................................ 13.390, 13.400, 13.410, 13.460 Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH v Nomadic Navigation Co Ltd (The Trade Nomad) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 723 ................................................................................................................................... 14.130 Postlethwaite v Freeland (1880) 5 App Cas 599 ......................................................................... 13.360 Potoi Chau, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 376 .................................................................................. 18.30 Potter & Co v New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd (1895) 64 LJQB 689 ......................................... 13.520 Prekookeanska Plovidba v Felstar Shipping Corp (The Carnival) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 449 ... 13.70 Prekookeanska Plovidba v Felstar Shipping Corp (The Carnival) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 14 ..... 13.70 Premier Group Pty Ltd, The v Followmont Transport Pty Ltd [2000] 2 Qd R 338 .................. 12.840 Prentis Donegan & Partners Ltd v Leeds & Leeds Co Inc [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 326 ............ 17.640 President of India v Davenport Marine Panama SA (The Albion) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 365 ...................................................................................................................... 13.200, 13.220

Table of Cases liii President of India v Diamantis Pateras (Hellas) Marine Enterprises Ltd (The Nestor) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 649 ........................................................................................................ 13.200, 13.220 President of India v Hariana Overseas Corp (The Takafa) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 536 ............. 13.610 President of India v Jebsens (UK) Ltd (The General Capinpin, Proteus and Free Wave) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .......................................................................................................................... 13.350 President of India v Lips Maritime Corp [1988] AC 395 .............................................. 13.440, 13.660 President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 289 ................................ 12.700, 13.630 President of India v Moor Line Ltd (1958) 99 CLR 185 ........................................................... 13.560 President of India v NG Livanos Maritime Co (The John Michalos) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 188 ................................................................................................................................... 13.460 Preti v Sahara Tours Pty Ltd (2008) 22 NTLR 215 .................................................................... 13.440 Preti v Sahara Tours Pty Ltd [2008] NTCA 2 ............................................................................. 13.440 Price v Livingstone (1882) 9 QBD 679 ....................................................................................... 13.590 Pride Shipping Corp v Chung Hwa Pulp Corp (The Oinoussian Pride) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 126 ................................................................................................................................... 12.720 Prince George, The (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 376; 166 ER 445 .......................................................... 8.240 Prince Heinrich, The (1888) 13 PD 31 ............................................................................. 8.190, 20.570 Princess Alice, The (1849) 3 W Rob 138; 166 ER 914 .............................................................. 20.350 Princess Helena, The (1861) Lush 190; 167 ER 91 .................................................................... 20.210 Product Transport Corp Ltd and Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc (The Harold K Hudner), In re SMA No 3619 (Arb in NY 2000) .......................................................................................... 14.140 Project Asia Line Inc v Shone (The Pride of Donegal) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 659 ..... 13.600, 14.110 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 ..................... 12.280 Puccini Festival Australia Pty Ltd v Nippon Express (Australia) Pty Ltd (2007) 17 VR 36 .... 12.270 Puerto Buitrago, The (see Attica Sea Carriers Corp v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 250) ..................................................................................................... 14.510 Pust v Dowie (1865) 5 B & S 33; 122 ER 745 .......................................................................... 14.100 Puttick v Tenon Ltd (2008) 238 CLR 265 ................................................................................... 16.250 Putwain v English, Scottish & Australian Bank: The Gothenburg (1875) 4 QSCR 133 ........... 20.630 Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 402 ........ 12.270, 12.310, 12.740, 13.560, 14.400 Pyrennee, The (1863) Br & Lush 189; 167 ER 330 ..................................................................... 8.190

Q QT Trading LP v MV Saga Morus 641 F 3d 105; 2012 AMC 1778 (5th Cir 2011) ................ 12.810 Qenos Pty Ltd v The Ship APL Sydney (2009) 187 FCR 282 ..................................... 16.100, 16.120 Quadro Shipping NV v Bizley & Co Pty Ltd (The Protea Trader) (1992) 113 FLR 280 ........ 12.680, 12.830, 14.470 Quaker Oats Co v M/V Torvanger 734 F 2d 238 (5th Cir 1984) ............................................... 12.490 Queen of the South, The [1968] P 449 .......................................................................................... 8.330 Queensland v Northaus Trading Co Ltd [1999] QCA 313 .......................................................... 13.440 Quick v Quick orse O’Connell [1953] VLR 224 .......................................................................... 4.140 Quickstep, The (1890) 15 PD 196 ................................................................................................. 15.40

R R R R R R R R R R

v Allen (1837) 1 Moo CC 494; 168 ER 1357 ............................................................................. 4.90 v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161 ..................................................... 1.330, 4.80, 4.90, 4.100, 5.10 v Arnaud (1846) 9 QB 808; 115 ER 1485 ................................................................................... 3.80 v Berchet (1688) 1 Show KB 106; 89 ER 480 ....................................................................... 12.280 v Bjornsen (1865) 10 Cox CC 74 ....................................................................................... 4.60, 4.90 v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 .......................................................... 1.320, 2.210, 2.220, 4.90, 20.190 v Byrne (1867) 6 SCR (NSW) 302 ............................................................................................ 4.140 v Carr and Wilson (1882) 10 QBD 76 ............................................................................. 1.330, 4.90 v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd [1999] QB 1119; [1999] 2 WLR 489 ........................................................................................................................ 1.240, 1.250

liv Table of Cases R R R R R

v v v v v

Clark; Ex parte Doyle (1879) 5 VLR (L) 440 ....................................................................... 4.180 Collector of Customs at Liverpool (1813) 2 M & S 224; 105 ER 366 ................................ 5.130 Commissioner for Transport; Ex parte Cobb & Co Ltd [1983] Qd R 547 ........................... 2.270 Forty-Nine Casks of Brandy (1836) 3 Hagg Adm 257; 166 ER 401 ...................... 20.630, 21.50 Foster; Ex parte Eastern & Australian Steamship Co Ltd (1959) 103 CLR 256 ..... 2.190, 2.200, 2.210 R v Gordon-Finlayson; Ex parte an Officer [1941] 1 KB 171 ............................................ 4.90, 4.100 R v Harvey (1869) 8 SCR (NSW) 340 .......................................................................................... 4.180 R v Judge of the City of London Court and the Owners of the SS Michigan (1890) 25 QBD 339 .................................................................................................................................... 8.240 R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63 ................................................................................................. 1.320, 4.90 R v Lesley (1860) Bell CC 220; 169 ER 1236 ............................................................................... 4.90 R v Liverpool Justices; Ex parte Molyneux [1972] 2 QB 384 ..................................................... 1.320 R v Lopez (1858) Dears & B 525; 169 ER 1105 ........................................................................... 4.90 R v Olney [1996] 1 Qd R 187 ....................................................................................................... 4.110 R v Owners of the SS Argyllshire [1922] QSR 186 ................................................................... 15.170 R v Property Derelict (1825) 1 Hagg Adm 383; 166 ER 136 ...................................................... 21.70 R v Roach (1879) 13 SALR 96 ...................................................................................... 12.700, 12.710 R v Ross (1854) 2 Legge 857 ............................................................................................... 4.90, 4.180 R v Shea (1978) 18 SASR 591 ...................................................................................................... 4.110 R v Stewart [1899] 1 QB 964 ........................................................................................................ 8.290 R v Sven Seberg (1870) LR l CCR 264 ........................................................................................ 4.180 R v Turner; Ex parte the Marine Board of Hobart (1927) 39 CLR 411 ..................... 2.30, 2.40, 2.70 R v Two Casks of Tallow (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 294; 166 ER 414 .................................. 20.630, 21.50 R Pagnan & Fratelli v Finagrain Compagnie Commerciale Agricole et Financiere SA (The Adolf Leonhardt) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 395 ...................................................................... 13.170, 13.210 RT Jones Lumber Co v Roen SS Co 270 F 2d 456 (2d Cir 1959) ............................................ 12.510 Raft of Timber (1844) 2 W Rob 251; 166 ER 749 .................................................. 1.20, 1.210, 20.80 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Five Star General Trading (The Mount I) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 597 ..................................................................................................................................... 17.80 Rail Equipment Leasing Pty Ltd v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Emmagracht [2008] NSWSC 850 ............................................................................................................... 12.470, 12.840 Rainbow Spring, The [2003] 3 SLR (R) 362 ................................................................................ 13.30 Rama, The (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 369 ..................................................................................... 8.650, 10.20 Randal v Cockran (1748) 1 Ves Sen 98; 27 ER 916 .................................................................. 17.650 Randell v Atlantica Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 80 FLR 253 .... 17.90, 17.100, 17.110, 17.140, 17.500, 17.600 Ranicar v Frigmobile Pty Ltd [1983] Tas R 113 ......................................................................... 17.470 Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v Huddart Parker Industries Ltd (The Boral Gas) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 342 ........................................................................................................ 13.430, 13.650 Raveh v Official Receiver of the State of Israel [2002] WASCA 27 ......................................... 16.250 Ravenna Tankers Pte SRL v Omni Ships Pte Ltd 2014 AMC 1190 (ED La 2013) .................. 14.560 Ray v M’Mackin (1875) 1 VLR (L) 274 ....................................................................................... 2.170 Rayner v Preston (1881) 18 Ch D 1 ............................................................................................ 14.570 Raynes v Ballantyne (1898) 14 TLR 399 .................................................................................... 14.360 Readhead v Admiralty Marshal, Western Australia District Registry (1998) 87 FCR 229 ........ 7.100, 8.470, 10.320 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (1956) 93 CLR 577 ........... 13.50, 13.70, 14.300 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd [1939] AC 562 .......................................................................................................... 12.330, 13.600, 13.620 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen (The Diana Prosperity) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 621 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.50 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1962] 2 QB 42 .......... 13.60 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Vancouver Strikes cases) [1963] AC 691 .............................................................................................. 13.250, 13.270, 13.280 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Sanko Steamship Co Ltd (The Sanko Honour) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 418 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.500

Table of Cases lv Rebecca, The (1804) 5 C Rob 102; 165 ER 712 ................................................................. 8.450, 9.70 Red Arrow Freight Lines Inc v Roy G Howe 480 SW 2d 281 (Ct App Tx 1972) ................... 12.160 Rederi Sverre Hansen A/S v Phs van Ommeren (1921) 6 Ll L Rep 193 .................................. 14.280 Rederiaktiebolaget Urania v Zachariades (1931) 41 Ll L Rep 145 ............................................ 13.530 Reeves v Capper (1838) 5 Bing (NC) 136; 132 ER 1057 ............................................................ 10.60 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491 .................................... 16.250 Reid v Macbeth & Gray [1904] AC 223 ......................................................................................... 6.30 Reid and Stewart v Fairbanks, Allison and Allison (1853) 13 CB 692; 138 ER 1371 ............... 5.190 Reiter Petroleum Inc v The Ship Sam Hawk [2015] FCA 1005 .................................................. 8.590 Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517 ...................................................................................... 17.290 Reliance, The (1843) 2 W Rob 119; 166 ER 700 .................................................... 8.90, 8.480, 8.580 Rena K, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 545 ...................................................................................... 12.720 Renpor, The (1883) 8 PD 115 ......................................................................................... 20.260, 20.790 Renton & Co v Palmyra Trading Corp of Panama [1957] AC 149 .............................. 12.310, 14.400 Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] AC 878 ............................................. 8.40 Rey Banano del Pacifico CA v Transportes Navieros Ecuatorianos (The Isla Fernandina) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 15 ........................................................................................................................ 12.390 Reynolds v Katoomba RSL All Services Club Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 43 ............................... 19.230 Rhadamanthe, The (1813) 1 Dods 201; 165 ER 1283 ........................................................... 9.50, 9.90 Rheinoel GmbH v Huron Liberian Co (The Concordia C) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55 .............. 13.550 Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (The Popi M) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .. 17.220, 17.290, 17.300, 17.360 Rhone and Peter AB Widener, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 600 .................................................. 16.170 Riby Grove, The (1843) 2 W Rob 52; 166 ER 675 ............................................................. 8.90, 8.220 Ricargo Trading SA v Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantor BV (The Tassos N) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 648 ........................................................................................................................................... 13.640 Rickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co [1942] AC 50 ........................................... 17.370 Ridge v Taylor & Larner Construction Pty Ltd (1974) 9 SASR 428 ......................................... 12.580 Ridgeway Maritime Inc v Beulah Wings Ltd (The Leon) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 611 ................ 14.30 Ripon City, The [1897] P 226 ...................... 8.30, 8.150, 8.280, 8.380, 8.450, 9.30, 9.50, 9.70, 10.20 River Gurara (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden On Board) v Nigerian National Shipping Line Ltd [1998] QB 610 ........................................................................................................................ 12.520 River Rima, The [1988] 1 WLR 758 ............................................................................................. 8.330 Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co Ltd (The Muncaster Castle) [1961] AC 807 ......................................................................................................................... 12.300 Riyad Bank v Ahli United Bank (UK) plc [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409 ...................................... 17.620 Robertson v Petros M Nomikos Ltd [1939] AC 371 .......................... 17.370, 17.380, 17.390, 17.420 Robey v Vladinier (1935) 53 Ll L Rep 121 .................................................................................... 4.90 Robins Dry Dock and Repair Co v Flint 275 US 303 (1927) .................................................... 15.190 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 ....... 2.90, 2.110, 2.120, 2.200, 2.220, 2.230, 2.250, 2.260, 2.290, 2.300, 2.350, 8.190, 20.180, 20.200, 20.630, 20.820, 21.40, 21.50, 21.60, 21.70, 21.180, 21.210 Rockwell Graphic Systems Ltd v Fremantle Terminals Ltd (1991) 65 ALJR 514 .................... 12.740 Rodocanachi v Milburn (1886) 18 QBD 67 .......................................... 12.10, 12.700, 12.710, 15.170 Roe, The (1856) Swa 84; 166 ER 1032 ....................................................................................... 20.140 Roelandts v Harrison (1854) 9 Ex 444; 156 ER 189 .................................................................. 13.590 Ropner Shipping Co Ltd and Cleeves Western Valleys Anthracite Collieries Ltd, Re [1927] 1 KB 879 ........................................................................................................................................... 13.470 Rosa S, The [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 574 ....................................................................................... 12.550 Rosenbruch v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines Inc 543 F 2d 967; 1976 AMC 487 (2d Cir 1976) ........................................................................................................................... 12.560 Rosenfeld Hillas & Co Pty Ltd v Ship Fort Laramie (1922) 31 CLR 56 .................................... 8.150 Rosenfeld Hillas & Co Pty Ltd v The Ship Fort Laramie (1923) 32 CLR 25 ............. 12.200, 12.210 Ross v Adelaide Marine Assurance Co (1870) 1 VR (L) 232 ......................................... 17.40, 17.140 Routh v MacMillan (1863) 2 H & C 749; 159 ER 310 ................................................................ 14.70 Roux v Salvador (1836) 3 Bing (NC) 266; 132 ER 413 .............................................................. 3.510

lvi Table of Cases Rowland & Marwood’s Steamship Co Ltd v Wilson, Sons & Co Ltd (1897) 2 Com Cas 198 ....................................................................................................................... 13.320, 13.500 Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC v MK Digital Fze (Cyprus) Ltd [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 679 ................................................................................................................................... 12.840 Royal Boskalis Westminster NV v Mountain [1999] QB 674 ....................................... 17.120, 17.220 Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply v Hartlepools Seatonia Steamship Co Ltd [1927] 2 KB 419 ........................................................................................................................................... 12.700 Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (1948) 82 Ll L Rep 196 ............................. 14.330 Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (1950) 83 Ll L Rep 228 ............................. 14.380 Royal Insurance Co of America v Cineraria Shipping Co 894 F Supp 1557; 1996 AMC 2051 (MD Fla 1995) .................................................................................................................................... 18.20 Royal Victorian Aero Club v Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 236 ........................................... 19.240 Royal Wells, The [1985] QB 86 ......................................................................................... 8.260, 8.440 Ruby Queen, The (1861) Lush 266; 167 ER 119 .......................................................................... 8.150 Rudhra Minerals Pte Ltd v MRI Trading Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 1023 ........................................ 13.30 Rusden v Pope (1868) LR 3 Ex 269 ............................................................................................ 10.280 Russell v Niemann (1864) 17 CB (NS) 163 ................................................................................ 12.430 Russland, The [1924] P 55 ......................................................................................... 8.400, 8.440, 9.30 Ruta, The [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 359 .................................................................................. 8.350, 8.420

S SA Maritime et Commerciale v Anglo-Iranian Oil Co Ltd [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep l ................... 14.50 SA Sucre Export v Northern River Shipping Ltd (The Sormovskiy 3068) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266 ...................................................................................................................... 12.100, 12.770 SA de Remorquage & Helice v Bennetts [1911] 1 KB 243 ....................................................... 15.190 SC White Pty Ltd v Ship Mediterranean [1966] Qd R 211 .......................................................... 2.300 SCA (Freight) Ltd v Gibson [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 533 ............................................................. 17.200 SG White Pty Ltd v Ship Mediterranean [1966] Qd R 211 .......................................................... 2.310 SIB International SRL v Metallgesellschaft Corp (The Noel Bay) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 361 .............................................................................................. 13.40, 13.520, 13.540, 13.550 SL Sethia Liners Ltd v Naviagro Maritime Corp (The Kostas Melas) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 159 ................................................................................................................................... 14.320 SNC SLB v M/V Newark Bay 111 F 3d 243; 1997 AMC 1952 (2d Cir 1997) ........... 12.340, 12.560 SPM Corp v M/V Ming Moon 965 F 2d 1297; 1992 AMC 2409 (3d Cir 1992) ........ 12.340, 12.560 SS Albion, Re the: Dunn v Hoyt (1873) 4 AJR 3 ......................................................................... 8.300 SS Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v SS Ardennes (Owners) [1951] 1 KB 55 .................... 12.270, 12.370 SS Arild (Owner) v SA de Navigation Hovrani [1923] 2 KB 141 ............................................. 14.330 SS Blairmore Co v Macredie [1893] AC 593 .............................................................................. 17.440 SS Boveric Co Ltd v Howard Smith & Sons Pty Ltd (1901) 27 VLR 347 ................................. 13.70 SS Garston Co v Hickie & Co (1885) 15 QBD 580 ................................................................... 13.590 SS Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 288 ........... 12.530, 16.160, 19.280 STX Pan Ocean Ltd v Ugland Bulk Transport AS (The Livanita) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 86 .... 13.50 Sabah Shipyard Sdn Bhd v M/V Harbel Tapper 178 F 3d 400 (5th Cir 1999) ......................... 12.560 Safadi v Western Assurance Co (1933) 46 Ll L Rep 140 ............................................................. 17.80 St George, The [1926] P 217 ............................................................................................................ 9.50 Saint John Marine Co v US 92 F 3d 39 (2d Cir 1996) .............................................................. 14.560 St John Pilot Commissioners and the Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Cumberland Railway & Coal Co [1910] AC 208 .................................................................. 1.200, 1.240, 1.250 St Joseph, The [1933] P 119 ......................................................................................................... 12.680 St Lawrence, The (1880) 5 PD 250 ............................................................................................... 8.320 St Louis, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 174 ..................................................................................... 15.120 St Machar, The (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 27 .............................................................................. 1.240, 1.250 St Machar, The (1939) 65 Ll L Rep 119 ............................................................................ 1.240, 1.250 St Paul Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics A/S 433 Fed Appx 19; 2011 AMC 2701 (2d Cir 2011) ....................................................................................................... 12.560

Table of Cases lvii St Vincent Shipping Co Ltd v Bock, Godeffroy & Co (The Helen Miller) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 95 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.280 Salacia, The (1829) 2 Hagg Adm 262; 166 ER 240 ................................................................... 20.450 Salacia, The (1862) Lush 545; 167 ER 246 .................................................................................. 8.440 Salamis Shipping (Panama) SA v Edm van Meerbeeck & Co SA (The Onisilos) [1971] 2 QB 500 .................................................................................................................................... 13.380 Sale Corp of Monrovia v Turkish Cargo Lines General Manager (The Amiral Fahri Engin) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75 ............................................................................................. 13.190, 13.200, 13.220 Salmon and Woods, Re; Ex parte Gould (1885) 2 Morr BR 137 ..................................... 1.40, 10.140 Salsi v Jetspeed Air Services Ltd [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 57 ....................................................... 12.840 Salt Union Ltd v Wood [1893] 1 QB 370 ................................................................. 1.10, 16.20, 16.80 Sameiet Stavos (OH Meling Rederi) v The Berostar (Owners) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403 ....... 8.450 Sametiet M/T Johs Stove v Istanbul Petrol Rafinerisi A/S (The Johs Stove) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 38 ................................................................................................................... 13.190, 13.390, 13.460 Samuel v Jones (1863) 7 LT 760 ................................................................................................. 10.300 Samuel, The (1851) 15 Jur 407 .................................................................................................... 20.420 Samuel, The (1851) 17 LT (OS) 204 ................................................................... 20.410, 20.630, 21.70 Samuel, Samuel & Co v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Co (1906) 11 Com Cas 115 ...... 12.810 Samuel Sanday v Keighley Maxted & Co (1922) 27 Com Cas 296 .......................................... 13.130 San Demetrio, The (1941) 69 Ll L Rep 5 ...................................................................... 20.290, 20.450 San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (1986) 162 CLR 340 ...................................................................................................... 15.190 Sandeman v Scurr (1866) LR 2 QB 86 ................................................................... 5.50, 5.100, 12.810 Sanders Bros v Maclean & Co (1883) 11 QBD 327 ................................................................... 12.760 Sandgate, The [1930] P 30 ........................................................................................................... 13.350 Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Fearnly and Eger A/S (The Manhattan Prince) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 140 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Kano Trading Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 156 .................................. 14.50 Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Sumitomo Australia Ltd (No 2) (1995) 63 FCR 227 ....... 12.300, 12.390 Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart and Handelsmaatschappij NV v Scanbulk A/S (The Rijn) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267 ........................................................................................................ 14.330, 14.500 Santiago v Sea-Land Service Inc 366 F Supp 1309 (DPR 1973) ............................................... 12.510 Santiago, The (1900) 9 Asp MLC 147 ......................................................................................... 20.360 Santiren Shipping Ltd v Unimarine SA (The Chrysovalandou Dyo) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 159 ......................................................................................................... 14.320, 14.520, 14.550 Sanwa and Choyang Star, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 283 ........................................................... 15.80 Sappho, The (1870) LR 3 A & E 142 ............................................................................ 20.230, 20.310 Saratoga, The (1861) Lush 318; 167 ER 140 ................................................................. 20.350, 20.360 Sarma Navigation SA v Sidermar SpA (The Sea Pioneer) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 13 ............... 13.210 Sarpen, The [1916] P 306 ............................................................................................................. 20.310 Satya Padam, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 338 ............................................................................. 15.100 Sava Star, The [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 134 ........................................... 20.230, 20.290, 20.300, 20.400 Scandinavian Bunkering AS v Bunkers on Ship FV Taruman (2006) 151 FCR 126 .................... 1.40 Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 253 ........................................................................................................ 14.440, 14.450 Scapa Forming Fabrics v Blue Anchor Line 243 Fed Appx 846; 2007 AMC 2108 (5th Cir 2007) .......................................................................................................................... 12.560 Scaramanga v Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295 ..................................................................................... 13.620 Schelde Delta Shipping BV v Astarte Shipping Ltd (The Pamela) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 249 ................................................................................................................................... 14.450 Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121 .................................................. 15.110 Schiffahrt & Kohlen GmbH v Chelsea Maritime Ltd [1982] QB 481 ....................................... 15.200 Schiffahrtsagentur Hamburg Middle East Line GmbH v Virtue Shipping Corp (The Oinoussian Virtue) (No 2) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 300 .............................................................................. 14.290 Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MS “Merkur Sky” MBH & Co KG v MS Leerort Nth Schiffahrts GmbH & Co KG (The Leerort) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 291 ....................................... 12.530, 16.160, 19.280

lviii Table of Cases Schiffshypothekenbank Zu Luebeck AG v Compton (The Alexion Hope) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 311 .................................................................................................................................... 17.220 Schirmer Stevedoring Co Ltd v Seaboard Stevedoring Corp 306 F 2d 188 (9th Cir 1962) ..... 14.470 Schlederer v The Ship Red Fin [1979] 1 NSWLR 258 ................................................................ 16.10 Schoolman v Hall [1951] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 139 .............................................................................. 17.110 Schuster v McKellar (1857) 7 El & Bl 704; 119 ER 1407 ................................ 11.70, 12.100, 15.190 Schwan, The; The Albano [1892] P 419 ...................................................................................... 16.170 Scio, The (1867) LR 1 A & E 353 .............................................................................. 9.20, 9.30, 10.20 Scott v Pilkington (1862) 2 B & S 11; 121 ER 978 ................................................................... 12.670 Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 .............................................................. 12.740 Sea Glory Maritime Co v Al Sagr National Insurance Co (The MV Nancy) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 14 .................................................................................................................................. 14.70, 17.100 Sea Spray, The [1970] P 133 .......................................................................................................... 8.420 Sea Success Maritime Inc v African Maritime Carriers Ltd [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 692 ........... 14.420 Sea and Land Securities Ltd v William Dickinson & Co Ltd [1942] 2 KB 65; (1942) 72 Ll L Rep 159 ................................................................................................................................ 14.10, 14.320 Seacrystal Shipping Ltd v Bulk Transport Group Shipping Co Ltd (The Kyzikos) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 122 ................................................................................................................................... 13.180 Seafood Imports Pty Ltd v ANL Singapore Pte Ltd (2010) 272 ALR 149 ........ 11.70, 12.50, 12.160, 12.280, 12.300, 12.310, 12.370, 12.480, 12.740, 12.800 Seagate Shipping Ltd v Glencore International AG (The Silver Constellation) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 440 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.140 Seamen’s Union of Australia v Australian Dredging & General Works Pty Ltd (1968) 129 CAR 29 .......................................................................................................................... 1.200, 1.220 Searoad Shipping Co v EI du Pont de Nemours 361 F 2d 833 (5th Cir 1966) ........... 12.340, 12.560 Seas Sapfor Forests Pty Ltd v Electricity Trust of South Australia (1996) 187 LSJS 369 ...... 15.180, 15.190, 19.230 Seath & Co Ltd v Moore (1886) 11 App Cas 350 .......................................................................... 6.30 Seatrade Groningen BV v Geest Industries Ltd (The Frost Express) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 375 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.30 Seavision Investment SA v Evennett (The Tiburon) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 418 .......... 17.160, 17.580 Sedco Inc v S/S Strathewe 800 F 2d 27; 1986 AMC 2801 (2d Cir 1986) ...... 12.340, 12.440, 12.560 Sedgwick Tomenson Inc v PT Reasuransi Umum Indonesia [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 334 .......... 17.160 Segovia Compagnia Naviera SA v R Pagnan & Fratelli (The Aragon) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 343 ................................................................................................................................... 14.190 Seguros Illimani SA v M/V Popi P 929 F 2d 89; 1991 AMC 1521 (2d Cir 1991) .................. 12.560 Seismic Shipping Inc v Total E&P UK Plc (The Western Regent) [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359 ......................................................................................................... 16.230, 16.240, 16.260 Seismic Shipping Inc v Total E&P UK Plc (The Western Regent) [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 54 ..................................................................................................................................... 16.260 Sellers Fabrics Pty Ltd v Hapag-Lloyd AG [1998] NSWSC 644 .................... 12.300, 12.530, 12.820 Semco Salvage & Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd; The Nagasaki Spirit [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 44 ............................................................................................. 20.700, 20.730, 20.740 Semco Salvage & Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd; The Nagasaki Spirit [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 449 ...................................................................................................................... 20.730 Semco Salvage & Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd; The Nagasaki Spirit [1997] AC 455; [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 323 ............................. 18.90, 20.700, 20.730, 20.750, 20.760, 20.770 Senator Linie GmbH & Co KG v Sunway Line Inc 291 F 3d 145; 2002 AMC 1217 (2d Cir 2002) ........................................................................................................................... 12.650 Servicios-Expoarma CA v Industrial Maritime Carriers Inc 135 F 3d 984; 1998 AMC 1453 (5th Cir 1998) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.600 Servicios-Expoarma CA v Industrial Maritime Carriers Inc 135 F 3d 988; 1998 AMC 1457 (5th Cir 1998) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.600 Seven Seas Transportation Ltd v Atlantic Shipping Co SA [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 188 ............ 14.320 Seven Seas Transportation Ltd v Pacifico Union Marina Corp (The Satya Kailash and Oceanic Amity) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 588 .......................................................................................... 12.390 Seward v Owner of the Vera Cruz: The Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App Cas 59 ................................. 8.140

Table of Cases lix Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 App Cas 74 .......................................................... 12.270, 12.630, 12.760 Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v Ship “Bulk Peace” (2014) 314 ALR 230 ............................ 16.50, 19.50 Sharp v Sphere Drake Insurance plc (The Moonacre) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 501 .......... 17.20, 17.30, 17.40, 17.90, 17.100 Shelford v Mosey [1917] 1 KB 154 .............................................................................................. 8.230 Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The Salem) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 342 ........... 17.220 Shell International Petroleum Ltd v Seabridge Shipping Ltd (The Metula) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 13.660 Shell Oil Co v The Ship Lastrigoni (1974) 131 CLR 1 ................................................................ 8.330 Shell UK Ltd v CLM Engineering Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 612 .............................. 17.270, 17.290 Sherbro, The (1883) 5 Asp MLC 88 ..................................................................................... 9.30, 10.20 Ship Betty Ott, The v General Bills Ltd: The Betty Ott [1992] 1 NZLR 655 ............................ 8.590 Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369 ....... 5.50, 5.100, 7.30, 8.280, 8.450, 9.70, 14.440, 14.470 Ship Korowa v Ship Kooraka [1949] SASR 45 ............................................... 20.460, 20.480, 20.490 Ship MV Santo Rocco Di Bagnara, The (1991) 101 ALR 491 .................................................. 20.390 Ship Marlborough Hill, The v Cowan & Sons Ltd [1921] 1 AC 444 ........................................ 12.100 Ship Socofl Stream, The v CMC (Australia) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 961 .......... 12.320, 12.700, 12.710, 12.810, 14.420 Ship Texaco Southampton v Burley [1982] 2 NSWLR 336 .. 20.240, 20.350, 20.380, 20.660, 20.670 Shipping Corp of India Ltd v Gamlen Chemical Co (A/Asia) Pty Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 142 ................................................................ 12.150, 12.280, 12.310, 12.370, 12.400, 12.410 Shipping Corp of India Ltd v NSB Niederelbe Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co (The Black Falcon) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 77 ........................................................................................... 14.240 Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Naviera Letasa SA [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 132 ............... 14.180 Shipping Developments Corp v V/O Sojuzneftexport: The Delian Spirit [1972] 1 QB 103 ... 13.190, 13.200 Shizelle, The [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 444 ............................................................................ 10.50, 10.60 Showa Oil Tanker Co Ltd of Japan v Maravan SA of Caracas (The Larissa) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 ............................................................................................................................................. 14.80 Sibley v Kais (1967) 118 CLR 424 .............................................................................................. 15.110 Sidermar SpA v Apollo Corporation (The Apollo) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 200 .......................... 14.330 Sidney Cooke Ltd v Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft [1980] 2 NSWLR 587 ............. 12.370, 12.820 Sierra Leone, Government of v Marmaro Shipping Co Ltd (The Amazona and Yayamaria) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130 ........................................................................................................ 12.580, 12.590 Sig Bergesen DY A/S v Mobil Shipping and Transportation Co (The Berge Sund) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460 ................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Sig Bergesen DY A/S v Mobil Shipping and Transportation Co (The Berge Sund) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 453 ......................................................................................................... 12.650, 14.330, 14.380 Silia, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 534 ............................................................................................... 1.40 Silver v Ocean Steamship Co Ltd [1930] 1 KB 416 ..................................................... 12.150, 12.470 Simon v Taylor [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338 ...................................................................... 20.400, 21.70 Simpson v Thomson (1877) 3 App Cas 279 .................................................................................. 15.20 Singer Co (UK) Ltd v Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 164 ............ 12.840 Sir Henry Constable’s Case (1601) 5 Co Rep 106a; 77 ER 218 ......................... 20.630, 21.50, 21.80 Sir James Laing & Sons Ltd v Barclay, Curle & Co Ltd [1908] AC 35 ....................................... 6.30 Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of the Steamship Blanche [1908] AC 126 ....................... 5.50, 5.100 Sisters, The (1804) 5 C Rob 155; 165 ER 731 ............................................................................. 6.190 Sivewright v Allen [1906] 2 KB 81 ............................................................................................... 3.510 Skandia Insurance Co Ltd v Skoljarev (1979) 142 CLR 375 ............ 12.410, 17.200, 17.220, 17.290, 17.300, 17.600 Skandia Insurance Co Ltd v Star Shipping A/S 173 F Supp 2d 1228; 2001 AMC 1527 (SD Ala 2001) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.420 Skarp, The [1935] P 134 ................................................................................................. 12.120, 12.150 Skibsaktieselskapet Snefonn, Skibsaktieselskapet Bergehus & Sig Bergesen DY & Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Berge Tasta) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 422 ............................ 14.170, 14.240 Skips A/S Nordheim v Syrian Petroleum Co Ltd (The Varenna) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 592 ... 12.720

lx

Table of Cases

Slade v JJ Sullivan Ltd (1920) 21 SR (NSW) 90 ....................................................................... 15.200 Slattery v Mance [1962] 1 QB 676 .............................................................................................. 17.110 Smaragd, The (1927) 28 Ll L Rep 302 ........................................................................................ 20.160 Smith v Beaver (1876) 2 VLR (L) 110 ........................................................................................ 13.540 Smith v Blair (1884) 5 ALT 177 ........................................................................................... 8.280, 9.50 Smith v Brown (1871) 6 QB 729 ................................................................................................... 8.140 Smith v Chadwick (1884) 9 App Cas 187 ................................................................................... 17.110 Smith v Dart & Son (1884) 14 QBD 105 ......................................................... 13.140, 13.200, 14.180 Smith v Perese [2006] NSWSC 288 ................................................................................... 16.20, 16.80 Smith v Plummer (1818) 1 B & Ald 575; 106 ER 212 ....................................................... 8.90, 8.270 Smith, Hogg & Co v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Co [1940] AC 997 .................. 12.370 Smithers v Lokys (2001) 108 FCR 303 ............................................................................ 16.30, 16.160 Smith’s Dock Co Ltd v The St Merriel (Owners): The St Merriel [1963] P 247 ....................... 8.620 Snia Societa di Navigazione Industria e Commercio v Suzuki & Co (1924) 17 Ll L Rep 78 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.130 Snia Societa di Navigazione Industria e Commercio v Suzuki & Co (1924) 18 Ll L Rep 333 ...................................................................................................................... 14.120, 14.130 Sociedad Carga Oceania SA v Idolinoele Vertriebs GmbH (The Angelos Lusis) [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 28 ..................................................................................................................................... 13.190 Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices SA v Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products (The Aello) [1961] AC 135 ..................................................................................... 13.200 Societe Anonyme Marocaine de L’Industrie du Raffinage v Notos Maritime Corporation (The Notos) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 503 ............................................................................. 13.260, 13.460 Societe Belge des Batons SA v London & Lancashire Insurance Co Ltd (1938) 60 Ll L Rep 225 ................................................................................................................................... 17.400 Societe Navale de L’Ouest v RWJ Sutherland & Co (1920) 4 Ll L Rep 58 ............................... 14.50 Société Maritime Caledonienne v The Cythera [1965] NSWR 146 ... 20.170, 20.200, 20.490, 20.520 Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] 1 AC 871 ............................ 16.260 Solway v Lumley General Insurance Co Ltd (2003) 12 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-567; [2003] QCA 136 ........................................................................................................................................... 17.610 Solway Prince, The [1896] P 120 ................................................................................... 20.410, 20.660 Somelas Corporation v A/S Gerrards Rederi (The Pantelis A Lemos) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 102 ................................................................................................................................... 14.510 Sompo Japan Insurance Co of America v Norfolk Southern Railway Co 762 F 3d 165 (2d Cir 2014) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.740 Son Shipping Co Inc v De Fosse & Tanghe 199 F 2d 687 (2nd Cir 1952) .............................. 12.590 Soproma SpA v Marine & Animal By-Products Corp [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 367 .................... 12.760 Sorrell v Paget [1950] 1 KB 252 ................................................................................................. 20.440 South Australian Voluntary Wheat Pool v Owners of the Riol (1926) 24 Ll L Rep 363 .......... 13.440 Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 246 ............................... 2.290 Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 1204 .............................................. 19.210 Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 182 ...................................................... 19.210 Soya GmbH Mainz Kommanditgesellschaft v White [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 ...................... 17.270 Soya GmbH Mainz Kommanditgesellschaft v White [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 122 ...................... 17.270 Spalmatori, The [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 175 ................................................................................. 13.460 Spalmatori, The (see Compania Naviera Aeolus SA v Union of India [1964] AC 868) ........... 13.460 Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 407 ...................................................................................................................... 14.250, 14.310 Spartus Corp v S/S Yafo 590 F 2d 1310; 1979 AMC 2294 (5th Cir 1979) ................. 12.340, 12.560 Spermina, The (1923) 17 Ll L Rep 17 ............................................................................................. 7.90 Spermina, The (1923) 17 Ll L Rep 52 ............................................................................................. 7.90 Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 ............................................................ 16.250 Spirit of the Ocean, The (1865) 12 LT 239 ................................................. 5.130, 5.190, 5.200, 5.210 Splosna Plovba of Piran v Agrelab Steamship Corp (The Bela Krajina) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 139 ................................................................................................................................... 14.330 Stag Line Ltd v Ellerman & Papayanni Lines Ltd (1949) 82 Ll L Rep 826 ............................. 14.380 Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo Mango & Co Ltd [1932] AC 328 .......................................... 12.330, 12.340

Table of Cases lxi Stainbank v Fenning (1851) 11 CB 51; 138 ER 389 ............................................................. 9.50, 9.70 Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262 ............................................. 8.280, 9.50, 9.70 Stamp Duties (NSW), Commissioner of v Millar (1932) 48 CLR 618 ........................................ 2.210 Stamps (Qld), Commissioner of v Counsell (1937) 57 CLR 248 ................................................. 2.210 Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Ltd (The Erin Schulte) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338 ................................................................................................................................... 12.770 Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Ltd (The Erin Schulte) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 97 ........................................................................................................... 12.100, 12.670, 12.770 Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 4) [2001] QB 167 ............. 12.110 Stanton v Austin (1872) LR 7 CP 651 ........................................................................... 13.160, 13.210 Stapleton v Haymen (1864) 2 H & C 918; 159 ER 380 ........................................ 5.170, 5.190, 5.200 Star Sea, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389 ............................................... 17.90, 17.270, 17.440, 17.630 Star Steamship Society v Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 583 ...... 11.70, 13.30, 14.30 Stargas SpA v Petredec Ltd (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412 ....................... 14.150, 14.400 State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Swiss Bank Corp (1995) 39 NSWLR 350 .................. 13.440 State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Crittenden (1966) 117 CLR 412 ........................... 16.100 State Trading Corp of India v Doyle Carriers Inc (The Jute Express) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 55 ....................................................................................................................................... 18.80 State of the Netherlands v Youell [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 236 ..................................................... 17.220 Steamship Isis Co Ltd, The v Bahr [1900] AC 340 .................................................................... 13.530 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 ............................................ 1.20, 1.200, 1.210, 1.240 Steel v The State Line Steamship Co (1877) 3 App Cas 72 ...................................................... 13.600 Steel, Young & Co v Grand Canary Coaling Co (1902) 7 Com Cas 213 .................................. 13.430 Steel Coils Inc v M/V Lake Marion 331 F 3d 422 (5th Cir 2003) ............................................ 12.300 Steel Warehouse Co Inc v Abalone Shipping Ltd of Nicosai 141 F 3d 234; 1998 AMC 2054 (5th Cir 1998) .................................................................................................................................. 12.720 Steelwood Carriers Inc of Monrovia, Liberia v Evimeria Compania Naviera SA of Panama (The Agios Giorgis) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 192 .................................................. 14.320, 14.440, 14.550 Stella Antares, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 41 ................................................................................ 15.80 Stephens v Broomfield: The Great Pacific (1869) LR 2 PC 516 ........................................ 9.50, 20.80 Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 ...................................................................................... 14.440 Stettin, The (1889) 14 PD 142 ..................................................................................................... 12.770 Steven v Bromley & Son [1919] 2 KB 722 ................................................................................ 13.520 Stewart v Aberdein (1838) 4 M & W 211; 150 ER 1406 ........................................................... 17.640 Stindt v Roberts (1848) 17 LJQB 166 ......................................................................................... 12.680 Stocznia Gdanzska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 592 ............................... 14.250 Stocznia Gdanzska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132 ............................... 14.250 Stolt Tank Containers Inc v Evergreen Marine Corp 962 F 2d 276; 1992 AMC 2015 (2d Cir 1992) .............................................................................................................. 12.370, 12.560 Stolt Tankers Inc v Landmark Chemicals SA (The Stolt Spur) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 786 ..... 13.420, 13.470 Stonedale No 1, The [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 9 ............................................................................... 16.90 Stork, The [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 349 ............................................................................................ 13.70 Strang, Steel & Co v A Scott & Co (1889) 14 App Cas 601 ....................................................... 18.80 Strathlorne Steamship Co Ltd v Andrew Weir & Co (1934) 49 Ll L Rep 306 ......................... 14.390 Strathnaver, The (1875) 1 App Cas 58 ......................................................................................... 20.350 Stream Fisher, The [1927] P 73 .......................................................... 8.350, 8.390, 8.440, 8.620, 9.90 Strive Shipping Corp v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Assoc (The Grecia Express) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88 ........................................................................................................................ 17.220, 17.290 Strong Wise Ltd v Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd (The APL Sydney) (2010) 185 FCR 149; [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555 ............................ 16.10, 16.30, 16.40, 16.160, 16.170, 19.270, 19.280 Suek AG v Glencore International AG (The Hang Ta) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278 ................... 13.180 Suez Fortune Investments Ltd v Talbot Underwriting Ltd (The Brillante Virtuoso) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 651 ................................................................................................................................... 17.420 Sumitomo Corp v CV Scheepvaartonderneming Emmagracht (2009) 260 ALR 264 ................ 12.740 Sumitomo Corp of America v M/V Saint Venture 683 F Supp 1361 (MD Fla 1988) .............. 12.170

lxii Table of Cases Sunshine Fisheries v Lambert-Bain Pty Ltd (1991) 6 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-069 ............... 17.440 Superfos Chartering A/S v NBR (London) Ltd (The Saturnia) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 43 ........ 13.460 Surrey Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (The Shackleford) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154 ...................................................................................................................... 13.210 Sutherland v Pratt (1843) 11 M & W 296; 152 ER 815 ............................................................... 17.30 Sutherland v Pratt (1843) 12 M & W 16; 152 ER 1092 ............................................................... 17.50 Sutherland Shire Council Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 ............................................ 15.50 Svenska Traktor Akt v Maritime Agencies (Southampton) Ltd [1953] 2 QB 295 .................... 12.340 Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson Ltd (Titan) v Benwood (1923) 14 Ll L Rep 484 ............ 1.210 Sweeting v Pearce (1861) 9 CB (NS) 534; 142 ER 210 ............................................................ 17.640 Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd (1997) 74 FCR 205 ............. 17.580, 17.610, 17.620 Sydney Cove, The (1815) 2 Dods 11; 165 ER 1399 ..................................... 8.90, 8.390, 8.480, 8.580 Sylph, The (1867) LR 2 A & E 24 ................................................................................................ 8.160 Sylvan Arrow, The [1923] P 220 .................................................................................................... 8.150 Symington v Union Insurance Society of Canton (No 2) (1928) 34 Com Cas 233 .................... 17.90 Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd [1959] AC 576 ............................................ 12.770

T TA Shipping Ltd v Comet Shipping Ltd (The Agamemnon) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 675 .......... 13.210 TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Hayden Enterprises Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 130 ........ 13.520, 13.540 TJ Stevenson & Co Inc v 81,193 Bags of Flour 629 F 2d 338 (5th Cir 1980) ......................... 12.110 TM Noten BV v Harding [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 527 ................................................................. 17.270 TM Noten BV v Harding [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 283 ................................................................. 17.270 TS Lines Ltd v Delphis NV (The TS Singapore) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 54 ............................. 14.330 TW Thomas & Co Ltd v Portsea Steamship Co Ltd: The Portsmouth [1912] AC 1 ................ 12.720 Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp SA, In re 513 F Supp 148; 1981 AMC 2350 (ED La 1981) ............................................................................................................. 12.300, 12.390 Ta Chi Navigation Corp SA, In re 677 F 2d 225; 1982 AMC 1710 (2d Cir 1982) .................. 12.400 Tacko v Talacko [2009] VSC 579 ................................................................................................ 13.440 Tacoma City, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 ..................................................................... 8.380, 10.20 Tagart, Beaton & Co v James Fisher & Sons [1903] 1 KB 391 ................................................ 14.560 Tagus, The [1903] P 44 ....................................................................................................... 8.290, 8.450 Talbot Underwriting Ltd v Nausch, Hogan & Murray Inc (The Jascon 5) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 195 ..................................................................................................................................... 17.40 Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317 ......... 16.100 Tamini v Salen Dry Cargo AB 866 F 2d 741; 1989 AMC 892 (5th Cir 1989) ......................... 12.560 Tamvaco v Simpson (1866) LR 1 CP 363 ................................................................................... 12.710 Tankexpress A/S v Compagnie Financiere Belge des Petroles SA (The Petrofina) [1949] AC 76 ......................................................................................................................... 14.170, 14.440 Tantalus (Master and Crew) v Telemachus, her Cargo and Freight (Owners): The Telemachus [1957] P 47 .............................................................................................................................. 20.510 Taokas Navigation SA v Komrowski Bulk Shipping KG (The Paiwan Wisdom) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 416 ................................................................................................................................... 14.370 Tapco Nigeria Ltd v M/V Westwind 702 F 2d 1252 (5th Cir 1983) .......................................... 12.490 Tarbert, The [1921] P 372 ............................................................................................................. 20.250 Tarcoma City, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 408 ................................................................... 8.220, 8.230 Tarcoma City, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 ................................................................... 8.220, 8.230 Tasman Express Line Ltd v JI Case (Australia) Pty Ltd (The Canterbury Express) (1992) 111 FLR 108 .............................................................................................................................. 12.340, 13.620 Tasman Orient Line CV v Alliance Group Ltd (unreported, NZ High Ct, Williams J, 21 August 2003) ........................................................................................................................................ 16.160 Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Ltd (The Tasman Pioneer) [2010] 3 NZLR 1 .................................................................................................................... 12.390 Tata Ltd & Global Marine Transportation Inc [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 129 ................................. 12.840 Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826; 122 ER 309 ................................................................. 14.480

Table of Cases lxiii Telfair Shipping Corporation v Athos Shipping Co SA (The Athos) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 74 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.290 Telfair Shipping Corporation v Athos Shipping Co SA (The Athos) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 127 ...................................................................................................................... 14.290, 14.460 Temperley Steam Shipping Co v Smyth & Co [1905] 2 KB 791 .............................................. 12.700 Temple Steamship Co Ltd v V/O Sovfracht (1945) 79 Ll L Rep 1 ........................................... 14.280 Tempus Shipping Co v Louis Dreyfus & Co [1930] 1 KB 699 ................................................. 12.400 Tergeste, The [1903] P 26 ............................................................ 8.230, 8.400, 8.470, 9.20, 9.30, 9.40 Terman Foods Inc v Omega Lines 707 F 2d 1225 (11th Cir 1983) ........................................... 12.510 Tervaete, The [1922] P 259 ................................................................................ 8.30, 8.50, 8.80, 8.460 Tessler Bros (BC) v Italpacific Line 494 F 2d 438; 1974 AMC 937 (9th Cir 1974) ................ 12.560 Teys Bros (Beenleigh) Pty Ltd v ANL Cargo Operations Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 288 ............ 12.610 Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Hamilton, Fraser & Co (1887) 12 App Case 484 ..................................................................................................................... 17.220, 17.290 Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Co v Loftus (1872) LR 8 CP 1 .......................................................... 18.50 Themistocles (Owners) v Compagnie Intercontinentale de L’Hyperphosphate of Tangier (The Themistocles) (1949) 82 LI L Rep 232 ................................................................................. 13.500 Theta, The [1894] P 280 ...................................................................................................... 8.130, 8.160 Thiess Brothers (Qld) Pty Ltd v Australian Steamships Pty Ltd [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 459 ... 12.330, 12.340 Thomas v Tyne and Weir Steam Ship Freight Insurance Assoc [1917] 1 KB 938 ...... 17.270, 17.600 Thomas National Transport (Melbourne) Pty Ltd v May & Baker (Australia) Pty Ltd (1966) 115 CLR 353 .................................................................................................................................. 13.620 Thomas Wilson, Sons & Co v Owners of the Cargo per the Xantho: The Xantho (1887) 12 App Cas 503 .................................................................................................................................... 12.410 Thomasson Shipping Co Ltd v Peabody & Co Ltd [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 297 ........................ 13.500 Thompson v Gillespy (1855) 5 El & Bl 209; 119 ER 459 ......................................................... 13.590 Thompson v H & W Nelson Ltd [1913] 2 KB 523 ........................................................... 8.230, 8.240 Thompson v Masterson [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 304 ..................................................................... 16.100 Thompson v Smith (1815) 1 Madd 395; 56 ER 145 .................................................................... 10.30 Thomson v Louis Dreyfus & Co (1936) 56 Ll L Rep 44 ........................................................... 14.420 Thomson & Co and Brocklebank Ltd, Re [1918] 1 KB 655 ...................................................... 14.100 Thor Navigation Inc v Ingosstrakh Insurance [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 547 .................................. 17.140 Thoresen & Co (Bangkok) Ltd v Fathom Marine Co Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 62 .................. 13.30 Thyssen Inc v Calypso Shipping Corp SA [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 ........................... 12.590, 13.30 Thyssen Steel Co v M/V Kavo Yerakas 50 F 3d 1349; 1995 AMC 2317 (5th Cir 1995) ....... 12.810, 12.820 Tibermede v Graham (1921) 7 Ll L Rep 250 .............................................................................. 14.100 Tiburnia (No 1), The (1887) 8 LR (NSW) (A) 1 .......................................................................... 8.440 Ticonderoga, The (1857) Swa 215; 166 ER 1103 ......................................................................... 8.150 Tidebrook Maritime Corp v Vitol SA (The Front Commander) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251 .... 13.140, 13.210 Tigress, The (1863) Br & L 38; 167 ER 286 .............................................................................. 12.770 Tillmanns & Co v S/S Knutsford Ltd [1908] 1 KB 185 ............................................................. 12.810 Tillmanns & Co v S/S Knutsford Ltd [1908] 2 KB 385 ............................................................. 12.820 Tillmanns & Co v S/S Knutsford Ltd [1908] AC 406 ................................................... 12.810, 12.820 Timber Shipping Co SA v London & Overseas Freighters Ltd [1972] AC 1 .............. 14.220, 14.240 Tisand Pty Ltd v Owners of Ship MV Cape Moreton (Ex parte Freya) (2005) 143 FCR 43 ..... 5.10, 5.100, 6.190 Tobago, The (1804) 5 C Rob 218; 165 ER 754 .............................................................................. 9.70 Todd v Adams and Chope (t/a Trelawney Fishing Co) (The Maragetha Maria) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 293 ........................................................................................................................................... 16.150 Todd Shipyards Corp v Altema Compania Maritima SA (1973) 32 DLR (3d) 572 .................... 8.590 Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co v M/V Saffron Trader 257 F Supp 2d 651 (SDNY 2003) ........................................................................................................................... 12.590 Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co v Retla Steamship Co 426 F 2d 1372 (9th Cir 1970) ....... 12.170 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165 ........................................... 12.740

lxiv Table of Cases Tolten, The [1946] P 135 ... 1.320, 1.330, 8.20, 8.50, 8.120, 8.130, 8.170, 8.380, 8.450, 8.470, 10.20 Tonnelier v Smith (1897) 2 Com Cas 258 ................................................................................... 14.320 Topaloglu v P & O Nedlloyd Ltd [2006] QSC 17 ...................................................................... 12.610 Tor Line AB v Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd (The TFL Prosperity) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 617 ................................................................................................................................... 14.100 Tor Line AB v Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd (The TFL Prosperity) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 123 ................................................................................................................................... 14.100 Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp (The Gregos) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40 .......... 14.210, 14.240 Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp (The Gregos) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 335 .......... 14.10, 14.170, 14.210, 14.220, 14.230, 14.240, 14.360 Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp (The Gregos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .......................................................... 14.10, 14.170, 14.210, 14.220, 14.230, 14.240, 14.360 Toshiba Corp v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (The Nichigoh Maru) (unreported, NSW Sup Ct, 1991) ........................................................................................................................... 12.530, 12.570 Total Transport Corporation v Amoco Trading Co (The Altus) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 423 ..... 13.470, 13.540 Tower Bridge, The [1936] P 30 ...................................................................................... 20.140, 20.200 Townsville Harbour Board v Scottish Shire Line Ltd (1914) 18 CLR 306 ................................. 15.30 Tradax Export SA v Dorada Compania Naviera SA (The Lutetian) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 140 ................................................................................................................................... 14.340 Trade, Board of v Hain Steamship Co [1929] AC 534 ............................................................... 17.310 Trade Star Line Corp v Mitsui & Co Ltd (The Arctic Trader) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 449 ...... 12.100, 14.420 Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Shipping SA (The Spiros C) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319 ...... 14.470, 14.560 Tradigrain SA v SIAt SPA [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 553 ................................................................ 17.160 Trafigura Beheer BV v Golden Stavreatos Maritime Inc (The Sonia) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 201 ................................................................................................................................... 12.600 Trafigura Beheer BV v Ravennavi SpA (The Port Russel) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 57 ............... 13.210 Tramp Shipping Corp v Greenwich Marine Inc (The New Horizon) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 314 ................................................................................................................................... 13.380 Tramp Shipping Corporation v Greenwich Marine Inc (The New Horizon) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 314 ........................................................................................................................................... 13.380 Transamerican Steamship Corp v Tradax Export SA (The Oriental Envoy) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266 ........................................................................................................................................... 13.210 Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency Inc v M/V OOCL Inspiration 137 F 3d 94; 1998 AMC 1327 (2d Cir 1998) ........................................................................................................................... 12.160 Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 19; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555 .................................................................................................................. 14.240 Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) [2009] 1 AC 61 .................. 14.240 Transgrain Shipping BV v Global Transporte Oceanico SA (The Mexico 1) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 507 ................................................................................................................. 13.160, 13.210, 13.650 Transocean Liners Reederei GmbH v Euxine Shipping Co Ltd (The Imvros) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 848 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.400 Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc (The Mary Lou) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272 ................................................................................................................................... 14.300 Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity 1989 (4) SA 325 ......................................................... 8.590 Transpacific Discovery SA v Cargill International SA (The Elpa) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 596 ................................................................................................................................... 14.410 Transpetrol Ltd v Ekali Shipping Ltd (The Aghia Marina) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 62 ........................................................................................................................ 12.580, 12.590 Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd v SJB (Marine Energy) BV (The Rowan) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 564 ..................................................................................................................... 14.70, 14.80, 14.140 Transport Commission (Tas) v Neale Edwards Pty Ltd (1954) 92 CLR 214 ............................ 19.240 Transworld Oil (USA) Inc v Minos Compania Naviera SA (The Leni) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 48 ..................................................................................................................................... 12.590

Table of Cases lxv Travel Compensation Fund v Blair [2003] NSWSC 720 ............................................................ 17.650 Travelers Indemnity Co v Vessel Sam Houston 26 F 3d 895; 1994 AMC 2162 (9th Cir 1994) .......................................................................................................................... 12.560 Travers v Cooper [1915] 1 KB 73 ............................................................................................... 14.400 Trelawney, The (1802) 4 C Rob 223; 165 ER 592 ..................................................................... 20.170 Tres, The (1936) 55 Ll L Rep 16 ................................................................................................. 20.140 Triad Shipping Co v Stellar Chartering & Brokerage Inc (The Island Archon) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 227 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.380 Triton Navigation Ltd v Vitol SA (The Nikmary) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 55 .............................................................................................. 13.140, 13.200, 13.470, 13.520 Troilus, The [1950] P 92 ....................................................................... 20.130, 20.140, 20.150, 20.350 Troilus (Cargo Owners) v Glenogle (Owners, Master, Crew) [1951] AC 820 ............ 20.130, 20.150, 20.180 Tromp, The [1921] P 337 ............................................................................................................. 12.120 Tropwood AG v Jade Enterprises Ltd (The Tropwind) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 397 ................... 14.460 Tropwood AG of Zug v Jade Enterprises Ltd (The Tropwind) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45 ........ 14.440 Tropwood AG of Zug v Jade Enterprises Ltd (The Tropwind) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 232 ..... 14.440, 14.460, 14.520 Trucks & Spares Ltd v Maritime Agencies (Southampton) Ltd [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 345 ..... 12.770 True Blue, The (1843) 2 W Rob 176; 166 ER 721 ..................................................................... 20.660 Truran Earthmovers Pty Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd (1976) 17 SASR 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 17.50 Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1933) 49 CLR 220 .................................................................................................................................... 2.200 Tubacex Inc v M/V Risan 45 F 3d 951; 1995 AMC 1305 (5th Cir 1995) ................... 12.310, 12.450 Tubantia, The [1924] P 78 ............................................................................................... 20.400, 20.630 Tube Products of India v S/S Rio Grande 334 F Supp 1039; 1971 AMC 1629 (SDNY 1971) ........................................................................................................................... 12.810 Tudor Marine Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Virgo) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 135 .......... 13.480, 13.650 Tully v Howling (1877) 2 QBD 182 .............................................................................. 14.120, 14.130 Tully Falls, The; United Geophysical Corp v Ship Tully Falls [1975] Qd R 85 ....................... 20.590 Turnbull v Owners of the Ship Strathnaver: The Strathnaver (1875) 1 App Cas 58 ... 20.130, 20.200 Turnbull v The Ship The Esk [1991] ACL Rep 270 Vic 1 ......................................................... 20.480 Turner v Haji Goolam Mahomed Azam [1904] AC 826 .................................. 12.700, 14.420, 14.550 Two Ellens, The (1871) LR 3 A & E 345 ..................................................................................... 5.190 Two Friends, The (1799) 1 C Rob 271; 165 ER 174 .................................................................... 8.190 Two Friends, The (1844) 2 Wm Rob 349; 166 ER 786 ............................................................. 20.450 Tychy, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 11 ............................................................................................. 19.50 Tynedale Steam Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co Ltd (1936) 54 Ll L Rep 341 ......................................................................................................... 14.130, 14.330, 14.390

U UBC Chartering Ltd v Liepaya Shipping Co Ltd (The Liepaya) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 649 ... 14.130 UN/FAO World Food Programme v M/V Tay 138 F 3d 197; 1998 AMC 2729 (5th Cir 1998) ........................................................................................................................... 12.430, 12.490 US v Ocean Bulk Ships Inc 248 F 3d 331; 2001 AMC 1487 (5th Cir 2001) .............. 12.280, 12.490 US Shipping Ltd v Leisure Freight & Import Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 347 ....................... 12.270 US Steel Products Co v AM Foreign Ins 82 F 2d 752 (2d Cir 1936) ....................................... 12.390 US Titan Inc v Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping 241 F 3d 135; 2001 AMC 2080 (2nd Cir 2001) ........................................................................................................................... 13.30 Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (2011) 277 ALR 441 ................................... 13.440 Ugland Trailer, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 372 ........................................................................... 14.560 Ugland Trailer, The (see Welsh Irish Ferries Ltd, Re [1986] Ch 471) ....................................... 14.560 Uhla, The (1867) LR 2 A & E 29n ................................................................................................ 8.130 Ullises Shipping Corp v Fal Shipping Co Ltd (The Greek Fighter) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep Plus 99 ..................................................................................................................................... 14.300

lxvi Table of Cases Ulrich Ammann Building Equipment Ltd v M/V Monsun 609 F Supp 87; 1985 AMC 1965 (SDNY 1985) ........................................................................................................................................ 12.560 Undaunted, The (1860) Lush 90; 167 ER 47 .............................................................................. 20.200 Uni-Ocean Lines Pte Ltd v C-Trade SA (The Lucille) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 387 ................... 14.480 Uni-Ocean Lines Pty Ltd v C-Trade SA (The Lucille) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 244 ................... 14.300 Unifert International SAL v Panous Shipping Co Inc (The Virginia M) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 603 ................................................................................................................................... 13.200 Unimac Co Inc v CF Ocean Service Inc 43 F 3d 1434; 1995 AMC 1484 (11th Cir 1995) .... 12.340, 12.560 Union, The (1860) Lush 128; 167 ER 60 ...................................................................................... 8.390 Union Bank of London v Lenanton (1878) 3 CPD 243 ................................ 4.50, 5.180, 6.100, 6.190 Union Insurance Society of Canton v George Wills & Co [1916] 1 AC 281 ............................ 17.150 Union Shipping (NZ) Ltd v Morgan (2002) 54 NSWLR 690 ...................................................... 15.10 Union Steamship Co v The Owners of the Aracan (1874) LR 6 PC 127 .................................... 15.40 Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 ....... 2.210, 2.220, 2.230, 4.130 Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Commonwealth (1925) 36 CLR 130 .......... 1.10, 2.270, 2.290, 2.310, 16.20, 16.80 Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson (1969) 119 CLR 191 ...... 8.120, 8.130, 8.160, 8.170 Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v The Ship Caradale (1937) 60 CLR 633 .............. 15.100 Union of India v EB Aaby’s Rederi [1975] AC 797 ..................................................................... 18.30 Union of India v NV Reederij Amsterdam [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 539 ...................................... 12.300 Union of India v NV Reederij Amsterdam [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 223 ...................................... 12.300 Unique Mariner, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 438 ........................................................... 20.410, 20.660 Unique Mariner (No 2), The [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 37 ................................................. 20.410, 20.660 United Nations Children’s Fund v S/S Nordstern 251 F Supp 833 (SDNY 1966) ................... 12.810 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation-World Food Programme v Caspian Navigation Inc (The Jay Ganesh) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 358 .................................................................. 13.200 United Salvage Pty Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SNC (2006) 163 FCR 151 ........ 20.450, 20.460, 20.480, 20.490, 20.500 United Salvage Pty Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SNC (2006) 163 FCR 183 ...................... 20.570 United States v Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co 343 US 236; 72 S Ct 666; 96 L Ed 907 (1952) .......................................................................................................................... 15.140 United States Gypsum Transport Co v Dampskibs Aktieselskabet Karmoy 48 F 2d 376 (EDNY 1930) ........................................................................................................................................ 14.180 United States Gypsum Transport Co v Dampskibs Aktieselskabet Karmoy 54 F 2d 1086 (2d Cir 1931) ........................................................................................................................................ 14.180 United States Shipping Co v Empress Assurance Corp [1907] 1 KB 259 ................................... 17.60 United States Shipping Co v Empress Assurance Corp [1908] 1 KB 115 ................................... 17.60 United States Trust Co of New York v Master and Crew of the Ship Ionian Mariner (1997) 77 FCR 563 ............................................................................................................................................. 8.220 Unitramp v Garnac Grain Co Inc (The Hermine) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212 ............................. 13.70 Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati [1957] 2 QB 401 .................. 13.520, 13.610, 14.120, 14.130 Universal Leaf Tobacco Co Inc v Companhia De Navegacao Maritime Netumar 993 F 2d 414; 1993 AMC 2439 (4th Cir 1993) ............................................................................................. 12.560 Universal Ruma Co v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA 2001 AMC 110 (SDNY 2000) ............ 12.600 Upcerne, The [1912] P 160 ............................................................................................................. 1.210 Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Geras, SA-Usiminias v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd 118 F 3d 328; 1997 AMC 2762 (5th Cir 1997) ......................................................................... 12.390, 18.70

V Vagres Compania Maritima SA v Nissho-Iwai American Corp (The Karin Vatis) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 330 ................................................................................................................................... 13.660 Vallescura, The 293 US 296 (1934) ............................................................................................. 12.280 Van Leer Australia Pty Ltd v Palace Shipping KK (1981) 180 CLR 337 ................................. 12.590

Table of Cases lxvii Vancouver Strikes cases (see Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1963] AC 691) .......................................................................................................... 13.270, 13.280 Vandyke, The (1882) 5 Asp MLC 17 ........................................................................................... 20.410 Vantage Navigation Corp v Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials LLC (The Alev) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 138 ........................................................................................................ 12.830, 14.470 Vardinoyannis v Egyptian General Petroleum Corp (The Evaggelos Th) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 200 ..................................................................................................................................... 13.60 Vaughn v USA 2015 AMC 1482 (CD Cal 2011) ........................................................................ 12.300 Venetico Marine SA v International General Insurance Co Ltd (The Irene EM) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 349 ................................................................................................................................... 17.290 Venezuela, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 393 .................................................................................. 12.810 Venizelos ANE of Athens v Societe Commerciale de Cereales et Financieres SA of Zurich (The Prometheus) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 350 .......................................................... 13.50, 13.70, 13.410 Venore Transportation Co v M/V Struma 583 F 2d 708; 1978 AMC 2146 (4th Cir 1978) ...... 15.190 Venore Transportation Co v Oswego Shipping Corp 498 F 2d 469 (2nd Cir 1974) ................... 13.70 Ventouris v Mountain (The Italia Express (No 2)) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 .............. 17.10, 17.500 Venture, The [1908] P 218 .............................................................................................................. 5.150 Vera Cruz (No 2), The (1884) 9 PD 96 ......................................................................................... 8.160 Veritas, The [1901] P 304 ...................................................... 8.120, 8.130, 8.170, 8.190, 8.420, 8.440 Verna Trading (Aust) Pty Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd [1991] 1 VR 129 ........ 17.200, 17.580 Versloot Dredging BV v HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherung BV (The DC Merwestone) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 131 ........................................................................................................ 17.220, 17.290 Victor, The (1860) Lush 72; 167 ER 38 .......................................................................................... 8.90 Victoria v Commonwealth (1937) 58 CLR 618 .......................................................................... 21.170 Victoria v Hansen [1960] VR 582 ................................................................................................ 19.240 Victoria, The (1867) 37 LJ Adm 12 ............................................................................................... 8.450 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528 .......................... 13.550 Victrawl Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd; Sanko Steamship Co Ltd v Sumitomo Australia Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 595; 117 ALR 347 .................................................................. 16.10, 16.20, 16.30, 16.40 Vinava Shipping Co Ltd v Finelvet AG (The Chrysalis) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 503 ................ 14.480 Vine, The (1825) 2 Hagg Adm 1; 166 ER 145 .............................................................. 20.200, 20.210 Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88 ........................................................................................ 15.190 Vision Air Flight Service Inc v M/V National Pride 155 F 3d 1165; 1999 AMC 1168 (9th Cir 1998) .......................................................................................................................... 12.560 Visscher Enterprises Pty Ltd v Southern Pacific Insurance Co Ltd [1981] Qd R 561 ... 17.90, 17.100 Visscher Enterprises Pty Ltd v Southern Pacific Insurance Co Ltd [1981] Qd R 575 ................ 17.90 Visscherij v Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Co Ltd (1921) 27 Com Cas 198 ........................ 17.100 Vlasons Shipping Inc v Neuchatel Swiss General Insurance Co Ltd (2003) 12 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-572; [2002] VSC 549 ........................................................................................................ 17.280 Vlasons Shipping Inc v Neuchatel Swiss General Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] VSC 135 .................................................................................................................................. 13.440 Vlassopoulos v British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co [1929] 1 KB 187 .............................. 18.20 Vogemann v Zanzibar Steamship Co Ltd (1901) 6 Com Cas 253; (1902) 7 Com Cas 254 ..... 14.330 Volcafe Ltd v Cia Sud Americana de Vapores SA (t/as CSAV) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 639 ...... 12.50, 12.280, 12.460, 12.480, 12.740 Von Freeden v Hull, Blyth & Co; GP Turner & Co, Third Parties (1906) 10 Asp MLC 247 .... 5.210 Vortigern, The [1899] P 140 ............................................................................................ 12.300, 13.600 Voss v APL Co Pte Ltd [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 707 ........................................................... 11.20, 12.20 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538 .......................................... 16.250, 16.260 Vrede, The (1861) Lush 322; 167 ER 143 ..................................................................... 20.290, 20.300

W W & A McArthur Ltd v Queensland (1920) 28 CLR 530 .............................................................. 2.60 W & R Fletcher (New Zealand) Ltd v Sigurd Haavik Aksjeselskap (The Vikfrost) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 560 ................................................................................................................................... 12.820

lxviii

Table of Cases

W Angliss & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peninsular and Orient Steam Naviation Co [1927] 2 KB 456 ..................................................................................................................... 12.300 W Langley & Sons Ltd v Australian Provincial Assurance Assoc Ltd (1924) 24 SR (NSW) 280 .............................................................................................................................. 17.300 W Millar & Co Ltd v Owners of SA Freden [1918] 1 KB 611 ................................................. 14.100 WD Fairway, The [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 191 ................................................................ 17.370, 17.440 WH (No 1) and The Knight Errant, The [1911] AC 30 ................................................................ 15.40 WMC Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Brambles Holdings Ltd (unreported, WA Sup Ct, Wheeler J, 31 October 1997) .................................................................................................................... 12.840 WMC Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Brambles Holdings Ltd (unreported, WA Sup Ct CA, Kennedy, Wallwork and Anderson JJ, 4 March 1999) .......................................................... 12.840 Wallace v Fielden: The Oriental (1851) 7 Moo PC 398; 13 ER 934 ................................. 8.280, 9.50 Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 .......................................................................................... 15.120 Wallems Rederij A/S v Wm H Muller & Co, Batavia [1927] 2 KB 99 .................................... 13.540 Waller v James (2006) 226 CLR 136 ............................................................................... 15.50, 19.230 Wallis v Downard-Pickford (North Queensland) Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 388 ........................ 12.740 Waltraud, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389 ....................................................................... 12.300, 12.370 Walumba, The [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 382 ......................................................... 20.450, 20.460, 20.490 Ward v Beck (1863) 13 CB (NS) 668; 143 ER 265 ..................................................................... 10.60 Warkworth, The (1884) 9 PD 145 .................................................................................................. 1.240 Warrior, The (1862) Lush 476; 167 ER 214 ................................................................................ 20.290 Waterloo, The (1820) 2 Dods 433; 165 ER 1537 ............................................. 20.230, 20.270, 20.320 Watson v RCA Victor Co Inc (1934) 50 Ll L Rep 77 .................................. 1.80, 1.210, 1.220, 1.250 Watson Steamship Co v Merryweather & Co (1913) 18 Com Cas 294 ....................... 14.210, 14.230 Waverley, The (1871) LR 3 A & E 369 ......................................................................... 20.380, 20.660 Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd v Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp Ltd [1974] 1 QB 57 ......................................................................................................................... 17.290, 17.310 Weeding v Gaven [1970] QWN 11 .............................................................................................. 15.100 Weeks v Ross [1913] 2 KB 229 ..................................................................................................... 1.240 Wehner v Dene Steam Shipping Co [1905] 2 KB 92 .................................................... 12.810, 14.470 Weiner v Wilsons and Furness-Leyland Lines Ltd (1910) 102 LT 716 ....................................... 1.200 Weir v Union Steamship Co Ltd [1900] AC 525 ........................................................................ 14.380 Wells v Owners of the Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1897] AC 337 ..... 1.20, 1.210, 1.250, 1.260, 20.80, 20.100, 20.520, 20.630 Welsh Irish Ferries Ltd, Re [1986] Ch 471 ................................................................................. 14.560 Wessels v The Asturias 126 F 2d 999 (2d Cir 1942) .................................................................. 12.410 Westbourne, The (1889) 14 PD 132 ............................................................................... 20.350, 20.380 Western Bulk Carriers K/S v Li Hai Maritime Inc (The Li Hai) [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 389 .. 14.310, 14.320, 14.340, 14.440, 14.450 Western Gear Corp v State Marine Lines Inc 362 F 2d 328 (9th Cir 1966) ............................. 12.600 Western Sealanes Corp v Unimarine SA (The Pythia) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 160 .................... 14.330 Westfal-Larsen & Co A/S v Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd (1960) 77 WN(NSW) 550; [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 206 ...................................................................................................................... 14.180 Westinghouse Electric Corp v M/V Leslie Lykes 734 F 2d 199; 1985 AMC 247 (5th Cir 1984) .......................................................................................................................... 12.400 Westminster, The (1841) 1 W Rob 229; 166 ER 558 ...................................................... 8.190, 20.120 Weston v Huddart Parker Ltd (1922) 23 SR (NSW) 261 ........................................................... 15.170 Westpac Banking Corp v MV Stone Gemini (1999) 110 FCR 47; [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255 ......................................................................................................... 12.760, 12.770, 13.440 Westpac Banking Corp v MV Stone Gemini [1999] FCA 917 ................................................... 13.440 Westpac Banking Corp v South Carolina National Bank (1986) 60 ALJR 358 ........................ 12.100 Westport (No 4), The [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 559 .......................................................................... 8.230 Westport Coal Co v McPhail [1898] 2 QB 130 .......................................................................... 17.310 Westrac Equipment Pty Ltd v The Ship Assets Venture (2002) 192 ALR 277 .......................... 12.840 Westralian Wheat Farmers Ltd v Westfal-Larsen & Co (1935) 38 WALR 54 ........................... 13.530 Westrup v Great Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co (1889) 43 Ch D 241 .............................. 8.200, 8.320 Westway Coffee Corp v M/V Netuno 675 F 2d 30 (2d Cir 1982) ............................................. 12.210

Table of Cases lxix Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The Hill Harmony) [2001] 1 AC 638 .............................................................................................. 13.620, 14.10, 14.280, 14.360 White v Crisp (1854) 10 Exch 312; 156 ER 463 .......................................................................... 21.70 White Star, The (1866) LR 1 A & E 68 ...................................................................................... 20.380 White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413 ................................................... 14.250 Whitfield v Parfitt (1851) 4 De G & Sm 240; 64 ER 814 ............................................................ 10.60 Wibau Maschinenfabric Hartman SA v Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co (The Chanda) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 494 ........................................................................................... 12.340, 12.530, 12.570 Wiggins Teape Australia Pty Ltd v Baltica Insurance Co Ltd (1970) 2 NSWR 77 ................... 17.200 Wild Ranger, The (1863) Br & Lush 84; 167 ER 310 .................................................................. 8.540 Wildman v Blakes (The Petersfield and the Judith Randolph) (1789) Burrell 332; 167 ER 596 ..................................................................................................................................... 15.130 Wiley v Crawford (1861) 30 LJQB 319 ........................................................................................ 3.400 Wilhelm, The (1866) 14 LT 636 ................................................................................................... 13.610 Wilhelm Tell, The [1892] P 337 ................................................................................................... 20.600 Wilkes v Saunion (1877) 7 Ch D 188 ......................................................................................... 10.250 Wilkins, Assignee of Brooke v Carmichael (1779) 1 Doug 101; 99 ER 70 ................................ 8.270 Willcox, Peck & Hughes v Alphonse Weil & Bros 24 F 2d 587; 1928 AMC 64 (SDNY 1927) ............................................................................................................................. 18.60 Willem III, The (1871) LR 3 A & E 487 ....................................................................... 20.100, 20.790 William Beckford, The (1801) 2 C Rob 355; 165 ER 492 ......................................................... 20.460 William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Eyles [1947] Tas SR 11 ..................................................... 4.110 William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Foy & Gibson Pty Ltd (1945) 73 CLR 622 ................... 12.550 William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Marine Board of Launceston (1929) 24 Tas LR 64 ........ 1.200, 1.220, 1.240, 1.250, 15.170, 16.170 William Money, The (1827) 2 Hagg Adm 136; 166 ER 193 ....................................................... 8.570 William Pickersgill & Sons Ltd v London and Provincial Marine and General Insurance Co Ltd [1912] 3 KB 614 ....................................................................................................................... 17.80 William Thomas & Sons v Harrowing Steamship Co [1915] AC 58 ......................................... 13.660 Williams v Allsup (1861) 10 CB (NS) 417; 142 ER 514 .................................................... 9.30, 10.20 Williams v Atlantic Assurance Co Ltd [1933] 1 KB 81 ............................................................... 17.80 Williams Bros v Ed T Agius Ltd [1914] AC 510 ........................................................................ 15.170 Wilson v Boag (1957) 57 SR (NSW) 384 ................................................................................... 17.150 Wilson v Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes (1954) 54 SR (NSW) 258 ........................... 12.270 Wilson v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd (1955) 95 CLR 43 ..................... 12.840 Wilson v Marryat (1798) 8 TR 31; 101 ER 1250 ....................................................................... 17.610 Wilson v Marryat (1799) 1 Bos & Pul 430; 126 ER 993 ........................................................... 17.610 Wilson v Nelson (1864) 5 B & S 354; 122 ER 863 ................................................................... 17.140 Wilson v Ship Tasman (1915) SR (NSW) 128 ............................................................................ 20.360 Wilson v Watts (1891) 12 NSWR (L) 104 .................................................................................. 12.770 Wilson Electric Transformer Co Pty Ltd v Electricity Commission of NSW [1968] VR 330 .. 19.240 Wilsons and Furness-Leyland Lines Ltd v Weiner (1910) 103 LT 168 ....................................... 1.200 Wilston Steamship Co Ltd v Andrew Weir & Co (1925) 22 Ll L Rep 521 .............................. 12.810 Wiltrading (WA) Pty Ltd v Lumley General Insurance Ltd (2005) 30 WAR 290 ........ 17.90, 17.610, 17.620, 17.630 Wood v Associated National Insurance Co Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 507 .. 17.270, 17.310, 17.440, 17.600 Wood v Associated National Insurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 Qd R 297 ..................................................................... 17.270, 17.290, 17.310, 17.440, 17.600, 19.240 Wood v Bell, Rhodes and Moser (1856) 6 El & Bl 355; 119 ER .................................................. 6.30 Woods v Duncan [1946] AC 401 ................................................................................................. 12.300 Woods, Assignee of Alexander Paton, a Bankrupt v Russell (1822) 5 B & Ald 942; 106 ER 1436 .............................................................................................................................. 6.30, 6.40 Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515 ... 15.50, 15.180, 19.230 World Harmony, The [1967] P 341 .............................................................................................. 15.190 Wotonga, The (1881) 2 LR (NSW) (Adm) 5 .................................................... 20.130, 20.150, 20.170 Wright v Campbell (1767) 4 Burr 2046; 98 ER 66 .................................................................... 12.760 Wulfsberg & Co v SS Weardale (Owners) (1916) 85 LJKB 1717 ................................ 14.440, 14.470

lxx Table of Cases Wunsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 8 ........................................................................................................................... 17.30, 17.50, 17.80 Wye Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie du Chemin de Fer Paris-Orleans [1922] 1 KB 617 ........ 14.510

Y Yakushiji v Kaisha [2015] FCA 1170 ............................................................................................ 16.70 Yasin, The [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 45 .............................................................................................. 17.50 Yates v Whyte (1838) 4 Bing (NC) 272; 132 ER 793 ................................................................ 17.650 Yemgaz FZCo v Superior Pescadores SA Panama (The Superior Pescadores) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 660 ................................................................................................................... 12.80, 12.530, 12.550 Yeo v Tatem and Dwerry House Braginton; The Orient (1871) LR 3 PC 696 ............................. 8.40 Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co v Minister of War Transport [1942] AC 691 ............................. 17.290 Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd v Campbell (1916) 22 CLR 315 .................................................... 17.570 Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd v Nisbet Shipping Co Ltd [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 479 .................. 17.650 Youell v Bland Welch & Co Ltd [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 ...................................................... 17.280 Young v Brander and Dunbar (1806) 8 East 10; 103 ER 248 .......................................... 5.190, 5.210 Young v The Steamboat Key City 20 US 896 (1872) .................................................................. 8.490 Young, Ex parte (1813) 2 V & B 242; 35 ER 311 ....................................................................... 5.130 Young, Master of SS Furnesia v SS Scotia [1903] AC 501 ........................................................... 8.80 Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea) (2013) 223 FCR 189 ............................................. 16.70 Yukong Lines Ltd of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corp [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 322 ............ 14.30 Yulianto v The Ship Glory Cape (1995) 134 ALR 92 ................................................................ 12.390 Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil LLC v Eems Beheerder BV (The MV Eems Solar) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487 ...................................................................................................................... 12.310, 12.450

Z Z Steamship Co Ltd v Amtorg, New York (1938) 61 Ll L Rep 97 .............................. 13.320, 13.500 Zaglebie Dabrowskie (No 2), The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 573 .................................................... 15.110 Zephyrus, The (1842) 1 W Rob 329; 166 ER 596 ........................................... 20.240, 20.260, 20.790 Zeta, The (1875) LR 4 A & E 460 ................................................................................... 20.630, 21.70 Zeus Tradition Marine Ltd v Bell (The Zeus V) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 587 ............................. 17.280 Zigurds, The [1932] P 113 .............................................................................................................. 8.330 Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd v 3-D Imports Inc 29 F Supp 2d 186; 1999 AMC 1145 (SDNY 1998) .......................................................................................................................................... 18.80 Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd v Effy Shipping Corp (The Effy) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18 ..... 14.310 Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Timna) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409 ... 13.80, 13.210, 13.430, 13.640 Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Timna) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91 ..... 13.80, 13.430, 13.640 Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (The Kildare) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 360 ........................................................................................................................................... 14.250

Table of Statutes Commonwealth ANL Act 1956: 6.200 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 15B(1)(b): 21.180 s 15B(4)(a): 21.180 s 36(2): 12.590

Admiralty Act 1988: 1.40, 1.50, 1.60, 1.70, 1.90, 1.230, 1.290, 5.50, 8.110, 8.120, 8.140, 8.170, 8.260, 8.280, 8.330, 8.340, 8.410, 8.490, 8.510, 8.650, 15.105, 16.30, 19.50, 19.390 s 3(1): 1.60, 1.70, 1.80, 1.290, 5.100, 8.70, 8.170, 8.240, 8.300, 8.620, 16.30,

19.250 s 3(1)(c): 1.70 s 3(2): 8.40, 8.620 s 4(1): 19.220, 19.240 s 4(2)(a)(iii): 10.320 s 4(3): 8.620 s 4(3)(a): 8.120 s 4(3)(b): 19.210, 19.220, 19.240, 19.250 s 4(3)(d): 8.140 s 4(3)(g): 20.190, 20.570 s 4(3)(h): 18.80 s 4(3)(j): 8.200, 8.320 s 4(3)(k): 8.320 s 4(3)(m): 8.330 s 4(3)(t): 8.260 s 4(3)(ba): 19.390 s 5(3): 8.120 s 5(3)(b): 8.170 s 5(4): 8.120, 8.170 s 6(1): 1.70 s 6(1)(c): 1.70 s 6(a): 8.340 s 8: 8.80 s 9: 8.120, 16.30, 19.240 s 9(1): 16.30, 20.570 s 9(1)(a): 19.220, 19.240, 19.250 s 9(2): 16.30, 16.220 ss 9 to 12: 19.390 s 10: 8.120, 16.30, 19.240 s 15: 8.70, 8.120, 8.240, 15.20, 20.570 s 15(1): 8.30, 8.50 s 15(2): 8.10, 8.340, 9.70 s 15(2)(c): 8.280 s 15(2)(d): 8.280

s 16: 10.320 ss 16 to 18: 8.50 s 17: 5.50, 5.100, 8.120, 8.200, 8.320, 8.330, 8.620, 12.830, 15.270, 18.80, 19.50,

19.210 18: 5.50, 5.100, 12.830, 19.50 19: 5.50, 5.100, 8.110, 8.620, 19.50 19(a): 16.50, 19.50 22: 8.100 25(1): 16.30, 19.250 25(2): 16.30 25(4): 16.30, 19.250 27(1): 16.30 29: 12.590 32: 3.370, 3.490 36(1): 7.100 36(2): 7.100 36(3): 7.100 36(4): 7.100 36(5): 7.100, 8.470 37(1): 15.210, 15.240 37(1)(a): 8.510, 15.240 37(1)(b): 8.490, 8.510, 15.210, 15.240, 15.270, 15.280 s 37(2): 8.490, 8.510, 15.210, 15.240 s 37(3): 15.240 s 37(5): 8.450, 8.490 s 48(1): 2.270 s 55(1): 8.140 Pt II: 8.260

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

Admiralty Rules 1988 r 7: 16.220 r 7, Form 2: 5.310 r 10, Form 4: 5.320 r 12(1): 5.330 r 13: 5.330 r 19: 8.40 r 21: 16.30 r 21(1): 16.30 r 21(3): 16.30 r 21(4): 16.30 r 21(5): 16.30 r 47(1): 17.40 r 62: 16.30 r 62, Form 24: 16.30 r 62(1)(b)(ii): 16.30 r 64: 16.30 r 65: 15.105 Pt VIII: 16.40

lxxii Table of Statutes Admiralty Rules 1988 — cont Pt VI, Div 1: 8.40

Australia Act 1986: 2.210, 2.270, 2.340 s s s s

2: 2.210 2(1): 2.210 3: 2.270 4: 2.270, 2.340

Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 s 11: 15.190

Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956: 6.200 Australian Consumer Law: 12.40, 12.740, 15.40 s 18: 12.110, 12.770 s 60: 12.40, 15.40 s 63: 12.740 s 63(a): 12.40 s 64: 15.40

Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 s 6(1)(a): 19.400 s 10(1): 19.400

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991: 12.20, 12.40, 12.90, 12.100, 12.250, 12.340, 12.520, 12.540, 12.600, 12.610, 12.640, 12.710, 12.790, 18.10 s (c)(ii): 13.20 s 2: 12.40 s 8: 12.90, 12.340, 12.530, 12.620, 12.710 s 9: 13.20 s 10(1)(b)(i): 12.90, 12.710 s 10(1)(b)(ii): 12.90 s 10(1)(b)(iii): 14.150 s 10(1A): 12.40 s 10(2): 14.150 s 10(b)(i): 12.40 s 11: 12.90, 12.560, 13.20 s 11(1)(a): 12.90, 13.20 s 11(2): 12.90, 12.720, 13.20 s 11(2)(a): 12.90 s 11(2)(b): 12.90, 13.20 s 11(2)(c)(i): 12.90, 13.20 s 11(2)(c)(ii): 13.20 s 11(3): 12.90 s 17: 12.300 s 18: 12.740 s 19(a): 12.650 s 19(b): 16.100 s 20(1): 12.40 Pt 2: 12.40 Pt 3: 12.40

Sch 1 (Hague-Visby Rules) Sch 1: 12.10, 12.30, 12.40, 12.50, 12.60, 12.70, 12.80, 12.100, 12.110, 12.130, 12.140, 12.160, 12.170, 12.180, 12.190, 12.200, 12.210, 12.240, 12.250, 12.270, 12.280, 12.290, 12.300, 12.310, 12.320, 12.330, 12.340, 12.350, 12.370, 12.410, 12.480, 12.530, 12.550, 12.560, 12.580, 12.600, 12.610, 12.620, 12.630, 12.650, 12.660, 12.690, 12.710, 12.730, 12.740, 12.800, 12.810, 12.820, 12.830, 12.840, 13.20, 13.560, 13.600, 13.610, 13.630, 14.130, 14.150, 14.160, 14.400, 14.410, 15.140, 15.170, 15.200, 15.240, 16.100, 18.10, 18.30, 18.70, 19.280 Sch 1, Art 1(a): 12.60, 12.370, 12.810 Sch 1, Art 1(b): 12.40 Sch 1, Art 1(c): 12.70, 12.340 Sch 1, Art 1(e): 12.50, 12.310, 12.740 Sch 1, Art 1, r 1(b): 12.710 Sch 1, Art 1, r 3: 12.750 Sch 1, Art 2, r 4(n): 12.470 Sch 1, Art 3: 12.280, 12.410 Sch 1, Art 3, r 1: 12.280, 12.300, 12.310, 12.360, 12.370, 12.400, 12.410, 12.580, 12.650 Sch 1, Art 3, r 1(a): 12.300, 12.360, 12.440,

14.150 Sch 1, Art 3, r 1(b): 12.290, 12.360 Sch 1, Art 3, r 1(c): 12.290, 12.360 Sch 1, Art 3, r 2: 12.280, 12.290, 12.300, 12.310, 12.370, 12.390, 12.400, 12.410, 12.460, 12.480, 12.490, 12.650, 13.630, 14.400 Sch 1, Art 3, r 3: 12.100, 12.210, 12.310 Sch 1, Art 3, r 3(a): 12.240 Sch 1, Art 3, r 3(a) to (c): 12.100 Sch 1, Art 3, r 3(b): 12.190, 12.210 Sch 1, Art 3, r 3(c): 12.100, 12.130, 12.160,

12.170 Sch 1, Art 3, r 4: 12.110, 12.130, 12.140, 12.190, 12.200, 12.240, 12.250,

12.280 Sch 1, Art 3, r 5: 12.110, 12.200, 12.630,

12.660 Sch 1, Art 3, r 6: 12.340, 12.580, 12.590, 12.600, 12.610, 12.620, 12.740, 12.830, 14.160, 14.400, 18.30 Sch 1, Art 3, r 6 bis: 12.620 Sch 1, Art 3, r 7: 12.100 Sch 1, Art 3, r 8: 12.80, 12.330, 12.370, 12.520, 12.580, 12.590, 12.820,

12.830 Sch 1, Art 4: 12.370

Table of Statutes lxxiii Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 — cont Sch 1, Art 4 bis: 12.580 Sch 1, Art 4 bis, r 1: 12.370, 12.580 Sch 1, Art 4 bis, r 2: 12.530 Sch 1, Art 4, r 1: 12.280, 12.300, 12.370, 12.380, 12.480, 12.580, 15.200 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2: 12.280, 12.370, 12.380, 12.400, 12.410, 12.460, 12.480, 12.490, 12.500 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(a): 12.330, 12.390, 12.650, 15.140, 18.70 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(b): 12.370, 12.400 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(c): 12.410, 12.420 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(d): 12.420 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(e): 12.430 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(g): 12.440 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(h): 12.500 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(i): 12.310, 12.370, 12.450 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(j): 12.500 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(k): 12.500 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(l): 12.500 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(m): 12.280, 12.370, 12.460 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(n): 12.450, 12.470 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(o): 12.240, 12.500 Sch 1, Art 4, r 2(p): 12.280, 12.300, 12.400,

12.480 Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch

4, r 2(q): 12.280, 12.430, 12.490 4, r 3: 12.650 4, r 4: 12.330, 12.340 4, r 5: 12.370, 12.520, 12.530, 16.10, 16.100 1, Art 4, r 5(a): 12.520, 12.530 1, Art 4, r 5(b): 12.510 1, Art 4, r 5(c): 12.520 1, Art 4, r 5(d): 12.30, 12.520 1, Art 4, r 5(e): 12.530, 12.620, 19.280 1, Art 4, r 5(e): 16.160 1, Art 4, r 5(f): 12.530 1, Art 4, r 5(g): 12.530 1, Art 4, r 6: 12.580, 12.650 1, Art 5: 12.80, 12.370, 12.530, 12.690, 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art

14.150 Sch 1, Art 7: 12.740, 12.750 Sch 1, Art 10: 12.40 Sch 1, Art 10, r 7: 12.730 Sch 1A (Modified Hague-Visby Rules) Sch 1A: 12.40, 12.50, 12.70, 12.80, 12.90, 12.100, 12.110, 12.130, 12.140, 12.160, 12.180, 12.190, 12.210, 12.240, 12.270, 12.300, 12.310, 12.320, 12.330, 12.340, 12.350, 12.370, 12.530, 12.550, 12.610, 12.630, 12.650, 12.660, 12.690, 12.710, 12.730, 12.740, 12.750, 12.800, 12.810, 12.820, 12.830, 12.840, 13.20, 13.630, 15.200,

15.240

1, r 1(a): 12.370, 12.810 1, r 1(aa): 12.40 1, r 1(b): 12.40, 12.710 1, r 1(c): 12.70 1, r 1(e): 12.50, 12.750 1, r 1(f): 12.40, 12.140 1, r 1(g): 12.40, 12.640, 13.20 1, r 1(g)(i) to (iv): 12.40 1, r 3: 12.50, 12.310, 12.750 1, r 4: 12.50, 12.750 1, r 4(b): 12.600, 12.610 1, r 6: 12.50, 12.750 1A, r 1: 12.20, 12.40, 12.790 2, r 1: 12.350 2, r 2: 12.350 2, r 3: 12.350 2, r 4: 12.350 2, r 4(n): 12.470 3: 12.410 3, r 1: 12.300, 12.310, 12.360, 12.370, 12.400, 12.410, 12.580,

Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch

1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art

Sch Sch Sch Sch

r 1(a): 12.300, 12.360, 12.440 r 1(b): 12.290, 12.360 r 1(c): 12.290, 12.360 r 2: 12.290, 12.300, 12.310, 12.370, 12.390, 12.400, 12.410, 12.460, 12.480, 12.490, 12.650 1A, Art 3, r 3: 12.100, 12.210, 12.310 1A, Art 3, r 3(a): 12.240 1A, Art 3, r 3(a) to (c): 12.100 1A, Art 3, r 3(b): 12.190, 12.210 1A, Art 3, r 3(c): 12.130, 12.160 1A, Art 3, r 4: 12.130, 12.140, 12.190, 12.240, 12.280 1A, Art 3, r 5: 12.110, 12.200, 12.630,

12.650

Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch

1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art

3, 3, 3, 3,

12.660 Sch 1A, Art 3, r 6: 12.580, 12.590, 12.600, 12.610, 12.620, 12.740, 12.830,

14.160 Sch 1A, Art 3, r 6 bis: 12.620 Sch 1A, Art 3, r 7: 12.100 Sch 1A, Art 3, r 8: 12.80, 12.310, 12.320, 12.330, 12.370, 12.580, 12.820 Sch 1A, Art 4: 12.370 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 1: 12.300, 12.370, 12.380, 12.480, 15.200 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2: 12.370, 12.380, 12.400, 12.410, 12.460, 12.480, 12.490,

12.500 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(a): 12.330, 12.390, 12.650,

18.70 Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch

1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art 1A, Art

4, 4, 4, 4, 4,

r r r r r

2(b): 12.370, 12.400 2(c): 12.410, 12.420 2(d): 12.420 2(e): 12.430 2(g): 12.440

lxxiv

Table of Statutes

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 — cont Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(h): 12.500 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(i): 12.310, 12.450 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(j): 12.500 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(k): 12.500 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(l): 12.500 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(m): 12.460 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(n): 12.450, 12.470 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(o): 12.500 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(p): 12.300, 12.400, 12.480 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 2(q): 12.430, 12.490 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 3: 12.650 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 4: 12.330 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5: 12.370, 12.520, 12.530,

16.100 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5(a): 12.520, 12.530 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5(b): 12.510 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5(c): 12.520 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5(d): 12.30, 12.520 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5(e): 12.530, 12.620, 19.280 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5(f): 12.530 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 5(g): 12.530 Sch 1A, Art 4, r 6: 12.580, 12.650 Sch 1A, Art 4A: 12.320, 12.540 Sch 1A, Art 4A, r 1: 12.320

Carriage of Goods by Sea Regulations (No 2) 1998: 13.20 Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959: 19.280 Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012: 14.60 Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980: 2.370, 19.40 s 4(2): 15.70

Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980: 2.370 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980: 2.240, 2.370, 19.40 s s s s s s s

4(2): 2.370, 15.70 5: 2.240, 2.260, 2.370, 15.70, 21.210 5(b): 15.70 7(a): 2.370 7(b): 2.370 7(c): 2.370 8(a): 2.370

Sch 1A, Art 4A, r 3: 12.320 Sch 1A, Art 4A, r 6: 12.540 Sch 1A, Art 4 bis, r 1: 12.370, 12.580 Sch 1A, Art 4 bis, r 2: 12.530 Sch 1A, Art 5: 12.40, 12.80, 12.370, 12.530, 12.690, 14.150 Sch 1A, Art 6A, r 1: 12.350 Sch 1A, Art 6A, r 2(a): 12.350 Sch 1A, Art 6A, r 2(b): 12.350 Sch 1A, Art 6A, r 3: 12.350 Sch 1A, Art 7: 12.750 Sch 1A, Art 10: 12.40 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 1: 12.40 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 2: 12.40, 12.340 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 3: 12.40, 12.710 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 3(a): 12.40 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 3(b): 12.40 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 3(c): 12.40 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 4: 12.40, 12.90 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 5: 12.40 Sch 1A, Art 10, rr 5, 6: 14.150 Sch 1A, Art 10, r 6: 12.40, 12.690

Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980: 2.370 s 4(1): 2.370

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution: 2.10, 2.40, 2.220, 19.10 s 51: 2.20 s 51(i): 2.20, 2.30, 2.40, 2.60, 2.70 s 51(vi): 2.20 s 51(vii): 2.20 s 51(x): 2.20, 2.80, 2.90, 2.100, 2.110, 2.180,

2.260 s 51(xiii): 17.10 s 51(xiv): 2.20, 17.10 s 51(xx): 2.20 s 51(xxix): 2.20, 2.120, 2.220, 2.260, 15.70,

16.20 s 51(xxxi): 2.370 s 51(xxxvii): 2.10, 10.80 s 51(xxxviii): 2.370

Sch 1A, Art 10, r 7: 12.40, 12.710

s 52(ii): 2.20 s 55: 19.30, 19.310

Sch 2: 12.40

s 69: 2.20

Sch 2, Art 10: 12.810

s 76(iii): 2.20, 2.130, 2.140, 2.150 s 77: 2.20

Carriage of Goods by Sea Amendment Act 1997: 12.40 Carriage of Goods by Sea Regulations 1998: 12.40, 13.20

s 77(iii): 2.130 s 92: 2.60 s 98: 2.20, 2.30, 2.40, 2.50, 2.60, 2.70 s 99: 2.60 s 100: 2.60

Table of Statutes lxxv Commonwealth of Australia Constitution — cont s 109: 2.260, 2.370, 16.20, 19.40, 19.180,

21.170 s 122: 2.30

Competition and Consumer Act 2010: 12.800 s 4B(1)(b): 15.40 s 4B(2)(a): 15.40 Pt 10: 12.800 Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law): 15.40

Corporations Act 2001: 19.310 Crimes Act 1914 s 4B(3): 15.90, 19.40, 19.50, 19.60, 19.80 s 4AA(1): 15.90, 19.40, 19.50, 19.60, 19.80, 19.90, 19.130, 19.170, 19.190 s 4AA(3): 15.90, 19.40, 19.50, 19.60, 19.80, 19.90, 19.130, 19.170, 19.190

Crimes at Sea Act 1979: 4.110 s 6(2): 4.110

Crimes at Sea Act 2000: 4.120 s 4: 4.120 s 6(1): 4.120 s 6(2): 4.120 s 6(3): 4.120 Sch 1, cl 1: 4.120 Sch 1, cl 2(1): 4.120 Sch 1, cl 2(2): 4.120 Sch 1, cl 14: 4.120

Criminal Code: 19.130 s s s s s

6.1: 19.40, 19.130, 19.310 6.1(1): 19.50 6.1(1)(b): 19.70 9.2: 19.40, 19.50, 19.130 9.2(1): 19.70, 19.130

Criminal Code Act 1995: 19.130

s 4B: 19.190 s 5: 19.190 s 7(1): 19.190 s 7(2): 19.190 s 9: 19.200 s 9(1): 19.30 s 10A(1)(a): 19.190 s 10A(1)(b): 19.190 s 10A(1)(c): 19.190 s 10A(1)(d): 19.190 s 10A(2): 19.190 s 10B(1): 19.190 s 10B(2): 19.190 s 10C(1): 19.190 s 10C(2): 19.190 s 10D(1): 19.190 s 10D(2): 19.190 s 15(1): 19.190 s 15(2): 19.190 s 15(3)(a): 19.190 s 15(3)(b): 19.190 s 15(3)(c): 19.190 s 15(3)(d): 19.190 s 16: 19.400 s 17(1): 19.400 s 17(3): 19.400 s 18: 19.190 s 19: 19.190 s 19(5): 19.190 s 19(5)(b): 19.190 s 19(6): 19.190 s 19(7): 19.190 Sch 1: 19.190 Sch 1, Art 23: 19.20, 19.30, 19.190

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Act 1993: 19.190 Environment Sport and Territories Legislation Amendment Act 1997: 19.190

s 4.1(2): 19.130

Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008: 16.70 s 6: 16.70 Sch 1, Art 2(b): 16.70

Customs Act 1901

Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act 2000: 19.190 Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 s 17(3): 7.80

s 15: 12.50, 12.750

Federal Court Rules 2011: 16.40 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981: 19.30, 19.190, 19.400 s s s s s

4: 19.190 4(1): 19.190 4(1)(d): 19.190 4(4): 19.190 4A: 19.190

r 10.42, Item 12: 19.240

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Pt VA: 15.105

Flags Act 1953 s 4: 4.150

lxxvi

Table of Statutes

Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976: 20.820, 21.10, 21.160, 21.200, 21.220, 21.230 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

2(1): 21.200, 21.210 3(1): 2.100, 21.200, 21.230 3(5): 21.200 5(1): 21.200 7: 21.240 9: 21.260 10: 21.260 11: 21.260 12(1): 21.270 12(2): 21.270 12(3): 21.270 13: 21.240 14(1): 21.240 15: 21.240 17(1): 21.250 18(1)(a): 21.250 19: 21.240, 21.260 20: 21.250, 21.260

Historic Shipwrecks Regulations 1978 reg 4: 21.240

Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984: 17.90

Insurance Contracts Act 1984: 17.10 s s s s s s s s

8(2): 12.90 9(1)(d): 17.10, 17.20 9A(2): 17.10 9A(3): 17.10 16: 17.30 16(1): 17.20 18: 17.30 54: 17.10

International Maritime Conventions Legislation Amendment Act 2001: 19.400 s 3: 16.10, 16.20 Sch 1: 16.10, 16.20

Judiciary Act 1903 s 79: 15.105, 15.160, 15.210

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987: 16.160 s 5(4): 16.30

Life Insurance (Consequential Repeals and Amendments) Act 1995: 17.30 Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1976: 15.130 Limitation of Liability for Maritime

Claims Act 1989: 16.10, 16.20, 16.40, 16.50, 16.80, 16.100, 18.10 s 3(1): 16.20 s 5: 16.20 s 6: 16.10, 16.20, 16.130, 16.250 s 7: 16.50, 16.80 s 8: 16.100, 16.210 s 9(1): 16.220 s 9(1)(a): 16.30 s 9(1)(b): 16.30 s 9(3): 16.30 s 11: 16.40 Sch 1: 16.40, 16.80, 16.230 Sch 1, Art 13(2)(a) to (c): 16.220 Sch 1, Art 1.2: 16.20, 16.50, 16.80 Sch 1, Art 1.3: 16.60 Sch 1, Art 1.4: 16.50, 16.60 Sch 1, Art 1.5: 16.50 Sch 1, Art 1.6: 16.50 Sch 1, Art 1.7: 16.40 Sch 1, Art 2: 16.90, 16.100, 16.160 Sch 1, Art 2.1: 16.90 Sch 1, Art 2.1(a): 16.100, 16.110, 16.120, 16.140, 16.150, 16.200 Sch 1, Art 2.1(b): 16.110, 16.120, 16.140 Sch 1, Art 2.1(c): 16.100, 16.120 Sch 1, Art 2.1(d): 16.130, 16.140 Sch 1, Art 2.1(e): 16.130, 16.140 Sch 1, Art 2.1(f): 16.90, 16.140 Sch 1, Art 2.2: 16.90, 16.140 Sch 1, Art 3: 16.50, 16.90 Sch 1, Art 3(a): 16.150 Sch 1, Art 3(b): 16.150 Sch 1, Art 3(c): 16.150 Sch 1, Art 3(d): 16.150 Sch 1, Art 3(e): 16.150 Sch 1, Art 4: 16.90, 16.160, 16.220, 19.280 Sch 1, Art 5: 16.210 Sch 1, Art 6: 16.60, 16.170, 16.180, 16.190,

16.200 Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch

1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art 1, Art

6.1(a): 16.170, 16.180, 16.210 6.1(b): 16.170, 16.210 6.1(b)(i): 16.50 6.2: 16.210 6.3: 16.210 6.4: 16.60, 16.190 6.5: 16.170 7: 16.180, 16.200 7.2: 16.180 8: 16.10 8.1: 16.40, 16.170 9(1): 16.10 9(2): 16.10 9.1(a): 16.50 9.1(b): 16.50, 16.60 9.1(c): 16.50 9.2: 16.50

Table of Statutes lxxvii Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989 — cont Sch 1, Art 10(1): 16.230 Sch 1, Art 10.1: 16.40 Sch 1, Art 11: 16.220 Sch 1, Art 11(1): 16.230 Sch 1, Art 11.1: 16.200, 16.210, 16.220 Sch 1, Art 11.2: 16.40, 19.260 Sch 1, Art 12: 16.40 Sch 1, Art 12.1: 16.210 Sch 1, Art 12.4: 16.40 Sch 1, Art 13: 16.40, 16.70, 16.220, 16.240,

16.250 Sch 1, Art 13(1): 16.40, 16.220, 16.240 Sch 1, Art 13(2): 16.70, 16.220, 16.240,

16.250 Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch Sch

1, Art 15.2(a): 16.20 1, Art 15.5(a): 16.80 1, Art 15.5(b): 16.80 1, Art 18.1: 16.130 1A: 16.40 1A, Art 8: 16.10 1A, Art 9.1: 16.10 1A, Art 9(2): 16.220

Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1991 Sch 1A, Art 3: 16.30

Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Amendment Act 2015: 16.10 Marine Insurance Act 1909: 17.10, 17.20, 17.30, 17.90, 17.100, 17.160, 17.200, 17.220, 17.260, 17.310, 17.320, 17.570, 17.590, 17.630, 17.660 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

4: 17.10, 17.190 6: 17.660 6(1): 17.10 7: 17.10, 17.20, 17.560 8(1): 17.10 8(2): 17.10 9: 17.200 9(1): 17.10 9(2): 17.10, 17.20, 17.210 9(2)(a): 17.10, 17.30, 17.40, 17.50, 17.130 9(2)(b): 17.10, 17.30, 17.60 9(2)(c): 17.10, 17.50 10(1): 17.20 10(2)(a): 17.20 11(1): 17.30 11(2): 17.30, 17.40, 17.50, 17.60, 17.80 12(1): 17.30, 17.80 13(1): 17.30 14: 17.30 15: 17.130 15(1): 17.70 16: 17.70

s 17: 17.70 s 18: 17.60 s 19: 17.70 s 20(1): 17.40 s 20(2): 17.40, 17.50 s 20(3): 17.40 s 21: 17.80 s 22: 17.140, 17.500 s 22(b): 17.500 s 23: 17.90, 17.110, 17.630 s 24: 17.100 s 24(1): 17.100 s 24(2): 17.100, 17.110 s 24(3)(a): 17.100 s 24(3)(b): 17.100 s 24(3)(c): 17.100 s 24(3)(d): 17.100 s 24(4): 17.100 s 24(5): 17.100 ss 24 to 26: 17.10 ss 24 to 27: 17.630 s 25(a): 17.100 s 25(b): 17.100 s 26(1): 17.110 s 26(2): 17.110 s 26(4): 17.110 s 26(5): 17.110 s 26(6): 17.110 s 26(7): 17.110 s 27: 17.90 s 28: 17.90, 17.160 s 29: 17.90, 17.120, 17.160 s 29(a): 17.90, 17.160 s 29(b): 17.90, 17.160 s 29(c): 17.90, 17.160 s 29(d): 17.90, 17.140, 17.160 s 29(e): 17.90, 17.160 s 30: 17.90, 17.120, 17.160 s 30(1): 17.90, 17.160 s 30(2): 17.90 s 31(1): 17.150, 17.180 s 31(2): 17.150 s 32(1): 17.130 s 32(4): 17.130 s 33(1): 17.140 s 33(2): 17.140 s 33(3): 17.140 s 33(4): 17.420 s 34: 17.140 s 35(1): 17.150 s 35(2): 17.150 s 35(3): 17.150 s 35(4): 17.150 s 36: 17.120 s 36(1): 17.120 s 37(1): 17.640 s 37(2): 17.640

lxxviii

Table of Statutes

Marine Insurance Act 1909 — cont s 38: 17.560 s 38(1): 17.560 s 38(2)(d): 17.560 s 39(1): 17.270, 17.570 s 39(2): 17.570 s 39(3): 17.150, 17.570, 17.620 s 40(1): 17.570 s 40(2): 17.570 s 40(3): 17.570, 17.610, 17.620 s 41(1): 17.580 s 41(2): 17.580 s 41(3): 17.580 s 43: 17.590 s 45: 17.150, 17.200 s 45(1): 17.270, 17.600 s 45(3): 17.600 s 45(4): 17.600, 20.150 s 45(5): 17.270, 17.600 s 46(1): 17.600 s 46(2): 17.600 s 47: 17.610 s 48: 17.200 s 48(1): 17.190 s 48(2): 17.190 s 49: 17.190, 17.200 s 50: 17.190, 17.200 s 51: 17.200 s 51(2): 17.200 ss 51 to 55: 17.200 s 52: 17.200 s 52(1): 17.200 s 52(2)(a): 17.200 s 52(2)(b): 17.200 s 54: 17.200 s 55: 17.200 s 56(1): 17.80 s 56(2): 17.80 s 56(3): 17.80 s 57: 17.80 s 58: 17.640 s 59(1): 17.640 s 59(2): 17.640 s 61(1): 17.290 s 61(2): 17.270 s 61(2)(a): 17.270, 17.290, 17.310 s 61(2)(b): 17.270 s 61(2)(c): 17.270 s 62(1): 17.450 s 62(2): 17.320 s 63(1): 17.330, 17.350, 17.360 s 63(2): 17.370 s 64: 17.360 s 66: 17.370 s 66(1): 17.370 s 66(2): 17.370 s 66(2)(b): 17.420 s 67: 17.370, 17.380, 17.420, 17.440

s 68: 17.370, 17.380 s 68(1): 17.370, 17.440 s 68(2): 17.440 s 68(3): 17.440 s 68(4): 17.370, 17.440 s 68(5): 17.440 s 68(6): 17.440 s 68(7): 17.440 s 68(8): 17.440 s 68(9): 17.440 s 69(1): 17.440, 17.650 s 69(2): 17.440 s 70: 17.320 s 70(1): 17.470 s 70(2): 17.480 s 72: 17.320 s 72(1): 17.460 s 72(2): 17.460, 18.20 s 72(3): 17.460 s 72(4): 17.460 s 72(5): 17.460 s 72(6): 17.460 s 73(1): 17.490 s 73(2): 17.490 s 74(a): 17.500 s 74(b): 17.500 s 75(a): 17.510 s 75(b): 17.510 s 75(c): 17.510 s 76: 17.520 s 77: 17.530 s 77(a): 17.530 s 77(b): 17.530 s 77(c): 17.530 s 77(d): 17.530 s 80: 17.480 s 82(1): 17.540 s 82(2): 17.480, 17.540 s 82(4): 17.540 s 84: 17.480 s 84(4): 17.220 s 85: 17.40, 17.650 s 85(1): 17.440, 17.650 s 85(2): 17.650 s 86(1): 17.560 s 86(2): 17.560 s 87: 17.140, 17.490 s 88: 17.640 s 89: 17.640 s 90(1): 17.640 s 90(2): 17.640 s 90(3): 17.640 s 90(3)(a): 17.100, 17.110 s 93(1): 17.640 s 94: 17.190, 17.360 s 95: 17.90 Sch 1, r 2: 17.190

Table of Statutes lxxix Marine Insurance Act 1909 — cont Sch 2: 17.10, 17.120, 17.130, 17.230 Sch 2, r 3: 17.190 Sch 2, r 7: 17.220 Sch 2, r 11: 17.220, 17.290 Sch 2, r 15: 17.130 Sch 2, r 16: 17.130 Sch 2, r 17: 17.130

Marine Order 30 (Prevention of Collisions) 2009: 15.70 Marine Order 4 (Transitional Modifications) 2013: 15.70 Marine Order 41 (Carriage of Dangerous Cargoes) 2009: 12.650 s 9.1.1: 12.650

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

8A(5): 16.20 9A: 8.280, 8.430 10: 8.280, 8.430 48(2): 2.270 83(2): 8.430 85(1)(a): 8.230 85(1)(b): 8.230 94: 8.280, 8.290 94(1): 8.280 94(2): 8.280 258(5): 15.105 259: 15.130 262: 8.140 315: 8.190, 8.210, 20.50, 20.640 329: 21.170 332(2): 16.50 333: 2.390, 16.20 396(1): 15.210, 15.220, 15.230, 15.240,

15.260

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law: 1.50, 1.170, 1.230, 1.290, 1.350, 2.10, 2.390, 15.70 s 7(1): 1.180 s 8: 1.100, 1.180 s 8(1): 1.290, 1.350

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012: 1.50, 2.10, 2.390 Sch 1: see Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law

Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 2003: 19.370 Sch 1, para 1: 19.250

Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 2011: 19.50 Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 2012 s 66: 19.40

Marriage Act 1961: 4.140 s 23A(1)(a): 4.140 s 40(1): 4.140 s 55: 4.140

Navigation Act 1912: 2.270, 2.350, 2.390, 8.280, 15.70, 15.105, 15.130, 15.210, 16.20, 20.50 s s s s s s

2(1): 2.390, 8.280, 8.430 2A: 16.50 3: 16.50 6(1): 8.230, 8.280 6(4): 5.50, 5.100 7: 2.390

s 396(2): 15.250 s 410B: 15.30 s 410B(2): 15.30 Pt VIII: 16.20 Pt VIII, Div 1: 16.50 Sch 6: 16.20 Sch 6A: 16.20 Sch 9: 20.50 Sch 9, Art 6.2: 20.640 Sch 9, Art 13.2: 8.190

Navigation Act 1958 s 161: 16.20 s 195: 15.30

Navigation Act 2012: 1.50, 1.130, 1.190, 1.230, 1.290, 1.350, 2.270, 2.390, 3.540, 8.280, 14.100, 15.70, 15.90, 15.105, 15.130, 15.210, 16.20, 18.10, 19.50, 20.50, 20.90, 20.110, 20.190, 20.200, 21.20, 21.40, 21.60, 21.90 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

10: 21.20 10(3): 19.60 10(4): 19.60 12: 15.70, 15.130 14: 1.100, 1.190, 1.290, 1.350 14(1): 5.110, 8.300, 20.90, 20.110, 20.130, 20.190, 21.20, 21.60, 21.160 15: 15.70, 19.90 15(1): 21.20 15(1)(b): 21.20 15(1)(c)(ii): 21.20 15(2): 21.20 16: 21.20 17: 21.20 25: 21.20 57(2)(e): 15.70 57(2)(g): 15.70

lxxx Table of Statutes Navigation Act 2012 — cont s 93: 16.150 s 112(6): 12.650 s 112(7): 12.650 s 115: 12.650 s 119: 12.650 s 119(2): 12.650 s 129: 19.90 s 130: 19.70 s 130(2): 19.90 s 135(1): 19.90 s 135(2): 19.90 s 135(3): 19.90 s 136(1): 19.90 s 136(2): 19.90 s 136(3): 19.90 s 140: 19.50 s 140(2): 19.50 s 140(3): 19.50 s 140(4)(a): 19.50 s 140(4)(b): 19.50 s 141: 19.50 s 141(2): 19.50 s 141(3): 19.50 s 141(4)(a): 19.50 s 141(4)(b): 19.50 s 142: 19.50 s 142(2): 19.50 s 142(4)(a): 19.50 s 142(4)(b): 19.50 s 143: 19.50 s 143(2): 19.50 s 143(4)(a): 19.50 s 143(4)(b): 19.50 s 144(1): 19.50 s 144(2): 19.50 s 144(3): 19.50 s 175: 15.70, 15.130 s 175(1)(a) to (c): 15.70 s 175(2)(f): 15.70 s 176: 15.130 s 176(3): 15.130 s 177(1): 15.90 s 177(2): 15.90 s 177(3): 15.90 s 178(1): 15.90 s 178(2): 15.90 s 178(3): 15.90 s 179: 15.100, 15.110, 15.120 s 181: 20.800 s 227: 21.20 s 228: 21.180 s 229(1)(a): 21.150 s 229(1)(b): 21.150 s 229(1)(c): 21.150 s 229(1)(d): 21.150 s 229(2)(a): 21.150 s 229(2)(b): 21.150

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

229(3)(a): 21.150 229(3)(b): 21.150 231: 21.140 231(1): 21.140 231(2): 21.140 231(3): 21.140 231(4): 21.140 232(1): 21.30, 21.100 232(1)(e): 21.60 232(2): 21.20, 21.100 232(3): 21.100 232(4): 21.100 233(1): 21.30, 21.110 233(2): 21.110 233(3): 21.110 234: 21.100, 21.110 234(2): 21.30 235(1): 21.120 235(1)(b): 21.20 235(2): 21.120 235(3): 21.120 236(1): 21.120 236(2): 21.120 236(3): 21.120 238: 21.160 238(1)(b): 21.160 240(1): 20.90 240(2): 20.90 240(3): 20.190, 20.820 240(3)(a): 20.130 240(3)(b): 20.130 240(3)(c): 20.60 242: 20.810 243: 8.190, 20.810 291(1): 15.90, 19.50, 19.90 291(3): 15.90, 19.50, 19.90 292(1): 15.90, 19.50, 19.90 292(2): 15.90, 19.50, 19.90

s 296: 15.90, 19.50 ss 296 to 300: 19.90 s 297: 15.90, 19.50 s 298: 15.90, 19.50 s 299: 15.90, 19.50 s 300: 15.90, 19.50 s 326: 15.30 s 326(3): 15.30 s 326(4): 15.30 s 340(1)(b): 15.70 s 342(1): 12.650, 15.70 s 343(2): 15.70 Ch 3, Pt 4: 12.650 Ch 3, Pt 4, Div 4, Subdiv B: 12.650 Ch 4: 19.90 Ch 6, Pt 3: 15.70, 15.130 Ch 7, Pt 2: 21.10, 21.30 Ch 7, Pt 3: 20.820

Table of Statutes lxxxi

Navigation Amendment Act 1979: 16.20 s 104(3): 2.320

Protection of the Sea (1992 Fund) Regulations 1994 reg 22 to 24: 19.310

Navigation (Consequential Amendments) Act 2012: 8.280 s 3: 8.280 Sch 1: 8.280

Navigation Regulation 2013: 15.130, 15.160, 15.210 reg 14: 15.160 reg 14(1): 8.140, 15.130 reg 14(2): 15.130 reg 15: 15.160 reg 15(1): 15.130, 15.140, 15.160 reg 15(2): 15.130 reg 15(3): 15.150 reg 15(4): 15.140 reg 16(1): 15.160 reg 17: 8.190, 20.50 reg 17(b): 20.710 Sch 1: 20.710

Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993: 3.540 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 Sch 1: 4.120

Personal Property Securities Act 2009: 2.10, 4.10, 7.40, 7.60, 8.360, 8.380, 8.390, 8.640, 10.20, 10.60, 10.80, 10.90, 10.100, 10.120, 10.130, 14.560 s 6(1): 10.100 s 8(1)(b): 7.40, 10.110 s 8(1)(c): 7.40, 8.360, 8.640, 10.110 s 10: 7.40, 8.360, 10.110, 10.120 s 12: 7.40, 8.640 s 12(1): 9.80, 10.100, 10.110, 10.120 s 12(2): 10.100 s 19: 10.70 s 19(2): 10.130 s 20(1): 10.130 s 21: 10.130 s 55: 9.80, 9.90 s 55(2): 10.130 s 55(3): 10.130 s 55(4): 10.130 s 55(5): 10.130 s 73(1): 7.40, 8.380, 8.390 s 73(1)(a): 10.110 s 235(1): 10.100 Ch 9: 10.110

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 Sch 2: 21.200

Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981: 19.20, 19.30, 19.210, 19.240, 19.250, 19.310, 19.370 s 3(1): 19.20, 19.250 s 5: 19.220 s 8: 19.210 s 8(1): 19.220 s 9: 19.220, 19.240 s 9(2): 19.250 s 10: 19.250 s 10(1): 19.250 s 20(1): 19.400 s 20(2): 19.400 s 20(3): 19.400 s 21: 19.400 s 22(1): 19.400 s 22(1A): 19.400 s 22(2): 19.400 s 22(3): 19.400 s 22A: 19.400 Sch 1: 19.220 Sch 1, Arts I to VI: 19.210 Sch 1, Art VIII: 19.210 Sch 1, Art VII.1: 19.210 Sch 1, Art VII.8: 19.210 Sch 1, Art VII.9: 19.210 Sch 1, Art IX.1: 19.210 Sch 1, Art IX.3: 19.210 Sch 1, Art XI.1: 19.210 Sch 1, Art XII bis: 19.210 Sch 2: 19.220 Sch 2, Art 1.2: 19.320 Sch 2, Art 1.3: 19.240 Sch 2, Art 1.6: 19.220, 19.230, 19.400 Sch 2, Art 1.7: 19.220, 19.400 Sch 2, Art 1.8: 19.220, 19.270 Sch 2, Art 2: 19.220 Sch 2, Art 3.1: 19.220, 19.240, 19.400 Sch 2, Art 3.2: 19.290, 19.400 Sch 2, Art 3.2(a): 19.290, 19.340, 19.370 Sch 2, Art 3.2(c): 19.290 Sch 2, Art 3.2(b): 19.290, 19.340 Sch 2, Art 3(2)(b): 19.290 Sch 2, Art 3.2(c): 19.340 Sch 2, Art 3.3: 19.290, 19.340 Sch 2, Art 3.4: 19.220, 19.240 Sch 2, Art 3.4(c): 19.240 Sch 2, Art 3.5: 19.240 Sch 2, Art 5.1: 19.250 Sch 2, Art 5.2: 19.280 Sch 2, Art 5.3: 19.260 Sch 2, Art 5.4: 19.230, 19.270 Sch 2, Art 5.5: 19.270

lxxxii

Table of Statutes

Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 — cont Sch 2, Art 5.8: 19.230 Sch 2, Art 5.9(a): 19.250 Sch 2, Art 5.10: 19.250 Sch 2, Art 6.1(a): 19.270 Sch 2, Art 6.2: 19.270 Sch 2, Art 7: 19.320, 19.350 Sch 2, Art 7.1: 19.240 Sch 2, Art 7.8: 19.240, 19.250, 19.290, 19.350, 19.370 Sch 2, Art 9: 19.20 Sch 2, Art 9.1: 19.220, 19.240 Sch 2, Art 11: 19.20 Sch 2, Art 11.1: 19.290, 19.340 Sch 2, Art 15: 19.20 Sch 3: 19.20, 19.250

Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Regulations 1983 reg 4(b): 19.260

Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008: 19.30, 19.390 s 3: 19.390 s 8: 19.390 s 11: 19.390 Pt 3: 19.390

Protection of the Sea (Imposition of Contributions to Oil Pollution Compensation Funds – Customs) Act 1993: 19.30, 19.210, 19.310 Protection of the Sea (Imposition of Contributions to Oil Pollution Compensation Funds – Excise) Act 1993: 19.30, 19.210, 19.310 Protection of the Sea (Imposition of Contributions to Oil Pollution Compensation Funds – General) Act 1993: 19.30, 19.210, 19.310 Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Funds) Act 1993: 19.30, 19.210, 19.310 s 3: 19.310 s 26: 19.30 ss 27 to 46: 19.30 s 29: 19.310 s 31: 19.310 s 31(1): 19.320 s 32(2): 19.310 s 32(3): 19.310 s 32(4): 19.310

s 32(5): 19.310 s 33: 19.310 s 35(1): 19.310 s 35(2): 19.310 s 35(4): 19.310 s 40(1): 19.310 s 40(2): 19.310 s 41: 19.310 s 41(3): 19.310 s 43: 19.310 s 44: 19.310 s 45(1): 19.310 s 45(2): 19.310 s 46: 19.310 s 46C: 19.310 s 46E: 19.310 s 46E(c): 19.320 s 46F(2): 19.310 s 46F(3): 19.310 s 46F(4): 19.310 s 46F(5): 19.310 s 46G: 19.310 s 46J: 19.310 s 46J(1): 19.310 s 46J(2): 19.310 s 46J(4): 19.310 s 46N(1): 19.310 s 46N(2): 19.310 s 46P: 19.310 s 46P(3): 19.310 s 46R: 19.310 s 46S: 19.310 s 46T(1): 19.310 s 46T(2): 19.310 s 46U: 19.310 Ch 2: 19.30 Ch 3: 19.30, 19.310 Ch 3A: 19.210, 19.310 Pt 3A.4: 19.20 Sch 1, Art 11: 19.310 Sch 1, Art 15: 19.310 Sch 1, Art 33: 19.20 Sch 3, Art 26: 19.20 Sch 3, Art 27: 19.20 Sch 4: 19.20, 19.310, 19.370

Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981: 19.30, 19.400 s s s s s s s s s

8: 19.400 8(1): 19.400 8(2A): 19.400 8(4): 19.400 8(6): 19.400 9: 19.400 9(1): 19.400 9(2A): 19.400 9(4): 19.400

Table of Statutes lxxxiii Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 — cont s 9(6): 19.400 s 10(1)(b): 19.400 s 10(1)(c): 19.400 s 10(2): 19.400 s 10(3A): 19.400 s 10(4): 19.400 s 10(8): 19.400 Sch 1, Art II.4: 19.400 Sch 1, Art III: 19.400 Sch 1, Art V: 19.400 Sch 3: 19.400 Sch 4: 19.400

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983: 3.540, 19.30, 19.40, 19.50, 19.100, 19.120, 19.140, 19.150, 19.180 s 3(1): 19.40, 19.130, 19.140 s 3(1A): 19.40 s 3(1B): 19.40 s 3(1C): 19.40 s 3(1D): 19.40, 19.80 s 3(2): 19.70, 19.80, 19.130 s 3(3): 19.30 s 6: 19.40 s 8: 19.30 s 9: 19.50, 19.60 s 9(1)(c)(i): 19.140 s 9(1B): 19.40, 19.50, 19.70, 19.100 s 9(1B)(b)(i): 19.40, 19.50, 19.140 s 9(1B)(b)(ii): 19.50 s 9(1B)(b)(iii): 19.40, 19.50 s 9(1C): 19.50, 19.70 s 9(2): 19.70, 19.100 s 9(2)(c): 19.70 s 9(2)(d): 19.70 s 9(2)(e): 19.70 s 9(3): 19.70 s 9(3A): 19.70 s 9(4): 19.70, 19.80 s 9(4)(f): 19.70 ss 9 to 14A: 19.40 s 10: 19.60, 19.100 s 10(1): 19.60 s 10(2): 19.60 s 11: 19.100 s 11(1): 19.80 s 11(1)(a): 19.80 s 11(1)(b): 19.80 s 11(2): 19.80 s 11(3): 19.80 s 11(3)(a): 19.80 s 11(3)(b): 19.80 s 11(3A): 19.80 s 11(4): 19.80 s 11(8): 19.80

s 11(9): 19.80 s 11(9A): 19.80 s 11(10): 19.80 s 15: 19.30 ss 15 to 26AA: 19.40 s 16: 19.130 s 21(1): 19.130 s 21(1)(c)(i): 19.40, 19.140 s 21(1B): 19.130 s 21(1C): 19.130 s 21(2)(c): 19.130 s 21(2)(d): 19.130 s 21(2)(e): 19.130 s 21(3): 19.130 s 21(3A): 19.130 s 22: 19.130 s 26A: 19.30 ss 26A to 26B: 19.40 s 26AB(1): 19.130 s 26AB(1)(c)(i): 19.40, 19.140 s 26AB(3): 19.130 s 26AB(4): 19.130 s 26AB(5): 19.130 s 26AB(6): 19.130 s 26B: 19.130 ss 26BA to 26DAA: 19.40 s 26C: 19.30 s 26D(5A): 19.130 s 26D(1): 19.130 s 26D(1)(c)(i): 19.40, 19.140 s 26D(3): 19.130 s 26D(4): 19.130 s 26D(5)(a): 19.130 s 26D(5)(b): 19.130 s 26D(6) to (9): 19.130 s 26E: 19.30 ss 26E to 26FE: 19.40 s 26F(5A): 19.130 s 26F(5B): 19.130 s 26F(9A): 19.130 s 26F(1): 19.130 s 26F(1)(c)(i): 19.40, 19.140 s 26F(3): 19.130 s 26F(4): 19.130 s 26F(5): 19.130 s 26F(6) to (9): 19.130 s 26FA: 19.130 s 26FB: 19.130 s 26FC: 19.130 s 26FD: 19.130 s 26FEF: 19.30 ss 26FEF to 26FEW: 19.40 s 26FEG(1): 19.170 s 26FEG(1)(d)(i): 19.40 s 26FEG(1)(d)(iii): 19.170 s 26FEG(2): 19.170 s 26FEG(2)(b)(iii): 19.170

lxxxiv

Table of Statutes

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 — cont s 26FEG(3): 19.170 s 26FEG(4): 19.170 s 26FEG(5): 19.170 s 26FEG(6): 19.170 s 26FEH: 19.170 s 26FEH(1): 19.170 s 26FEH(2): 19.170 s 26FEH(6): 19.170 s 26FEH(7): 19.170 s 26FEH(8): 19.170 s 26FEH(9): 19.170 s 26FEL: 19.170 s 26FEM: 19.170 s 26FEO: 19.170 s 29F(9): 19.130 Pt II: 19.130 Pt III: 19.120, 19.130 Pts III to IIIC: 19.130 Pt IIIA: 19.120 Pt IIIB: 19.120 Pt IIIC: 19.120 Pt IIID: 19.120, 19.150, 19.170 Pt IIID, Div 3: 19.170

Protection of the Sea (Supplementary Fund) Regulations 2009 reg 25 to 27: 19.310

Quarantine Act 1908 s 65: 7.80

Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1904: 12.30, 12.40

Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924: 12.40, 12.90, 12.340 s s s s s

3: 12.40 4: 12.40, 12.340 7: 12.100 9(1): 12.90 9(2): 12.90

Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911: 2.40 Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973: 2.350, 2.370, 19.40 s 6: 2.220, 2.350, 19.400 s 7: 2.110, 15.70 s 10A: 19.400 s 11: 2.220 s 12: 19.190 s 14: 15.70 Sch, Art 76.5: 19.190

Service and Execution of Process Act 1901

Pt IV: 13.440

Shipping Registration Act 1981: 1.40, 1.50, 1.60, 1.70, 1.90, 1.290, 1.320, 3.10, 3.30, 3.60, 3.100, 3.140, 3.150, 3.340, 3.400, 3.500, 3.540, 3.580, 3.600, 3.610, 4.20, 4.60, 4.110, 4.150, 4.160, 4.230, 4.240, 4.250, 5.20, 5.30, 5.40, 5.50, 5.60, 5.90, 5.100, 5.180, 5.200, 5.300, 6.10, 6.60, 6.100, 10.80, 10.130, 21.20 s 3(1): 1.60, 1.70, 1.80, 1.230, 1.290, 1.320, 3.80, 3.100, 3.110, 3.120, 3.130, 3.140, 3.240, 3.280, 3.310, 3.320, 3.330, 3.350, 3.380, 3.430, 3.440, 3.550, 4.50, 4.150, 4.230, 5.20, 5.50, 5.90, 5.150, 5.210, 6.50, 6.100 s 3(1)(b): 1.70 s 3(2): 3.90, 5.90 s 3(3): 3.130 s 3(4): 4.230 s 3(8): 1.40 s 3A: 3.490, 3.550 s 4: 2.320 s 7: 3.100, 3.130 s 8(1): 3.80, 5.30 s 8(2): 3.80 s 9: 3.130 s 10(1): 3.130 s 10(2): 3.130 s 10(3): 3.60, 3.100, 3.160, 3.320 s 11: 5.30 s 11(1)(a): 5.20 s 11(1)(b): 5.20, 5.150 s 11(1)(c): 5.20, 5.30 s 11(1)(d): 6.50 s 11(1)(e): 5.20 s 11(1)(f): 5.20 s 11(2): 5.20, 5.140 s 11A: 3.350 s 12(1): 3.70, 5.40 s 12(2): 3.100, 5.40, 5.50 s 12(3): 3.90 s 12(3A): 3.90 s 12(3B): 3.90 s 12(3C): 3.90 s 12(3D): 3.90 s 12(4): 3.90 s 13: 3.100, 4.20 s 14: 5.40 s 14(a): 3.130, 3.310, 5.50 s 14(b): 3.130, 3.310 s 14(c): 3.130, 3.310 s 14(d): 3.130, 5.50 s 15: 3.250 s 15(a): 3.150 s 15A: 3.20 s 15B: 3.320

Table of Statutes lxxxv Shipping Registration Act 1981 — cont s 15C: 3.250 s 15C(a): 3.150 s 15E: 3.340, 3.350, 5.180 s 15F: 3.340 s 15F(1): 3.350 s 15F(2): 3.350 s 15F(3): 3.350 s 16(1): 3.160 s 16(2): 3.160 s 17(1): 3.90, 3.130, 3.140, 3.300 s 19: 3.390 s 20(1): 3.400, 10.70 s 20(2): 3.410 s 20(2B): 3.410 s 20(4): 3.400, 3.410 s 21(2): 3.440 s 21(3): 3.450 s 21(5): 3.450 s 21(6): 3.450 s 21(7)(a): 3.450 s 21(7)(b): 3.450 s 22(1): 3.430, 4.230 s 22(2): 3.450 s 22(4): 3.450 s 22(5): 3.450 s 22(6): 3.450 s 22A(1): 3.430 s 22A(2): 3.430, 4.230 s 22A(3): 3.450, 4.230 s 22A(4): 3.450 s 22A(5): 3.450 s 22A(6): 3.450 s 22A(7): 4.230 s 22B: 3.430 s 23(1): 3.460 s 23(3): 3.470 s 25: 3.480 s 26(1): 3.170 s 26(2): 3.170 s 26(2A): 3.170 s 26(3): 3.170 s 26(3A): 3.170 s 26(4): 3.170 s 27(1): 3.230 s 27(2): 3.210 s 27(3): 3.180 s 28: 3.180 s 29(1): 4.40, 4.50, 4.60 s 29(1)(a): 4.20 s 29(1)(b): 4.20 s 29(2): 5.10 s 29(3): 4.20 s 30(1): 4.150 s 30(1)(a): 4.150 s 30(1)(b): 4.150 s 30(2): 4.190 s 30(2)(a): 4.190

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

30(3): 4.190 30(4): 4.160 30(4)(c): 4.160 30(5)(b)(i): 4.160 30(5)(b)(ii): 4.160 30(6): 4.150, 4.160 30(7): 4.160 30(8): 4.150 30(9): 4.150 30(10): 4.170 30(12): 4.160 32(1): 4.30 32(2): 4.30 32(3): 4.30 33(1): 4.30 33(2): 4.30 33(3): 4.30 33A: 3.330 33B(1)(a): 3.540 33B(1)(b): 3.540 33B(1)(c): 3.540 33B(1)(d): 3.540 33B(1)(e): 3.540 34: 1.90, 5.180, 5.240, 6.50, 6.60, 6.100,

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

36: 5.210 36(1): 5.180, 5.190, 6.60, 6.100 36(2): 5.180, 5.190, 6.120, 6.180 36(2A): 5.180, 6.160 36(3): 6.130 36(3)(a)(i): 6.130 36(3)(a)(ii): 6.130 36(3)(b)(i): 6.130 36(3)(b)(ii): 6.130 36(3)(b)(iii): 6.130 36(4): 6.130 36(5): 5.180, 6.160 37: 5.20, 5.210 37(1): 5.180, 5.190, 6.210, 6.270 37(1A): 5.180, 6.210 37(2): 6.220 37A: 6.120, 6.180, 6.210, 6.260, 6.270 37A(1A): 6.180, 6.270 37A(2A): 6.180, 6.270 37A(1): 3.410, 6.170 37A(2): 6.170 37A(3): 6.170 40: 10.180 45: 5.180, 5.190, 6.50, 10.240 46: 5.30, 5.160, 5.170 47: 5.10, 5.170, 10.60, 10.70 47A: 5.260 47A(1): 5.230, 5.240, 5.260 47A(6): 5.290 47A(7): 5.270, 5.290 47B(1): 5.260 47B(2): 5.260, 5.290

6.210

lxxxvi

Table of Statutes

Shipping Registration Act 1981 — cont s 47B(3): 5.260, 5.290 s 47C: 5.290 s 47D(1): 5.230, 5.270 s 47D(2): 5.270 s 47D(3): 5.270 s 47E: 5.250 s 48(1)(a): 6.200 s 48(5): 6.200 s 48(6): 6.200 s 49(1)(b): 3.600 s 54: 3.360 s 56(1): 3.20 s 56(2): 3.20 s 57(1): 3.360 s 57(2): 3.360 s 57(4): 3.360 s 57(5): 3.360 s 58: 3.500 s 58(1): 3.520 s 58(2): 3.520 s 58(2A): 3.520 s 58(3): 3.520, 3.530 s 59(1): 3.370, 3.490 s 60: 3.370 s 61AB(1): 3.320 s 62: 3.520, 5.90 s 63(1): 4.20 s 63(1)(a): 4.50, 4.150 s 63(1)(b): 4.250 s 63(2): 4.20 s 64: 3.270 s 64(1): 3.270 s 65(1): 3.440 s 65(1)(a): 3.380, 3.440 s 65(1)(b): 3.380, 3.440 s 65(1)(c): 3.380 s 65(1)(d): 3.380, 3.440 s 65(1)(e): 3.380 s 65(2): 3.450 s 65(3): 3.380 s 65(4): 3.450 s 65(5): 3.380, 3.450 s 65(6): 3.380, 3.450 s 65(8): 3.380 s 66: 3.500 s 66(1): 3.520 s 66(1)(b): 6.100 s 66(1A): 3.520 s 66(2): 3.500, 6.100 s 66(3): 3.500, 3.530 s 66(3)(b): 6.100 s 66(10): 3.550 s 67(1): 3.520 s 67(2): 3.520 s 68: 4.230 s 68(1): 4.190, 4.230 s 68(2): 4.230

s 68(2A): 4.230 s 68(4): 4.230 s 69: 4.230 s 69(1): 4.230 s 69(2): 4.230 s 69(2A): 4.230 s 70(4): 3.90 s 71(1): 3.90 s 74(1): 3.170, 3.400, 3.410, 6.180, 6.270 s 74(1A): 6.180, 6.270 s 74(2): 3.380 s 74(4): 3.90 s 74(4A): 3.480, 4.30 s 74(4C): 3.230 s 77(1): 4.220, 5.180, 5.220 s 77(2): 3.560, 3.590 s 79: 3.610 s 80(c): 4.130 s 114(d): 3.310 Pt III: 1.90 Pt VI: 5.90

Shipping Registration Regulations 1981: 3.150, 3.280, 3.340, 3.540, 6.70 reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg reg

2(1): 3.340, 4.130 2(2): 3.280 2A: 3.540 5: 3.250 6A: 3.60, 3.100, 3.160, 3.320 7(2): 3.250 7A: 3.250 7A(1)(b): 3.250 7A(2): 3.250 7A(3): 3.290 7B: 3.250 7C: 3.250 7C(4): 3.280 7C(5): 3.280 8: 3.250 8(1)(c): 3.280 9: 3.250 10: 3.160 11: 3.340 11(1): 3.340, 5.160 13(1): 3.410 13(2): 3.410 14(2): 3.420 15(1): 3.420 20(1): 3.170 20(3): 3.170 21(1): 3.210 21(2): 3.180 22(1)(a): 4.190 22(1)(b): 4.190 22(2): 4.190 22(3)(a): 4.200 22(3)(b): 4.200

Table of Statutes lxxxvii Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 — cont reg 22B: 3.540 reg 22C(2)(a): 3.550 reg 22C(2)(b): 3.490 reg 23(1)(a): 6.70 reg 23(1)(b): 6.70 reg 23(2)(a): 6.130 reg 23(2)(b): 6.130 reg 23(2)(c): 6.130 reg 23(2)(d): 6.130 reg 23(3): 6.140 reg 24(1): 5.30 reg 24(1)(a): 6.230 reg 24(1)(b): 6.230 reg 24(1)(c): 6.230 reg 24(2)(a): 6.220 reg 24(2)(b): 6.220 reg 24(2)(c): 6.220 reg 28A(1): 5.230 reg 31(1): 3.380 reg 31(4): 3.380 reg 31(5): 3.420 reg 31(6): 3.380 reg 31(7): 3.380 reg 31(8): 3.380 reg 32: 3.550 reg 33: 3.500 reg 33A: 4.230 reg 34: 4.220, 5.180, 5.220 reg 35: 4.130 reg 40: 6.240 reg 41: 3.340 Sch 1: 3.340 Sch 2, Form 5: 5.230, 5.260

Australian Capital Territory Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 s 32: 16.100

Legislation Act 2001 s 86: 2.330

Statute Law Amendment Act (No 2) 2002 s 6(1): 2.330, 8.290 Sch 4, Pt 4.9: 2.330, 8.290

New South Wales Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5D: 15.110 s 5D(1)(a): 15.120 s 5D(1)(b): 15.120, 15.170 s 5D(4): 15.170 s 5E: 15.110 ss 34 to 39: 15.130 s 36: 15.160 s 36(b): 15.160

Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 s 5: 12.580

Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 s 3(1): 16.100

Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1980: 4.110 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Statute Stocktake Act 1999

s 17: 15.90

s 4(1): 2.280

Crimes at Sea Act 1998: 4.120 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942: 2.200, 2.270, 2.290, 16.20 s 3: 2.200, 2.270, 16.20

Frustrated Contracts Act 1978 s 4(1)(b): 14.480 s 4(2)(b): 14.480

Trade Practices Act 1974 s 68(1): 15.40 s 74(1): 15.40

s 6(1)(b): 14.480 s 11(2)(a): 14.480 s 12: 14.480

Transport Legislation Amendment Act 1995: 20.50

Heritage Act 1977

Transport and Communications Amendment Act 1994: 19.40

Imperial Acts Application Act 1969

Transport and Communications Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 1992: 19.400

Law Reform (Marital Consortium) Act 1984

Pt 3C: 20.820, 21.210

ss 24 to 28: 17.660

s 3(1): 16.100

Uniform Shipping Laws Code s 16: 15.70

Limitation Act 1969

lxxxviii Table of Statutes Limitation Act 1969 — cont s 14(1)(a): 18.30 s 14(1)(b): 15.240 s 18A: 15.240 s 22(1): 8.500, 15.240 s 22(2): 8.500, 15.220, 15.240 s 22(3): 8.500 s 22(4): 15.220 s 26(1): 15.250 s 60A: 15.240 s 60C: 15.240

Marine Pollution Act 1987 s 8(2)(b): 19.70

Marine Pollution Act 2012: 19.30, 19.100 s 3: 19.40 s 4: 19.30 s 13(1): 19.40 s 15(1): 19.40, 19.100 s 16(1): 19.100 s 16(2): 19.100 s 17: 19.100 s 18: 19.70, 19.100 s 18(1): 19.140 s 18(1)(a): 19.100 s 19: 19.100 s 20: 19.100 s 21: 19.100 ss 22 to 23: 19.100 s 25: 19.100 s 26: 19.100 s 30: 19.140 s 31: 19.140 s 45(1): 19.140 s 46: 19.140 s 47: 19.140 s 53(1): 19.140 s 54: 19.140 s 55: 19.140 s 60(1): 19.140 s 61: 19.140 s 62: 19.140 s 86: 19.100 s 87: 19.100 s 87(1): 19.100 s 90(1): 19.100 Pts 4 to 7: 19.140

Marine Safety Act 1998: 1.110, 1.120, 1.290, 3.610 s s s s s s s

5(1): 1.120 5(2): 1.120 5(3): 1.120 7: 5.120 8(1)(a): 15.70 8(1)(c): 15.70 10(3): 15.90

s 79: 15.30 s 80: 15.30

Maritime Services Act 1935 s 13YA(2): 16.100, 16.210

Navigation and Other Acts (Validation) Act 1983: 2.270 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 s 4: 19.180 s 7(3): 19.180 s 120: 19.180

Sea-Carriage Documents Act 1997: 12.200, 12.320, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.730, 12.770, 12.840 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

5: 12.200, 12.640, 12.680, 12.710, 12.770 5(a): 12.640, 12.680 5(b): 12.670 6: 12.20, 12.680, 12.790 6(1): 12.770 8: 12.710 8(1)(a): 12.640, 12.670, 15.200 8(1)(b): 12.670 8(1)(c): 12.670 8(2): 12.670 9: 12.670 10: 12.710 10(1): 12.640 10(2): 12.640 10(3): 12.640 11: 12.640 12(2): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250 12(3): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250

Sea-Carriage of Goods (State) Act 1921: 12.40

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Sch 6, para (a): 19.240

Northern Territory Commercial Arbitration (National Uniform Legislation) Act: 12.580 Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act s 7: 16.100

Crimes at Sea Act: 4.120 Criminal Law (Offences at Sea) Act: 4.110 Darwin Port Corporation Act s 42: 16.100, 16.210

Table of Statutes lxxxix

Environmental Offences and Penalties Act s s s s

4: 5: 6: 7:

19.110 19.110 19.110 19.110

s 92: 15.30

Proportionate Liability Act s 15: 15.160 s 15(2): 15.160 Pt 2: 15.130

Heritage Act: 20.820, 21.210 Law of Property Act s 58: 16.40

Sea-Carriage Documents Act: 12.200, 12.320, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.730, 12.770, 12.840 s 5: 12.200, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710,

12.770

Limitation Act s s s s s s s s s

12(1)(a): 18.30 12(1)(b): 15.240 20: 8.500 20(2): 8.500, 15.240 20(3): 8.500, 15.220, 15.240 20(4): 8.500 20(5): 15.220 24: 15.250 44: 15.240

Marine Act: 1.110, 1.180, 1.290, 3.610, 5.120, 8.430 s s s s s

7(1): 1.180 49(1): 8.430 49(3): 8.290 108: 15.70 110: 15.70, 15.90

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

6: 12.20, 12.680, 12.790 6(1): 12.770 8: 12.710 8(1)(a): 12.640, 12.670, 15.200 8(1)(b): 12.670 8(1)(c): 12.670 8(2): 12.670 9: 12.670 10: 12.710 10(1): 12.640 10(2): 12.640 10(3): 12.640 11: 12.640 12(2): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250 12(3): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250

Supreme Court Rules r 7.01(1)(g): 19.240

Marine Pollution Act: 19.30, 19.100, 19.110 s 6: 19.110 s 6(1): 19.40 s 9: 19.40 s 14(1): 19.110 s 14(2): 19.100, 19.110 s 14(3): 19.110 s 14(4): 19.100, 19.110 s 14(5): 19.100 s 14(6): 19.110 s 15(1)(a): 19.100 s 15(1)(b): 19.100 s 15(1)(c): 19.100 s 15(2)(a): 19.100 s 15(3): 19.100 s 16: 19.100 s 21: 19.140 s 27: 19.140 s 31 (uncommenced): 19.140 s 38: 19.140 s 50: 19.110 Pts 3 to 6: 19.140

Queensland Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 20: 2.330, 8.290

Civil Liability Act 2003 s 11: 15.110 s 11(1)(a): 15.120 s 11(1)(b): 15.120, 15.170 s 11(4): 15.170 s 12: 15.110 ss 28 to 33: 15.130 s 32A: 15.160 s 32A(b): 15.160

Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 s 5: 12.580

Crimes at Sea Act 2001: 4.120 Criminal Code s 14A: 4.110

Penalty Units Act: 15.90, 19.110 Environmental Protection Act 1994 Ports Management Act s 91: 15.30

s 8: 19.180 s 23(2): 19.180

xc Table of Statutes Environmental Protection Act 1994 — cont Pt 3C: 19.180

Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 ss 9 to 11: 17.660

Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act 1968 s 3(1): 16.100

s 9: 12.640 s 10(2): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250 s 10(3): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250

Statute Law Revision Act 1995 s 5(1): 19.200 Sch 7: 19.200

Supreme Court Act 1995 ss 17 to 18: 16.100

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s s s s s s

10: 15.270 10(1)(a): 15.270, 18.30 10(6)(a): 15.270, 15.280 11(1): 15.280 31: 15.280 40(1): 15.290

Navigation (Manning of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1974 reg 8(b)(ii): 17.610

Penalties and Sentences Act 1991 s 5: 15.90, 19.40, 19.100 s 5A: 15.90, 19.40, 19.100

Property Law Act 1974 s 56: 16.40

Queensland Heritage Act 1992 Pt 9: 20.820, 21.210

Queensland Marine Act 1958 s 77(1): 8.290 s 77(2): 8.290 s 255: 2.330, 8.290

Queensland Marine (Sea Dumping) Act 1985: 19.200 Sea-Carriage Documents Act 1996: 12.200, 12.320, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.730, 12.770, 12.840 s 3: 12.200, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710,

12.770 s s s s s s s

4: 12.20, 12.680, 12.790 4(1): 12.770 6: 12.710 6(1)(a): 12.640, 12.670, 15.200 6(1)(b): 12.670 6(1)(c): 12.670 6(2): 12.670

s 7: 12.670 s 8: 12.710 s 8(1): 12.640 s 8(2): 12.640 s 8(3): 12.640

Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 s 281E: 16.100, 16.210

Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995: 19.30, 19.100 s 4(1): 19.40 s 5: 19.30 s 9: 19.40 s 26(1): 19.40, 19.100 s 26(2): 19.40, 19.100 s 27: 19.100 s 28(1)(a): 19.100 s 28(1)(b): 19.100 s 28(1)(c): 19.100 s 28(1)(d): 19.100 s 28(2): 19.100 s 29(1): 19.100 s 29(2): 19.100 s 35(1): 19.140 s 42(1): 19.140 s 47: 19.140 s 48: 19.140 s 55: 19.140 s 67: 19.100 s 67(2): 19.100 s 67(3): 19.100 Pts 5 to 8: 19.140 Schedule: 19.40

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994: 1.110, 1.140, 1.290, 3.610, 17.610 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

6: 15.70 9: 5.120 10(1): 1.140 10(2): 1.140 10(3): 1.140 10(4): 1.140 10(5): 1.140 10(7): 1.140 11(1)(a): 15.70 11(1)(c): 15.70 11(1)(d): 15.70 11(1)(e): 15.70 101(1): 15.30 102(3): 15.30 211(2): 15.90

Table of Statutes xci

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulations 1995 reg 38: 17.610

Transport Operations (Oil Pollution) Act 1995 s 27: 19.100

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 124(1)(a): 19.240 r 500: 15.105

South Australia Acts Interpretation Act 1915 s 16: 2.330 s 17: 8.290

Civil Liability Act 1936 ss 19 to 23C: 16.100 s 34: 15.110 s 34(1)(a): 15.120 s 34(1)(b): 15.120, 15.170 s 34(4): 15.170 s 35: 15.110

s s s s s s s

6: 15.70 6(2): 15.70 21: 16.100, 16.210 31C: 7.80 36(1): 15.30 36(2): 15.30 36(3): 15.30

Harbors and Navigation Regulations 2009 reg 165(2): 15.90

Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981: 20.820, 21.210

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 s 6(4): 15.290 s 9: 15.160 Pt 3: 15.130

Limitation of Actions Act 1936 s s s s s

35(a): 18.30 35(c): 15.270 35(g): 8.500 36(1): 15.280 48: 15.270, 15.280

Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 s 5: 12.580

Marine Act 1936 s 131: 2.330, 8.290

Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1980: 4.110 Crimes at Sea Act 1998: 4.120 Environment Protection Act 1993 s s s s s s

7(1): 19.180 9(1): 19.180 25: 19.180 79: 19.180 80: 19.180 82: 19.180

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1984: 19.200 Frustrated Contracts Act 1988 s 3(1): 14.480 s 3(2): 14.480 s 7(1): 14.480 s 7(2): 14.480

Harbors and Navigation Act 1993: 1.110, 1.150, 1.290, 3.610 s 4: 15.70 s 4(1): 5.120 s 4(1)(a): 1.150 s 4(1)(b) to (d): 1.150

Protection of Marine Waters (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1987: 19.30, 19.100 s 3(1): 19.40 s 3(3): 19.30 s 3(6): 19.40 s 7: 19.30 s 8(1): 19.100 s 8(2)(a): 19.100 s 8(2)(c): 19.100 s 8(3): 19.100 s 8(3)(a) to (c): 19.100 s 8(4)(a) to (i): 19.100 s 8(4)(j): 19.100 s 9: 19.100 s 14: 19.30 s 18(1): 19.140 s 24AA: 19.30 s 24AAB(1): 19.140 s 24AAC: 19.30 s 24AAD(1): 19.140 s 25A: 19.100 s 25A(1): 19.100 s 25A(3): 19.100 Pt 3: 19.140 Pt 3AA: 19.140

xcii Table of Statutes Protection of Marine Waters (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1987 — cont Pt 3AB: 19.140

Sea-Carriage Documents Act 1998: 12.200, 12.320, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.730, 12.770, 12.840 s 4: 12.200, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710,

12.770 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

5: 12.20, 12.680, 12.790 5(1): 12.770 7: 12.710 7(1)(a): 12.640, 12.670, 15.200 7(1)(b): 12.670 7(1)(c): 12.670 7(2): 12.670 8: 12.670 9: 12.710 9(1): 12.640 9(2): 12.640 9(3): 12.640 10: 12.640 11(2): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250 11(3): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250

South Australian Ports Corporation Act 1994

s 3: 16.100

Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1979: 4.110 Crimes at Sea Act 1999: 4.120 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1987: 19.200 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 s s s s s s

3(2): 19.180 5(2): 19.180 9(2): 19.180 50: 19.180 51: 19.180 53: 19.180

Fatal Accidents Act 1934 s 4: 16.100

Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 Pt 9: 20.820, 21.210

Legislation Repeal Act 2000 Sch 1: 19.200

s 24: 16.100, 16.210

Limitation Act 1974 Supreme Court Act 1935 s 71: 15.105

Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 r 40(1)(k): 19.240

Wrongs Act 1936 s 33(1): 16.100

s s s s s s s s s

4(1)(a): 15.240, 18.30 4(2): 18.30 5(3): 15.240 5A(3): 15.240 7(1): 15.250 8(1): 8.500, 15.240 8(2): 8.500, 15.220, 15.240 8(3): 8.500 8(4): 15.220

Tasmania Marine Act 1976 Acts Interpretation Act 1931

s 2(2): 2.330

s 14: 2.330

Marine Act (No 2) 1966 Civil Liability Act 2002 s 13: 15.110 s 13(1)(a): 15.120 s 13(1)(b): 15.120, 15.170 s 13(4): 15.170 s 14: 15.110 s 43C: 15.160 s 43C(2): 15.160 Pt 9A: 15.130

s 5: 2.330

Marine and Safety Authority Act 1997: 1.110, 1.170, 1.290, 3.610, 15.70 s 3: 1.170, 5.120 s 35: 15.30

Marine and Safety (Collision) Regulations 2007 reg 5: 15.90

Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 s 5: 12.580

Common Law (Miscellaneous Actions) Act 1986

Marine and Safety Regulations 2007: 15.70 Mercantile Law Act 1935 s 6: 16.40

Table of Statutes xciii

Penalty Units and Other Penalties Act 1987 s 4: 15.90, 19.100 s 4A: 15.90, 19.100

Supreme Court Rules 2000 r 147A(1)(b): 19.240 r 560(1): 15.105

Wrongs Act 1954 Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act 1987: 19.30, 19.100 s 3(1): 19.40 s 3(3): 19.30 s 3A: 19.40 s 4(a): 19.100 s 4(b): 19.100 s 7: 19.30 s 8(1): 19.100 s 8(2)(a): 19.100 s 8(3)(b): 19.100 s 8(3)(c): 19.100 s 8(5): 19.100 s 8(6)(a) to (e)(vi): 19.100 s 8(6)(e)(vii): 19.100 s 9: 19.100 s 16: 19.30 s 20(1): 19.140 s 25A: 19.30 s 25C(1): 19.140 s 25CA: 19.30 s 25CB(1): 19.140 s 25D: 19.30 s 25F(1): 19.140 s 25I: 19.100 s 25I(1): 19.100 s 25I(3): 19.100 Pt II, Div 2: 19.140 Pt II, Div 2A: 19.140 Pt II, Div 2AB: 19.140 Pt II, Div 2B: 19.140

Sea-Carriage Documents Act 1997: 12.200, 12.320, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.730, 12.770, 12.840 s 4: 12.200, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710,

12.770 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

5: 12.20, 12.680, 12.790 5(1): 12.770 7: 12.710 7(1)(a): 12.640, 12.670, 15.200 7(1)(b): 12.670 7(1)(c): 12.670 7(2): 12.670 8: 12.670 9: 12.710 9(1): 12.640 9(2): 12.640 9(3): 12.640 10: 12.640 11(2): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250 11(3): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250

s 3(5): 15.250

Victoria Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 s s s s

35(3)(a): 14.480 36: 14.480 37: 14.480 42: 14.480

Commercial Arbitration Act 1984: 12.580 s 48: 12.580

Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 s 5: 12.580

Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1978: 4.110 Crimes at Sea Act 1999: 4.120 Environment Protection Act 1970 s 3(1): 19.180 s 3(2): 19.180 s 39: 19.180

Goods Act 1958: 12.200, 12.320, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.730, 12.770, 12.840 s 89: 12.200, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.770 s 90: 12.20, 12.680, 12.790 s 90(1): 12.770 s 92: 12.710 s 92(1)(a): 12.670, 15.200 s 92(1)(b): 12.670 s 92(1)(c): 12.670 s 92(2): 12.670 s 93: 12.670 s 94: 12.710 s 94(1): 12.640 s 94(2): 12.640 s 94(3): 12.640 s 95: 12.640 s 96(2): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250 s 96(3): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250

Heritage Act 1995 Pt 3: 20.820, 21.210

Instruments Act 1958 ss 15 to 18: 17.660

xciv Table of Statutes Instruments Act 1958 — cont s 126: 16.40

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1986 s 38: 15.90, 19.40, 19.100

Limitation of Actions Act 1958 s 5(1)(a): 15.270, 18.30 s 5(1AA): 15.280 s 23A: 15.280

Marine Act 1928 s 13: 21.170

Marine Act 1988: 17.580 s 58(5): 15.105

Marine Safety Act 2010: 1.110, 1.130, 1.290, 3.610 s s s s s s

3(1): 1.130, 5.120 96(1): 15.70 96(2): 15.90 257(1): 15.30 257(2): 15.30 257(3): 15.30

Marine (Vessels) Regulations 1988: 17.580 Monetary Units Act 2004 s 5(3): 15.90, 19.40, 19.100

Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act 1986: 19.30, 19.100 s 3(1): 19.40 s 3(3): 19.30 s 3(6): 19.40 s 7: 19.30 s 8(1): 19.40, 19.100 s 8(2)(a): 19.100 s 8(2)(b): 19.100 s 8(2)(c): 19.100 s 8(3): 19.100 s 8(4)(a) to (i): 19.100 s 8(4)(j): 19.100 s 9: 19.100 s 10: 19.100 s 10(1): 19.100 s 10(3)(c): 19.100 s 10(3)(d): 19.100 s 14: 19.30 s 18(1): 19.140 s 23A: 19.30 s 23B(1): 19.140 s 23C: 19.30 s 23E(1): 19.140 s 23F: 19.30 s 23G(1): 19.140 Pt 2, Div 2: 19.140

Pt 2, Div 2A: 19.140 Pt 2, Div 2B: 19.140 Pt 2, Div 2C: 19.140

Port Management Act 1995 s 23: 16.100, 16.210

Sentencing Act 1991 s 110: 15.90, 19.40, 19.100

Supreme Court Act 1986 s 77: 15.105

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 r 7.01(1)(g): 12.270

Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 7.01(1)(g): 19.240 r 21.03(1.2): 13.440

Wrongs Act 1958 ss 15 to 22: 16.100 s 24(4): 15.290 s 24AJ: 15.160 s 24AJ(b): 15.160 s 51: 15.110 s 51(1)(a): 15.120 s 51(1)(b): 15.120, 15.170 s 51(4): 15.170 s 52: 15.110 Pt IVAA: 15.130

Western Australia Civil Liability Act 2002 s 5AL: 15.160 s 5AL(2): 15.160 s 5C: 15.110 s 5C(1)(a): 15.120 s 5C(1)(b): 15.120, 15.170 s 5C(4): 15.170 s 5D: 15.110 Pt 1F: 15.130

Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 s 5: 12.580

Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1979: 4.110 Crimes at Sea Act 2000: 4.120 District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 s 50(2): 16.30

Table of Statutes xcv

Environmental Protection Act 1986 s s s s s

3(1): 19.180 5: 19.180 49(1): 19.180 50A: 19.180 50B: 19.180

Fatal Accidents Act 1959 s 4: 16.100

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 s 3: 16.100

s 8(5): 19.100 s 8(6)(a) to (i): 19.100 s 8(6)(j): 19.100 s 10: 19.100 s 11: 19.100 s 11(1): 19.100 s 11(3)(aa): 19.100 s 11(3)(bb): 19.100 Pt III: 19.140

Port Authorities Act 1999 s 99: 15.30 s 100(2): 15.30 s 113: 16.100, 16.210

Law Reform (Statute of Frauds) Act 1962: 16.40

Limitation Act 2005 s s s s s

13: 18.30 13(1): 15.270 14(1): 15.280 17: 15.290 39(1): 15.280

Limitation Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2005 s 18(1): 15.260

Marine Archaeology Act 1973: 21.210 Marine (Certificates of Competency and Safety Manning) Regulations 1985 reg 4: 16.20 Sch 1: 16.20

Maritime Archaeology Act 1973: 20.820, 21.210

Motor Vehicle (Third Party) Insurance Act 1987 s 7: 16.100

Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act 1986: 19.30 s s s s

3(3): 19.30 7: 19.30 16: 19.30 20(1): 19.140

Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act 1987: 19.100 s s s s s s

3(1): 19.40 3(5): 19.40 8(1): 19.40, 19.100 8(4)(a): 19.100 8(4)(b): 19.100 8(4)(c): 19.100

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O O O O

10: 10, 20, 35,

19.240 r 1A(3): 19.240 r 1(f): 19.240 r 1: 15.105

Sea-Carriage Documents Act 1997: 12.200, 12.320, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710, 12.730, 12.770, 12.840 s 5: 12.200, 12.640, 12.670, 12.680, 12.710,

12.770 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

6: 12.20, 12.680, 12.790 6(1): 12.770 8: 12.710 8(1)(a): 12.670, 15.200 8(1)(b): 12.670 8(1)(c): 12.670 8(2): 12.670 9: 12.670 10: 12.710 10(1): 12.640 10(2): 12.640 10(3): 12.640 11: 12.640 12(2): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250 12(3): 12.190, 12.200, 12.250

Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1909: 12.40 Supreme Court Act 1934 s 29: 15.260

Western Australian Marine Act 1982: 1.110, 1.160, 1.290, 3.610, 16.20 s s s s s s s s

3(1): 1.160, 5.120 6(1): 16.20 76: 16.20 79(1)(a): 15.70 79(2): 15.90 84: 16.20 84(1)(e): 16.20 85: 16.20

xcvi Table of Statutes Western Australian Marine Act 1982 — cont s 135(2): 2.330

Western Australian Marine (Sea Dumping) Act 1981: 19.200 s 2(1): 19.200

United Kingdom/Imperial Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act 1849 s 1: 4.110

Arbitration Act 1996: 14.100

Canada Water-Carriage of Goods Act 1910: 12.30

s 48(4): 13.440 s 69: 14.240

Army and Air Force (Annual) Act 1940 s 3(1): 2.170

Canada – Ontario Australia Act 1986: 2.210 Statutes of Ontario 1924

s 4: 2.270

cl 32: 15.130

Bills of Lading Act 1855: 12.670, 12.680

China Maritime Code: 12.40 Art 207: 16.250 Art 210: 16.230, 16.250 Ch IV: 12.40 Ch XI: 16.250

England Admiralty Court Act 1861: 8.260 s 10: 8.260

British Nationality Act 1948 s 1: 4.110

British Nationality Act 1981: 4.110 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971: 12.40 s 1(6)(b): 13.20

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992: 12.670, 12.770 s 1(5): 12.770 s 5(2)(b): 12.670

Bills of Sale Act 1878: 1.200 Registration of Vessels Act 1823 (4 Geo IV, c 41): 5.20 s 30: 5.20

Shipping and Navigations Act 1660: 3.40 Union with Scotland Act 1706: 4.90

Indonesia Indonesian Commercial Code Arts 466 to 520: 12.160

New Zealand Admiralty Act 1973 s 2: 9.70

Maritime Transport Act 1994 s 83: 16.220

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR): 16.40, 19.260 r 61.7: 16.220 r 61.11: 16.40

Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 s 2: 8.260

Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865: 16.20 s 2: 2.270

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900: 2.190 s 5: 2.190

Communications Act 2003: 12.770 Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction Act 1874: 4.110

Federal Council of Australasia Act 1885 s 15(c): 2.80

Pt 7: 16.220

Finance Act 1959 Shipping and Seamen Act 1903: 12.30

Sch 8, Pt II: 17.150

Table of Statutes xcvii

Insurance Act 2015: 17.10, 17.90, 17.100, 17.570 s 3(3)(b): 17.100 s 3(3)(c): 17.100 s 3(4)(b): 17.100 s 3(5): 17.100 s 8(1): 17.100 s 8(4)(5): 17.100 s 8(4)(a): 17.100 s 10(1): 17.570 s 10(2): 17.570 s 10(3): 17.570 s 10(4): 17.570 s 11(3): 17.570 s 14(1): 17.630 s 21(2): 17.10, 17.100 Sch 1, para 3: 17.100 Sch 1, para 4: 17.100 Sch 1, para 5: 17.100

Insurance Contracts Act 2015: 17.10 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945: 15.130

ss 221 to 224: 2.320 s 260: 8.290 s 261: 2.300 s 372: 2.300 s 509: 2.300 ss 511 to 522: 21.40 ss 511 to 537: 2.300 s 523: 2.300 ss 524 to 537: 21.40 s 686: 1.320 s 712: 2.300 s 735: 2.270, 2.340, 16.20 ss 735 to 736: 16.20 s 736: 2.270, 2.340 s 742: 1.180, 1.230 Pt I: 2.300, 2.320, 3.10, 3.30 Pt II: 2.300, 2.330, 8.290 Pt IV: 2.300 Pt V: 2.330 Pt VII: 15.130 Pt VIII: 2.300, 2.320, 2.330 Pt IX: 2.300, 21.40 Pt XIII: 2.300

Merchant Shipping Act 1906: 2.310 Life Assurance Act 1774: 17.30 Merchant Shipping Act 1911: 2.310 Marine Insurance Act 1906: 17.10, 17.30, 17.150 s 17: 17.630 s 18: 17.100 ss 18 to 20: 17.10 s 29: 17.90, 17.160 s 30: 17.90, 17.160 s 66(2): 18.20 s 78(4): 17.220 s 91(2): 17.10

Merchant Shipping Act 1974 s 4: 19.230

Merchant Shipping Act 1995: 19.230 s 185(4): 16.150 Sch 7, Art 10: 16.230

Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1900: 16.20

Maritime Conventions Act 1911: 2.310, 15.130 s 1(b): 15.150 s 9(1): 2.310

Merchant Shipping Act 1786 s 17: 6.190

Merchant Shipping Act 1862: 15.60

Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1958: 2.310, 16.20 Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971: 19.230 Pilotage Act 1913 s 15(1): 15.30

Merchant Shipping Act 1894: 1.250, 2.10, 2.70, 2.270, 2.280, 2.290, 2.300, 2.310, 2.320, 2.330, 3.10, 3.30, 4.110, 5.30, 10.330, 16.10, 16.20, 16.90, 16.100, 16.170 s s s s s

1: 4.110 91: 2.300 106: 2.320 158: 3.510 167: 8.290

Responsibility of Shipowners Act 1734: 16.10

Sale of Goods Act 1894: 5.210 Statute of Frauds 1677: 16.40 Statute of Westminster 1931: 2.200, 4.110

xcviii

Table of Statutes

Statute of Westminster 1931 — cont s 1: 2.200, 2.210 s 2(1): 2.270 s 3: 2.200, 2.210 s 4: 16.20 s 5: 2.270

Treaties and Conventions Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974: 16.160 Art 13: 12.530, 16.160, 19.280

s 10: 2.200

Theft Act 1968: 4.110

United States 46 App USC § 30701, Statutory Note § 1301(a): 12.810

46 USC § 12102: 14.60 § 12103: 14.60 § 12111: 14.60 § 12112: 14.60 §§ 30501 to 30512: 16.230 § 30505: 16.260 § 30701, Statutory Note: see Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 (US)

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 (46 USC § 30701, Statutory Note): 12.30, 12.40, 12.370, 12.510, 12.530, 12.560, 12.590, 12.710, 12.810, 15.140, 18.70 § 3(4): 12.150 § 3(6): 12.590

Australia-Indonesia Delimitation Treaty: 19.190

Brussels Convention: see International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading 1924 Bunker Convention: see International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 CLC 69: see International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 CLC 92: see International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976: 14.380, 16.10, 16.20, 16.160, 16.220, 16.230, 16.240, 16.250, 16.260, 18.10, 19.50 Art 2.1(d): 16.20

§ 3(8): 12.820

Art 2.1(e): 16.20

§ 4(2)(a): 15.140

Art 4: 16.30

§ 4(2)(b): 12.400

Art 13(2): 16.240

§ 4(5): 12.530, 12.550, 12.560 § 4(5)(g): 12.560 § 5: 12.560

Constitution s 8: 6.10

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 as amended by the 1996 Protocol: 16.20, 16.30, 16.40, 16.50, 16.60, 16.80, 16.90, 16.100, 16.160, 16.170, 16.230, 18.10

Art III, s 2(1): 2.130

Harter Act: 12.30, 12.40, 18.70 46 USC §§ 30702 to 30707: 12.30 46 USC § 30704: 12.30

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976 (1996 Protocol to amend): 16.10, 16.20, 16.30, 16.70, 16.100, 16.170, 16.220, 16.230, 16.240, 16.250, 18.10

Merchant Marine Act 1920 (Jones Act): 14.60

Oil Pollution Act 1990: 19.20

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (Prevention of Collisions Convention): 15.70, 15.130, 18.10

Pomerene Act: 12.20, 12.200 49 USC § 80110: 12.20 49 USC § 80113(a): 12.200

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and

Table of Statutes xcix Dumping Convention — cont

Other Matter 1972 (Dumping Convention): 19.20, 19.30, 19.190, 19.200 Australian enactment: see Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cth), Sch 1 Annex 1: 19.190 Annex 1, para 1: 19.190 Annex 2: 19.190 Art 1: 19.190 Art 1.8: 19.190 Art 8: 19.190

Declaration of Paris 1856: 4.50, 6.10 Fund Convention 1971: see International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 Dumping Convention: see Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 Hague Rules under the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading 1924: 12.10, 12.30, 12.40, 12.50, 12.60, 12.70, 12.80, 12.100, 12.110, 12.130, 12.140, 12.150, 12.160, 12.170, 12.180, 12.200, 12.210, 12.240, 12.250, 12.270, 12.280, 12.290, 12.300, 12.310, 12.320, 12.330, 12.340, 12.370, 12.410, 12.480, 12.510, 12.520, 12.530, 12.550, 12.560, 12.570, 12.580, 12.600, 12.610, 12.620, 12.630, 12.650, 12.660, 12.690, 12.710, 12.730, 12.740, 12.780, 12.800, 12.810, 12.820, 12.830, 12.840, 13.20, 13.600, 13.610, 13.630, 14.130, 14.150, 14.160, 14.400, 14.410, 15.140, 15.170, 15.200, 15.240, 16.100, 18.10, 18.30 Art 1(a): 12.60 Art 1(c): 12.70 Art 1(e): 12.50

Art 3, r 6: 12.340, 12.580, 12.590, 12.600, 12.610, 12.620, 12.830, 14.400,

18.30 Art 3, r 8: 12.310, 12.330, 12.370, 12.710, 12.820, 12.830 Art 4: 12.370 Art 4, r 1: 12.280, 12.300, 12.370 Art 4, r 2: 12.280, 12.370, 12.490, 12.580 Art 4, r 2(a): 12.330, 15.140 Art 4, r 2(b): 12.370 Art 4, r 2(f): 12.490 Art 4, r 2(g): 12.490 Art 4, r 2(i): 12.310, 12.370 Art 4, r 2(k): 12.490 Art 4, r 2(m): 12.280, 12.370 Art 4, r 2(p): 12.280 Art 4, r 2(q): 12.280, 12.490 Art 4, r 3: 12.650 Art 4, r 4: 12.330, 12.340 Art 4, r 5: 12.340, 12.370, 12.530, 12.550, 12.560, 12.570, 12.780, 16.100 Art 4, r 6: 12.650 Art 9: 12.550

Hague Service Convention: 19.240 Hague-Visby Rules Australian enactment: see Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth), Sch 1 (Hague-Visby Rules) Australian modification: see Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth), Sch 1A (modified Hague-Visby Rules) Hamburg Rules under the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978: 12.10, 12.30, 12.40, 12.50, 12.60, 12.110, 12.270, 12.320, 12.390, 12.710, 12.810, 14.410 Art Art Art Art Art

4: 12.50 5(1): 12.320 5(2): 12.320 5.1: 12.390 10: 12.60

Art 3: 12.280 Art 3, r 1: 12.280, 12.310, 12.360, 12.370 Art 3, r 1(a): 12.360 Art 3, r 1(b): 12.360 Art 3, r 1(c): 12.360 Art 3, r 2: 12.280, 12.300, 12.310, 12.370, 13.630, 14.400 Art 3, r 3(a): 12.240 Art 3, r 3(c): 12.100, 12.130, 12.170 Art 3, r 4: 12.130, 12.150, 12.240 Art 3, r 5: 12.200

International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading 1924: see Hague Rules International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 (Intervention Convention): 19.20, 19.30, 19.400

c

Table of Statutes

International Convention Relating to Limitation of Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Ships (Limitation Convention 1976): 12.530, 19.240, 19.250, 19.260, 19.270, 19.280, 19.390 Australian enactment: see Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989 (Cth), Sch 1 Art Art Art Art

1.2: 19.390 3(b): 19.270 4: 19.280 13(1): 19.270

International Convention Relating to Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Ships 1957 (Limitation Convention): 16.10, 16.20, 16.50, 16.90, 16.100, 16.160, 16.170, 16.230, 16.240, 19.250, 19.280

Annex II, reg 5: 19.140 Annex II, reg 6: 19.40, 19.140 Annex II, reg 13: 19.40, 19.140 Annex III: 19.40, 19.120, 19.130, 19.140 Annexes III to V: 19.140 Annexes III to VI: 19.40 Annex III, reg 7: 19.40, 19.140 Annex IV: 19.40, 19.120, 19.130, 19.140 Annex IV, reg 3: 19.40, 19.140 Annex IV, reg 11: 19.40 Annex IV, reg 11, para 1: 19.140 Annex V: 19.40, 19.120, 19.130, 19.140 Annex V, reg 3: 19.40, 19.140 Annex V, reg 4: 19.40, 19.140 Annex V, reg 7: 19.40, 19.140 Annex VI: 19.40, 19.120, 19.150, 19.160,

19.170 Annex VI, reg 14: 19.160 Annex VI, reg 14, para 1: 19.40 Annex VI, reg 18: 19.170

Art 1(1)(c): 16.20

International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea Going Ships 1952: 19.50 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil 1954 (OILPOL 54): 19.20 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships 1973, as amended by Protocol in 1978 (MARPOL 73/78): 14.100, 19.20, 19.30, 19.40, 19.60, 19.70, 19.90, 19.100, 19.120, 19.130, 19.140, 19.180, 19.210 Australian enactment: see Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (Cth) Annex I: 19.40 Annexes I to V: 19.40 Annexes I to III: 19.40 Annex I, reg 4: 19.40

International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading 1924 (Brussels Convention): 12.30, 12.40, 12.530, 12.560 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1926: 8.600 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1967: 8.600 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collisions 1910 (Brussels Collisions Convention 1910): 15.110, 15.130

Annex I, reg 9: 19.140 Annex I, reg 11(b)(ii): 19.70 Annex I, reg 12: 19.60 Annex I, reg 15: 19.40, 19.140 Annex I, reg 34: 19.40, 19.140 Annex I, reg 114: 19.140 Annex II: 19.40, 19.70, 19.120, 19.130,

19.140 Annexes II to V: 19.120, 19.130, 19.140,

19.170 Annex II, reg 1(2): 19.70 Annex II, reg 1(3): 19.70 Annex II, reg 3: 19.40, 19.140 Annex II, reg 4: 19.140

International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 (Bunker Convention): 19.20, 19.30, 19.210, 19.390 Australian enactment: see Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008 (Cth) Art Art Art Art Art

1: 19.390 3: 19.390 3.2: 19.390 4: 19.390 4.1: 19.390

Table of Statutes ci Bunker Convention — cont Art 5: 19.390 Art 6: 19.390 Art 7.10: 19.390 Art 8: 19.390

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC 69): 19.20, 19.30, 16.150, 19.220, 19.230, 19.240, 19.250, 19.280, 19.300, 19.330, 19.380 Art 1.6: 19.230 Art 1.8: 19.220 Art 5: 19.380 Art 9: 19.20 Art 11: 19.20 Arts 12 to 18: 19.20 Art 12 ter: 19.20

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 (CLC 92): 19.20, 19.30, 19.210, 19.220, 19.230, 19.240, 19.250, 19.260, 19.270, 19.280, 19.290, 19.300, 19.320, 19.330, 19.340, 19.350, 19.360, 19.370, 19.380, 19.390, 19.400

Australian enactment: see Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 (Cth), Sch 1 Art 1.2: 19.210 Art 1.5: 19.210 Art 9: 19.20 Art 11: 19.20 Arts 12 to 18: 19.20

International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1996 as amended by protocol in 2010 (HNS Convention 2010): 19.210 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993: 8.600 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness Response and Co-Operation 1990 (OPRC Convention): 19.20 International Convention on Salvage 1989: 8.190, 18.90, 20.50, 20.110, 20.190, 20.200, 20.370, 20.480, 20.690, 20.710 Art 1: 20.490, 20.720 Art 1(a): 20.190 Art 1(c): 20.110

1(e): 20.370 6.1: 20.680 6.2: 20.680 6.3: 20.680 7: 20.680 12: 20.240 12.3: 20.230 13: 20.460, 20.590, 20.700, 20.710 13(1): 20.500 13(1)(b): 18.90 13.1: 20.460, 20.750 13.1(b): 18.90 13.1(h): 20.730, 20.770 13.1(i): 20.730, 20.770 13.1(j): 20.730, 20.770 13.2: 20.620 13.3: 20.480 14: 17.220, 17.250, 18.90, 20.690, 20.700, 20.710, 20.760, 20.780 Art 14.1: 20.700, 20.730 Art 14.2: 20.750 Art 14.3: 20.730 Art 14.4: 20.700 Art 14.5: 20.780 Art 15.1: 20.590 Art 15.2: 20.610 Art 16.1: 20.790 Art 16.2: 20.790 Art 17: 20.370 Art 18: 20.540, 20.560 Art 19: 20.410 Ch III: 20.230

Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art

International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969: 3.160 Annex 1: 16.170 Sch 8, Art 2(8): 3.160 Sch 8, Art 3(1): 3.160 Sch 8, Art 4(1)(b): 3.160

International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 (Fund Convention 1971): 19.20, 19.30, 19.210, 19.230, 19.300, 19.310, 19.370, 19.380 Art 1.6: 19.310 Art 1.7: 19.310 Art 26: 19.20 Art 27: 19.20 Arts 28 to 39: 19.20 Art 36 quinquies: 19.20

International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 (Fund Convention

cii Table of Statutes Fund Convention 1992 — cont

1992): 19.20, 19.30, 19.210, 19.230, 19.300, 19.310, 19.320, 19.330, 19.340, 19.360, 19.370, 19.380, 19.390 Australian enactment: see Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Funds) Act 1993 (Cth) Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art Art

1.2: 19.210, 19.370 1.6: 19.210 1.8: 19.320 3(5): 19.390 3.2(b): 19.340 3.2(c): 19.340 4: 19.370 4(2)(a): 19.370 4.1: 19.320, 19.340, 19.360 4.1(a): 19.320, 19.340 4.1(b): 19.320, 19.350 4.1(c): 19.320 4.2: 19.340 4.2(a): 19.340 4.3: 19.340, 19.370 4.4(a): 19.370 4.4(b): 19.370 4.5: 19.370 7.10: 19.390 10: 19.310 11: 19.310 13: 19.310 15(1): 19.310 20: 19.310

International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks: 21.190

r 9(e)(i): 15.80 r 10: 15.80 r 11: 15.80, 15.100 r 12: 15.80, 15.110 r 13: 15.80, 15.100, 15.110 r 14: 15.80, 15.110 r 15: 15.80, 15.100, 15.110 r 16: 15.80 r 17: 15.80 r 18: 15.80 r 18(a): 15.80 r 19: 15.80 r 19(b): 15.80 rr 20 to 31: 15.80 r 22: 15.80 r 32: 15.80 r 33: 15.80 r 34: 15.80, 15.100 r 34(c)(i): 15.80 r 35: 15.80 r 36: 15.80 r 37: 15.80 r 38: 15.80 r 38(a): 15.80 r 38(c): 15.80 Pt A: 15.80 Pt B: 15.80 Pt B, Section I: 15.80 Pt B, Section II: 15.80, 15.100 Pt B, Section III: 15.80 Pt C: 15.80 Pt D: 15.80 Pt E: 15.80

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1960: 15.80

Limitation Convention 1976: see International Convention Relating to Limitation of Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Ships

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (Collision Regulations): 15.10, 15.60, 15.70, 15.80, 15.90, 15.100, 15.105, 15.110, 15.120, 15.130, 16.250, 18.10

MARPOL: see International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships 1973, as amended by Protocol in 1978

r r r r r r r r r r r r r

1: 15.80 1(a): 15.80 1(b): 15.80 2: 15.60, 15.80, 15.100 2(b): 15.100, 15.110 3: 15.80 4: 15.80 5: 15.80 6: 15.80, 15.105 7: 15.80 8: 15.80 9: 15.80, 15.100 9(a): 15.110

Montreal Convention 1999: 19.280 Rotterdam Rules under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea 2008 (Rotterdam Convention): 12.30, 12.40, 12.50, 12.60, 12.270, 12.320, 12.390, 12.810 Art Art Art Art

1(5): 12.810 1(6): 12.810 1(7): 12.810 12: 12.50

Table of Statutes ciii Rotterdam Rules — cont Art 17(1): 12.320 Art 17(3): 12.390 Art 18: 12.60 Art 19: 12.60 Art 21: 12.320 Art 26: 12.30, 12.50

Torres Strait Treaty Art 4.3: 19.190

UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: 16.70 Art 20(1): 16.70

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea 2008 (Rotterdam Convention): see Rotterdam Rules United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea 2008: 12.30 United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978: see Hamburg Rules United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 1982): 3.50, 19.40, 19.400 Art Art Art Art

91.2: 3.410 92.1: 3.140 94.2(a): 3.50 98: 20.800

Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague 1955: 12.530 Art 25: 12.530, 16.160, 19.280

York Rules of 1864: 18.10 York-Antwerp Rules: 18.10, 18.20, 18.30, 18.60 Rule Paramount: 18.20 Rule of Interpretation: 18.20 Rule A: 18.20, 18.40, 18.90 Rules A to G: 18.20 Rule B: 18.20 Rule B(2): 18.20 Rule C: 18.40 Rule C(1): 18.40 Rule C(2): 18.40, 18.90 Rule C(3): 18.40 Rule D: 18.70

Rule E(1): 18.30 Rule E(2): 18.30 Rule E(3): 18.30 Rule F: 18.60 Rule G: 18.60, 18.90 Rule G(1): 18.50 Rule G(2): 18.50 Rule G(3): 18.60 Rule G(4): 18.60 Rule I: 18.20 Rules I to XXIII: 18.20 Rule III: 18.20 Rule VI: 18.90 Rule VI(a): 18.90 Rule VI(b): 18.90 Rule X(b): 18.20 Rule XI(b): 18.20 Rule XI(d): 18.40 Rule XIV: 18.50, 18.70 Rule XVI: 18.50 Rule XXII: 18.80 Rule XIII: 18.50 Rule XVII: 18.50, 18.60 Rule XVII(c): 18.60 Rule XVIII: 18.50 Rule XXIII(a): 18.30 Rule XXIII: 18.20, 18.30

York-Antwerp Rules 1950: 18.10, 18.20 Rule of Interpretation: 18.20

York-Antwerp Rules 1974 as modified in 1990: 18.10 York-Antwerp Rules 1994: 18.10, 18.40, 18.60, 18.90 Rule G(3): 18.60 Rule G(4): 18.60

York-Antwerp Rules 2004: 18.10, 18.20, 18.30, 18.90 Rule VI: 18.90 Rule XXIII: 18.30

York-Antwerp Rules 2016: 18.10, 18.30, 18.60 Rule B(1): 18.20 Rule E(2): 18.30 Rule E(3): 18.30 Rule G(4): 18.60 Rule VI: 18.90 Rule VI(c): 18.90 Rule VI(d): 18.90 Rule XXII: 18.80 Rule XXIII: 18.20

1

Characteristics of a Ship [1.10] INTRODUCTION TO TWO BASIC TERMS: “SHIP” AND “BOAT” ......... 1 [1.50] “SHIP” AND “VESSEL” IN AUSTRALIAN STATUTES ............................... 3

[1.50] “Ship” and “vessel” in Commonwealth statutes ............................. 3 [1.110] “Ship” and “vessel” in State and Territorial statutes .................... 5 [1.190] Terms and elements of the statutory definitions of a ship and a vessel ...................................................................................................... 7

INTRODUCTION TO TWO BASIC TERMS: “SHIP” AND “BOAT” [1.10]

In a maritime context, and thus for the ordinary purposes of maritime law, the word “ship” is a general term used to describe any seagoing vessel.1 By “seagoing vessel” here is meant any vessel that in fact goes to sea.2 It is irrelevant for present purposes that a vessel is capable of going to sea if it does not in fact do so.3 In maritime history the term “ship” has also been used to signify a particular type of vessel, namely one with a bowsprit and three masts, each with a lower, top and topgallant mast, and square-rigged on all three masts.4 This particular meaning of the term “ship” is obsolete for the purposes of current maritime law.

[1.20]

“Boat”

A boat is ordinarily a small open craft without any decking.5 A boat is always concave shaped,6 and is thereby distinguished from a raft.7 A boat 1 Ex parte Ferguson and Hutchinson (1871) LR 6 QB 280 at 291; The CS Butler (1874) LR 4 A & E 238. See generally P Kemp (ed), Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea (OUP, London, 1976), p 780. Compare the wider definition of a ship in The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126 at 129, 130, 131 (a hopper barge comes within the ordinary meaning of a ship), followed in The Harlow [1922] P 175 at 181. See, however, Iverson v Rowlands (1886) 12 VLR 57 at 61. 2 Salt Union Ltd v Wood [1893] 1 QB 370 at 374; Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Commonwealth (1925) 36 CLR 130 at 145; Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) (1985) 159 CLR 351 at 457. 3 Salt Union Ltd v Wood [1893] 1 QB 370 at 374. 4 Gapp v Bond (1887) 19 QBD 200 at 202. See also P Kemp (ed), Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea (OUP, London, 1976), p 780. 5 The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126 at 131. 6 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 165.

2

Shipping Law

[1.30]

has as its function the carriage of persons or goods on water.8 It does not therefore ordinarily include such motorised personal water craft as a jet ski9 or a ski craft.10 A fishing vessel is commonly called a boat, though it may strictly be a ship.11 A submarine is also commonly referred to as a boat, though this results from an accident of history rather than from the technical characteristics of this type of vessel.12

[1.30]

Statutory definitions

Australian shipping law, like its English counterpart, is not confined to ships in any strict or conventional sense. Australian shipping statutes have extended the scope of the term “ship” to include many other types of vessels and even certain floating structures which are not ships or vessels in any recognisable sense of the word. In order to use the most expansive term, there has for some time been a perceptible movement in shipping legislation to use the wider term “vessel” in place of “ship”. Most shipping statutes now contain a definition of a ship or vessel which is designed to meet its own particular needs. Most of these definitions have common elements which warrant further consideration.

[1.40]

Position of property on board ship

It is sometimes said that a ship means more than just its hull, and that it includes all property on board a ship. That is true, but only for particular purposes. In proceedings in rem (now covered by the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth)), a ship includes all property on board the ship that is used in the course of its operation, other than property owned by someone apart from the ship’s owner.13 This is so whether or not the property on board ship is 7 See also Raft of Timber (1844) 2 W Rob 251; 166 ER 749 at 255; 751; The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126 at 131; Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 167; Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163. Compare Wells v Owners of Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1897] AC 337 at 345. Quaere, is a platform or raft on flotation chambers ordinarily classifiable as a ship or vessel? See M Summerskill, Oil Rigs: Law and Insurance (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1979), p 14. 8 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 165; Dependable Marine Co Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 550 at 555. 9 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 165. 10 Dependable Marine Co Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 550 at 555. 11 Ex parte Ferguson and Hutchinson (1871) LR 6 QB 280 at 291-292. 12 See P Kemp (ed), Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea (OUP, London, 1976), p 92. 13 The Silia [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 534 at 537; Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd v Ship Skulptor Vuchetich (1996) 62 FCR 602 at 604-606; Opal Maritime Agencies Pty Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of MV Skulptor Konenkov (2000) 98 FCR 519 at 556-557; Scandinavian Bunkering AS v Bunkers on Ship FV Taruman (2006) 151 FCR 126 at 129, 131, 134.

[1.60]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

3

essential, as opposed to simply useful, for the ship’s operation.14 All such property is accordingly liable to arrest and sale in proceedings in rem. Unless the terms of a ship mortgage provide otherwise, the mortgage of a ship covers not only the fabric of the ship but also everything on board which is necessary for the ship to undertake a voyage, and anything which may be substituted for any such item.15 Under the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), a reference in the Act to a ship includes a reference to every thing or article which either belongs to, or is to be used in connection with, or is necessary for the operation and safety of, the ship.16

“SHIP” AND “VESSEL” IN AUSTRALIAN STATUTES “Ship” and “vessel” in Commonwealth statutes Introduction

[1.50]

The four principal Commonwealth statutes relating to ships are the Shipping Registration Act 1981, the Admiralty Act 1988, the Navigation Act 2012 and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012. The last created the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law. Specific terms used in the statutory definitions of these Acts are considered in detail at [1.230]–[1.350].

The term “ship” in Commonwealth statutes

[1.60]

By s 3(1) of the Shipping Registration Act, a ship is defined broadly as any kind of vessel that is capable of navigating the high seas. By s 3(1) of the Admiralty Act, a ship is defined broadly as any kind of vessel used or constructed for use in navigation by water, however it is propelled or moved. Both of these subsections then go on to include within the scope of the broad definition particular types of vessels. Both include a barge, lighter or other floating vessel. The Shipping Registration Act also includes an air-cushion vehicle or other similar craft that is used either wholly or primarily in navigation by water. It thus covers a hovercraft. The Admiralty Act definition specifically includes a hovercraft, which is further defined in s 3(1) to mean an air-cushion vehicle or similar vehicle that is used wholly or principally in navigation by water. See also M Harvey, “Arresting a “Ship”: Boats, Bunkers and Barometers” (2012) 86 ALJ 189.

14 Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd v Ship Skulptor Vuchetich (1996) 62 FCR 602 at 605-606. 15 Coltman v Chamberlain (1890) 25 QBD 328. See also Re Salmon and Woods; Ex parte Gould (1885) 2 Morr BR 137 at 141. 16 Section 3(8).

4

Shipping Law

[1.70]

[1.70]

Inclusion of drilling and other rigs

The Shipping Registration Act includes within its definition of a ship any structure that is able to float or be floated and is able to move or be moved as an entity from one place to another.17 It thus includes virtually all forms of rigs. The Admiralty Act is more specific. It includes within the definition of a ship an “off-shore industry mobile unit”.18 This construction (known colloquially as an “OSIMU”) is further defined in s 3(1) to cover virtually all drilling rigs and mobile offshore exploration, production and accommodation structures that are for use in Australian waters.

[1.80]

Exclusions from the statutory definitions

The general definition of a ship in s 3(1) of the Shipping Registration Act excludes any vessel, structure, vehicle or craft which is declared by the regulations not to be a ship for the purposes of the definition. The regulations have so far not made any declaration under this provision. The definition of a ship in s 3(1) of the Admiralty Act excludes a seaplane (which is not ordinarily regarded as a ship in any event19), an inland waterways vessel, and a vessel under construction that has not been launched.

[1.90]

Statutory definitions not invariable

The general definitions of a ship in the Shipping Registration Act and Admiralty Act are expressed to apply unless the contrary intention appears. In the Shipping Registration Act, s 34 defines a “ship” as a registered ship for the purposes of Pt III (“Transfers, Transmissions, Security Interests and Other Dealings”) of the Act. The term “vessel” in Commonwealth statutes

[1.100] Section 14 of the Navigation Act 2012 presents a definition of a vessel instead of a ship. It defines a vessel as any kind of vessel that is used in navigation by water, however propelled or moved. The definition includes a barge, lighter or other floating craft, and an air-cushion vehicle or other similar craft that is used wholly or primarily in navigation by water, thus including a hovercraft. Similarly, s 8 of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law presents a definition of a vessel instead of a ship. It defines a vessel as a craft that is for use, or that is capable of being used, in navigation by water, however propelled or moved, and it includes an air-cushion 17 Section 3(1) (definition of “ship” (b)). 18 Navigation Act, s 6(1) (definition of “ship” (c)); Admiralty Act, s 3(1) (definition of “ship” (c)). 19 See Watson v RCA Victor Co Inc (1934) 50 Ll L Rep 77 at 78-79, 82; Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 167.

[1.140]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

5

vehicle, a barge, a lighter, a submersible, a ferry in chains and a wing-in-ground effect craft. The definition excludes an aircraft. Regulations may provide that a specified thing, or a thing that is included in a specified class, either is, or is not, a vessel.

“Ship” and “vessel” in State and Territorial statutes [1.110]

The Marine Acts or related legislation of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory all contain a statutory definition of a ship. The New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and Tasmanian Acts contain a definition of the related term “vessel” instead. The Northern Territory Act contains a definition of a vessel as well as a ship. The Western Australian Act contains a definition that covers both a ship and a vessel. These various definitions are as follows. Specific terms used in the statutory definitions of these Acts are considered in detail at [1.240]–[1.350].

[1.120]

New South Wales

The Marine Safety Act 1998 (NSW) defines a vessel non-exhaustively to include a water craft of any description that is used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.20 It thus includes any vessel in the ordinary sense of the term. The statutory definition expressly includes any non-displacement craft and a seaplane whilst it is on water, and also anything that is declared by the regulations to be a vessel.21 It excludes anything that is declared by the regulations not to be a vessel.22

[1.130]

Victoria

The Marine Safety Act 2010 (Vic) defines a vessel as any kind of vessel that is used, or is capable of being used, in navigation by water, however propelled or moved.23 It expressly includes a barge, lighter, floating restaurant or other floating vessel, an air-cushion vehicle or other similar craft that is used in navigation by water, and any waterborne aeroplane, lifeboat, thing being towed by a vessel and an off-shore industry mobile unit as defined in the Commonwealth Navigation Act 2012.24

[1.140]

Queensland

In Queensland, the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 defines a ship as any kind of boat or other vessel that is used — or in respect of a boat or other vessel that is being built, is intended to be used — in navigation by water or for any other purpose on water, whatever its size 20 Section 5(1). 21 Section 5(2), (3). 22 Section 5(3). 23 Section 3(1). 24 Section 3(1).

6

Shipping Law

[1.150]

and however propelled or moved and whether it is on land or in water.25 It expressly includes as an example of a ship a barge, lighter or other floating vessel, and a hovercraft or other surface effect craft.26 It also includes the ship’s equipment.27 The definition does not ordinarily include an aircraft, though a regulation may provide that a ship does include an aircraft when it is on water or when it is taking off from, or landing on, water.28 A ship does not include a vessel that is declared by regulation not to be a ship.29

[1.150]

South Australia

The Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 (SA) defines a vessel as a craft that is capable of being used in navigation by water, however propelled or moved, including an air-cushion vehicle, a barge, a lighter, a submersible, a ferry in chains and a wing-in-ground effect craft.30 It is also defined to include a surf board, a wind surf board, a personal watercraft, water skis or other similar device on which a person rides through water, a structure that is designed to float in water and is used for commercial, industrial or scientific purpose, and any thing that is declared by regulations to come within the definition.31 It does not include any craft or other thing that is excluded by regulation from the ambit of this definition.

[1.160]

Western Australia

The Western Australian Marine Act 1982 (WA) combines the definition of both a ship and a vessel. Both terms mean any kind of vessel used or capable of being used in navigation by water, however propelled or moved, including a barge, lighter, floating restaurant, or other vessel, and an air-cushion vehicle or other similar craft that is used wholly or primarily in navigation by water.32 The definition goes on to exclude a pontoon or floating jetty that is used only for the purpose of a walkway or storage, and also any other similar platform that is situated adjacent to a river bank or shore and which is not being either towed or moored away from the shore.33

25 Section 10(1), (2). 26 Section 10(3). 27 Section 10(7). 28 Section 10(4), (5). 29 Section 10(4). 30 Section 4(1)(a). 31 Section 4(1)(b) – (d). 32 Section 3(1). 33 Section 3(1).

[1.190]

[1.170]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

7

Tasmania

The Marine and Safety Authority Act 1997 (Tas) gives the term “vessel” the same meaning that it has under the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Cth), and it adds any prescribed craft, and any craft of a prescribed class, that is used for recreational purposes.34

[1.180]

Northern Territory

The Marine Act (NT) reproduces the definition of a ship that was first contained in s 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP). This Act defines a ship as including every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars.35 English cases have held that because this definition is non-exhaustive, a vessel comes within the scope of this Act if it is a ship in the ordinary sense of the term regardless of whether it also comes within the scope of the extended definition.36 This is so even if it is propelled by oars.37 Classical Greek triremes and quinqueremes would accordingly be, without more, ships for the purpose of the Northern Territory Acts. English cases have also held that a vessel is one “used in navigation not propelled by oars” if its normal means of navigation does not involve the use of oars, notwithstanding that it might occasionally use oars, for example to get out of a harbour in order to go to sea.38 Conversely, a vessel which is ordinarily propelled by oars is not a “vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars” simply because it is being towed on an isolated occasion.39 The relative simplicity of the Northern Territory’s definition of a ship is, however, deceptive, for the Marine Act also contains a definition of the term “vessel”. This definition incorporates the meaning of a vessel in s 8 of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Cth).40

Terms and elements of the statutory definitions of a ship and a vessel Ordinary meaning of “vessel”

[1.190]

A problem with the statutory term “vessel” is that it is either not defined in the legislation or that it is essentially circular, being defined in terms of itself. The Commonwealth’s Navigation Act 2012, for example,

34 Section 3. 35 Section 7(1). 36 Ex parte Ferguson and Hutchinson (1871) LR 6 QB 280 at 291, 292; The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126 at 128, 130, 130-131. 37 Ex parte Ferguson and Hutchinson (1871) LR 6 QB 280 at 291; The CS Butler (1874) LR 4 A & E 238. Compare Edwards v Quickenden and Forester [1939] P 261 at 268. 38 Ex parte Ferguson and Hutchinson (1871) LR 6 QB 280 at 290-291. 39 The Champion [1934] P 1 at 8-10. 40 Section 7(1).

8

Shipping Law

[1.200]

commences the definition of “vessel” to mean “any kind of vessel”.41 Even where it is defined, however, it is usually not defined precisely or exhaustively, with the result that the scope of this term is to a large extent dependent upon the ordinary meaning of this word.

[1.200]

Popular and judicial meanings of “vessel”

The word “vessel” is not a technical term. In common parlance it appears to have both a narrow and a broad meaning. This is illustrated by statements made in two English cases of the 1880s. In Hedges & Son v The London & St Katherine Docks Co,42 Wills J regarded a vessel as commonly understood, and in the context of the technology of the day, to be a large craft propelled by means of sails or by steam-power, and having masts, rigging and equipment, as opposed to lighters and other small craft which have no such rigging or equipment.43 In Gapp v Bond,44 on the other hand, Lord Esher MR adopted a broader interpretation of a vessel to include any craft larger than a boat, and whether or not capable of self-propulsion. He said with reference to a statutory provision excepting “any ship or vessel” from the operation of the Bills of Sale Act 1878 (ENG) that “The word ‘vessel’ … goes further than ship, and brings into the exception anything that in popular language is called a vessel”.45 He then went on, “Nobody would call a raft or a Thames wherry46 a vessel, but anything beyond a mere boat is, to my mind, ordinarily called a vessel, and is brought within the exception”.47 The Court of Appeal held in this case that a dumb barge (that is, a barge without any means of self-propulsion) was a vessel, though not a ship.48

41 Section 14. 42 Hedges & Son v The London & St Katherine Docks Co (1885) 16 QBD 597. 43 Hedges & Son v The London & St Katherine Docks Co (1885) 16 QBD 597 at 604. See also Martin v Leavers (1882) 46 JP 807 (“vessel means, prima facie, something larger than boat, keel, or lighter”). 44 Gapp v Bond (1887) 19 QBD 200. 45 Gapp v Bond (1887) 19 QBD 200 at 202. 46 An open boat propelled by oars and used for the carriage of passengers on the River Thames. 47 Gapp v Bond (1887) 19 QBD 200 at 202. 48 See also The Mac (1882) 7 PD 38 at 41 (a hopper barge is a vessel), reversed on appeal on other grounds, The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126; Weiner v Wilsons and Furness-Leyland Lines Ltd (1910) 102 LT 716 (as a matter of construction of a bill of lading, a “vessel” held to include a barge), affirmed Wilsons and Furness-Leyland Lines Ltd v Weiner (1910) 103 LT 168; William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Marine Board of Launceston (1929) 24 Tas LR 64 at 65, 67 (a lighter is a vessel); Seamen’s Union of Australia v Australian Dredging & General Works Pty Ltd (1968) 129 CAR 29 at 34 (dredges are vessels). See also St John Pilot Commissioners and the Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Cumberland Railway & Coal Co [1910] AC 208 at 217-218; Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514 at 518.

[1.220]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

9

In the later case of Edwards v Quickenden and Forester,49 Henn Collins J appeared prepared to go further and treat all boats as vessels, for he seemed to regard both a rowing eight and a sculling boat as being vessels.50 In the more modern case of Steedman v Scofield,51 however, Sheen J said that in popular parlance a vessel refers to a craft larger than a rowing boat.52

[1.210]

Floating bodies that are not vessels

The statement by Lord Esher in Gapp v Bond53 that a raft cannot be classified as a vessel is supported by statements in many other cases that a vessel is in any event a hollow structure.54 This accords with the popular notion of a vessel. Other floating bodies which have been held not to be vessels include a seaplane55 and a flying boat56 (both forms of aeroplane designed to take off from, and land on, water), a floating gas-beacon on a boat-shaped raft,57 a floating landing-stage,58 a pontoon fitted with a crane to form a floating crane,59 and a jet ski60 and a ski craft61 (both forms of motorised personal water craft).

[1.220]

Ultimately, whether a craft is a vessel is a matter of impression

One clear conclusion from many of the cases is that whether any structure is classifiable as a vessel in the ordinary sense of the term is ultimately a 49 Edwards v Quickenden and Forester [1939] P 261. 50 Edwards v Quickenden and Forester [1939] P 261 at 265. 51 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163. 52 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 166. 53 Gapp v Bond (1887) 19 QBD 200 at 202. 54 Raft of Timber (1844) 2 W Rob 251; 166 ER 749 at 255; 751; The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126 at 131; Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 167; Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163. Compare Wells v Owners of Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1897] AC 337 at 345. Quaere, is a platform or raft on flotation chambers ordinarily classifiable as a ship or vessel? See M Summerskill, Oil Rigs: Law and Insurance (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1979), p 14. 55 Watson v RCA Victor Co Inc (1934) 50 Ll L Rep 77 at 78-79, 82. 56 Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 167. 57 The Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1896] P 42 at 58, 64, upheld sub nom Wells v The Owners of the Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1897] AC 337 at 343, 349. See also The Upcerne [1912] P 160. 58 The Craighall [1910] P 207 esp at 212, 213. 59 Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 446 at 447, upheld on appeal North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 201. See also Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson Ltd (Titan) v Benwood (1923) 14 Ll L Rep 484. Compare Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514 esp at 518; Cook v Dredging & Construction Co Ltd [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 at 338. 60 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 165. 61 Dependable Marine Co Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 550 at 555-556.

10

Shipping Law

[1.230]

matter of impression, depending on whether it has a sufficient number of the characteristics of a typical vessel to be reasonably so described.62 This naturally causes problems where a structure has some of the features of a vessel but not others. There is, for example, still no clear opinion whether a hovercraft or an offshore drilling rig is a ship or vessel in the ordinary sense of these terms, for although each possesses some of the characteristics of a ship or vessel, neither possesses them all.63 For this reason, statutory definitions usually refer to them specifically if it is intended that they be included. Navigational element

[1.230]

Many State and Commonwealth statutes, not least the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth) and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Cth), define a ship or a vessel to mean any kind of vessel “used in navigation by water” or a closely related expression. This terminology follows that contained in the definitions of both a ship and a vessel in s 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP). Section 3(1) of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) defines a ship to mean any kind of vessel “capable of navigating the high seas”.

[1.240]

Meaning of “navigation”

The term “navigation” (from the Latin “navis”, a ship, and “agere”, to drive) has been judicially defined as the “nautical art or science of conducting a ship from one place to another”.64 More particularly, it signifies the art of conducting a ship by way of planned, ordered movement from one place to another.65 It does not concern movement which is controlled to a significant extent by natural forces, like waves.66 It thus does not concern mere haphazard movement on water. Navigation does not, however, necessarily imply independent navigation. Provided 62 See The Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1896] P 42 at 58; Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 201 at 203; Watson v RCA Victor Co Inc (1934) 50 Ll L Rep 77 at 79; Dependable Marine Co Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 550 at 556. See also William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Marine Board of Launceston (1929) 24 Tas LR 64 at 67; Seamen’s Union of Australia v Australian Dredging & General Works Pty Ltd (1968) 129 CAR 29 at 33. 63 In respect of hovercraft, see the implication of Richards J in Noseda v Hoverlloyd Ltd [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 448 at 451, and of the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in Imperial Oil Ltd v The Expo Spirit (1987) 80 NR 259, that a hovercraft is a ship. In respect of oil rigs, see M Summerskill, Oil Rigs: Law and Insurance (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1979), Ch 1. 64 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 166. See also The Warkworth (1884) 9 PD 145 at 148. 65 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 166. See also The Warkworth (1884) 9 PD 145 at 148. 66 Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 at 166. See also The Warkworth (1884) 9 PD 145 at 148.

[1.250]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

11

there is controlled movement, a ship or other craft can be navigated by some external force, for example with the assistance of tugs or by being towed.67 In Mayor, &c, of Southport v Morriss,68 it was held that the term “navigation” implies more than simply sailing a launch round an artificial pleasure lake just half-a-mile long and 180 yards wide.69 The reason for this conclusion is not easy to appreciate. It might depend more on the legal consequence involved in the case (namely, being liable to a penalty for not displaying a Board of Trade certificate on board) than on the nautical activities of the vessel. In the subsequent case of Weeks v Ross,70 however, a motor boat was held to navigate an inland river and canal even though it travelled for a distance of only one-and-a-half miles from a bridge on the river to a lock on the canal. The length of the boat’s journey and the confined nature of the water were not found to be material. Bray J observed in that case, “A river is a place for navigation and a canal is a place for navigation, and they are none the less places for navigation because it happens this vessel only used a portion of them”.71

[1.250]

“Used in navigation”

Strangely, the expression “used in navigation” has no precise meaning. English cases indicate that whether any vessel is one “used in navigation” may depend not simply on whether it is, or can be, or will be, navigated, but also on whether it was primarily intended to be used for such a purpose.72 For example, in Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd,73 a flying boat was found to navigate short distances for the purpose of taking off from, and landing on, water. Atkinson J, however, held that this was not a “ship or vessel” under an insurance contract as it was not intended to be used in navigation. The judge 67 St John Pilot Commissioners and the Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Cumberland Railway & Coal Co [1910] AC 208 at 218; Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 466. See also The Andalusian (1878) 3 PD 182; The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126 esp at 130; The Mudlark [1911] P 116; William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Marine Board of Launceston (1929) 24 Tas LR 64 at 67; The St Machar (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 27 at 31, and on appeal The St Machar (1939) 65 Ll L Rep 119 at 125; Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514; R v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd [1999] QB 1119 at 1126. 68 Mayor, &c, of Southport v Morriss [1893] 1 QB 359. 69 Mayor, &c, of Southport v Morriss [1893] 1 QB 359 at 361-362. 70 Weeks v Ross [1913] 2 KB 229. 71 Weeks v Ross [1913] 2 KB 229 at 234. See also Corbett v Pearce [1904] 2 KB 422 at 428. 72 Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 164, 165. See also Wells v The Owners of the Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1897] AC 337 at 343; Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 446 at 447; Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 201 at 202, 203. 73 Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161.

12

Shipping Law

[1.250]

considered the cases on what constitutes a ship or vessel for the purposes of the British Merchant Shipping Act and said that if he had to define “ship or vessel” he would say that it was “any hollow structure intended to be used in navigation, that is, intended to do its real work on the seas or other waters, and capable of free and ordered movement thereon from one place to another”.74 He found that a flying boat did not fall within this description. “A flying boat’s real work”, he said, “is to fly”.75 In the earlier case of The Andalusian,76 Sir Robert Phillimore held that a ship which had just been launched but which was as yet unfinished was nonetheless a “vessel used in navigation”.77 The reason for this would appear to be that although the ship was not yet capable of self-navigation, it had been constructed for the purpose of navigation.78 The intended purpose for which a floating structure has been constructed is not, however, an invariable determinant of whether it is a vessel “used in navigation”. A floating structure may be classified as a vessel used in navigation if it is in fact being used for this purpose. In Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd,79 for example, a pontoon which had formerly been used as the base of a floating crane was employed on a single occasion as a means of transporting a dismantled part of the crane by water from one location to another. This was held to be a vessel used in navigation. Lynsky J said: “At the moment, the pontoon was being used to be towed for the carriage of goods through the water and to be navigated for that purpose. She was fitted with bollards for towing, and, although she may not have been a vessel when she had a crane on her, it seems to me that, at the time when this arrangement was made, she was to be used as a vessel and was treated as a vessel, at any rate, for the purpose of this towing.”80 The meaning of the expression “used in navigation” was more recently considered in R v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd.81 There Lightman J noted that the expression in question here is “used in navigation”, and not “used for navigation”. The latter, he said, connotes that the actual current use of the ship is for navigational purposes whereas, “The phrase ‘used in navigation’ connotes that (irrespective of 74 Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 167. 75 Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 167. See also Watson v RCA Victor Co Inc (1934) 50 Ll L Rep 77 (seaplane not a ship for similar reasons). 76 The Andalusian (1878) 3 PD 182. 77 The Andalusian (1878) 3 PD 182 at 189. See also Ex parte Hodgkin; Re Softley (1875) LR 20 Ex 746 at 756. 78 See also the Scottish case of The St Machar (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 27 at 31, and on appeal The St Machar (1939) 65 Ll L Rep 119 at 125. 79 Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514. 80 Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514 at 518. 81 R v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd [1999] QB 1119.

[1.260]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

13

the actual current use) the ship is actually or potentially capable of being used for navigation.”82 The judge observed that a ship can accordingly be used in navigation even though it is presently incapable of navigation so long as there is a reasonable expectation that it will regain its capacity to navigate.83 In case there be any doubt on the matter, it is clear that a vessel can be “used in navigation” even though it is incapable of self-propulsion.84

[1.260]

Possible intrinsic requirement of a navigational element in respect of all vessels

The relevance of the navigational element which has just been considered might extend beyond any express reference to navigation in a statutory definition of a ship or vessel. It might go to the very nature of a ship or vessel in the ordinary sense of these terms. Roche J said on this point in Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association,85 “Whatever other qualities are attached to a ship or vessel, the adaptability for navigation, and its user for that purpose, is in my judgment one of the most essential elements”.86 In that case a pontoon on which a crane was erected, and which was designed to float and be manned, was held not to be a ship or vessel as it was not designed to be navigated, even though it was capable of movement and was in fact moved from time to time in order to operate elsewhere. The judge found that movement was the exception in its career as a pontoon, and not the rule. To be compared with the Merchants’ Maritime Insurance case, however, is Cook v Dredging & Construction Co Ltd.87 There a dredger-like structure which served as a floating pump to transfer sludge from barges to the land, and which was fixed to a pipeline on shore during operation but 82 R v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd [1999] QB 1119 at 1126. 83 R v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd [1999] QB 1119 at 1126. 84 The Andalusian (1878) 3 PD 182; The Mac (1882) 7 PD 126 esp at 130; The Mudlark [1911] P 116; William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Marine Board of Launceston (1929) 24 Tas LR 64 at 67; The St Machar (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 27 at 31, and on appeal The St Machar (1939) 65 Ll L Rep 119 at 125; Marine Craft Constructors Ltd v Erland Blomqvist (Engineers) Ltd [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514; R v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd [1999] QB 1119 at 1126. See also St John Pilot Commissioners and the Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Cumberland Railway & Coal Co [1910] AC 208 at 218; Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 466. 85 Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 446. 86 Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 446 at 447. See also the similar observations by members of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal in this case, North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 201 at 202, 203; Wells v The Owners of the Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1897] AC 337 at 343; The Craighall [1910] P 207 at 212; Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] KB 161 at 167. 87 Cook v Dredging & Construction Co Ltd [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334.

14

Shipping Law

[1.270]

could be moved to new moorings as the place of work changed, was held to be a vessel used in navigation notwithstanding its stationary character and the fact that it had no rudder or means of self-propulsion. Jones J said in this case: “This structure in some respects is like the gas float and in other respects it is like the floating crane. I think that it should be held that it was used in navigation, as it had been moved often on the sea from place to place as occasion required.”88

[1.270]

Problem with the navigational element

The cases just referred to present an obvious problem, for they give no clear indication of when the ability to navigate and the purpose of construction are each determinants of whether a vessel is one “used in navigation” for the purpose of the statutory definitions. Nor do they indicate when these same characteristics are necessary conditions of a ship or vessel in other contexts. The root of the problem, which the statutory expression “vessel used in navigation” does nothing to resolve, is whether regard should be had to a floating structure’s actual, potential or prospective function. That is, whether regard should be had to the fact that any floating structure is actually used in navigation, can be used in navigation, or is intended to be used in navigation. This problem admits of no simple answer. It is, indeed, just one aspect of the fact that whether any floating structure is classifiable as a vessel is often ultimately a matter of impression. Ships and other obvious examples of vessels are both intended to be used, and are in fact used, in navigation. When a floating structure does not possess both of these characteristics, the question whether it is nonetheless to be regarded as a ship depends upon its other characteristics, and also doubtless to a certain extent on the purpose for which the court’s decision is to be made. Considered in this light, Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association and Cook v Dredging & Construction Co Ltd are best regarded not as conflicting decisions but rather as cases where judges simply formed different opinions on the classification of the distinctive structures involved.

[1.280]

When does a vessel cease to be a vessel?

As one would expect, a vessel does not cease to be so describable simply because it is temporarily unable to be navigated, for example because it is lying on the beach, has lost its rudder, or even has sunk and is waiting to be raised and refloated.89 As Greer J observed in Pelton Steamship Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association, with reference to a sunken ship:90 “A ship like any other thing remains entitled to its description until facts are established which show it has become 88 Cook v Dredging & Construction Co Ltd [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 at 338. 89 Chandler v Blogg [1898] 1 QB 32 at 36; Pelton Steamship Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1925) 22 Ll L Rep 510 at 512. 90 Pelton Steamship Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1925) 22 Ll L Rep 510.

[1.310]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

15

disentitled to its ordinary name or description. Just as a man may be moribund without ceasing to be a man if the doctors are hopeful that they will be able to secure his recovery by treatment, so I think a ship may remain a ship or vessel even though she be damaged and incapable of being navigated, if she is in such a position as would induce a reasonably minded owner to continue operations of salvage; and if so she would in the ordinary use of the English language be still described as a ship or vessel although described as one which was in serious danger of ceasing to be a ship or vessel.”91 In sum, just as whether a floating structure is a vessel is ultimately a matter of fact and degree, so whether it has ceased to be a vessel is also a matter of fact and degree.92 “Barge, lighter or other floating vessel”

[1.290] The Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth), the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law all include “a barge, lighter or other floating vessel” within the definition of a ship or vessel.93 The State Marine Acts or related legislation have either the same or similar provisions. [1.300]

“Barge”, “lighter”

A barge is a large, flat-bottomed vessel with a leeboard in place of a keel so that it can operate in shallow water and remain upright when grounded. A barge may be capable of self-propulsion. A lighter (otherwise known as a dumb barge) is strictly a barge-like vessel which does not have its own means of propulsion but is towed, commonly now by a tug though in the 19th century often by horses.94

[1.310]

Scope of “barge, lighter or other floating vessel”

It is evident that the expression “barge, lighter or other floating vessel” is designed to extend the statutory definition of a ship or vessel to include a craft which would not ordinarily be classified as a ship, and which might not even be classified as a vessel if this term is to be given a narrow meaning. Unfortunately, the scope of this expression, and especially the 91 Pelton Steamship Co Ltd v North of England Protecting & Indemnity Association (1925) 22 Ll L Rep 510 at 512. 92 See European & Australian Royal Mail Co Ltd v Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co (1866) 14 LT 704 (a former sailing vessel no longer capable of, or intended ever again to be used in, navigation but kept at permanent anchor and used as a coal store held not to be a ship); British Steamship Owners’ Association v Chapman & Son (1935) 52 Ll L Rep 169 at 171 (a ship may remain severed in two for a time and yet retain its existence as a ship). 93 Shipping Registration Act, s 3(1); Admiralty Act, s 3(1); Navigation Act, s 14. See also the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Cth), s 8(1). 94 See P Kemp (ed), Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea (OUP, London, 1976), pp 60, 482. A dumb hopper is a lighter: The Dagmar (1929) 141 LT 271.

16

Shipping Law

[1.320]

words “or other floating vessel”, is presently uncertain. In particular it is not clear whether this expression includes a boat. As has already been observed, it is generally accepted that the term “vessel” does not ordinarily include a boat, though at least one case may point to the opposite conclusion.95 “The high seas”

[1.320] The Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) defines a ship as “any kind of vessel capable of navigating the high seas”.96 Although there is no reported Australian case on point, there is no doubt that the expression “high seas” here bears its Admiralty meaning97 of the entire sea including all tidal waters below low-water mark, even where these go inland.98 This expression thus does not here bear its public international law meaning of that part of the sea which lies outside a country’s territorial sea.99 [1.330]

Obsolete Admiralty definitions of “high seas”

Although under Admiralty law, the “high seas” ordinarily means the entire sea including all tidal waters below low-water mark, even where these waters go inland, some 19th century cases might appear to present different meanings for this term. These differences are, however, more apparent than real. Thus, for example, cases can be found which define the high seas as those waters “where great ships do go”.100 It is now accepted that this is simply an alternative way of referring to the relevant waters.101 Cases can also be found which limit that part of the high seas which go inland to the tidal reaches of rivers “up to the first bridge”.102 It is now clear that this was simply a practical boundary, which has no continuing relevance at law.103 “Craft”

[1.340]

Some shipping Acts now use the term “craft”, especially in definitions, as an alternative for “vessel”. In the 15th century, and indeed until the 17th century, this term meant just a piece of equipment used for

95 Edwards v Quickenden and Forester [1939] P 261 at 265. 96 Section 3(1). 97 See R v Liverpool Justices; Ex parte Molyneux [1972] 2 QB 384 (“high seas” in s 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP) means the high seas as understood in Admiralty law). 98 General Iron Screw Collier Co v Schurmanns (1860) 29 LJ Ch 877 at 879; Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 184, 233; R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 at 226; Gibbs v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2003) 77 ALJR 1396 at 1400, 1432. 99 The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 156. For a detailed consideration of the meaning of “high seas” in the context of both Admiralty law and public international law, see R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63. 100 See R v Carr and Wilson (1882) 10 QBD 76 at 86. 101 The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 156. 102 See R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161 at 169. 103 The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 156.

[1.350]

1 Characteristics of a Ship

17

fishing; for example, a net, a line or a hook. The term craft subsequently came to be applied to a small fishing boat, and later still to any small vessel. “Wing-in-ground effect craft”

[1.350] Both the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth) and the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Cth), include within the definition of a vessel a wing-in-ground effect craft.104 This is a new form of transport that resembles a cross between an aeroplane and a hovercraft, though it works on different aerodynamic principles from both. It is a vehicle that attains level flight near to an external surface, like water. It achieves lift by the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface.

104 Navigation Act, s 14; Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law (Cth), s 8(1).

2

Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia [2.10] INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 19 [2.20] LEGISLATIVE POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION .......................... 20

[2.20] Constitutional heads of power .......................................................... 20 [2.30] The trade and commerce power of section 51(i) ........................... 21 [2.80] The fisheries power of section 51(x) ................................................. 24 [2.120] External affairs power of section 51(xxix) ..................................... 27 [2.130] Section 76(iii) and substantive legislative powers ....................... 28 [2.160] POWER OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE STATES TO LEGISLATE EXTRA-TERRITORIALLY ........................................................ 31

[2.160] Introduction ........................................................................................ 31 [2.180] Power of the Commonwealth to legislate extra-territorially ..... 31 [2.210] Power of the States to legislate extra-territorially ....................... 33 [2.220] Legislative competence over Australia’s territorial sea .............. 34 [2.270] THE POSITION IN AUSTRALIA OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1894 (IMP) ............................................................................ 40

[2.270] Introduction ........................................................................................ 40 [2.280] Extent to which the Merchant Shipping Act continues to apply to Australia .............................................................................. 41 [2.350] THE OFFSHORE CONSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT ............................. 44

[2.350] The need for a re-arrangement of powers .................................... 44 [2.360] Terms of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement ......................... 46

INTRODUCTION [2.10]

The Constitution gives the Commonwealth Parliament only limited powers to legislate on the subject of shipping. Outside the scope of these powers, the States have exclusive legislative competence. Both the Commonwealth and the States have exercised their respective powers in respect of shipping, with the result that shipping law in Australia is controlled partly by Commonwealth law and partly by State law. This has caused problems, not only concerning the limits of the Commonwealth’s

20

Shipping Law

[2.20]

competency to legislate on maritime matters, but also in securing uniform legislation on aspects of shipping law that will cover the whole of Australia irrespective of the legislative limits of the Commonwealth and the States. In order to avoid such problems, States often now either adopt Commonwealth legislation which might otherwise exceed constitutional limits1 or refer their State legislative powers to the Commonwealth pursuant to s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.2 Shipping law in Australia is nonetheless still very much affected by problems of constitutional law. Australian shipping law is, however, a little more complex than has just been indicated, for it is still partly controlled in the States and the Northern Territory by provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP). The starting point for any consideration of legislative power in respect of shipping law is nonetheless the Constitution, for legislation that is justified by this source of law is paramount.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION Constitutional heads of power [2.20]

Many heads of legislative power under s 51 of the Constitution can concern shipping. Not least among these are the defence power of s 51(vi), the insurance power of s 51(xiv), and the corporations power of s 51(xx). The scope of these various powers is considered in detail in the established texts on constitutional law, and their application to shipping law is for the most part unexceptional. Three heads of legislative power, however, require more detailed consideration. The first is the trade and commerce power of s 51(i), which is specifically extended to navigation and shipping by s 98. The second is the fisheries power of s 51(x). And the third is the external affairs power of s 51(xxix). Consideration must also be given to s 76(iii) and s 77, which empower the Parliament to confer Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction upon courts. These various heads of power are examined in the following sections of this chapter. Finally, s 51(vii) should also be mentioned. This gives the Parliament the power to make laws with respect to “Lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys”. This paragraph is clearly concerned with shipping, though as a head of legislative power it requires nothing more than a note of its existence.3

1 As they did in the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law, contained in the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 (Cth), which concerns the safety of domestic commercial vessels and their crews in Australian waters. 2 As they did in the the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), which now covers all ship mortgages, whether registered or unregistered. 3 Note also in this connection s 69 (“Transfer of certain departments”), and with it s 52(ii).

[2.40]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

21

The trade and commerce power of section 51(i) [2.30]

Section 51(i) of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with respect to “Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States”. Associated with this head of power is s 98. This states: “The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State.”

There is no doubt that s 51(i) and s 98 give the Parliament a very wide power to legislate in respect of shipping. This power is not, however, a general power in respect of this subject.4 There are clear limits which are imposed not least by the concluding words of s 51(i), namely “among the States”5 (though s 122 might well fill any lacuna in respect of trade with the Territories6). It is also clear from the concluding words of s 51(i) that the Parliament cannot, without more, legislate in respect of the coastal trade of a single State.7 There is early High Court authority for the proposition that by virtue of the limits of the power conferred by s 51(i), the Parliament cannot legislate in respect of the navigation of ships not engaged in interstate or overseas trade even though they sail in or near waters that are used by ships that are engaged in such trade.8 This nexus with para (i), the High Court said, is too remote.9 In more recent times, however, it has been argued that this High Court decision should no longer be read so restrictively.10

[2.40]

Effect of section 98

Section 98 of the Constitution states: “The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State.” Although the first limb of this section might initially appear to give the Parliament the power to legislate in respect of navigation and shipping generally, the High Court has made it clear that it does not go that far.11 4 Owners of the SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689 esp at 707; Newcastle & Hunter River Steamship Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) (1921) 29 CLR 357 at 368; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 409. 5 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 307. 6 See Re Maritime Union of Australia; Ex parte CSL Pacific Shipping Inc (2003) 77 ALJR 1497 at 1503. 7 Owners of SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689 at 697, 701; Newcastle & Hunter River Steamship Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) (1921) 29 CLR 357 at 368-369. See also Morgan v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 421 at 452. 8 R v Turner; Ex parte the Marine Board of Hobart (1927) 39 CLR 411. 9 R v Turner; Ex parte the Marine Board of Hobart (1927) 39 CLR 411 at 424-425. 10 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), p 49, para 75, n 46 and text. 11 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 339; Morgan v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 421 at 455.

22

Shipping Law

[2.40]

The narrow view of the effect of s 98 is that it is simply declaratory of the fact that the trade and commerce power of s 51(i) covers trade and commerce conducted by means of navigation and shipping. Griffiths CJ adopted this view in Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm12 when he said, “The effect of s 98 is only to say that the power conferred by s 51(i) extends within its ambit to trade and commerce whether carried on by land or sea”.13 Under this view, s 98 is included in the Constitution simply out of an abundance of caution. This was the interpretation adopted by Quick and Garran.14 The more generally accepted view, however, is that s 98 goes further than this and confers upon the Parliament the power to legislate directly in respect of shipping and navigation provided this is ancillary to trade and commerce within the scope of s 51(i). The classic statement in this regard is that by Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ in Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm. There they said:15 It was argued that [s 98] should be read as merely enabling the legislature to deal with trade and commerce when conducted by means of ships. But such a power is already necessarily implied in the language of s 51(i), and in any case the language of s 98 is inappropriate to express it. In our opinion s 98 has a quite different operation. … It says in effect that the power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce shall include a power to make laws with respect to navigation and shipping as ancillary to such trade and commerce. It authorizes Parliament to make laws with respect to shipping and the conduct and management of ships as instrumentalities of trade and commerce, and to regulate the relations and reciprocal rights and obligations of those conducting the navigation of ships in the course of such commerce both among themselves and in relation to their employers on whose behalf the navigation is conducted.

In the Australian Steamships case, the majority of the High Court upheld the validity of the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911 (Cth), which imposes a duty on the owners of ships engaged in interstate or overseas trade to pay compensation to any of their crew who are injured during the course of their employment. It did so on the ground that by virtue of s 51(i) and s 98, the Commonwealth can regulate the employment obligations of those who carry on interstate or overseas trade by means of ships.16 12 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298. 13 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 307. See also Owners of the SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689 esp at 697, 707. 14 J Quick and R R Garran, Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1901), pp 872-873. 15 J Quick and R R Garran, Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1901), p 335. See also pp 314, 327, 332, 339; Newcastle & Hunter River Steamship Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) (1921) 29 CLR 357 at 368; R v Turner; Ex parte Marine Board of Hobart (1927) 39 CLR 411 at 435; Morgan v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 421 at 455; Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v O’Reilly (1962) 107 CLR 46 at 54; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 409. 16 See also Re Maritime Union of Australia; Ex parte CSL Pacific Shipping Inc (2003) 77 ALJR 1497.

[2.60]

[2.50]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

23

Genesis of section 98

The limited scope of the Parliament’s power to legislate in respect of navigation and shipping is a historical accident. Under the draft Constitution of 1891, the Commonwealth was assigned plenary powers in respect of navigation and shipping. However, this power was deleted by the Constitutional Convention of 1897-1898 as it was feared that the inclusion of navigation and shipping as a distinct head of legislative power might unwittingly derogate from the scope of the trade and commerce power. The power of the Parliament to legislate in respect of navigation and shipping was then made part of the power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce by the addition of the present s 98. This device, however, clearly limited the scope of the Parliament’s power to legislate with respect to navigation and shipping. Whether or not this consequence was intended, it has had important consequences upon the distribution of legislative powers over shipping in Australia.

[2.60]

“Trade and commerce”

The kernel of s 51(i), and thus of s 98, is trade and commerce. The words “trade” and “commerce” are not confined to s 51(i) and s 98. They also appear in ss 92, 99 and 100, and it is in the context of s 92 that these two terms have most often arisen for judicial consideration. The meaning of these terms is the same regardless of context.17 From the cases on s 92 it is clear that the expression “trade and commerce” is not a term of art but bears the ordinary meaning signified by the respective words involved. The expression “trade and commerce” certainly includes the act of transportation, though its scope is much wider than this. As three members of the High Court said in W & A McArthur Ltd v Queensland:18 “All the commercial arrangements of which transportation is the direct and necessary result form part of ‘trade and commerce’. The mutual communings, the negotiations, verbal and by correspondence, the bargain, the transport and the delivery are all, but not exclusively, parts of that class of relations between mankind which the world calls ‘trade and commerce’.”19 More recently, the High Court has said of the scope of trade and commerce, with particular reference to s 51(i) and shipping:20 It is … well settled that, in the exercise of the trade and commerce power, the Parliament can validly regulate the conduct of persons employed in those 17 James v Commonwealth (1936) 55 CLR 1 at 60. 18 W & A McArthur Ltd v Queensland (1920) 28 CLR 530. 19 W & A McArthur Ltd v Queensland (1920) 28 CLR 530 at 547; and see generally at 546-549. See also Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 305-306, 315-321, 331-332; Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 29 at 56-57, 71, 76, 82-83, 106-107; Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1 at 381-383. 20 Re Maritime Union of Australia; Ex parte CSL Pacific Shipping Inc (2003) 214 CLR 397 at 413.

24

Shipping Law

[2.70]

activities which form part of trade and commerce with other countries and among the States. A ship journeying for reward is in commerce; those who co-operate in the journeying of the ship are in commerce and the wages of those persons and the conditions of their employment relate to that commerce.

[2.70]

“Navigation and shipping”

Like the expression “trade and commerce” in s 51(i), the expression “navigation and shipping” in s 98 is not a term of art with a precise meaning. There seems little doubt that this expression covers at least those matters which fell within the general field of shipping law in 1901. Isaacs J, for example, said in Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm,21 “The test of the contents of the words ‘navigation’ and ‘shipping’ is what they ordinarily meant in the systems of law in Australia at the time of federation”.22 In all probability, however, the current meaning of these words is broader than that and concerns the ordinary meaning of “navigation” and “shipping” as these terms are understood within the field of contemporary shipping law. There is some authority for the proposition that “navigation and shipping” includes at least all the topics covered by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP).23 Whether or not this is so, there is no doubt that the power conferred by s 51(i) and s 98 is very wide. Dixon CJ said in Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v O’Reilly,24 “There can … be no doubt that the combination of s 51(i) with s 98 gives the widest power to deal with the whole subject matter of navigation and shipping in relation to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States”.25

The fisheries power of section 51(x) [2.80]

Section 51(x) of the Constitution gives the Parliament the power to make laws with respect to “Fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits”.26 This provision had its origin in s 15(c) of the Federal Council of Australasia Act 1885 (IMP), which gave the Federal Council of Australasia the power to legislate in respect of “Fisheries in Australasian waters beyond territorial limits”. The present head of power involves three questions of interpretation, namely what is meant by the term “fisheries”, what is meant by “Australian waters”, and what is meant by “territorial limits”. 21 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298. 22 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 328. See also at 338-340. 23 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 328-329; see also at 340; R v Turner; Ex parte the Marine Board of Hobart (1927) 39 CLR 411 at 435. 24 Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v O’Reilly (1962) 107 CLR 46. 25 Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v O’Reilly (1962) 107 CLR 46 at 54. 26 For a detailed study of this provision, see J Waugh, Australian Fisheries Law (Law School, University of Melbourne, 1988), pp 11-29.

[2.100]

[2.90]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

25

“Fisheries”

The problem with the word “fisheries” is whether it signifies an activity or a place. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, for example, gives as the first meaning of the singular term “fishery”, “the business of catching fish”, and as the second meaning, “a fishing ground”. In the leading case on s 51(x), Bonser v La Macchia,27 both interpretations were adopted by different members of the High Court. Kitto and Windeyer JJ were of the opinion that “fisheries” as a head of legislative power means the activity of taking fish and other marine products from the sea.28 Menzies J, on the other hand, thought that the term meant simply the waters where fish are to be found.29 The weight of authority would appear to support the view that “fisheries” signifies the activity of fishing.30 However, this question has yet to be conclusively determined by the High Court.

[2.100]

“Australian waters”

The meaning of the expression “Australian waters” in s 51(x) was considered by the High Court in Bonser v La Macchia.31 It is clear from this case that this expression does not mean simply Australia’s territorial sea.32 Instead it means those waters around Australia which are of importance to Australia as a nation. It is also clear from Bonser v La Macchia that the limits of Australian waters can change as Australia’s national interests change, and that these waters can even overlap with the waters of other nations.33 There are two main uncertainties concerning the expression “Australian waters”. The first is whether the meaning of this expression in s 51(x) should be limited by the word “fisheries”. In other words, does “Australian waters” in s 51(x) mean only those waters around Australia that are of importance to Australia as a fishing nation (which may or may not be coterminous with the limits of the waters which are important to Australia for other purposes), or does it mean those waters around Australia which are of importance to Australia for general purposes, of which only one is fishing? In Bonser v La Macchia, Barwick CJ expressed the firm opinion that “Australian waters” meant Australian waters for 27 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177. 28 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 201 (Kitto J), 212 (Windeyer J). 29 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 210. 30 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 201, 212; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 448; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294. 31 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177. 32 Compare Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Cth), s 3(1), where “Australian waters” is restricted to the territorial sea for the purposes of this Act. 33 See generally Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 195-196 (Barwick CJ), 198-199 (McTiernan J), 210 (Menzies J), 235-236 (Owen J).

26

Shipping Law

[2.110]

general purposes.34 Kitto J, on the other hand, seemed to imply that “Australian waters” in s 51(x) meant only those waters which are relevant to Australia’s fishing interests.35 The second uncertainty concerning the expression “Australian waters” is where they commence for the purposes of s 51(x). This involves the interpretation of the expression “beyond territorial limits”.

[2.110]

“Beyond territorial limits”

By s 51(x), the Parliament has power to make laws with respect to fisheries in Australian waters, but only “beyond territorial limits”. The expression “territorial limits” can have various possible meanings. It has been suggested by one member of the High Court, for example, that it means Imperial territorial limits.36 This interpretation, however, has not found general favour.37 The two main meanings that have been given to this expression are low-water mark, and the limits of the territorial sea. The latter had traditionally been set at three nautical miles (one marine league, 5,556 metres) from low-water mark, though pursuant to a declaration made by the Governor-General in 1990 under s 7 of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth), Australia’s territorial sea is now 12 nautical miles (22,224 metres) measured from low-water mark or from any proclaimed baseline.38 The view of the majority of members of the High Court in Bonser v La Macchia was that “beyond territorial limits” means beyond the territorial sea.39 This accords with the view of Quick and Garran who said that by virtue of s 51(x), “The federal Parliament was assigned jurisdiction over fisheries in Australian waters beyond the three-mile limit”.40 Only Windeyer J regarded territorial limits as commencing at low-water mark.41 Under either interpretation there is no doubt that s 51(x) excludes from the scope of the Parliament’s legislative power fisheries in inland

34 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 194. See also at 198 (McTiernan J). 35 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 206. See also at 215 (Windeyer J). 36 See Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 190 (Barwick CJ). 37 See New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 408-409. 38 Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No S 297 (13 November 1990). See also Fair Work Ombudsman v Pocomwell Ltd (No 2) (2013) 218 FCR 94 at 100. 39 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 190-191, 193, 196 (Barwick CJ), 203 (Kitto J), 209-210 (Menzies J), 235 (Owen J). 40 J Quick and R R Garran, Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (Angus & Robertson, Sydney, 1901), p 569. 41 See Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 230-231, 233.

[2.120]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

27

waters, for example in rivers, lakes and enclosed bays.42 Dicta in subsequent High Court cases have generally supported the majority view in Bonser v La Macchia.43 It would appear to follow from Bonser v La Macchia that the States alone are able to legislate in respect of fisheries within territorial limits.44

External affairs power of section 51(xxix) [2.120]

Section 51(xxix) gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with respect to “External affairs”. The scope of this power has been the subject of substantial High Court attention, much of which does not especially concern the subject of shipping. Two particular points should, however, be made concerning relevance of this power to shipping law. The first is that it gives the Parliament a plenary power to legislate in respect of Australia’s territorial sea.45 The second is that it also gives the Parliament a power to repeal any Imperial law that still applies to Australia. The extent of the external affairs power to repeal any Imperial law is, however, the subject of some uncertainty. It undoubtedly enables the Parliament to repeal any Imperial law that would apply to the Commonwealth, but it is uncertain whether it also enables the Parliament to repeal any Imperial law so far as it applies to the States. In the modern case of Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1),46 three members of the High Court were of the opinion that a Commonwealth law which excludes the operation of an Imperial Act to Australia is a law with respect to Australia’s external affairs even though it affects law which is otherwise part of the law of the States.47 Three other members of the court, however, disagreed with this view.48

42 See Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 196 (Barwick CJ), 233 (Windeyer J). 43 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 403, 408-409, 457; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294; A Raptis & Son v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346 at 357, 374, 379 (but compare at 396-397). 44 See also A Raptis & Son v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346 at 357, 379 (but compare at 396-397); Li Chia Hsing v Rankin (1978) 141 CLR 182 at 191; Okmasich v Evans (1980) 25 SASR 481 at 485. Note, however, the observations of GJ Lindell in (1978) 52 ALJ 397. 45 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 360, 373, 470, 497; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294, 337. 46 Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) (1985) 159 CLR 351. 47 Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) (1985) 159 CLR 351 at 379-382 (Mason J), 384-385 (Murphy J), 434-441 (Deane J). 48 Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) (1985) 159 CLR 351 at 370-372 (Gibbs CJ), 395-396 (Wilson J), 455-460 (Dawson J).

28

Shipping Law

[2.130]

Section 76(iii) and substantive legislative powers [2.130]

Section 76(iii) of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court “in any matter … of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”.49 Section 77(iii) then extends this power to enable the Parliament to invest federal jurisdiction on the same matters in any State court. The head of power in s 76(iii) is largely founded upon Art III, s 2(1) of the United States Constitution. This states, “The judicial power [of the United States] shall extend … to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”. Although it would initially appear that this United States provision simply confers judicial power, it is now well established that it also confers a power upon the Congress to legislate in respect of maritime law generally.50 The question has accordingly arisen of whether s 76(iii) of the Australian Constitution confers a similar power on the Commonwealth Parliament. Until recent years, the accepted view was that s 76(iii) does not give the Parliament a general power to legislate in respect of maritime law. There is no High Court statement in favour of such a broad interpretation of this head of power, and indeed several High Court statements to the contrary. Isaacs J, for example, said in Owners of SS Kalibia v Wilson:51 Section 76 relates solely to original judicial jurisdiction and enables Parliament to confer it on the High Court. Whatever is incidental to that it likewise has power to enact (s 51(xxxix)). But beyond that it cannot go. The interpretation and enforcement of admiralty and maritime law, as it is found to exist, is one thing; the alteration of that law is quite another.52

On this understanding of the law, s 76(iii) gives the Parliament the power to confer Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on a court, but not otherwise to affect the substantive rules of maritime law. It has, however, been suggested in a modern Federal Court case that this view of the ambit of s 76(iii) should now be reconsidered in light of more recent constitutional developments in Australia and the current understanding of the legislative competence of the Commonwealth Parliament.53 Even if the hitherto accepted view of the scope of s 76(iii) be correct, the limitation of this head of power to jurisdictional matters is blurred by the 49 On the meaning of the terms “jurisdiction” and “matter” in this general context, see Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 at 614-615. 50 See (note), (1954) 67 Harv L Rev 1214 at 1230-1237; Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 at 107-109. 51 Owners of SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689. 52 Owners of SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689 at 715. See also at 699 (Griffith CJ), 703-704 (Barton J); John Sharp & Sons Ltd v Ship Katherine Mackall (1924) 34 CLR 420 at 428; McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1945) 70 CLR 175 at 208-209. Note, however, the observations of H Zelling, “Of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction” (1982) 56 ALJ 101 at 105-106. 53 Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 at 86-87.

[2.150]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

29

fact that some rules of substantive maritime law are to a large extent the creature of Admiralty procedure. The most obvious example is the rules relating to maritime liens.54 Another may be the rules relating to statutory liens, though these are generally considered to concern remedies rather than substantive rights and thus substantive law.55 Both forms of liens are considered in detail in Chapter 8. It is sufficient here to observe that the existence of both maritime liens and statutory liens are dependent upon the ability of claimants in Admiralty actions to commence proceedings directly against a ship or other maritime property. Without this ability the rights themselves would not exist. To the extent that any substantive right is fundamentally the product of Admiralty procedure, there would appear to be no reason why a legislative power in respect of the latter cannot also cover the former.56

[2.140]

“Make laws conferring … jurisdiction”

It is generally accepted that the power of the Parliament under s 76(iii) to “make laws conferring … jurisdiction” in Admiralty and maritime matters enables the Parliament to devise its own rules of law on these subjects. In other words, the Parliament is not restricted to making laws in respect of established rules of Admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. The scope of the power under s 76(iii) is consequently limited only by the extent to which rules may be said to be rules “of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”.

[2.150]

“Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”

Statements by members of the High Court have made it clear that the expression “Admiralty … jurisdiction” is not restricted to the limits of Admiralty jurisdiction in England in 1900.57 This view has been expressed emphatically in modern decisions of the Federal Court.58 The High Court has also made it clear that the addition of the word “maritime” in s 76(iii) implies that the Parliament has the ability to confer a broader jurisdiction

54 Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 at 86. 55 Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 at 86. 56 Note, however, the more cautious opinion of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), pp 53-54, paras 80-81. 57 See John Sharp & Sons Ltd v Ship Katherine Mackall (1924) 34 CLR 420 at 428; China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172 at 204. See also McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1945) 70 CLR 175 at 208-209. 58 Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 at 104-107, 110-111; Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227 at 234-235, 245-247.

30

Shipping Law

[2.150]

than that normally associated with Admiralty,59 and that this word signifies the jurisdiction of maritime nations generally.60 The entire phrase “Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction” is thus wide in scope, though its precise limits have yet to be determined.61 In Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Inc,62 the High Court said that s 76(iii) “extends to matters of the kind generally accepted by maritime nations as falling within a special jurisdiction, sometimes called Admiralty and sometimes called maritime jurisdiction, concerned with the resolution of controversies relating to maritime commerce and navigation”.63 In the Full Court of the Federal Court in the Shin Kobe Maru64 — which resulted in the appeal to the High Court — Davies J said, “The power granted by s 76(iii) of the Constitution is a grant of plenary legislative power to be construed ‘with all the generality which the words used will admit’ and as ‘wide enough to be capable of flexible application to changing circumstances’”.65 Lockhart J (with whom French J agreed) concurred with this view. He said, “Section 76(iii) of the Constitution must be construed broadly and liberally and as ensuring that the grant of power which it confers upon the Parliament is capable of adjustment to the constantly changing forces and conditions in Australia”.66 Lockhart J particularly observed in this regard that “The addition of the words ‘and maritime’ was designed to ensure that the power was not confined to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Admiralty and was intended to confer jurisdiction with respect to all matters that may be said to reasonably relate to admiralty or maritime law”.67 In his reasons for judgment at first instance in the Shin Kobe Maru,68 Gummow J held that s 76(iii) certainly empowers the Parliament to make laws conferring jurisdiction with respect to matters concerning the commerce or navigation of the sea, including the means by which, or with 59 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 at 423-424 (and see also at 425-426). See also Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 at 106; Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227 at 246-247. 60 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 at 425-426. 61 See generally on this matter, H Zelling, “Of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction” (1982) 56 ALJ 101 esp at 103-104; H Zelling, “Constitutional Problems of Admiralty Jurisdiction” (1984) 58 ALJ 8 at 11-13; Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), Ch 5, esp pp 45-46, para 70. 62 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404. 63 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 at 424, and see also at 425-426; Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 449-451. 64 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227. 65 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227 at 235. 66 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227 at 245. 67 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227 at 246. 68 Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78.

[2.190]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

31

the assistance of which, these activities are or may be conducted.69 With this the majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court agreed.70

POWER OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE STATES TO LEGISLATE EXTRA-TERRITORIALLY Introduction [2.160]

The power of both the Commonwealth and the States to legislate extra-territorially is of special importance in respect of shipping law, as this body of law operates principally upon the high seas. Although the old limits of legislative competence which once fettered the Commonwealth and the States qua British colonies have been abolished, this does not mean that the Commonwealth and State Parliaments now have an unrestricted ability to legislate extra-territorially.

[2.170]

Old doctrine of extra-territorial legislative incompetence

It was once accepted that a British colony could not enact valid legislation that operated extra-territorially, that is outside the territorial limits of the colony.71 The British Parliament (the Imperial Parliament), on the other hand, was not so limited. It could legislate extra-territorially, and it could also legislate in respect of its colonies.72 Accordingly, under the old doctrine if a colonial legislature wanted to legislate extra-territorially, it could do so only with the legislative assistance of the Imperial Parliament.73

Power of the Commonwealth to legislate extra-territorially [2.180]

With the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, a new British colony came into existence, albeit one with wide legislative competence. This competence did not, however, immediately include the ability to legislate extra-territorially, for no British colony then enjoyed this power except to the extent that a particular conferral of legislative power clearly provided for this (as the fisheries power of s 51(x) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia obviously did).

[2.190]

Covering section 5

One section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (IMP) requires special mention in the context of the ability of Commonwealth legislation to have extra-territorial effect. This is s 5 of the Act itself, popularly known as “covering section (or clause) 5”. This provides, inter 69 Empire Shipping Co Ltd v Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru (1991) 32 FCR 78 at 111. 70 Owners of the Ship Shin Kobe Maru v Empire Shipping Co Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 227 at 247. 71 Ray v M’Mackin (1875) 1 VLR (L) 274 at 280-281; Macleod v Attorney-General (NSW) [1891] AC 455. 72 See Ray v M’Mackin (1875) 1 VLR (L) 274 at 280. 73 For a late example of this in respect of Commonwealth legislation, see Army and Air Force (Annual) Act 1940 (IMP), s 3(1).

32

Shipping Law

[2.200]

alia, that “The laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth”. This section does not, however, give the Commonwealth Parliament any extraterritorial competence in the ordinary sense of this expression, for it does not enable the Parliament to legislate extra-territorially.74 Instead, it simply provides that the entire corpus of Commonwealth law shall be in force on British ships75 in the specified circumstances.76

[2.200]

Recognition of extra-territorially

the

Commonwealth’s

power

to

legislate

The demise of the doctrine of extra-territorial legislative incompetence occurred in Australia with the decision of the Privy Council in Croft v Dunphy77 in 1932. There the Privy Council recognised the competency of the Canadian Parliament, and thus by extension the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, to legislate extra-territorially, provided the legislation otherwise fell within the legislature’s field of competence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said on this matter:78 Once it is found that a particular topic of legislation is among those upon which the Dominion Parliament may competently legislate as being for the peace, order and good government of Canada … their Lordships see no reason to restrict the permitted scope of such legislation by any other consideration than is applicable to the legislation of a fully sovereign state.

The Privy Council in this case recognised Canadian customs legislation as validly operating some 12 miles from the Canadian coast. In the previous year, s 3 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (IMP), had declared that the Parliament of a Dominion — which by s 1 includes the Commonwealth of Australia — has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation. However, s 10 provides that the substantive parts of this statute, including s 3, should not apply to any Dominion Parliament until it has been adopted there. The Statute of Westminster was not adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament until 1942.79 (The adopting Act then deemed this Statute to have been adopted from 3 September 1939,80 the date upon which Britain and Australia had declared war on Germany.) 74 See Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 299, 304, 324. 75 On what constitutes a “British ship” for present purposes, see Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association (1913) 16 CLR 664 at 693. 76 See R v Foster; Ex parte Eastern & Australian Steamship Co Ltd (1959) 103 CLR 256 at 309. On the circumstances in which Commonwealth law applies by virtue of s 5, see Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Archibald Currie & Co Pty Ltd (1908) 5 CLR 737; Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association (1913) 16 CLR 664; Clarke v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd (1914) 18 CLR 142. 77 Croft v Dunphy [1933] AC 156. 78 Croft v Dunphy [1933] AC 156 at 163. 79 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth). 80 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth), s 3.

[2.210]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

33

There seems little doubt that the adoption by the Commonwealth of s 3 of the Statute of Westminster simply formalised the ability of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate extra-territorially, as had been earlier recognised by the Privy Council in Croft v Dunphy. But whatever may have been the position before 1942 (and in fact Australian courts consistently followed Croft v Dunphy81), there is no doubt that at least since 1942, the Commonwealth Parliament has had full ability to legislate extra-territorially on any matter that is otherwise within its field of legislative competence.82

Power of the States to legislate extra-territorially [2.210]

The doctrine of extra-territorial legislative incompetence applied to the States after federation in the same way as it had previously applied to them as colonies.83 It continued to apply until the decision of the Privy Council in Croft v Dunphy.84 Although Croft v Dunphy prima facie concerned only “Dominion” legislatures, and not the constituent parts of a Dominion, this decision nonetheless became accepted as applying equally to the States as to the Commonwealth.85 This was fortunate, for the States could not avail themselves of the declaration in s 3 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (IMP), as the provisions of this Act do not apply to them.86 The result, then, was that after Croft v Dunphy, the States, like the Commonwealth, were able to legislate extra-territorially in respect of all matters which were within their field of legislative competence.87 It has been suggested that s 2 of the Australia Acts88 has extended the ability of States to legislate extra-territorially.89 Subsection (1) of this section states, “It is hereby declared and enacted that the legislative 81 See Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1933) 49 CLR 220 at 230-241; Crowe v Commonwealth (1935) 54 CLR 69 at 85; R v Foster; Ex parte Eastern & Australian Steamship Co Ltd (1959) 103 CLR 256 at 307. 82 R v Foster; Ex parte Eastern & Australasian Steamship Co Ltd (1959) 103 CLR 256 at 267, 279, 284-285, 300-301, 306-308; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294. See also A Twomey, “Geographical Externality and Extraterritoriality” (2006) 17 PLR 256. 83 See Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 324. See also Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Millar (1932) 48 CLR 618 at 628, 632, 636; FA Trindade, “The Australian States and the Doctrine of Extra-territorial Legislative Incompetence” (1971) 45 ALJ 233. 84 Croft v Dunphy [1933] AC 156. 85 Commissioner of Stamps (Qld) v Counsell (1937) 57 CLR 248 at 255; Attorney-General v Australian Agricultural Co (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 571 at 576-577; R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 at 263, 270-271, 280-281. See also R v Foster; Ex parte Eastern & Australian Steamship Co Ltd (1959) 103 CLR 256 at 307. 86 See Statute of Westminster 1931 (IMP), s 1. 87 Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 at 12. 88 Being the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and Australia Act 1986 (IMP). 89 See M Moshinsky, “State Extraterritorial Legislation and the Australia Acts 1986” (1987) 61 ALJ 779; M Moshinsky, “State Extraterritorial Legislation – Further Developments” (1990) 64 ALJ 42.

34

Shipping Law

[2.220]

powers of the Parliament of each State include full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of that State that have extra-territorial operation”. It is probable, however, that like s 3 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (IMP), s 2 of the Australia Acts simply formalises the existing legislative competence of States to legislate extra-territorially, following the decision of the Privy Council in Croft v Dunphy, and that it does not otherwise widen it.90

Legislative competence over Australia’s territorial sea General legislative competence of the Commonwealth and the States over the territorial sea

[2.220]

The question of who has legislative competence over Australia’s territorial sea involves the question of whether this forms part of the territory of the littoral States, and if it does not, whether the States or the Commonwealth nonetheless have sovereignty over this part of the sea. If this part of the sea is part of the territory of the littoral States, the States have the same ability to legislate over their territorial sea as they have over their land. On the other hand, if sovereignty is vested in the Commonwealth, the States’ ability to legislate in respect of their territorial sea is substantially reduced.

There has never been any doubt since the creation of the Commonwealth that the States do have some ability to legislate in respect of their territorial sea, though whether this derived from the fact that the territorial sea formed part of their domestic territory, or from their sovereignty over these waters, or simply from a minimal ability to legislate extra-territorially, was for a long time uncertain. Statements like that by Barton J in Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm91 could be read to support any of these views. Barton J there observed: “The police power of the States extends only to the territorial waters, commonly called ‘the three mile limit’. Beyond that limit legislation is in the hands of the sovereign Imperial Parliament only.”92 The status of the territorial sea, and the issue of legislative competence over this part of the sea, was resolved in a series of High Court cases decided between 1969 and 1977. The more important of these were (in chronological order) Bonser v La Macchia,93 New South Wales v Commonwealth94 (the “Seas and Submerged Lands case”), Pearce v Florenca,95 90 See Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 at 13-14. See also CD Gilbert, “Extraterritorial State Laws and the Australia Acts” (1987) 17 Fed LR 25; HP Lee, “The Australia Act 1986 – Some Legal Conundrums” (1988) 14 Mon LR 298 at 306-309. 91 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298. 92 Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm (1914) 19 CLR 298 at 324. 93 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177. 94 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337. 95 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507.

[2.220]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

35

and Robinson v Western Australian Museum.96 The result of these cases may be summarised as follows. First, the territory of the States ends at low-water mark. The territorial sea and its subsoil thus do not form part of a State’s territory.97 Secondly, the States are competent to legislate for the peace, order and good government of their territory only.98 However — and thirdly — the States are also competent to legislate on matters concerning their territorial sea, and indeed concerning any extraterritorial location, provided they are thereby legislating for the peace, order and good government of their State territory.99 This last point is, indeed, no less than what was decided by the Privy Council in Croft v Dunphy.100 Opinion was also expressed in at least two of these cases that sovereignty over Australia’s territorial sea, and also over its subsoil, is vested in the Commonwealth under the ordinary rules of common law, quite apart from statute.101 However, be that as it may, it was held in New South Wales v Commonwealth that s 6 of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth) validly vests sovereignty over Australia’s territorial sea in the Commonwealth by virtue of the external affairs power of s 51(xxix) of the Constitution. This does not mean that these parts of the sea are part of the territory of the Commonwealth any more than they are part of the

96 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283. 97 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 esp at 189, 221-222, 233; R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 at 234; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 esp at 370-372, 378, 467-468, 470, 484, 493, 495; Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 514, 522; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 293-294. 98 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 185-186, 189, 224-225; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 293-294. 99 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 189, 224-226; R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 at 231, 270-271; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 361-362, 475, 495; Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 512, 517-518, 526; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294-295, 303-304, 331; A Raptis & Son v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346 at 355; Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 at 13-14. On the meaning and scope of the expression “peace, order and good government” in the context of State legislative powers, see Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King at 8-10, 12-13. See also Building Construction Employees and Builders’ Labourers’ Federation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372 at 383-385. 100 Croft v Dunphy [1933] AC 156. 101 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 192, 197, 223-224; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 373, 469-470 (and see also at 500-501). It would appear that sovereignty of Australia’s continental shelf is, by virtue of general legal principles, also vested in the Commonwealth: Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 187; R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 at 219. Note also New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 374-375. See now, however, the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth), s 11.

36

Shipping Law

[2.230]

territory of the States.102 It simply means that the Commonwealth has ultimate authority over the seas and seabed adjacent to Australia in respect of matters of concern to Australia as a nation.103 The legislative competence of the Commonwealth in respect of the territorial sea is in theory limited by the heads of power conferred by the Constitution, though it is now recognised that it in fact has plenary power in this regard by virtue of the external affairs powers of s 51(xxix).104 Competence of the States to legislate in respect of the territorial sea and high seas

[2.230]

To say that the States have power to legislate in respect of the territorial sea and high seas to the extent that they are thereby legislating for the peace, order and good government of their State territory raises many consequential questions. In particular, it raises the question of the nexus that is required between an extra-territorial law and the territory of a State in order for the law to be valid. As is so often the case in respect of the constitutional validity of legislation, the required nexus is ultimately a question of degree. And as is also so often the case, the test for determining whether the required nexus exists is the subject of conflicting High Court views.

According to one view, an extra-territorial State law will be regarded as valid provided it has some apparent connection with the State, even though this is not close or substantial. As Gibbs J put it in Pearce v Florenca,105 “It has become settled that a law is valid if it is connected, not too remotely, with the State which enacted it, or, in other words, if it operates on some circumstance which really appertains to the State.”106 He subsequently went on to observe that “It is obviously in the public interest that the test should be liberally applied, and that legislation should be held valid if there is any real connection — even a remote or general connection — between the subject matter of the legislation and the State”.107 Another view, however, is stricter. This looks for a more substantial connection between an extra-territorial law and the peace, order and good government of the relevant State. In the words of Barwick CJ in Robinson 102 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 360, 375, 475. See also Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 184; R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 at 219-220; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 337. Compare, however, Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 519. 103 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 362. See also Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294. 104 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 360, 373, 470, 497; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294, 337. 105 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507. 106 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 517. 107 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 518.

[2.230]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

37

v Western Australian Museum:108 “The validity of a law of the State will be determined by resolving the question whether it can properly be said to be a law for the peace, order and good government of that territory. … [The] laws must first be seen to be laws which are for the peace, order and good government of the State and thereafter when they answer that criterion they may operate extra-territorially so long as the extraterritorial operation is still something which can be said to be for the peace, order and good government of the State.”109 In short, the former test appears to assume that an extra-territorial law of a State is valid provided it has some connection with the State, whereas the latter involves no such assumption at all. The test currently preferred by the High Court is the more liberal test stated by Gibbs J in Pearce v Florenca.110 This was made clear by the High Court in the two modern cases of Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King111 and Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia.112 Neither test, however, is particularly easy to apply. The case of Robinson v Western Australian Museum113 provides a good example of the problems that are involved in determining the validity of State extra-territorial legislation. There an attack was made on the validity of a Western Australian Act which vested property in historic shipwrecks lying off the Western Australian coast in the Western Australian Museum. Although three of the five members of the Court found the Act to be invalid, only two (Barwick CJ and Murphy J) did so on the ground that there was an insufficient connection between this legislation and the peace, order and good government of Western Australia. Two other members of the court (Gibbs and Mason JJ) regarded the legislation as valid. The fifth member (Stephen J) regarded the Act as invalid simply by virtue of inconsistency with a Commonwealth Act. In the course of the various considerations by members of the High Court concerning the competence of States to legislate extra-territorially, two particular matters have arisen which require further mention. The first (which in light of subsequent Commonwealth legislation is now of academic interest only) is whether there is a presumption that State legislation on matters concerning the State’s territorial sea is valid. The second is whether State fishing legislation is to be regarded any differently from legislation on other matters.

108 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283. 109 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294-295. 110 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507. 111 Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 at 14. 112 Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 at 372. 113 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283.

38

Shipping Law

[2.240]

[2.240]

Position of State legislation concerning the territorial sea

There is some High Court authority for the proposition that State legislation on matters concerning the State’s territorial sea are valid simply by virtue of this fact. For example, in Pearce v Florenca,114 Gibbs J said, “The very fact that the waters are the offshore waters of the State provides the nexus necessary to render valid a law operating within those waters”.115 Jacobs J expressed a similar view in the same case.116 The view which in theory is more consistent with the basic principle in Croft v Dunphy, however, is that a State law must have some connection with the peace, order and good government of the State in order to be valid.117 As Barwick CJ said in New South Wales v Commonwealth:118 “The test of validity of a law having an extra-territorial operation is its relationship to the peace, order and good government of the territory for the government of which the legislature has been constituted. If such a law did not so touch and concern that territory it would not be valid simply because it operated in the marginal seas.”119 The law relating to the ability of States to legislate in respect of their territorial sea is now governed by the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth). By s 5 of this Act, States have the power to legislate in respect of their territorial sea as if these were within the limits of their territory. This Act is considered in more detail at [2.370].

[2.250]

Position of fishing legislation

Judicial attitudes on the validity of State laws in respect of fishing are similar to those just referred to concerning the territorial sea. On the one hand, some members of the High Court appear to regard State fishing legislation as prima facie valid, especially when it operates within the territorial sea, whereas others would apply the principle in Croft v Dunphy120 to all State legislation, irrespective of its subject matter. Jacobs J adopted the former view in Pearce v Florenca,121 when he said: “Fishing in waters near the coast of a community is, and has always been regarded as, a matter of special concern to that community. … That special concern would provide the nexus for legislative control of such fishing and for laws designed to give effect to that control.”122 As a matter of principle, however, there would seem to be no reason to depart from the rule that 114 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507. 115 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 519. See at 519-520 generally. 116 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 527. 117 Croft v Dunphy [1933] AC 156 at 163. 118 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337. 119 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 361. See at 361-362 generally. 120 Croft v Dunphy [1933] AC 156. 121 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507. 122 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507 at 526. See also at 520, 526-527; Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 226, 233; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 331.

[2.260]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

39

extra-territorial State legislation is valid only if it relates to the peace, order and good government of the State. This is not to deny that State fishing legislation may usually be expected to have this nexus, though it does deny the existence of any presumptions, or assumptions, that legislation has such a nexus simply by virtue of its subject matter. As the High Court unanimously observed in the modern case of Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia,123 “What is essential to the extra-territorial operation of a State law is a connection between the enacting State and the extra-territorial persons, things and events on which a law operates”.124

[2.260]

Laws in respect of fishing, and section 51(x) of the Constitution

The effect of the fisheries power of s 51(x) of the Constitution upon the legislative competence of States to legislate upon fishing within their territorial sea deserves special mention notwithstanding the effect of s 5 of the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth). Section 51(x) gives the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with respect to fisheries in Australian waters, but only beyond territorial limits. This has been held to mean that the Parliament can legislate in respect of fisheries under s 51(x) only outside the territorial sea.125 There are some judicial statements which may at first glance seem to indicate that as a result of s 51(x), the States have an unfettered power to legislate in respect of fishing within their territorial sea. An example of this is the statement by Windeyer J in Bonser v La Macchia,126 that “The Australian States have plenary power to make laws for fisheries within their territorial limits”.127 It is, however, quite clear that the States do not, without more, have such an unfettered power. All that statements such as this imply is that as the Commonwealth has no power to legislate in respect of fisheries within territorial limits, State laws on this matter cannot become inoperative by virtue of inconsistency with any Commonwealth law based on s 51(x).128 There is no reason, however, why a State law on fishing within territorial limits cannot be inconsistent with a Commonwealth law based on some other head of power (for example, the external affairs power of s 51(xxix)). 123 Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340. 124 Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 at 372. 125 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 190-191, 193, 196, 203, 209-210, 235 (but compare at 230-231, 233); New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337 at 403, 408-409, 457; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294; A Raptis & Son v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346 at 357, 374, 379 (but compare at 396-397). 126 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177. 127 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 233. 128 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 226, 233. See also Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 294; A Raptis & Son v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346 at 379.

40

Shipping Law

[2.270]

In case there should be any doubt on the matter, it is quite clear that States have the power to legislate in respect of fishing outside their territorial sea.129 The fisheries power of s 51(x) does not divest them of this ability. State fisheries legislation which operates outside the territorial sea will, however, be inoperative by virtue of s 109 of the Constitution if it is inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation.130

THE POSITION IN AUSTRALIA OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1894 (IMP) Introduction [2.270]

In 1894, the British Government enacted the Merchant Shipping Act as a legislative code to govern merchant shipping throughout the then British Empire. So far as the Australian colonies (and indeed, British colonies generally) were concerned, the effect of this Act was twofold. First, its provisions extended to the colonies by virtue of being Imperial legislation enacted with that object, and secondly, any conflicting colonial legislation was invalid by virtue of the repugnancy provisions of s 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (IMP).131

Section 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act ceased to bind the Commonwealth when Australia adopted s 2(1) of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (IMP) in 1942, with retrospective effect from 3 September 1939.132 It ceased to apply to the States only upon the commencement of the Australia Acts133 on 3 March 1986. Before those dates, the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and the States could enact laws departing from provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act only in accordance with the terms of this Act. Of special importance in this regard was s 735 (“Power of colonial legislature to alter provisions of Act”). This said that the legislature of a British possession — which included the Commonwealth134 — could repeal any provisions of the Act other than those relating to emigrant ships provided the repealing legislation was first confirmed by the Queen in Council and the Royal approval proclaimed.135 The confirmation and approval requirements of s 735, and the similar 129 Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177. 130 A Raptis & Son v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346 at 379. 131 For a case in which provisions of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) were held repugnant to the 1894 Act, see Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Commonwealth (1925) 36 CLR 130. 132 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth), s 3. 133 Section 3. 134 John Sharp & Sons Ltd v Katherine Mackall (1924) 34 CLR 420; Hume v Palmer (1926) 38 CLR 441 at 449, 452, 462. 135 For a case concerning failure by the Queensland Parliament to comply with the manner and form requirements in s 736 (“Regulation of coasting trade by Colonial Legislature”) of the 1894 Act, see R v Commissioner for Transport; Ex parte Cobb & Co Ltd [1983] Qd R 547.

[2.290]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

41

requirements of s 736 (“Regulation of coasting trade by Colonial Legislature”), were abolished for the Commonwealth Parliament upon the adoption of the Statute of Westminster,136 and for the Australian States by the Australia Acts.137 Concern that some provisions of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) which had been enacted before the commencement of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) might still be invalid for repugnancy with Imperial legislation was allayed by s 48(1) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). That stated that no provision of the Navigation Act was invalid, or taken to have been at any time invalid, because of its inconsistency with any Imperial Act. That section bound the Crown in all its capacities.138 The 1912 Act has now been repealed by the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth).

Extent to which the Merchant Shipping Act continues to apply to Australia Merchant Shipping Act and the Commonwealth

[2.280]

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP) was repealed for the Commonwealth and its external territories by s 4(1) of the Statute Stocktake Act 1999 (Cth).

Merchant Shipping Act and the States and Territories

[2.290]

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP) continues in force as part of the law of the Australian States and Territories today except to the extent that it has been amended or repealed by Commonwealth, State or territorial legislation (a matter which is considered in more detail at [2.320]–[2.340]).139 The proposition that this Imperial statute ceased to have force within Australia either upon the creation of the Commonwealth in 1901, or upon the enactment of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth),140 has been firmly rejected by the High Court.141 136 Statute of Westminster 1931 (IMP), s 5. 137 Australia Act 1986 (Cth), s 4; Australia Act 1986 (IMP), s 4. 138 Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 48(2). Note also in this connection the Navigation and Other Acts (Validation) Act 1983 (NSW). 139 Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Commonwealth (1925) 36 CLR 130; Asiatic Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Commonwealth (1956) 96 CLR 397 esp at 403, 414; Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552 esp at 555; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283; China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 at 181-183, 194-195, 207, 214, 240. 140 See the view of Murphy J in: Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283; China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172. 141 China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172 at 181-183, 194-195, 207, 211-212, 214, 240. See also Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552; Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 246 esp at 252, 256-257, 265.

42

Shipping Law

[2.300]

[2.300]

Ambit of the Act’s provisions to the States and Territories

There are, however, still some problems concerning the application of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 to Australia. One of these is the extent to which the provisions of this Act apply. There are two possible solutions here. The first is to treat as applicable to Australia — specifically now just to Australian States — only those provisions of the Act which are expressly stated to apply to the British dominions (which the States were in 1894). This would prima facie include Pts I (“Registry”),142 II (“Masters and Seamen”),143 VIII (“Liability of Shipowners”),144 and XIII (“Legal Proceedings”).145 The second possible solution is to treat the entire Act as applicable to Australia and the States unless it is clear that any particular provision is not intended to apply outside the United Kingdom. Most of Pt IV (“Fishing Boats”), for example, clearly does not apply to Australia because s 372 provides that this Part is not, without more, to apply to any British possession. Australian courts have adopted the latter course. This means that all the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act apply in the States unless they are expressly excluded by the Act, unless they are clearly inapplicable outside the United Kingdom and thus impliedly excluded by the Act, or unless they have been amended or repealed by Commonwealth or State legislation. The course adopted by Australian courts is often difficult to apply, for there is often no easy way to decide whether a particular provision of the Act is inapplicable outside the United Kingdom.146 This is well illustrated by the division of opinion by members of the High Court in Robinson v Western Australian Museum147 on whether s 523 (“Right of Crown to unclaimed wreck”) of the 1894 Act was applicable to a wreck located in the Australian territorial sea. Stephen J thought that this section might vest an unclaimed wreck in the Crown.148 Gibbs J was of the opinion that this section vests such a wreck in the Crown in right of the States.149 But three members held that this section was inapplicable outside the United Kingdom, inter alia because the “Crown” referred to is the Crown in right

142 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), s 91. 143 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), s 261. 144 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), s 509. 145 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), s 712. 146 For attempts to identify which parts of the 1894 Act still apply to Australia, see: D A Butler and W D Duncan, Maritime Law in Australia (Legal Books, Redfern, 1992), pp 23-27; G B Carter, “The Imperial Merchant Shipping Act Story” (1992) 66 ALJ 359 at 368-371. 147 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283. 148 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 325. 149 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 309.

[2.320]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

43

of the United Kingdom.150 As a result of this case it would indeed appear that all the provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act concerning a wreck (that is, ss 511 – 537) are inapplicable to a wreck in Australia’s territorial sea.151

[2.310]

Some Imperial amendment Acts applicable to Australia

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP) has been amended in the United Kingdom on many occasions. There is, however, some uncertainty concerning which of the various amendment Acts apply in Australia. There is no doubt that all amendment Acts up to and including the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 apply in Australia unless they have since been amended or repealed by Commonwealth or State legislation.152 It is generally assumed that neither the Merchant Shipping Act 1911 nor any subsequent Act amending the 1894 Act was intended by the British Parliament to apply to Australia. In Bistricic v Rokov,153 the High Court unanimously held that the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1958 (UK) does not apply to Australia. In the earlier case of SG White Pty Ltd v Ship Mediterranean,154 the Supreme Court of Queensland held that the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (UK), which is expressed not to apply to the Commonwealth of Australia,155 also does not apply to the States.156

[2.320]

Repeal of provisions of Commonwealth legislation

the

Merchant

Shipping

Act

by

The Commonwealth Parliament has repealed for the whole of Australia, including the States, the following parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP): • Part I (“Registry”);157 • Sections 221 – 224, concerning agreements with crew;158 and • Part VIII (“Liability of Shipowners”).159 150 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 332 (Mason J), 341 (Jacobs J), 343-344 (Murphy J). 151 See Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 308, 332, 341, 343. See also SC White Pty Ltd v Ship Mediterranean [1966] Qd R 211 at 216-217 (none of Pt IX (“Wreck and Salvage”) applies to the States). 152 See Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Commonwealth (1925) 36 CLR 130 at 142-143; Asiatic Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Commonwealth (1956) 96 CLR 397. See also McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1945) 70 CLR 175; China Ocean Shipping Co v South Australia (1979) 145 CLR 172. 153 Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552. 154 SG White Pty Ltd v Ship Mediterranean [1966] Qd R 211. 155 Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (UK), s 9(1). 156 SG White Pty Ltd v Ship Mediterranean [1966] Qd R 211 at 215-216. 157 Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 4. 158 Navigation Amendment Act 1979 (Cth), s 104(3). 159 Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), s 106.

44

Shipping Law

[2.330]

The constitutional validity of the repeal of Pt VIII of the Act was upheld by the High Court in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1).160

[2.330]

Repeal of provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act by State and Territorial legislation

Queensland has repealed Pts II (“Masters and Seamen”) and V (“Safety”) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 so far as regards coasters and harbour and river ships either in Queensland waters or in any port in Queensland, and the owners, masters and crews of such ships where they are within the jurisdiction.161 South Australia has repealed Pts II (“Masters and Seamen”) and V (“Safety”) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.162 Western Australia has repealed Pt VIII (“Liability of Shipowners”) of the Merchant Shipping Act.163 Tasmania has repealed Pt V (“Safety”) of the Merchant Shipping Act.164 The Australian Capital Territory has repealed the whole of the Merchant Shipping Act,165 principally because this Territory is landlocked with the result that the Act is of no relevance to it. Although the statutes repealing provisions of the Imperial Act have themselves been repealed (with the exception of that of Western Australia), the relevant jurisdictions have provisions in their Acts Interpretation Acts which preserve the operation of previously repealed provisions.166

[2.340]

Abolition of sections 735 and 736 for the whole of Australia

The confirmation and approval requirements of s 735 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), and the similar requirements of s 736, were abolished for the Australian States by the Australia Acts.167

THE OFFSHORE CONSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT The need for a re-arrangement of powers [2.350]

The constitutional division of shipping law powers between the Commonwealth and the States is weighted overwhelmingly in favour of the Commonwealth. This became particularly apparent with the decision of the High Court in New South Wales v Commonwealth (the “Seas and

160 Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No 1) (1985) 159 CLR 351. 161 Queensland Marine Act 1958 (Qld), s 255. Although this Act has been repealed, note Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 20 (“Saving of operation of repealed Act etc”). 162 Marine Act 1936 (SA), s 131. 163 Western Australian Marine Act 1982 (WA), s 135(2). 164 Marine Act (No 2) 1966 (Tas), s 5, with Marine Act 1976 (Tas), s 2(2). 165 Statute Law Amendment Act (No 2) 2002 (ACT), s 6(1); Sch 4, Pt 4.9. 166 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 20; Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA), s 16; Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), s 14; Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 86. 167 Section 4.

[2.350]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

45

Submerged Lands case”)168 of 1975. There the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth), which declared that sovereignty over Australia’s territorial sea, including the subjacent subsoil and superjacent airspace, is vested in the Crown in right of the Commonwealth.169 That decision did not deprive the States of their ability to legislate in respect of the territorial sea. It did, however, mean that they could not legislate over this part of the sea as if it were part of their State territory. It also meant that the Commonwealth could legislate in respect of this area of the sea by virtue of its external affairs power. Many problems resulted from the decision in New South Wales v Commonwealth. For example, there was uncertainty concerning the extent to which existing State laws continued to apply — and to which future State laws could apply — to the territorial sea now that it was clear this did not form part of the States’ territory. This problem was well illustrated by the subsequent decisions of the High Court in Pearce v Florenca170 and Robinson v Western Australian Museum.171 In Pearce v Florenca, a fisherman had successfully challenged in a magistrate’s court the validity of a Western Australian Act which made it an offence to possess undersize rock lobsters in the territorial sea. The High Court, however, held that this Act was valid, as it concerned the peace, order and good government of Western Australia and it was not inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation. In Robinson v Western Australian Museum, on the other hand, an attack on the validity of a Western Australian Act operating in the territorial sea was upheld. There an underwater explorer, who had discovered the wreck of a Dutch vessel that had sunk in Western Australia’s territorial sea in 1656, challenged the validity of an Act which vested rights in all historic shipwrecks lying off the Western Australian coast in the Western Australian Museum. The majority of the High Court declared this Act to be invalid. Two members of the court held that it did not have a sufficient connection with the peace, order and good government of Western Australia to be a valid State law applying extra-territorially, whilst one of these two, and a third member, found that the State Act was inconsistent with provisions of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) concerning wrecks. The High Court decisions of the mid-1970s, though undoubtedly favourable to the Commonwealth in constitutional terms, nonetheless presented the Commonwealth with practical difficulties, for the Commonwealth did not have any immediate desire to exercise full responsibility over Australia’s territorial sea. The obvious solution to the problems arising from the High Court decisions lay in an agreement 168 New South Wales v Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands Case) (1975) 135 CLR 337. 169 Section 6. 170 Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507. 171 Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283.

46

Shipping Law

[2.360]

between the Commonwealth and the States on a more practical division of powers between the parties. This was achieved in outline at the Premiers’ Conference of 1977. The final division of powers was approved at the Premiers’ Conference of 1979. This became known as the “Offshore Constitutional Settlement”.172

Terms of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement General

[2.360]

The Offshore Constitutional Settlement dealt with a wide variety of matters.173 These included offshore petroleum exploration and production, offshore mineral exploration and mining, offshore fisheries, marine parks, historic shipwrecks, and crimes at sea. The two principal topics from the point of view of shipping law, however, were the legislative competence of the States in respect of the territorial sea, and the distribution of powers in respect of navigation and shipping. These last two matters are now considered in more detail.

Legislative powers of States over the territorial sea

[2.370]

One of the most important parts of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement was the agreement to give the States a general legislative power in respect of their territorial sea, and thus place them in a legislative position similar to that which they had assumed they were in before the decision in New South Wales v Commonwealth.174 The terms of this agreement were put into effect by the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth). This was passed by the Commonwealth at the request of the States pursuant to the States’ requests power of s 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of this Act was upheld by the High Court in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia.175 Section 5 of the 1980 Act gives the States power to legislate in respect of their territorial sea (limited to three nautical miles176 — 5,556 metres), including its seabed, subsoil and airspace, as if this part of the sea were within the States’ territorial limits. Section 5 also gives the States power to legislate further out to sea with respect to subterranean mining from land within the States, ports, harbours and other shipping facilities, and 172 For a more detailed account of this settlement, see R Cullen, Australian Federalism Offshore (2nd ed, Law School, University of Melbourne, 1988), Ch 5. 173 For a summary of the terms of this settlement, see Attorney-General’s Department, Offshore Constitutional Settlement: A Milestone in Co-operative Federalism (AGPS, Canberra, 1980), pp 6-16; R Cullen, Australian Federalism Offshore (2nd ed, Law School, University of Melbourne, 1988), pp 83-84. 174 New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337. See Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 394. 175 Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen’s Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340. 176 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth), s 4(2).

[2.370]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

47

fisheries in Australian waters where the Commonwealth agrees that these are to be governed by State law. A separate Act confers similar legislative powers upon the Northern Territory.177 One important effect of s 5 is to remove the requirement that State legislation in respect of matters concerning the territorial sea be for the peace, order and good government of the State territory.178 The territorial sea of a State is now treated for the purposes of State legislative power as if it be within the State’s territorial limits. The Act does not, however, extend the limits of the States as a matter of law.179 Nor does it affect either the power of States otherwise to enact legislation having extraterritorial effect180 or the ability of the Commonwealth to legislate in respect of the territorial sea and beyond,181 as recognised by the High Court in New South Wales v Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Parliament can thus continue to enact legislation in respect of the territorial sea, and this will override inconsistent State legislation by virtue of s 109 of the Constitution. In conjunction with the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act, the Commonwealth enacted the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980. This vests in each State title to the seabed of its territorial sea. A similar Act was also passed for the Northern Territory.182 The object of this grant of title was to support the associated grant of legislative competence in respect of the territorial sea and provide the States with some assurance that the Commonwealth will treat the extension of State powers over the territorial sea as permanent.183 If the Commonwealth were now to repeal this title-conferring legislation, or to appropriate any part of the bed of a State’s territorial sea, it might be liable to pay compensation pursuant to the acquisition on just terms provision of s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.184 The key provision in the title-conferring Act is contained in s 4(1). This vests in each State the same right and title to the property in the seabed beneath its territorial sea, and the same rights in respect of the superjacent sea and airspace, as it would have if this seabed were within the limits of the State. The Act, however, expressly provides that it does not extend the States’ territorial limits.185 The rights and title vested in the States are 177 Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980 (Cth). 178 See Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 392. 179 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth), s 7(a). See Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 393-394. 180 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth), s 7(b). 181 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth), s 7(c). 182 Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 (Cth). 183 Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 394. 184 See generally Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 394; Commonwealth v WMC Resources Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 1. 185 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth), s 8(a). See Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 393-394.

48

Shipping Law

[2.380]

subject to the continuing right of the Commonwealth to use the seabed for such national purposes as communications, safety of navigation, quarantine, and defence.186 The consequences of the State Powers and State Titles Acts are not easy to explain in a broad and coherent way, for they involve complex constitutional considerations. In Jones v Queensland,187 Ambrose J summarised his understanding of the basic effect of these Acts as follows:188 While they remain in force those Acts in my view have the effect that the Commonwealth of Australia, subject to express reservations, has ceded to the States all the rights, powers and jurisdiction over the seas and submerged lands which the States would have enjoyed had those seas and lands been within the limits or boundaries of the States.

As a consequence, Ambrose J held that any statute passed by a State has force not merely within the State’s limits but also in respect of the territorial sea and seabeds covered by the State Powers and State Title Acts.189 The Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth) has not been repealed. The Commonwealth’s sovereignty over Australia’s territorial sea thus remains intact. An amendment was, however, made to this Act in 1980 to protect the validity of State and Territorial legislation enacted pursuant to the powers conferred by the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth) and Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980 (Cth). Distribution of powers on shipping and navigation

[2.380]

The agreement between the Commonwealth and the States concerning shipping and navigation was designed to rationalise the allocation of legislative powers on these matters by distributing them principally on the basis of the type of voyage a ship is undertaking at any time, rather than on the then-existing basis of whether a ship was engaged in interstate trade or commerce, or its location (inside or outside the territorial sea) at any time. The new division of responsibility agreed upon was that the Commonwealth should have legislative responsibility for all trading vessels on overseas and interstate voyages, for all fishing vessels on overseas voyages (other than a voyage by a Queensland-based fishing vessel involving simply incidental visits to Papua New Guinea), and for all offshore drilling rigs and similar structures. It was agreed that the States, on the other hand, should have legislative responsibility for

186 Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth), s 4(2). 187 Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385. 188 Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 392. 189 Jones v Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 385 at 395.

[2.390]

2 Division of Shipping Law Powers in Australia

49

trading vessels on intrastate voyages, for all vessels whose operations are confined to rivers, lakes and other internal waterways, and for all private pleasure craft. This, however, was just the broad division of responsibility. Practical considerations required certain departures from this scheme. In particular, it was agreed that offshore industry vessels — that is, vessels attending offshore rigs and other offshore industry mobile units — may be covered by Commonwealth legislation rather than by State legislation if they are intended to operate from more than one State or Territory over a period of three years. (The three-year condition was dispensed with in 1988.) On one matter it was agreed that the division of shipping law powers should remain on a territory basis. This concerned collision regulations. It was agreed that these regulations should remain a State or Commonwealth responsibility depending on whether any collision occurs inside or outside the territorial sea.

[2.390]

Subsequent developments: The Intergovernmental Agreement on Commercial Safety Reform

Pursuant to the Offshore Constitutional Settlement, the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) was amended so that it was limited to trading vessels that were on an overseas voyage or on an interstate voyage, and fishing vessels on an overseas voyage.190 This left all other vessels to be covered by State and territorial laws. With the passage of time, this division of responsibility was found to be wanting, especially in respect of ship standards and safety, where legislation differed from State to State. In order to remedy this deficiency, in 2011 the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories concluded an Intergovernmental Agreement on Commercial Safety Reform. Pursuant to this, the States and Territories agreed that there be a national law for standards and safety applicable to all commercial vessels operating in Australian waters. The result of this was the enactment by the Commonwealth of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 (Cth). This contains a code on marine safety — the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law — to apply to all Australian commercial vessels191 that operate in Australian waters. In order to ensure that its provisions apply irrespective of the Commonwealth’s constitutional limits, the States and Territories agreed to adopt the National Law as their own law, thus ensuring Australia-wide validity. As part of the reform of shipping law in 2012, the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) was repealed and replaced by the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth). The principal purpose of this Act is to regulate the safety of commercial Australian vessels engaged in international shipping and those employed on them. It thus complements the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial 190 Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 2(1). 191 A commercial vessel for the purposes of the Law includes governmental and research vessels: see Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 7.

50

Shipping Law

[2.390]

Vessel) National Law. The validity of this Navigation Act 2012 depends solely upon the constitutional limits of the Parliament.192

192 See Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 333.

3

Registration of Ships [3.10] INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 52 [3.60] SHIPS REQUIRED AND SHIPS PERMITTED TO BE REGISTERED ....... 53

[3.60] The registration regime of the Act .................................................... 53 [3.70] The general rule ................................................................................... 54 [3.100] Ships exempt from registration ....................................................... 54 [3.130] Registration of exempt and other ships ........................................ 56 [3.150] REQUIREMENTS AND FORMALITIES FOR REGISTRATION .............. 57

[3.150] Statutory requirements for registration ......................................... 57 [3.250] Formalities for registration ............................................................... 60 [3.290] The practical steps for registration ................................................. 61 [3.300] REGISTRATION IN THE GENERAL REGISTER AND THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTER ....................................................................... 62

[3.300] Exclusivity of the General Register or the International Register ................................................................................................ 62 [3.310] The General Register ......................................................................... 62 [3.320] The International Register ................................................................ 62 [3.340] REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATES ........................................................ 63

[3.340] Entry in the relevant register ........................................................... 63 [3.390] Certificates and passes ...................................................................... 66 [3.490] CLOSURE AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION ........................ 70

[3.490] Introduction ........................................................................................ 70 [3.500] Closure of registration ...................................................................... 70 [3.540] Cancellation of registration in the International Shipping Register ................................................................................................ 73 [3.550] Consequences of closure or cancellation ....................................... 73 [3.600] Revocation of registration certificate .............................................. 75 [3.610] REGISTRATION UNDER STATE AND TERRITORIAL LAWS ............... 75

52

Shipping Law

[3.10]

INTRODUCTION [3.10]

The law relating to the registration of ships is governed by the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), which came into operation in 1982. Before then, the registration of Australian ships was governed by Pt I of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP). By the early 1980s, however, the provisions of Pt I were considered inappropriate for Australia for two main reasons. The first, and most obvious, was that the 1894 Act is a British Act, and it was felt incongruous that the registration of Australian ships be governed by the law of another country. The second was that all ships registered under the Merchant Shipping Act were deemed to be British ships and to have British nationality1 regardless of the particular nationality of their owners. This was considered to be a wholly inappropriate consequence for the ships of Australia as an independent country in the modern world. The purpose of the enactment of the Shipping Registration Act was thus to provide Australia with its own code for the registration of Australian-owned ships.

[3.20]

The General Register and the International Register

Until 2012, there was just one register, the Australian Register of Ships. In that year the Register was divided into two registers: the Australian General Shipping Register and the Australian International Shipping Register.2 Registration in the General Register is open to all Australianowned ships. Registration in the International Register is restricted to Australian-owned commercial ships that are engaged in international trade. The purpose of the International Register is to promote the long-term growth of the Australian shipping industry.3 The registration of a ship in the International Register affords the owners of Australian international trading ships valuable tax advantages and the ability to operate with crews of mixed nationalities and with different employment conditions from those which operate in coastal and interstate trading.

[3.30]

Relevance of case law decided under the former British Act

As originally drafted, the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) followed parts of Pt I of the British Act of 1894 reasonably closely. English decisions concerning the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act can accordingly assist in the interpretation of corresponding provisions of the Australian Act. Indeed, in General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships,4 McPherson J said with respect to the Imperial Act and the Shipping Registration Act as originally enacted, “It is not, in my opinion, possible to compare the provisions of the two enactments without concluding that the draftsman of the [Australian] Act deliberately adopted the form of 1 Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124. 2 Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 56(1), (2). 3 See Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 15A. 4 General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships (1982) 61 FLR 329.

[3.60]

3 Registration of Ships

53

many of the provisions of the earlier statute with the intention that they should be construed in the light of existing decisions on similar provisions of the Imperial Act.”5 The High Court made a more general statement to the same effect in Owners of MV Iran Amanat,6 when it said, “When Parliament has enacted legislation, affecting the subject of international shipping, and followed a statutory precedent from overseas which has by then received a settled construction, there is every reason to construe the statutory language in the same way in this country unless such construction is unreasonable or inapplicable to Australian circumstances.”7

[3.40]

Origin of the requirement of registration

The modern requirement for the registration of ships and the provision of a certificate of registration have their origin in the Shipping and Navigations Act 1660 (ENG). The purpose of this Act was not, however, simply to identify the owners of English ships. Its ulterior purpose was thereby to exclude foreign ships from British markets overseas and monopolise foreign trade for English ships and their owners.

[3.50]

Register requirement under current international law

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was signed in 1982 and came into force in Australia in 1994, requires every State to maintain a register of ships containing the name and particulars of all ships flying its flag, except those ships which are excluded from generally accepted international regulations on account of their small size.8

SHIPS REQUIRED AND SHIPS PERMITTED TO BE REGISTERED The registration regime of the Act [3.60]

The object of the registration provisions of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) is to compel the registration in Australia of certain Australian-owned ships — namely Australian-owned commercial vessels of at least 24 metres in tonnage length9 — and to permit the registration of most other ships associated with Australia if their owners so wish. This object is achieved by the Act first setting out a general rule requiring registration of all Australian-owned ships, then providing for wide-ranging exemptions from it, and finally providing for the optional registration of exempt ships and certain other ships. 5 General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships (1982) 61 FLR 329 at 334. 6 Owners of MV Iran Amanat (1999) 196 CLR 130. 7 Owners of MV Iran Amanat (1999) 196 CLR 130 at 138. 8 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Art 94.2(a). 9 Tonnage length is a calculation of the physical dimensions of a ship. For the method of determining the tonnage length of a ship, see Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 10(3); Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 (Cth), reg 6A.

54

Shipping Law

[3.70]

The general rule [3.70]

The general rule of registration, which is set out in s 12(1) of the Shipping Registration Act, is that every Australian-owned ship must be registered in Australia. This rule is then subject to certain exceptions.

[3.80]

Australian-owned ships

An Australian-owned ship is, in short, one which is more than half owned by Australian nationals. More precisely it is a ship which either is entirely owned by one or more Australian nationals, is owned by three or more persons as joint owners where the majority are Australian nationals, or is owned by two or more persons as owners in common where more than half of the shares in the ship are owned by Australian nationals.10 An “Australian national” is defined in the Act to mean either an Australian citizen, an Australian company or corporation, or the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.11 There is no requirement that to come within the definition of an Australian national an Australian company have Australian citizens as shareholders12 or have its principal place of business in Australia.

[3.90]

Penalty for non-registration of non-exempt ships

The owner of a ship which is required to be registered under the Act, but which is not registered, is guilty of an offence.13 The offence is one of strict liability.14 It is no defence that the ship is registered under the law of a foreign country15 and thus cannot be registered in Australia.16 This furthers an aim of the Act of compelling all non-exempt Australianowned ships to become registered solely in Australia, an aim considered further at [3.140]. Regardless of whether criminal proceedings are instituted for nonregistration of a ship, an unregistered ship which is required to be registered may be detained until registration is effected.17

Ships exempt from registration [3.100]

Certain Australian-owned ships are exempt from registration under the Shipping Registration Act. These are:

10 Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 8(1). For the method of determining the nationality of the owners of jointly owned shares in the last situation, see s 8(2). 11 See s 3(1). 12 See R v Arnaud (1846) 9 QB 808; 115 ER 1485 at 817-818; 1489; Kuenigl v Donnersmarck [1955] 1 QB 515 at 536. Compare The Polzeath [1916] P 117 at 122-123. 13 Sections 12(3), 74(4). The term “owner” includes all owners if there are more than one: see s 3(2). 14 Section 12(3A). Note also s 12(3B), (3C), (3D). 15 Section 12(4). 16 See s 17(1). 17 Section 12(3). See in this connection s 71(1), with s 70(4).

[3.120]

• • • • •

3 Registration of Ships

55

ships of less than 24 metres in tonnage length;18 Government ships;19 fishing vessels;20 pleasure craft;21 and any Australian-owned ship which is being operated by a foreign resident under a demise charter and which is exempted from registration by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority for the term of the charter.22

Australian defence force ships are also exempt from registration by virtue of their exclusion from the scope of the Act as a whole.23

[3.110]

“Pleasure craft”

A pleasure craft is defined in s 3(1) as “a ship that is used, or is intended to be used, wholly for recreational or sporting activities, whether or not let, or intended to be let, for hire or reward or consideration of any kind”. The application of this definition sometimes presents problems. Take, for example, a craft which is hired out to groups of individuals solely for recreational or sporting activities. There is little doubt that this falls within the definition of a pleasure craft, for the craft is used by its passengers only for recreational or sporting activities, and the fact that it is hired out for commercial gain is irrelevant in light of the concluding part of the definition. But then consider the example of a craft which is used to take aboard, not groups of people, but individual fee-paying passengers for recreational or sporting activities. The owner might claim that this vessel also falls within the definition for precisely the same reason. However, it is arguable that this vessel does not come within the scope of the definition as the ship is now being used for a commercial purpose which is not sanctioned by the terms of the definition. In particular it is no longer simply “let … for hire or reward”, but takes individual fee-paying passengers aboard, which is quite a different commercial activity. The better view is that a craft which is used to take individual fee-paying passengers aboard, albeit for recreational or sporting purposes, is not a pleasure craft as defined in s 3(1), and is accordingly not exempt from registration under the Act.

[3.120]

“Demise charter”

A demise charter for the purposes of the Act is, in short, any arrangement under which a charterer has the whole possession and control of the ship, 18 Section 13. For the method of determining the tonnage length of a ship, see s 10(3); Shipping Registration Regulations, reg 6A. 19 Section 13. “Government ship” is defined in s 3(1). 20 Section 13. “Fishing vessel” is defined in s 3(1). 21 Section 13. “Pleasure craft” is defined in s 3(1). 22 Section 12(2). “Foreign resident” is defined in s 3(1). 23 Section 7.

56

Shipping Law

[3.130]

including the right to appoint the master and crew.24 A demise charter is effectively a lease of a ship. It is often used as a method of financing the purchase of a vessel. An Australian-owned ship which is under a demise charter to a foreign resident (and which may accordingly be exempt from registration) is often shortly described as “demise chartered-out”. Conversely, a foreign ship which is under a demise charter to an Australian based operator (and which is accordingly permitted to be registered in Australia) is often shortly described as “demise chartered-in”.

Registration of exempt and other ships With the exception of defence force ships25 and ships which are registered under the law of a foreign country,26 any Australian-owned ship which is exempt from registration is nonetheless entitled to be registered if an application for registration is made.27

[3.130]

Certain other ships which have a clear connection with Australia may also be registered. These are: • small craft (that is, ships less than 12 metres in overall length28) which are wholly owned or entirely operated by either residents of Australia,29 Australian nationals, or both;30 and • ships on demise charter to Australian-based operators.31

[3.140]

Exclusivity of registration and nationality

A ship which is registered under the law of a foreign country32 cannot be registered under the Shipping Registration Act.33 This is so even if the ship is otherwise required to be registered under the Act. The effect of this requirement is to compel non-exempt Australian-owned ships to become registered in, and solely in, Australia, and to ensure that all ships registered in Australia have Australian nationality exclusively. The principle of exclusive Australian nationality for ships is considered to be in the national interest on the ground it avoids the possibility of an Australian ship being subject to conflicting national laws and conflicting supervisory jurisdictions. It also accords with the rule of public 24 Section 3(1). 25 See s 7. 26 Section 17(1). “Foreign country” is defined in s 3(1). 27 Section 14(a). 28 Section 3(1). For the method of determining the overall length of a ship, see s 10(1), (2). 29 A resident of Australia is defined in s 3(3). 30 Section 14(a), (b), (c). 31 Section 14(d). On what constitutes a demise charter to an Australian-based operator, see s 9. 32 A foreign country is any country other than Australia: s 3(1). 33 Section 17(1).

[3.170]

3 Registration of Ships

57

international law that a ship may sail on the high seas only under the flag and registration of one state.34 A corollary of this rule is that a ship which is ostensibly entitled to sail under the flags of two different countries is in the same position as a vessel which is not entitled to sail under the flag of any country: it is not entitled to sail on the high seas at all.35

REQUIREMENTS AND FORMALITIES FOR REGISTRATION Statutory requirements for registration Certificate of tonnage measurement and markings on ship

[3.150]

Most of the requirements for the registration of a ship are contained in the Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 (Cth).36 The Shipping Registration Act itself, however, specifies two particular requirements which must be complied with before a ship may be registered, whether in the General Register or the International Register.

[3.160]

Certificate of tonnage measurement

The first requirement of the Act is that a certificate of the tonnage measurement of the ship be lodged with the Registrar of Ships.37 The tonnage of a ship serves as the basis for such matters as the shipowner’s liability for damage caused by the ship, port and harbour dues, and the application of certain maritime regulations. The certificate is arranged by a surveyor from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. A certificate of tonnage measurement is not presently required of ships that are outside the scope of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969.38 The result of this is, in short, that a certificate is not required of ships which are not engaged on international voyages or which are less than 24 metres in tonnage length.39

[3.170]

Markings in accordance with the Regulations

The second registration requirement required by the Act is that the ship be marked in accordance with the Regulations with the marks directed by the Registrar of Ships.40 The Regulations require that a ship ordinarily be 34 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Art 92.1; R Jennings and A Watts (eds), Oppenheim’s International Law (9th ed, Longman, Harlow, 1992), Vol 1, Pt 2, p 731, para 287. 35 See R Jennings and A Watts (eds), Oppenheim’s International Law (9th ed, Longman, Harlow, 1992), Vol 1, Pt 2, p 731, para 287. 36 See ss 15(a), 15C(a). 37 Section 16(1). 38 Section 16(2); reg 10. 39 International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969, Sch 8, Arts 3(1), 4(1)(b) (with Art 2(8)). For the method of determining the tonnage length of a ship, see s 10(3); Shipping Registration Regulations, reg 6A. 40 Section 26(1).

58

Shipping Law

[3.180]

marked with its name on each bow, its name and home port on its stern, and its official number, together with either its net tonnage, registered tonnage or length (whichever is applicable to the particular ship) on its main beam.41 Once a ship has been registered, its markings must be maintained.42 It is an offence for anyone to do anything that results in the concealment, removal, alteration, defacing or obliteration of any marking required on a registered ship, other than for the purpose of escaping capture by an enemy.43 The offence is one of strict liability.44 Name of a ship

[3.180]

Generally speaking, any name may be chosen for a ship. However, the Registrar of Ships must disallow any proposed name if it is included in a prescribed class of names,45 and the Minister for Transport and Communications may disallow any proposed name if he or she is of the opinion that the name is likely to prejudice the international relations of the Commonwealth.46

The prescribed classes of names for ships are:47 • names of existing registered ships; • names approved by the Registrar in respect of ships that are in the course of registration; • names that are likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the name of an existing registered ship or a name approved for a ship in the course of registration; • names that are blasphemous or likely to be offensive to members of the public; • names of, or suggesting connection with, members of the Royal family or suggesting Royal patronage; • names falsely suggesting connection with: 1. the Crown; 2. the Commonwealth of Nations; 3. the Government of the Commonwealth, of a State, of a Territory, of any other country or of any legal subdivision of another country; 4. the United Nations; 5. the Defence Force or an arm of the Defence Force; 6. a Government department, authority or instrumentality of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or 41 Regulation 20(1), (3). 42 Section 26(2). 43 Sections 26(3), (4), 74(1). 44 Section 26(2A), (3A). 45 Section 27(3). 46 Section 28. 47 Regulation 21(2).

[3.230]

3 Registration of Ships

59

7. a municipal or other local government authority; • names that include a prefix comprising any letter or letters capable of indicating a type of ship (for example, “MV” for merchant vessel, and “FV” for fishing vessel).

[3.190]

Departmental prohibition on definite and indefinite articles

Besides the statutory prohibition on names which include prefix letters indicating a type of ship, as a matter of internal policy the Shipping Registration Office normally disallows the use of the definite and indefinite articles in the English language unless special circumstances can be established. Both prohibitions are designed to facilitate the easy identification of ships, especially by computer where an abundance of common prefixes, letters or words might otherwise lead to delay.

[3.200]

Suffix numerals allowed

The use of suffix numerals to distinguish ships which would otherwise bear the same name is allowed. Examples of this well-known in Australian yachting history were the Australian entrants for the 1987 America’s Cup yacht race off Fremantle, namely “Australia III” and “Australia IV”, and “Kookaburra II” and “Kookaburra III”.

[3.210]

Change of name

The name of a registered ship is not indelible. It can be changed in accordance with the procedure set out in the Act and Regulations.48

[3.220]

No property in names

Entry of the name of a ship in the relevant Shipping Register does not confer on the ship’s owners any property in the name. Accordingly, once the registration of a ship is closed, the ship’s name can be claimed by the owner of another ship, and the other ship may then be registered in this name.

[3.230]

Prohibition against misdescription of a ship

Section 27(1) of the Shipping Registration Act prohibits any person from describing a registered ship by any name other than that by which the ship is currently registered.49 This curious prohibition, which follows the former Imperial law, is almost certainly limited to the description of a registered ship for official purposes only. Old English authority can be found to support the proposition that this prohibition should not be construed with undue strictness.50

48 Section 27(2); reg 21(1). 49 Contravention of s 27(1) is also an offence: s 74(4C). 50 Bell, Assignee of Batley v Bank of London (1858) 28 LJ Ex 116.

60

Shipping Law

[3.240]

The validity of any transaction concerning a ship (for example, security over the ship) is not normally affected by a misdescription of the ship.51 It is unlikely that the current statutory prohibition against misdescription affects this ordinary rule. No minimum size of ship for registration

[3.240]

There is no minimum size of ship for the purpose of registration. Provided a floating object falls within the definition of a “ship” in s 3(1), it is entitled to be registered if an application is made. This means that even a very small craft such as a kayak or a rowing boat is entitled to be registered if it is classifiable as a “vessel capable of navigating the high seas”.

Formalities for registration [3.250]

An application for the registration of a ship is made by the owner lodging52 with the Registrar of Ships a written application containing the required information, together with the required documents.53 The latter include a document setting out the prescribed characteristics of the ship, documentary evidence of ownership of the ship traced back to the builder, a declaration of ownership and of the owner’s (or owners’) nationality, and notice of the ship’s registered agent.54 The written application and supporting documents are all retained by the Registrar. At the time the application is made, any licence or other document authorising the use of a call sign in relation to the ship must also be produced to the Registrar for noting.55 After the Registrar has specified the markings that are required on the ship, documentary evidence must be provided to the Registrar that the ship has been so marked.56

[3.260]

Form produced by the Australian Shipping Registration Office

There is no prescribed application form which must be used for the registration of a ship. The Australian Shipping Registration Office has, however, produced its own forms for an application for registration, declaration of ownership and nationality, builder’s certificate, and notice

51 Bell, Assignee of Batley v Bank of London (1858) 28 LJ Ex 116. 52 On what constitutes lodging, see Shipping Registration Regulations, reg 5. 53 Sections 15, 15C. The required information is in reg 7(2). 54 See regs 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 9. 55 Regulation 7A(2). 56 Regulation 7A(1)(b).

[3.290]

3 Registration of Ships

61

of appointment of a registered agent. These forms are available on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s website.57

[3.270]

Ship’s registered agent

For a ship to be registered, it must have a registered agent.58 The registered agent must be either the operator of the ship, the charterer, the ship’s agent, the person who manages the ship, or the managing owner (or any one such person if there is more than one) depending on the type of ship involved.59

[3.280]

Only a “completed” ship can be registered

One consequence of the formal requirements for registration60 is that a ship cannot be registered until its construction is completed for the purpose of the Shipping Registration Regulations. By reg 2(2), the construction of a ship is completed only when it becomes capable of navigating the high seas, whether under its own power or otherwise. This complements the statutory definition of a ship in s 3(1) of the Shipping Registration Act as a “vessel capable of navigating the high seas”. A ship under construction can thus be registered at the point where it is capable of navigating the high seas under tow, but not before then.

The practical steps for registration [3.290]

The practical steps for the registration of a ship are as follows. First, an application for registration must be made to the Registrar of Ships. This application must be accompanied by the required supporting documents and the required fee. If the application and supporting documents are in order, the Registrar will send the applicant a Marking Note which specifies the details that must be marked on the ship and the way in which they must be marked. After the ship has been properly marked, the applicant must return the Marking Note, duly signed and witnessed, to the Registrar. The Registrar will then send the applicant the ship’s Registration Certificate. The formalities for registration must be completed within six months from the time that the application for registration is lodged with the Registrar.61 The Registrar may extend this time period.

57 See http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/international/forms. 58 Section 64. For the powers and obligations of a ship’s registered agent, see the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s website: http://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels/shippingregistration. 59 Section 64(1). 60 See especially reg 7C(4), with reg 7C(5) and reg 8(1)(c). 61 Regulation 7A(3).

62

Shipping Law

[3.300]

REGISTRATION IN THE GENERAL REGISTER AND THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTER Exclusivity of the General Register or the International Register [3.300]

A ship may be registered in either the General Register or the International Register. It cannot be registered in both.62 A ship can, however, move from one register to the other provided that the necessary conditions for the other register are met.

The General Register [3.310]

Any Australian-owned ship may be registered in the Australian General Shipping Register.63 So too may any small craft that is wholly owned by an Australian resident or by an Australian resident and an Australian national, and any small craft that is operated solely by an Australian resident, an Australian national or both.64 A small craft is a ship that is less than 12 metres in overall length.65

A ship on demise charter to an Australian-based operator may also be registered in the General Register.66

The International Register [3.320]

For a ship to be registered in the Australian International Shipping Register, it must be a trading ship that is at least 24 metres in tonnage length.67 A trading ship is a ship that is engaged in commercial activity, other than a Government ship, a fishing vessel or a pleasure craft.68 The typical trading ship is a cargo ship or a passenger ship.69 In addition to being a trading ship, the ship must also either be:70 • Australian-owned; • wholly owned by an Australian resident or by an Australian resident and an Australian national; • operated solely by an Australian resident, an Australian national or both, or • on demise charter to Australian-based operators. 62 Section 17(1). 63 Section 14(a). 64 Section 14(b), (c). 65 Section 3(1). 66 Section 114(d). 67 Section 15B. For the method of determining the tonnage length of a ship, see s 10(3); Shipping Registration Regulations, reg 6A. 68 Section 3(1). “Government ship”, “fishing vessel” and “pleasure craft” are further defined in s 3(1). 69 See in this regard s 61AB(1). 70 Section 15B.

[3.350]

[3.330]

3 Registration of Ships

63

Conditions for remaining on the International Register

In order to remain on the International Register, the owner or operator of the ship must ensure that either the master or the chief mate, and either the chief engineer or the first engineer are Australian nationals or Australian residents. In this regard, the owner or operator must first seek to ensure that the master and chief engineer are Australian nationals or Australian residents, if this is reasonably possible.71

REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATES Entry in the relevant register [3.340]

When the requirements of the Shipping Registration Act and Regulations have been complied with, the Registrar of Ships registers the ship by entering the prescribed particulars in either the General Register or the International Register.72 These particulars comprise the ship’s official number, its name, home port, call sign, year of registration, place of construction, year of completion, tonnage, registered agent and prescribed physical characteristics, as well as the name, address and nationality of every person to whom the ship belongs and the extent of his or her interest in the ship.73 The Registrar must also enter the date and time of the entry.74

[3.350]

Registrar’s discretion on entry in the International Register

The Registrar of Ships does not have a discretion whether to enter a ship in the General Register if this is sought in the application for registration and the requirements for registration have been met.75 On the other hand, the Registrar does have a discretion on whether to register a ship in the International Register, even though all the conditions concerning the ownership, physical requirements and work of the ship are satisfied.76 In deciding whether to register a ship in the International Register, the Registrar of Ships must have regard to such factors as the age of the ship and any inspection records and inspection reports on its condition or classification.77 The Registrar must refuse to register the ship in the International Register if it will not be predominantly used to engage in international trading or if a collective agreement has not been made between the ship’s owner and the seafarers’ bargaining unit.78 A ship is 71 Section 33A. “Australian resident” is defined in s 3(1). 72 Sections 15E, 15F and reg 11. 73 Regulation 11(1), with reg 2(1) (definition of “prescribed characteristics”), Sch 1. 74 Regulation 41. 75 Section 15E. 76 Section 15F(1). 77 Section 15F(2). 78 Section 15F(3). On the seafarers’ bargaining unit, see s 11A.

64

Shipping Law

[3.360]

predominantly engaged in international trading if it spends more time in international trading than in coastal or interstate trading in a calendar year.79

[3.360]

Location and inspection of the Registers

The Registers are located at the Australian Shipping Registration Office, at Canberra.80 Partial copies of the Registers were once kept in branch offices located in Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Hobart, Fremantle and Darwin. They contained the entries for all the ships registered in the State or Territory concerned. That practice has now been discontinued. The Registers are now in electronic form81 with the result that they can now be inspected online anywhere upon payment of the prescribed fee.82 The Registers are open for public inspection.83 Anyone may obtain a copy of an entry in a Register upon payment of the prescribed fee.84

[3.370]

Correction of entries in the Registers

The entry of information in the ship Registers is an act of considerable responsibility, as this information might have very important consequences. For example, entry of a person’s name in a Register as the owner of a particular ship or share in a ship confers title to this property if this person is a bona fide purchaser for value from the registered owner of the ship or share.85 The integrity of the Registers is consequently regarded as a matter of the utmost importance.86 Because the integrity of the Registers is so important, the ability of the Registrar of Ships to correct entries in a Register is limited. He or she may correct only clerical errors or obvious mistakes in a Register.87 Any other errors or mistakes, for example such as may result from faults or errors in the documents presented to the Registrar, may be corrected by the Registrar only by order of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory,88 or by order of the Federal Court in a proceeding on a proprietary maritime claim.89 79 Section 3(1). 80 See s 54. 81 Section 57(2). 82 Section 57(5). 83 Section 57(1). 84 Section 57(4), (5). 85 See Chapter 5. 86 General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships (1982) 61 FLR 329 at 333. 87 Section 60. 88 Section 59(1). See General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships (1982) 61 FLR 329 esp at 332-334. Note also Brond v Broomhall [1906] 1 KB 571 (court of general jurisdiction also has power by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction to order rectification of the Register). 89 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 32.

[3.380]

[3.380]

3 Registration of Ships

65

Entry in a Register of alteration to a registered ship

The physical characteristics of a ship might be altered after registration — for example, to improve the ship or to change its function. In this case the physical characteristics of the ship might no longer correspond with the particulars of the ship’s tonnage or description in a Register. If this occurs, the ship’s registered agent must give the required notice to the appropriate official. If relevant characteristics of a registered ship are altered whilst the ship is in Australia, the ship’s registered agent must give the required notice of this fact to the Registrar of Ships within 14 days.90 The Registrar must then enter the alteration in the appropriate Register and grant a new registration certificate in respect of the ship.91 If relevant characteristics of a registered ship are altered when the ship is abroad, the registered agent must give notice of this to the appropriate Australian diplomatic or consular official at the port where the alteration occurs, or if there is no such person there or the alteration is made at sea, at the first port that it arrives at which has an official of this kind.92 If the ship arrives first at a port in Australia, the registered agent must give notice to the Registrar of Ships.93 If notice is given to a diplomatic or consular official, he or she must grant a provisional registration certificate in respect of the ship and forward to the Registrar of Ships both the notice of alteration to the ship and a copy of the certificate.94 Any person who has possession of a provisional registration certificate granted in accordance with these provisions is required to lodge it with the Registrar within 10 days of the ship arriving in Australia.95 Upon lodgment of the provisional registration certificate, the Registrar must enter the alteration in the Register.96 If the requirements concerning notice of alteration to a ship are not complied with, the owner of the ship commits an offence.97

90 Shipping Registration Act, s 65(1)(c); reg 31(1), (4). The Australian Shipping Registration Office has produced its own form for this purpose. This is available on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s website: see http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-andpublications/International. 91 Section 65(1)(e). Note, however, reg 31(8). 92 Section 65(1)(a), (b), with s 3(1) (definition of “proper officer”); reg 31(1). 93 Section 65(1)(c). 94 Section 65(1)(d), (3); reg 31(6), (7). 95 Section 65(5). 96 Section 65(6). Note, however, reg 31(8). 97 Sections 65(8), 74(2).

66

Shipping Law

[3.390]

Certificates and passes Registration certificates

[3.390]

Upon the registration of a ship in the General Register or in the International Register, the Registrar of Ships is required to grant the appropriate registration certificate in respect of the ship.98

[3.400]

Purpose for which a registration certificate may be used

The purpose for which a registration certificate may be used is strictly limited by the Shipping Registration Act. Section 20(1) states that a registration certificate cannot be used except for the purpose of the lawful navigation of the ship, and that it cannot be detained by virtue of a claim by an owner, mortgagee, charterer, operator or any other person to any title to, lien or charge on, or interest in, the ship concerned. A registration certificate accordingly cannot be detained by the ship’s master as security for any salary or money owing to him by the ship’s owner.99 Nor can it be used as security for a loan or as security for compliance with a promise or undertaking.100 If a registration certificate is used as security, the pledge is void and the certificate may be claimed at any time by any person having a right to its possession.101 The restrictions on the use of a registration certificate apply equally to a provisional registration certificate.102 Any person who improperly uses a registration or provisional registration certificate commits an offence.103

[3.410]

Proper custodian of registration certificate

There is no provision which requires a particular person to have the custody of a ship’s registration certificate, or for this document to be kept in any particular place. As a matter of practice, the master of a ship retains custody of the ship’s registration certificate. It is, indeed, necessary for the master to have custody of a ship’s registration certificate if the ship is to undertake an overseas voyage, for a ship is not normally allowed to berth at a foreign port without its registration certificate being produced to the port authorities. There is also a rule of public international law that a ship sailing on the high seas must carry proper identification papers, which is taken to include a registration or similar certificate.104 Both 98 Section 19. 99 Gibson v Ingo (1847) 6 Hare 112; 67 ER 1103 at 118; 1106. 100 Wiley v Crawford (1861) 30 LJQB 319. 101 See Wiley v Crawford (1861) 30 LJQB 319. 102 Section 20(4). 103 Section 74(1). 104 See the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Art 91.2; R Jennings and A Watts (eds), Oppenheim’s International Law (9th ed, Longman, Harlow, 1992), Vol 1, Pt 2, p 734, para 290.

[3.430]

3 Registration of Ships

67

s 37A(1) of the Shipping Registration Act and reg 13(1), (2) of the Shipping Registration Regulations impliedly recognise that the registration certificate is normally located aboard any ship that is not at an Australian port. There is old English authority for the proposition that when a ship is not at sea, the ship’s master remains the proper person to have custody of the registration certificate, and not its owner unless he or she intends to replace the master.105 Any person who has possession or control of a registration certificate, including here a provisional registration certificate,106 must deliver it on demand to the person who is entitled to its custody for the purposes of the lawful navigation of the ship, or to the Registrar or other person who is entitled by law to require its delivery.107 Otherwise he or she commits an offence of strict liability.108 Provisional registration certificates

[3.420]

There are provisions in the Act for the granting of a form of interim or temporary registration certificate called a provisional registration certificate. This may be granted either to a ship which is unregistered but requires prompt interim registration, or to a ship that is registered but requires a new registration certificate promptly when it is outside Australia. A ship may be granted provisional registration under either the General Register or the International Register.109

[3.430]

Provisional registration certificate for unregistered ships

An unregistered ship might require prompt registration in two circumstances. The first is where the ship is outside Australia and requires registration in Australia to continue its journey. This might occur, for example, where ownership of the ship changes whilst it is abroad and it thereby becomes an Australian-owned ship as defined by the Act. As is observed in [4.230], a ship which is entitled to be registered in Australia normally requires Australian registration in order to continue an overseas voyage, even if it is otherwise an exempt ship, because unless it is so registered it is not permitted to depart from a foreign port at which there is an Australian diplomatic or consular official. Registration, however, can be a reasonably lengthy process. There is accordingly a need for a form of prompt interim registration until the requirements for proper registration are completed. 105 Arkle v Henzell (1858) 8 El & Bl 828; 120 ER 309 at 834-835, 835, 836; 312. 106 Section 20(4). 107 Section 20(2). 108 Sections 20(2B), 74(1). 109 Regulations 14(2), 15(1), 31(5).

68

Shipping Law

[3.440]

There is a similar need for prompt interim registration where an unregistered ship in Australia is due to travel overseas and the registration formalities cannot be completed before the time that the journey is to commence. This situation is sometimes faced by the owner of a private pleasure craft who plans an overseas voyage but is unaware until just before the time of departure of the need for registration before the boat is permitted to travel overseas.110 The Act covers both of the situations just described. It provides that a provisional registration certificate may be granted where a ship becomes entitled to be registered111 whilst it is at sea or in a foreign port, or where a ship is entitled to be registered and is in an Australian port but is about to depart from Australia.112 If a ship becomes registrable out of Australia, a provisional registration certificate may be granted either by an Australian diplomatic or consular official at a foreign port113 or by the Registrar of Ships.114 If the ship is in Australia, a provisional registration certificate may be granted only by the Registrar of Ships.115 In either case, a provisional certificate may be granted only if an application has been lodged for the full registration of the ship and this application has not yet been determined.116

[3.440]

Provisional registration certificate for registered ships

A provisional registration certificate may be granted for a registered ship which is outside Australia in two circumstances. The first is where the registration certificate has been mislaid, lost or destroyed during the course of the voyage.117 The second is where the ship has been altered in such a way that it no longer corresponds with the particulars of its tonnage or description contained in the relevant Shipping Register.118 In both cases a provisional certificate may be granted by an Australian diplomatic or consular official at a foreign port.119 In the former case it may also be granted by the Registrar of Ships.120

110 See 135 H Rep Deb 222 (29 February 1984). 111 This statutory expression covers both a ship required to be registered and a ship permitted to be registered under the Act: s 3(1). 112 Sections 22(1), 22A(1), (2). 113 Section 22(1), with s 3(1) (definition of “proper officer”). 114 Section 22A(1). 115 Section 22A(2). 116 Section 22B. 117 Section 21(2). 118 Section 65(1). 119 Sections 21(2), 65(1)(a), (b), (d), with s 3(1) (definition of “proper officer”). 120 Section 21(2).

[3.460]

[3.450]

3 Registration of Ships

69

Effect and duration of provisional registration certificate

A provisional registration certificate has the same general effect as a registration certificate proper. In particular, the ship in respect of which it is issued is deemed to be registered.121 A provisional certificate initially has effect only for six months or until the ship arrives at an Australian port, whichever happens first,122 though the Registrar of Ships may subsequently extend the six-month time limit.123 A provisional certificate must be surrendered to — technically lodged with — the Registrar of Ships within 10 days of the ship arriving at an Australian port.124 The Registrar may then grant a further provisional registration certificate in respect of the ship.125 If the ship is already registered, the Registrar may grant a full registration certificate instead.126 Temporary passes

[3.460]

Convenient though a provisional registration certificate might be as a form of temporary registration certificate, it has the drawback that it may be granted to an unregistered ship only if there is an application pending for the registration of the ship. It would, however, be inconvenient for the owners of many ships to have to seek full registration in order to make simply an isolated voyage overseas. There is accordingly provision in the Act for the grant of a further kind of interim registration certificate called a temporary pass. This is especially useful to enable yacht owners to take part in overseas races and to enable shipbuilders to deliver an unregistered ship to a buyer overseas.

A temporary pass authorises an unregistered ship to travel on a particular voyage either from an Australian port to a foreign port, from a foreign port to an Australian port, or between two different foreign ports.127 The journey permitted by a temporary pass is thus very limited. In particular, a pass does not allow more than one trip, or even a return trip. If a return trip is necessary, two passes must be obtained. A temporary pass is granted by the Registrar of Ships at the direction of the Australian Safety Maritime Authority.128 The Authority is empowered to direct the grant of a temporary pass only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances for so doing.129 121 Sections 21(3), 22(2), 22A(3), 65(2). 122 Sections 21(3), 22(2), 22A(3), 65(2). 123 Sections 21(5), 22(4), 22A(4), 65(4). 124 Sections 21(6), 22(5), 22A(5), 65(5). 125 Sections 21(7)(a), 22(6), 22A(6). 126 Sections 21(7)(b), 65(6). 127 Section 23(1). 128 Section 23(1). 129 Section 23(1).

70

Shipping Law

[3.470]

[3.470]

Effect of a temporary pass

A temporary pass has the same general effect as a registration certificate.130 For the purposes of the voyage to which a temporary pass applies, the ship is deemed to be registered.131 It seems clear from this that a temporary pass deems a ship to be registered only for the purpose of making the particular voyage concerned, and not for any other purpose — for example, conferring title. Improper use of a certificate or pass

[3.480]

It is an offence for anyone to use a registration certificate, a provisional registration certificate or a temporary pass in relation to any ship other than that to which the certificate or pass relates.132

CLOSURE AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION Introduction [3.490]

From a narrow point of view, once a ship has properly been registered it never ceases to be registered as its entry is never removed from the General Register or International Register. This is so even if the registration of a ship in the International Register is cancelled.133 Only if a ship has improperly been registered can its entry be expunged, and then only upon an order for the rectification of the Register by either the Supreme Court of a State or Territory,134 or the Federal Court in a proceeding on a proprietary maritime claim.135 A registered ship nonetheless ceases in law to be registered136 and loses all the benefits of being a registered ship, and is commonly spoken of as being “unregistered”,137 when its registration is closed or deemed to be closed. A ship registered in the International Register also in law ceases to be registered if its registration is cancelled.138

Closure of registration [3.500]

Under the Shipping Registration Act, the registration of a ship can be either closed or simply deemed to be closed. Put shortly, registration of a ship is “closed” if this results from a voluntary act by the

130 Section 23(3). 131 Section 23(3). 132 Sections 25, 74(4A). 133 Regulation 22C(2)(b). 134 Section 59(1). 135 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 32. 136 See s 3A. 137 See Mortimer v Wisker [1914] 3 KB 699 at 704. See also Manchester Ship Canal Co v Horlock [1914] 2 Ch 199 at 207 (a ship whose registration is closed has “ceased to be a registered ship”). 138 Section 3A.

[3.510]

3 Registration of Ships

71

owner seeking closure of the ship’s registration.139 The registration of a ship is “deemed to be closed” if this results from action taken by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority or the Registrar of Ships because the ship is not entitled to be registered.140 Be that as it may, the distinction between “closed” and “deemed closed” has no practical consequences so far as the ship is concerned. The effects are the same. The registration of a ship is closed, or in appropriate cases deemed to be closed, when the Registrar of Ships makes an entry in the Register noting any of the following facts: • that he or she has received an application for closure from the sole owner of a ship or by a representative of the owners of at least 33 of the 64 shares in a ship, provided that the ship is not required to be registered under the Act;141 • that the ship has been lost (whether actually or constructively), taken by an enemy, burnt or broken up;142 or • that the ship has ceased to be entitled to be registered (for example, because it has ceased to be an Australian-owned ship, or has ceased to be capable of navigating the high seas).143

[3.510]

“Lost (whether actually or constructively)”

Although there is no judicial authority directly on point, it seems clear that a ship is actually lost at least if it is wrecked beyond repair or has sunk irretrievably to the bottom of the sea.144 In the context of s 158 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), concerning the termination of a seaman’s services by reason of “wreck or loss of the ship”, the unqualified term “loss” has been held to mean loss or destruction of the ship as a physical entity, but not loss to the owner simply by capture, detention or deprivation.145 A ship is constructively lost only if it is deemed to be totally lost for the purposes of marine insurance.146 In the context of marine insurance, the 139 See reg 33. 140 See ss 58, 66. 141 Regulation 33. 142 Section 66(2), (3). 143 Section 66(2), (3). 144 See Roux v Salvador (1836) 3 Bing (NC) 266; 132 ER 413 at 288; 421; Broomfield v Southern Insurance Co Ltd (1870) LR 5 Ex 196. 145 Sivewright v Allen [1906] 2 KB 81 at 86, 87; Collins v Simpson Steamship Co (1907) 24 TLR 178 at 180; Beal v Horlock [1915] 3 KB 627 at 635, 647; Horlock v Beal [1916] AC 486 at 493, 499, 517, 524. See also Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling & Fishing Co Ltd [1933] AC 402 at 426-428; British Steamship Owners’ Association v Chapman & Son (1935) 52 Ll L Rep 169 at 171. 146 Manchester Ship Canal Co v Horlock [1914] 2 Ch 199 at 208-209 (a ship which had sunk and been raised by salvors, and was lying in safety on a pontoon, held to be constructively lost as it was deemed to be a constructive total loss for the purposes of a marine insurance policy). See also Cossman v West; Cossman v British America Assurance Co (1887) 13 App Cas 160 at 169.

72

Shipping Law

[3.520]

expression “total loss” includes loss to an owner by sale to a third party following an adverse judgment in rem.147

[3.520]

Notice by owner and inquiries by Registrar or Maritime Safety Authority

If a registered ship is lost (whether actually or constructively), taken by an enemy, burnt or broken up, or ceases to be entitled to be registered, and the registered owner148 knows of this, he or she is required to give notice in writing to the Registrar of Ships unless such notice has already been provided to the Registrar.149 The owner might, however, neglect to do so, or be unable to do so (for example, because he or she is lost with the ship at sea), or there might be some other reason why the registration of a ship remains open when it should be deemed closed (for example, because the whereabouts of the owner and even the whereabouts of the ship are now unknown). The Act accordingly empowers either the Registrar or the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to take the initiative and inquire whether any event has occurred which justifies closure of a ship’s registration. The Registrar of Ships may require information from a registered owner or registered agent of a ship if he or she suspects either that particulars entered in a Register in relation to the ship are incorrect, or that a required notice has not been given in respect of an entry in the Register, or that a ship has been lost, taken by an enemy, burnt or broken up.150 If the required information is not forthcoming, or if the Registrar considers that the information received might justify closure of the ship’s registration, the Registrar must inform the Australian Maritime Safety Authority of this.151 The Authority may then give the Registrar such written notice as it thinks fit with respect to either the closure of the ship’s registration or an entry, or amendment of an entry, to be made in the relevant Register.152 This notice then has the same effect under the Act as notice from the owner of the ship on the matter in question.153 If the Australian Maritime Safety Authority suspects that a registered ship is not entitled to be registered, it can require the ship’s registered agent to furnish it with evidence of the ship’s ownership.154 If the registered agent fails to satisfy the Authority that the ship is entitled to be registered, it 147 Cossman v West; Cossman v British America Assurance Co (1887) 13 App Cas 160 at 169-170. 148 See s 62. 149 Section 66(1), (1A). See Mentink v Registrar of the Australian Registrar of Ships (2012) 277 FLR 248 at 257-258. 150 Section 58(1). 151 Section 58(2). 152 Section 58(2A). 153 See s 58(3). 154 Section 67(1).

[3.550]

3 Registration of Ships

73

may give the Registrar notice in writing to close the registration of the ship.155 This notice again has the same effect under the Act as notice from the owner of the ship that the ship has ceased to be entitled to be registered.156

[3.530]

Time from which deemed closure is effective

Where the registration of a ship is deemed to be closed, the deemed closure takes effect immediately upon the Registrar making the required entry in the relevant Register.157

Cancellation of registration in the International Shipping Register [3.540]

The Registrar of Ships may cancel the registration of a ship registered in the International Shipping Register if he or she is satisfied that: • the ship has not, or will not be, predominantly used or engaged in international trading;158 • an agreement with the seafarers’ bargaining unit is not in force when the ship is engaged in international trading;159 • the ship has contravened the Shipping Registration Act, the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth), the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (Cth), or the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 (Cth);160 • the ship is substandard or not seaworthy;161 • the ship’s owner has failed to meet the requirements of the Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 (Cth) in relation to the registration of the ship.162

Consequences of closure or cancellation [3.550]

Upon the registration of a ship being closed or deemed closed, or upon the registration being cancelled, the ship is regarded in law as unregistered.163 A ship which is otherwise required to be registered will thus lose its Australian nationality and cease to enjoy the rights and privileges of an Australian ship if its registration is closed or cancelled. When the registration of a ship is closed or deemed to be closed, the person having possession of the registration certificate must return it

155 Section 67(2). 156 Section 67(2). 157 Sections 58(3), 66(3). 158 Section 33B(1)(c). 159 Section 33B(1)(d). 160 Section 33B(1)(a); reg 2A. 161 Section 33B(1)(b). 162 Section 33B(1)(e); reg 22B. 163 Section 3A.

74

Shipping Law

[3.560]

either to the Registrar of Ships or to an Australian diplomatic or consular official if this has not already been done.164 When the registration of a ship is cancelled, the ship’s owner must surrender the registration certificate to the Registrar as soon as possible.165

[3.560]

Informal “deletion certificate” may be granted

When a ship’s registration is closed or deemed to be closed, or when a ship’s registration is cancelled, the Registrar of Ships may upon request and upon payment of a fee grant a “deletion certificate”. This certificate has three parts, namely a statement that the ship is no longer registered in Australia and the circumstances by which registration is closed, a statement of the registered owners at the time of the closure, and a statement of the registered description of the ship at the time of the closure. A deletion certificate is formally an extract of the relevant Register. It is made pursuant to s 77(2) of the Shipping Registration Act.

[3.570]

Re-registration of a ship

Once the registration of a ship is closed or deemed to be closed, the registration cannot be revived. Instead, the ship must be re-registered if the owner wishes the ship once again to enjoy the benefits of registration.166

[3.580]

Suspension of registration not possible

There is no provision in the Shipping Registration Act which enables the registration of a ship to be suspended for a period, rather than closed. Suspension of registration might be thought desirable, for example, when an Australian-owned ship is demise chartered for a short term to a foreign resident who plans to register the ship in a foreign country for the duration of the charter. In a situation such as that, the registration of the ship must be closed for the period of the demise charter and the ship then re-registered upon reverting to the control of its Australian owners.

[3.590]

Informal “suspension certificate” may be granted

If a ship’s registration is closed because it is on a demise charter to a foreign resident but it is envisaged that the ship will be registered again at the end of the charter, the Registrar of Ships may grant a “suspension certificate” to the charterer in order to satisfy overseas registration requirements. Like a deletion certificate, a suspension certificate is formally an extract of the relevant Register. It is made pursuant to s 77(2) of the Shipping Registration Act. 164 See s 66(10), with s 3(1) (definition of “proper officer”); reg 32. 165 Regulation 22C(2)(a). 166 Manchester Ship Canal Co v Horlock [1914] 2 Ch 199 at 207.

[3.610]

3 Registration of Ships

75

Revocation of registration certificate [3.600]

The Registrar of Ships has power to revoke a registration certificate, or indeed any other document required under the Shipping Registration Act.167 The grounds for revocation are not, however, stated either in the Act or in the regulations made under it. It is assumed that the Registrar would revoke a registration certificate only if information has been wrongly recorded on the certificate or if registration in the International Shipping Register has been cancelled.

REGISTRATION UNDER STATE AND TERRITORIAL LAWS [3.610]

The Shipping Registration Act preserves the right of the States and Territories to enact legislation for the recording or registration of ships provided the purpose of this is not to establish or transfer title, or grant nationality to a ship.168

The Marine Acts or related legislation of all States and the Northern Territory make provision, either expressly or through regulations, for the registration or licensing of ships and boats, particularly small vessels like recreational craft and fishing vessels. The general purpose of these Acts is either to identify a person as being the person who claims to be the owner of a vessel (for example, for contact purposes in the event of an accident), to license a vessel for a particular purpose (for example, to carry passengers or to be let out for hire), or to certify that a vessel has met safety requirements for its use on water.

167 Section 49(1)(b). 168 Section 79.

4

Consequences of Registration [4.10] INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 77 [4.20] NATIONALITY ................................................................................................... 78

[4.20] Registration and nationality ............................................................... 78 [4.40] The nationality provision ................................................................... 79 [4.70] CONSEQUENCES OF AUSTRALIAN NATIONALITY .............................. 81

[4.70] Introduction .......................................................................................... 81 [4.80] Importation of Australian law aboard ship .................................... 81 [4.150] Right to fly the national colours ..................................................... 87 [4.220] CONFERMENT OF TITLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ................ 90 [4.230] LIBERTY TO TRAVEL OVERSEAS ............................................................... 90 [4.240] LIMITATION ON METHOD OF TRANSFER ............................................. 91 [4.250] A SPURIOUS CONSEQUENCE OF REGISTRATION: THE “RIGHT” TO NAVAL PROTECTION ............................................................................. 91

INTRODUCTION [4.10]

There are four main legal consequences of registration of a ship. The first three are benefits of registration; the fourth is a limitation. The four consequences are: • the conferment of Australian nationality on the ship; • liberty for the ship to travel overseas; • the conferment of title to the ship in certain circumstances; and • limitation on the method of transfer of the ship. The first two of these consequences of registration are considered in this chapter. The other two are considered in detail in the course of [5.180]–[5.200], [6.60] and [6.90]. Until December 2009, there was a further legal consequence of registration of a ship: a registered ship could be made the subject of a registered mortgage in the Register of Ships. Security interests on ships are now registrable in the Personal Property Securities Register under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). Registered mortgages in the Register of

78

Shipping Law

[4.20]

Ships were transferred (“migrated” to use the statutory term) to the Personal Property Securities Register upon the commencement of the operative provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act on 30 January 2012.

NATIONALITY Registration and nationality [4.20]

Registration confers upon a ship the two-fold status of being an Australian ship and of having Australian nationality.1 This status is not, however, confined to registered ships. The Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) provides that certain unregistered2 ships which are not required to be registered are also Australian ships and have Australian nationality. These are:3 • exempt Australian-owned ships (namely ships less than 24 metres in tonnage length, Government ships and exempt fishing vessels and pleasure craft4); • ships wholly owned by Australian residents or by Australian residents and Australian nationals; and • ships operated solely by Australian residents, by Australian nationals, or by both. If a ship is required to be registered in Australia but is not registered, the Act states that it cannot be recognised as an Australian ship and is not entitled to any of the benefits, privileges, advantages or protection that are usually enjoyed by a registered ship.5 Such a ship is nonetheless subject to the same fees, charges and penalties as a registered ship.6

[4.30]

Offences

It is an offence for the master or owner of an Australian ship to do anything, or to permit anything to be done, which conceals the fact that it is an Australian ship, except for the purpose of escaping capture by an enemy.7 It is also an offence for the master or owner of a non-Australian ship to do anything, or to permit anything to be done, that results in the ship appearing to be an Australian ship, again except for the purpose of

1 Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 29(1)(a). 2 “Unregistered” here means unregistered under either the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) or the law of a foreign country: s 29(3). 3 Section 29(1)(b). 4 See s 13. 5 Section 63(1). 6 See s 63(2). 7 Section 33(1), (2). For the penalties, see s 74(4A).

[4.50]

4 Consequences of Registration

79

escaping capture by an enemy.8 These are offences of strict liability.9 Where such an offence is committed, the ship itself is also subject to forfeiture.10

The nationality provision [4.40]

The provision concerning the nationality of ships is contained in s 29(1) of the Shipping Registration Act 1981. This commences: “The following ships shall, for all purposes, be taken to be Australian ships and to have Australian nationality”. It then specifies all registered ships and certain unregistered ships.

[4.50]

“Australian ship”, “having Australian nationality”

Although the terms of s 29(1) might appear to indicate that being an Australian ship and having Australian nationality are two distinct notions, the accepted view is that these are simply two aspects of a single status, the one notion implying the other. This view is partially supported by the definition of an “Australian ship” in s 3(1) as “a ship having Australian nationality by virtue of section 29”. It is also supported by the tenor of the Act as a whole, which makes no differentiation of substance between an Australian ship and a ship having Australian nationality. (It may be observed in this regard that in the United Kingdom there is no difference between a British ship and a ship having British nationality.11) The presently accepted construction of s 29(1), by which an Australian ship and a ship having Australian nationality are equivalent notions, removes the possibility that an unregistered Australian-owned ship which is required to be registered may still have Australian nationality at common law, even though by s 63(1)(a) such a ship must not be recognised as an Australian ship. At common law, the nationality of a ship was determined by the nationality of its owner unless it was employed under letters of marque,12 in which case its nationality was that of the government which granted those letters.13 If the presently accepted construction of s 29(1) is correct, a ship cannot have Australian nationality at common law: it can only have Australian nationality pursuant to the provisions of s 29(1). 8 Section 32(1), (2). For the penalties, see s 74(4A). 9 Sections 32(3), 33(3). 10 Sections 32(1), 33(1). 11 Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124. See also Bell v Mansfield (1893) 19 VLR 165 at 177. 12 Letters of marque were letters from a sovereign permitting a subject to capture merchant ships of a hostile state. They were abolished by the Declaration of Paris 1856. 13 See Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London & China v Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1883) 10 QBD 521 at 535-536. Under the common law rule, differing nationalities of joint owners is not envisaged. See also Ponting v Huddart, Parker & Co Ltd (1897) 22 VLR 644 at 659; Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association (1913) 16 CLR 664 at 693; Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124.

80

Shipping Law

[4.60]

There is, however, a problem which might militate against the construction of equivalence which has just been presented. This is that there is no clear indication in the Act that the ships referred to in s 29(1) are the only ones which can have Australian nationality. This problem is perhaps heightened by the fact that s 63(1)(a) clearly implies that the ships listed in s 29(1) are the only ones which can be recognised as “Australian ships” (with no reference to Australian nationality). Be that as it may, for the reasons which have just been outlined, the better view is that the only ships which have Australian nationality are those which come within the scope of s 29(1). Section 29(1) may accordingly be regarded as a complete code on the nationality of ships even though there is no clear statement in the Act that this is so. There is some authority for the proposition that an unregistered Australian-owned ship which is required to be registered is still “in a certain sense”, or “in the larger sense of the term”, an Australian ship, even though s 63(1)(a) states that it must not be recognised as such.14 The argument here is that an unregistered Australian-owned ship which is required to be registered always retains its general character as an Australian ship, and can accordingly be regarded as an Australian ship for some purposes, despite the fact that it is not an Australian ship in the strict sense.15 This distinction in truth says little more than that an Australian-owned ship may be regarded as an Australian ship in a loose, general sense whether or not it is registered, and that this may be relevant for some legal purposes (for example, where it is clear that an Australian ship in such a broader sense is contemplated by statute), even though by s 63(1)(a) it would not otherwise be recognised as an Australian ship until it is registered. This distinction is thus obvious and of little consequence for present purposes.

[4.60]

“For all purposes”

Section 29(1) states that the ships specified in this subsection are to be taken to be Australian ships and to have Australian nationality “for all purposes”. This means that the operation of this subsection is not confined to the Shipping Registration Act but extends to all aspects of Australian law. The expression “for all purposes” does not mean that all registered ships are Australian ships and have Australian nationality regardless of whether their registration is proper. It thus does not imply that the Australian status of a ship which is improperly registered is protected. It is presently uncertain whether proof that a registered ship is improperly registered without more affects its ostensible status as an Australian ship 14 See Union Bank of London v Lenanton (1878) 3 CPD 243 at 247. See also Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association (1913) 16 CLR 664 at 693. 15 See Ponting v Huddart, Parker & Co Ltd (1897) 22 VLR 644 at 658-659.

[4.90]

4 Consequences of Registration

81

and as a ship having Australian nationality,16 or whether this simply justifies rectification of the Register or closure of registration.

CONSEQUENCES OF AUSTRALIAN NATIONALITY Introduction [4.70]

Two main consequences follow from the fact that a ship has Australian nationality. First, the ship imports Australian law aboard it, though the extent to which it does so is subject to some uncertainty. Secondly, the ship is entitled to fly the national colours, and in some circumstances it must do so. Both of these matters require detailed consideration.

Importation of Australian law aboard ship Law aboard ships generally

[4.80]

It is commonly said that a ship of a particular nationality carries with it the law of the country of its nationality. So, for example, Blackburn J said in R v Anderson,17 “When a ship is sailing on the high seas, and bearing the flag of a particular nation, the ship forms part of that nation’s country, and all persons on board of her may be considered as within the jurisdiction of that nation whose flag is flying on the ship, in the same manner as if they were within the territory of that nation.”

[4.90]

Four initial observations on R v Anderson

Four initial observations should be made concerning the statement by Blackburn J in R v Anderson.18 The first is that the expression “high seas” here bears its wide Admiralty meaning. It thus means all tidal waters below low-water mark, even if these waters go inland.19 A ship in a foreign port or on a foreign river may thus still be on the high seas and subject to the law of its national country even though it is also within the domestic jurisdiction of another country.20 The second is that the law of 16 See R v Bjornsen (1865) 10 Cox CC 74 (proof that a ship was improperly registered held sufficient to deprive it of its ostensible status as a British ship). See also Ponting v Huddart, Parker & Co Ltd (1897) 22 VLR 644. 17 R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161 at 169. 18 R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161. 19 General Iron Screw Collier Co v Schurmanns (1860) 29 LJ Ch 877 at 879; Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177 at 184, 233; R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203 at 226; Gibbs v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2003) 77 ALJR 1396 at 1400, 1432. 20 See R v Allen (1837) 1 Moo CC 494; 168 ER 1357 (sailor on board British ship on the Wampu River in China 20-30 miles from the sea held subject to English law); R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161 (sailor on board a British ship 45 miles up the Garonne River in France held subject to English law); R v Carr and Wilson (1882) 10 QBD 76 (British ship moored at Rotterdam in Holland 18 miles from the sea held subject to English law). See also R v Ross (1854) 2 Legge 857; R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63 at 94, 161; R v Lesley (1860) Bell CC 220; 169 ER 1236 at 233; 1242.

82

Shipping Law

[4.100]

the national country applies to everyone on board the ship, regardless of his or her personal nationality or reason for being aboard that ship.21 The third observation is that the references to the flag of a particular nation are strictly references to the ship’s nationality. It is a ship’s nationality that imports on board the laws of a particular country, not the mere fact that it is flying that country’s flag.22 Finally, the statement that a ship forms part of the nation’s country is purely metaphorical.23 Like the related statement that a ship is a floating island,24 this statement is not to be taken literally. It means simply that the domestic courts of a country will take cognisance of acts done on board its ships as if they had taken place in that country.25

[4.100]

Extent to which a ship carries the law of its country of nationality

Although it is common to find judicial statements to the effect that a ship of a particular nationality carries with it the law of the country of its nationality, there seems little doubt that broad statements such as this do not accurately state the law. There is certainly no ratio decidendi to support the proposition that the nationality of a ship imports on board the entire body of law of the country of that nationality. The main cases which appear to support such a proposition, like R v Anderson,26 are cases which concern only criminal law. It is indeed impossible to support even as a general theory the proposition that the nationality of a ship imports on board the entire law of the country of nationality, as many countries encompass more than one system of law. This is obviously true of all federal countries like Australia, Canada and the United States, and it is also true of some non-federal countries like the United Kingdom. The situation in respect of ships of the United Kingdom — that is, British ships, with British nationality — is particularly instructive in this regard, In some of these cases judges improperly refer to “English ships” when they should strictly have said British ships. English ships ceased to exist with the Union with Scotland Act 1706: see Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124. These judges might perhaps here mean British ships with an English port of registry, though this seems unlikely. 21 R v Lopez (1858) Dears & B 525; 169 ER 1105 at 545; 1113; R v Lesley (1860) Bell CC 220; 169 ER 1236 at 234; 1242; R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161; R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63 at 161; R v Carr and Wilson (1882) 10 QBD 76 at 85, 86; Robey v Vladinier (1935) 53 Ll L Rep 121 at 122. 22 R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63 at 161. 23 See also R v Bjornsen (1865) 10 Cox CC 74 at 81; Marshall v Murgatroyd (1870) LR 6 QB 31 at 33-34; R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63 at 94, 101, 113, 118, 161. 24 See Forbes v Cochrane (1824) 2 B & C 448; 107 ER 450 at 464; 456; R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161 at 168; The Angel Bell [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 491 at 495; The Evpo Agnic [1988] 1 WLR 1090. 25 R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63 at 94; Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124. See also Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London & China v Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1883) 10 QBD 521 at 544; Chung Chi Cheung v The Queen [1939] AC 160 at 174-175; R v Gordon-Finlayson; Ex parte an Officer [1941] 1 KB 171. 26 R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161.

[4.110]

4 Consequences of Registration

83

not least because cases concerning British ships are primarily responsible for the broad proposition that the law on board ship is the law of the ship’s nationality. The truth is, however, that ships with British nationality cannot be subject to British law, for there is no such thing. What the cases concerning British ships strictly mean is very limited. It is simply that for the purposes of the exercise of English Admiralty jurisdiction, the law applicable in respect of any crime committed on board a British ship on the high seas is English law.27 This leaves open the question of what law applies on board a British ship for other purposes.28 There is Canadian authority for the proposition that where a nation embraces more than one system of law, the civil law which operates on board a ship of that nation on the high seas is the law applicable at the ship’s port of registry. This is the case in Canadian National Steamships Co v Watson.29 There the court expressed the view that the law governing an alleged tort committed on the high seas on board a British ship registered at Vancouver and owned by a Canadian company was the law of British Columbia. No justification was given for this view of the law, though it has the obvious advantage of attaching to a ship a system of law with which it has a clear connection.30 Criminal law aboard Australian ships prior to the present cooperative scheme

[4.110]

Until 1982, when the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) commenced operation, Australian law relating to the status of ships was the same as that of England. According to English law, a ship had British nationality if, in short, it was owned solely by British subjects.31 This was so whether or not the ship was registered under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP).32 Moreover, according to English law, Australian citizens were 27 Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 125. 28 For two rare English non-criminal cases concerning the law on board ship, see Forbes v Cochrane (1824) 2 B & C 448; 107 ER 450 (slaves on board a British ship become free men); Marshall v Murgatroyd (1870) LR 6 QB 31 (illegitimate child born on board a British ship deemed born in England for affiliation purposes). The soundness of the latter case must, however, be doubted in light of R v Gordon-Finlayson; Ex parte an Officer [1941] 1 KB 171. 29 National Steamships Co v Watson[1939] 1 DLR 273. See also Gronlund v Hansen (1969) 4 DLR (3d) 435. Compare Blunden v Commonwealth (2003) 78 ALJR 236 (concerning tort committed aboard a ship of the Royal Australian Navy, which does not have a port of registry). 30 For choice of law rules for torts committed on board a ship, see N Rein, “Raising the Flag: Revisiting Choice of Law Rules for Shipboard Torts” (2014) 88 ALJ 247. 31 Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London & China v Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1883) 10 QBD 521 at 535-536; Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124; Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), s 1. 32 Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London & China v Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1883) 10 QBD 521 at 535-536; Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124.

84

Shipping Law

[4.110]

deemed to be British subjects.33 This meant, following the principles which have already been considered, that for the purposes of English Admiralty jurisdiction, the criminal law that was applicable on board all Australian-owned ships on the high seas was English law. Until 1979, the powers possessed by Australian courts to punish offences committed on board ships on the high seas were, by virtue of Imperial legislation,34 the same as those of English courts exercising Admiralty jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the purpose of Australian law, the general criminal law applicable on board all Australian-owned ships on the high seas was English law.35 It is true that the Commonwealth Parliament had made certain extra-territorial acts Commonwealth offences and to this extent Australian law applied aboard Australian-owned ships. However, as a broad principle, the criminal law on board an Australian-owned ship on the high seas was English law. The anomalous situation which resulted from that state of the law was well demonstrated by the decision in Oteri v The Queen36 of 1976. There the Privy Council agreed with the Supreme Court of Western Australia that a theft committed some 22 miles off the Western Australian coast on board a fishing vessel owned by Australians resident in Fremantle was governed by the English Theft Act 1968, and not by Western Australian criminal law. Lord Diplock observed in this case that it was surprising that despite the passing of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (IMP) and the creation of separate Australian citizenship, “Parliament in the United Kingdom when it passes a statute which creates a new criminal offence in English law is also legislating for those Australian passengers who cross the Bass Strait by ship from Melbourne to Launceston”.37 The decision in Oteri v The Queen encouraged the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory to agree to enact complementary legislation to extend the operation of State and Territorial criminal law to Australian ships. This was done as part of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement of 1979. The Commonwealth enacted the Crimes at Sea Act 1979, and the States and the Northern Territory enacted related legislation.38 The problem with these Acts was, however, that they were complex and not easy to apply. They provided, in short, that the criminal law of a particular State or the Northern Territory applied on board an 33 British Nationality Act 1948 (UK), s 1. This section was repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into operation on 1 January 1983. 34 Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act 1849 (IMP), s 1. Note also Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction Act 1874 (IMP). 35 See William Holyman & Sons Pty Ltd v Eyles [1947] Tas SR 11 at 12-13; Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124-125; R v Shea (1978) 18 SASR 591. 36 Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122. 37 Oteri v The Queen (1976) 51 ALJR 122 at 124. See also R v Shea (1978) 18 SASR 591 at 592. 38 Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1978 (Vic), Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1979 (Tas), Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1979 (WA), Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1980 (NSW), Crimes (Offences at Sea) Act 1980 (SA); Criminal Law (Offences at Sea) Act (NT).

[4.120]

4 Consequences of Registration

85

Australian ship which was either on an intrastate voyage, on an interstate or foreign voyage where the last place of call was that State or Territory, and the ship had a sufficient connection with this jurisdiction (for example, through registration or base of operations),39 or at a place in a foreign country provided it again had a sufficient connection with this jurisdiction. Queensland did not enact legislation complementing the Acts on crimes at sea of the other jurisdictions. Instead it simply legislated to make all provisions of the statutory criminal law of Queensland operate on the high seas up to 200 miles from Queensland.40 The complexity of the original crimes at sea legislation led a Special Committee of Solicitors General to devise a simpler scheme which was subsequently approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General. This is known as the cooperative scheme for dealing with crimes at sea and is the subject of uniform Crimes at Sea Acts that were enacted by the Commonwealth in 2000 and by the States and the Northern Territory between 1998 and 2001. These Acts repealed the earlier legislation on the subject. Criminal law aboard Australian ships under the present cooperative scheme

[4.120]

Under the uniform Crimes at Sea Acts enacted by the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory,41 the substantive criminal law of each State and of the Northern Territory applies, in short, to its outer limits of the continental shelf as delimited in Sch 1 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth).42 This law applies for 12 nautical miles from its baseline by force of the law of the State or Territory concerned, and beyond that by force of the law of the Commonwealth.43

Outside this area, the criminal law of the Jervis Bay Territory applies on board an Australian ship by force of the law of the Commonwealth.44 This law also applies to any Australian citizen on a foreign ship other than as a member of the ship’s crew, and to anyone on board a foreign ship if the first country at which the ship calls after the commission of a criminal offence is Australia or one of its external Territories.45 39 On what constitutes a sufficient connection, see s 6(2) of the Crimes at Sea Act 1979 (Cth). 40 Criminal Code (Qld), s 14A. On the effect of this section, see R v Olney [1996] 1 Qd R 187. 41 Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (Cth); Crimes at Sea Act 1998 (NSW); Crimes at Sea Act 1999 (Vic); Crimes at Sea Act 2001 (Qld); Crimes at Sea Act 1998 (SA); Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (WA); Crimes at Sea Act 1999 (Tas); Crimes at Sea Act (NT). 42 See Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (Cth), Sch 1, cl 14. 43 Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (Cth), Sch 1, cl 2(1), (2), with cl 1 (definitions of “baseline”, “inner adjacent area” and “outer adjacent area”). 44 Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (Cth), s 6(1). 45 Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (Cth), s 6(2), (3).

86

Shipping Law

[4.130]

An Australian ship for present purposes is a ship that is registered in Australia, a ship that operates or is controlled from a base in Australia and is not registered in another country, and a Defence Force ship.46 A ship means a vessel or boat of any description and includes a floating structure and a hovercraft and other similar craft.47 Civil law aboard Australian ships

[4.130]

If the civil law of the Commonwealth is designed to have extra-territorial effect, it will operate on board Australian ships on the high seas unless its terms indicate otherwise. Problems arise, however, in respect of the civil law of the States and Territories. It may be assumed (though there is no authority directly on point) that the common law of the States and Territories applies on Australian ships on the high seas to the extent that this law is identical in all Australian jurisdictions. It may accordingly be assumed that an ordinary contract entered into on board an Australian ship between passengers or members of the crew is governed by Australian common law, at least to the extent that the principles of contract law are the same throughout Australia.

Difficulties, however, arise in respect of those areas of civil law which differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within Australia, for example the law of defamation. The solution indicated in the Canadian case of Canadian National Steamship Co v Watson48 is that in such circumstances the law applicable on board an Australian ship on the high seas is that of its home port. (That case in fact said port of registry, but these no longer exist in Australia. The home port is the corresponding alternative.49) This conclusion might be implied in statements by the High Court in Union Steamship Co of Australia Ltd v King.50

[4.140]

Law relating to the formalities of marriage

The law relating to the formalities of marriage on board an Australian ship presents a special problem. The Australian law of marriage is ordinarily governed by the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). This Act, however, makes provision only for marriages solemnised in Australia or by a diplomatic officer in an overseas country.51 It says nothing about marriages performed on the high seas on board a ship (or, for that matter, 46 Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (Cth), s 4 (definition of “Australian ship”). 47 Crimes at Sea Act 2000 (Cth), s 4 (definition of “ship”). 48 Canadian National Steamship Co v Watson [1939] 1 DLR 273. See also Gronlund v Hansen (1969) 4 DLR (3d) 435. 49 See Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 80(c). For the meaning of “home port”, see Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 (Cth), regs 2(1), 35. For a list of home ports in 1992, see Marine Notice no 7/1992. 50 Union Steamship Co of Australia Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 at 14. See also Blunden v Commonwealth (2003) 78 ALJR 236. 51 See Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), ss 23A(1)(a), 40(1), 55.

[4.150]

4 Consequences of Registration

87

over the high seas on board an aircraft). The popular notion that a ship’s captain has power to solemnise marriage is unknown both to Australian and to English law. It seems reasonable to assume that in the absence of any legislative provision on the matter, the common law rules of marriage apply on board an Australian ship on the high seas.52 Persons on board such a ship may accordingly marry simply by an exchange of promises to marry in the present tense, at least if this takes place in the presence of an episcopally-ordained minister.53 Writers on the position under English law (which has the same problem on the applicable law of marriage) concur with the opinion that on board a ship on the high seas the common law rules of marriage apply.54

Right to fly the national colours Entitlement of ships to fly the national colours

[4.150]

All Australian ships are entitled to fly, and in particular circumstances are required to fly, the national colours. Some Australian ships are permitted to fly alternative flags in place of the national colours when they are within Australian waters. The expression “national colours” here signifies the official flag, or official flags, which distinguish a ship as having a particular nationality. Ships which are registered either because they are required to be registered under the Shipping Registration Act or by virtue of being on demise charter to Australian-based operators — these are generally larger Australian commercial vessels — have as their national colours just the Australian red ensign.55 The red ensign is the same as the Australian national flag but has a red instead of a blue background.56

All other Australian ships, whether registered or exempt, have as their national colours both the Australian national flag and the Australian red ensign.57 They may fly either, but they may not fly both together.58 52 See Du Moulin v Druitt (1860) 13 Ir CLR 212; Culling v Culling and Nicholson [1896] P 116; Fisher v Fisher (1929) 165 NE 460. 53 See Hodgson and Wife v Stawell (1856) 1 VLT 51 at 52; R v Byrne (1867) 6 SCR (NSW) 302; Quick v Quick orse O’Connell [1953] VLR 224 at 226-228, 237, 238D, 240-251 (but compare at 237); Kuklycz v Kuklycz (1971) 18 FLR 9 at 12-14. Note, however, In the Marriage of Hooshmand and Ghasmezadegan [2000] FLC 93-044 at 87,684. 54 See P M North and J J Fawcett (eds), Cheshire and North’s Private International Law (11th ed, Butterworths, London, 1987), pp 572-574; J H C Morris (ed), Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (10th ed, Stevens, London, 1980), p 271. See also J D White, “Marriages at Sea” (1901) 17 LQR 283. 55 Shipping Registration Act, s 30(1)(a), with s 3(1) (definition of “red ensign”). 56 Flags Act 1953 (Cth), s 4, Sch 1. 57 Shipping Registration Act, s 30(1)(b), with s 3(1) (definition of “national flag” and “red ensign”). 58 See s 30(6).

88

Shipping Law

[4.160]

An unregistered ship which is not exempt from registration has no national colours.59 It is, indeed, an offence for a person to use or to permit anyone to use either the national flag or the red ensign in connection with an unregistered ship which is required to be registered.60

[4.160]

Right to fly alternative flags

Certain Australian ships are permitted to fly other flags in place of the national flag or the red ensign when they are within Australian waters. By “Australian waters” here is meant the territorial sea of Australia and any marine or tidal waters that are on the landward side of any part of that sea.61 The ships concerned are those which are entitled to fly either a particular flag under a warrant granted by the Governor-General,62 the flag of a State or Territory,63 or the British blue ensign (either with or without defacement) by virtue of a British Admiralty warrant or a Royal Warrant.64 The British blue ensign is a flag similar to the Australian national flag, but without the stars. Before the commencement of the Shipping Registration Act in 1982, approximately 400 yacht owners of some 16 Australian yacht clubs had been granted a warrant to fly the blue ensign. The Act preserves the right of the existing holders of these warrants to fly the blue ensign instead of the national flag or the red ensign, but only within Australian waters. A ship which is entitled to fly a particular flag in place of the national colours may fly it only as an alternative to, and not together with, the national flag or red ensign.65 A ship may not fly any such alternative flag outside Australian waters.66

[4.170]

Certificate of entitlement to fly the national colours

The owner or operator of an unregistered ship that is not required to be registered and that is entitled to fly either the national flag or the red ensign may apply to the Registrar of Ships for a certificate stating that the ship is entitled to fly either of these flags.67 The entitlement to fly either of these flags is not, however, dependent upon the possession of such a certificate.

59 Sections 30(1), 63(1)(a). 60 Section 30(8), (9). 61 Section 30(12). 62 Section 30(5)(b)(i). 63 Section 30(5)(b)(ii). 64 Section 30(4). The right to fly the blue ensign continues only for so long as British law so allows: s 30(4)(c). 65 See s 30(6). 66 See s 30(7). 67 Section 30(10).

[4.210]

[4.180]

4 Consequences of Registration

89

Flag as evidence of nationality

The flag of a ship is regarded by both Australian and English courts as prima facie evidence of the ship’s nationality.68 Obligation to fly national colours at particular times

[4.190]

Ships which have as their national colours only the Australian red ensign (generally larger Australian commercial vessels) are required to fly this flag in two situations. The first is when they are entering, leaving, or under way in any port, whether in Australia or overseas, during daylight.69 The second is when they are berthed or at anchor in any port, again whether in Australia or overseas, between 8 am and sunset.70 All other registered ships are required to fly their national colours — that is, either the national flag or the red ensign — only when entering, leaving, or under way in any foreign port during daylight.71 Unregistered ships are not required to fly their national colours in Australian waters at any time. (An unregistered ship must not be outside Australian waters as registration is required for a ship to travel to a place outside Australia.72) Apart from the times when Australian ships are required to fly national colours, they may fly their colours whenever they wish.73 Position at which national colours to be flown

[4.200]

The national colours must be flown at the stern of the ship, or as near as practicable to the stern.74 If a ship has no stern, the national colours must be flown in the position approved by the Registrar of Ships.75

National colours and international law

[4.210]

Under public international law, the right of a ship to sail on the open seas is dependent upon its right to fly the national colours of a recognised country. As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed in Naim Molvan, Owner of Motor Vessel Asya v Attorney-General for

68 R v Ross (1854) 2 Legge 857 at 863; R v Harvey (1869) 8 SCR (NSW) 340; R v Sven Seberg (1870) LR l CCR 264; R v Clark; Ex parte Doyle (1879) 5 VLR (L) 440. See also Bell v Mansfield (1893) 19 VLR 165 at 177-178. Compare Leary v Lloyd (1860) 3 El & El 198; 121 ER 409. 69 Regulation 22(1)(a), with s 30(2)(a), (3). 70 Regulation 22(1)(b), with s 30(2)(a), (3). 71 Regulation 22(2), with s 30(2). 72 Section 68(1). 73 See in respect of ships outside Australian waters, s 30(2). 74 Regulation 22(3)(a). 75 Regulation 22(3)(b).

90

Shipping Law

[4.220]

Palestine,76 “The freedom of the open sea, whatever those words may connote, is a freedom of ships which fly, and are entitled to fly, the flag of a State which is within the comity of nations”. There is, however, no obligation on a ship to fly its national colours whilst sailing on the open seas, though almost all do so. In order to maintain the safety of the open seas against piracy, armed navy ships of any nation are entitled under international law to require any suspicious-looking merchant vessel to show its colours. The vessel may also be boarded and its papers inspected to confirm its right to fly those colours. An armed navy ship may arrest any merchant vessel which is sailing under the flag of any country without authority.77

CONFERMENT OF TITLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES [4.220]

Registration does not normally confer title to a ship; registration normally involves simply the recording of existing title. The entry of a person’s name in the relevant Shipping Register as the owner of a ship or share in a ship does, however, confer title where this person is a bona fide purchaser for value from the registered owner of the ship or share. This matter is considered in detail in Chapter 5.

Except in the case of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice from a registered owner, the registration of ships is thus unlike the registration of land in Australia under the Torrens system in that it concerns simply the registration of title, and not title by registration.78 The fact that a ship is registered in the name of a particular person may, however, serve as evidence that he or she is the owner (or a part owner) of the ship. The Act and Regulations indeed provide that a registration certificate, provisional registration certificate and a temporary pass are prima facie evidence of any matter stated in these documents.79

LIBERTY TO TRAVEL OVERSEAS [4.230]

Registration is required in order for any ship which is entitled to be registered80 to travel overseas. This is so even if the ship is otherwise exempt from registration. The requirement of registration for travel overseas follows from two provisions in the Shipping Registration Act. The first is in s 68(1). This prohibits an unregistered ship that is entitled to be registered81 from

76 Naim Molvan, Owner of Motor Vessel Asya v Attorney-General for Palestine [1948] AC 351 at 369. 77 See H Lauterpacht (ed), Oppenheim’s International Law (8th ed, Longman, London, 1955), pp 604-606. 78 See General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships (1982) 61 FLR 329 at 333, 335. 79 Section 77(1); reg 34. 80 That is, which is either required to be registered or permitted to be registered: s 3(4). 81 See s 3(1) (definition of “unregistered ship”).

[4.250]

4 Consequences of Registration

91

departing from an Australian port to a place outside Australia. The second is in s 69(1). This prohibits an unregistered ship which is entitled to be registered82 from departing from a foreign port at which there is an Australian diplomatic or consular official83 until a registration certificate or a provisional registration certificate has been granted. The latter provision principally concerns ships which become registrable only whilst they are overseas (for example, through change of ownership). An Australian diplomatic or consular official at a foreign port is empowered to grant a provisional registration certificate to ships located at that port.84 There is no express reference in s 68(1) (as there is in s 69(1)) to a ship being entitled to travel overseas with only a provisional registration certificate. It is nonetheless clear from amendments made to the Act in 1984 that a ship may properly leave Australia with a provisional certificate, not least because such a ship is deemed to be registered.85 Section 68 does not apply to small craft operated by Torres Strait Islanders, to ships propelled only by means of oars or to ships on demise charter to an Australian-based operator.86 It is an offence for the master or owner of a ship to contravene s 68 or s 69.87 These are offences of strict liability.88

LIMITATION ON METHOD OF TRANSFER [4.240]

A registered ship, or a share in a registered ship, can be transferred only by a bill of sale made in accordance with the regulations under the Shipping Registration Act. This matter is considered in detail in Chapter 6.

A SPURIOUS CONSEQUENCE OF REGISTRATION: THE “RIGHT” TO NAVAL PROTECTION [4.250]

In 1987, during the course of the military conflict between Iran and Iraq known as the Gulf War, some Kuwaiti ships gave up their existing registration in favour of registration in the United States for the purpose of obtaining protection from the United States Navy in the Persian Gulf. This gave the general impression that ships registered in a particular country have a right under public international law to protection from the navy of that country. No such right is known to international law. Under international law, the navy of any country has the right to protect any ship, whether or not

82 See s 3(1) (definition of “unregistered ship”). 83 See s 3(1) (definition of “proper officer”). 84 See s 22(1). 85 See s 22A(2), (3), (7). 86 Section 68(4); reg 33A. 87 Sections 68(2), 69(2). 88 Sections 68(2A), 69(2A).

92

Shipping Law

[4.250]

registered in that country. It also has the right not to afford such protection to any ship, including a domestically registered ship, if the navy’s government so decides. That said, as a matter of practice a country’s navy usually affords protection to its registered ships. The Shipping Registration Act appears to indicate this in s 63(1)(b), which states that if a ship is required to be registered but is not registered, it is “not entitled to any … protection usually enjoyed by a registered ship”.

5

Property, Ownership and Title [5.10] PROPERTY IN SHIPS ........................................................................................ 94

[5.10] Ship as personal property .................................................................. 94 [5.20] Shares in a registered ship ................................................................. 94 [5.40] OWNERSHIP OF SHIPS ................................................................................... 96

[5.40] Ordinary rules concerning ownership of ships .............................. 96 [5.80] Statutory provisions on owner of ships .......................................... 98 [5.130] Relationship between co-owners of a ship ................................... 99 [5.140] Management of a ship by co-owners ........................................... 100 [5.150] EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN REGISTERED SHIPS ................................. 101

[5.150] Recognition of equitable interests ................................................. 101 [5.160] Equitable interests and registration .............................................. 101 [5.180] REGISTRATION OF OWNERSHIP AND TITLE TO PROPERTY IN SHIPS ................................................................................................................ 102

[5.180] Statutory provisions on registration and title ............................. 102 [5.190] Relationship between registration and title ................................ 103 [5.200] Consideration of the law on registration and title .................... 105 [5.220] Registration of ownership as evidence of title ........................... 108 [5.230] CAVEATS ......................................................................................................... 108

[5.230] Caveats and caveatable interests ................................................... 108 [5.260] Procedure ........................................................................................... 109 [5.270] Effect of a caveat .............................................................................. 109 [5.290] Cessation of caveat .......................................................................... 110 [5.300] Postscript: caveat against arrest or release of ships .................. 110

94

Shipping Law

[5.10]

PROPERTY IN SHIPS Ship as personal property [5.10]

Notwithstanding some judicial references to a ship as a “floating island”,1 a ship is always an article of personal property.2 Subject to the rules that are considered in this chapter and at [6.60], a ship is treated in law no differently from any other item of personal property. Unless statute provides otherwise, a ship is accordingly subject to the provisions of sale of goods and related legislation.3

Shares in a registered ship [5.20]

For the purpose of the registration of a ship under the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), the property in a ship is divided into 64 shares.4 The Act here follows the British scheme that was first established by statute by the Registration of Vessels Act 1823 (ENG),5 though this simply formalised the existing practice.6 No person can be registered as owning a fractional part of a share in a ship.7 Accordingly, the maximum number of persons that can be registered as the sole owners of the shares in a ship at any one time is 64.8 More than one person can, however, be a joint owner of shares in a ship. The Shipping Registration Act permits up to five persons to be registered as the joint owners of either the entire ship itself or of any one or more shares in the ship.9 Where individual shares in a ship are jointly owned, the joint owners are treated as constituting one person for the purposes of the registration of the ship.10 Where, however, the entire ship itself is

1 Forbes v Cochrane (1824) 2 B & C 448; 107 ER 450 at 464; 456; R v Anderson (1868) LR 1 CCR 161 at 168. 2 Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), ss 29(2), 47; Liverpool Borough Bank v Turner (1860) 29 LJ Ch 827 at 829; Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649 at 659; Tisand Pty Ltd v Ship MV Cape Moreton (Ex parte Freya) (2005) 143 FCR 43 at 76. 3 Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649; Lloyd del Pacifico v Board of Trade (1930) 35 Ll L Rep 217; McDougall v Aeromarine of Emsworth Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1126 at 1129; Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 at 465-466. 4 Section 11(1)(a). 5 4 Geo IV, c 41, s 30. 6 On the history of this feature of ships, see H Alexander, “The Ownership of Ships in 64 Shares” in M White and A Rahemtula (eds), Table Talk of the Selden Society in Queensland (Queensland Supreme Court Library, Brisbane, 2004). 7 Section 11(1)(e). 8 See s 11(1)(b). There is a proviso in this paragraph which allows for the possibility of more than 64 persons being registered as sole owners of shares as a result of transmission under s 37. It is difficult to see how this could ever occur. 9 Section 11(1)(c). 10 Section 11(2).

[5.30]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

95

jointly owned (in other words, where all 64 shares in a ship are jointly owned), the joint owners are treated as separate persons for the purposes of registration.11 Although the maximum number of persons that can be registered as the sole owners of the shares in a ship is 64 and the maximum number of persons that can be registered as the joint owners of a ship or of any share in a ship is five, any number of persons can have a beneficial interest in a ship by virtue of a claim under or through a registered owner or joint owner.12 A company or corporation can own a share in a ship in the same way as a natural person. Such an entity is registered as owner by its corporate name.13

[5.30]

Types of joint ownership of shares for the purpose of registration

Section 11(1)(c) of the Shipping Registration Act provides that for the purpose of registration, up to five shares in a ship may be jointly owned. Particularly, para 11(1)(c) states: “Any number of persons not exceeding 5 may be registered as joint owners of the ship or of a share or shares in the ship”. Joint ownership strictly implies that all co-owners have an equal interest in the property concerned, as opposed to ownership in common where the co-owners may have unequal interests. Under the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (from which the Australian provision derives), joint ownership of shares in a registered ship could involve either joint ownership in the strict sense, or ownership in common.14 It would thus seem reasonable to conclude that joint ownership of shares registered under the Shipping Registration Act can also be of either kind. This conclusion is supported by reg 24(1) of the Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 (Cth), which distinguishes between a joint owner and an owner in common of a registered ship or a share in a registered ship for the purposes of the evidence that must be lodged with the Registrar of Ships upon the transmission of such property upon the owner’s death. There is, however, a ground for rejecting the conclusion that for the purposes of registration “joint ownership” of shares can include ownership in common. This concerns s 8(1) of the Act. This subsection draws a clear distinction between joint ownership of a ship as a whole (as opposed simply to shares in a ship), and ownership of a ship in common. The implication from this might be that the references in s 11 of the Act to joint ownership of shares in a ship means joint ownership in the strict sense. 11 Note that s 11(2) does not concern joint ownership of the ship itself. 12 Section 11(1)(b). For the definition of “beneficial interest”, see s 3(1). 13 Section 11(1)(f). 14 See M Thomas and D Steel, Temperley: The Merchant Shipping Acts (7th ed, Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1976), p 8.

96

Shipping Law

[5.40]

This would not, of course, preclude equitable ownership in common of shares in a ship, for the registration provisions are not concerned with equitable interests in ships.15

OWNERSHIP OF SHIPS Ordinary rules concerning ownership of ships [5.40]

As a general rule, ownership of any ship or share in a ship is determined by the law relating to the acquisition, transfer and transmission of ships and shares in ships. These topics are considered in detail in Chapter 6. It is sufficient here simply to observe that the ownership of a ship or share in a ship does not depend upon registration under the Shipping Registration Act, even if the ship is able to be registered or is required to be registered. Indeed, in one respect the contrary is true, for the obligation and entitlement to register a ship under this Act depends upon the ownership of the ship anterior to registration.16 This matter is considered further at [5.180]–[5.190]. Separate from the meaning of “ownership” is the term “owner”. The latter depends for its meaning on the context in which it is used. The term “owner” might signify the legal owner of property, it might mean the beneficial owner, or it might mean the person who enjoys both.

[5.50]

“Owner” of a ship under demise charter

There is substantial judicial authority for the proposition that a ship under a demise charter — that is, which is leased with full possession and control to a third party17 — is ordinarily regarded as owned for the time being by the charterer and not by those in whom the property in the ship is otherwise vested.18 It is immaterial for the purposes of this rule whether the subject of the demise charterparty is simply the ship itself (a “bareboat charter”), or the ship along with its master and crew.19 What is required is that the charterer has possession and control of the ship. In 15 See s 46. 16 See ss 12(1), (2), 14. 17 Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v BPS Shipping Ltd (1997) 190 CLR 181 at 192; Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v The Turakina (1998) 154 ALR 666 at 671. See also s 3(1) (definition of “demise charter”). 18 Frazer v Marsh (1811) 13 East 238; 104 ER 362 at 239-240 (East); Colvin v Newberry and Benson (1832) 1 Cl & Fin 283; 6 ER 923 at 297; 929; Melhuish v Miller (1865) 3 WW & A’B (E) 61 at 71; Sandeman v Scurr (1866) LR 2 QB 86 at 96; Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of the Steamship Blanche [1908] AC 126 esp at 132-133; Medway Drydock & Engineering Co Ltd v MV Andrea Ursula; The Andrea Ursula [1973] QB 265 at 269-270; The Giuseppe di Vittorio [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 at 159. See also McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1945) 70 CLR 175 at 194, 199, 212-216, 217-218; Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 6(4). For consideration of the relevance of some of these authorities, see Comandate Marine Corporation v Ship Boomerang I (2006) 151 FCR 403 at 405. 19 Colvin v Newberry and Benson (1832) 1 Cl & Fin 283; 6 ER 923 at 297; 929; Sandeman v Scurr (1866) LR 2 QB 86 at 96.

[5.70]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

97

Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd,20 the Full Court of the Federal Court approved the following definition of a demise charter:21 The essence of a demise charter is that the owners confer on the charterer, for a term, sufficient of their rights to give the charterer possession and control of the ship, including the right to employ and direct the master and crew, so as to place the charterer in the same position, for the duration of the term, as the owners would have had to possess and control the ship, her master and crew.

This rule does not apply where legislation or the context indicates otherwise. Thus, it does not apply for the purposes of registration, for the Shipping Registration Act makes a clear distinction between the owners of a ship in the sense of those in whom title is vested, and demise charterers.22 Nor does it apply for the purposes of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), which distinguishes between the “owner”, “charterer” and “demise charterer” of a ship.23 The meaning of the term “owner” in these contexts is considered at [5.90]–[5.100]. A demise charterer is also not regarded as the owner of a ship where the term “owner” in context signifies the beneficial owner of a ship.24

[5.60]

“Owner” of a registered ship in the possession of mortgagee

Prior to 2012, when a mortgage of a registered ship could be registered under the Shipping Registration Act — and still today in jurisdictions that follow the model of registered mortgages established under English shipping legislation — the “owner” of a ship that was subject to a registered mortgage was either the mortgagor or the mortgagee, depending on who was in possession of the ship. Upon the mortgagee under a registered mortgage taking possession of the property, the mortgagor lost all incidents of ownership of the ship or share. The mortgagee was then treated as the owner of the ship or share.25

[5.70]

“Owner” of a requisitioned vessel

The “owner” of a requisitioned vessel is its true owner, and not the requisitioning State.26 20 Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369. 21 Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369 at 386, following The Giuseppe di Vittorio [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 at 156-157. See generally at 386-390. 22 See the implication of ss 12(2), 14(a), (d). 23 See Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), ss 17, 18, 19; Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v BPS Shipping Ltd (1997) 190 CLR 181. 24 See I Congreso del Partido [1978] QB 500 at 539; The Father Thames [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 364 at 366-367; Kent v SS Maria Luisa [2002] FCA 1207 at [32]. 25 Keith and Wyllie v Burrows and Perks (1877) 2 App Cas 636 at 645-646. Compare The Neptune (1824) 3 Hagg Adm 129; 166 ER 354 at 133; 355. 26 The Meandros [1925] P 61 at 68.

98

Shipping Law

[5.80]

Statutory provisions on owner of ships [5.80]

Some shipping law statutes contain a statutory definition of an owner of a ship. Although some of these definitions say very little, others include persons who would not ordinarily be regarded as the owner of a ship.

[5.90]

“Owner” of a ship under the Shipping Registration Act

There are three provisions in the Shipping Registration Act concerning the meaning of the term “owner”. The first is in s 3(1). This provides that except in certain specified sections, “owner” means a person registered as owner in accordance with the regulations. The second is in s 3(2). This provides (doubtless out of an abundance of caution) that unless the contrary intention appears, if there is more than one owner of a ship, a reference in the Act to a ship’s owner is to be read as a reference to each of the owners. The third provision is in s 62. This provides, in short, that in Pt VI (“Miscellaneous”) of the Act, the “owner” of a registered ship on demise charter to an Australian-based operator is the ship’s registered agent.

[5.100]

“Owner” of a ship under the Admiralty Act 1988

The term “owner” has most often arisen for consideration in the context of ss 17 and 19 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). These set out conditions under which proceedings in rem may be instituted under this Act. These sections require that two conditions be satisfied. First, the person liable on the claim27 must have been the owner, charterer or person in possession or control of a ship or property when the cause of action arose, and secondly, this person must also be owner of the ship or property at the time the proceedings are commenced. The question that has particularly arisen here is whether a demise charterer — that is, a charterer with full control of the ship28 — may properly be considered to be the owner of a ship for the purpose of the second requirement (as older judicial authorities would suggest29). 27 See Owners of MV Iran Amanat v KMP Coastal Oil Pte Ltd (1999) 196 CLR 130. 28 See Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v BPS Shipping Ltd (1997) 190 CLR 181 at 192; Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v The Turakina (1998) 154 ALR 666 at 671; Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369. See also s 3(1) (definition of “demise charter”). 29 See Frazer v Marsh (1811) 13 East 238; 104 ER 362 at 239-240 (East); Colvin v Newberry and Benson (1832) 1 Cl & Fin 283; 6 ER 923 at 297; 929; Melhuish v Miller (1865) 3 WW & A’B (E) 61 at 71; Sandeman v Scurr (1866) LR 2 QB 86 at 96; Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of the Steamship Blanche [1908] AC 126 esp at 132-133; Medway Drydock & Engineering Co Ltd v MV Andrea Ursula; The Andrea Ursula [1973] QB 265 at 269-270; The Giuseppe di Vittorio [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 at 159. See also McIlwraith McEacharn Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1945) 70 CLR 175 at 194, 199, 212-216, 217-218; Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 6(4). For consideration of the relevance of some of these authorities, see Comandate Marine Corporation v Ship Boomerang I (2006) 151 FCR 403 at 405.

[5.130]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

99

It is now settled that the term “owner” in ss 17 and 19 (and also s 18) does not include a demise charterer.30 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the person whose name is entered as the owner of a ship that is registered under the Shipping Registration Act is to be regarded as the owner of the ship.31 However, the owner of a ship that is registered in a foreign register is not necessarily the registered owner. The owner there is the person who has a proprietary interest in the ship; that is, the person who has the right to possession of the ship and the right to dispose of it.32

[5.110]

“Owner” of a ship under the Navigation Act 2012

Section 14(1) of the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth) provides that the owner of a vessel is either a person who has a legal or beneficial interest in the vessel other than as a mortgagee, a person who has overall general control and management of the vessel other than as the master or pilot of the vessel, a person who has assumed responsibility for the vessel from one of the foregoing persons, or any of them.

[5.120]

Owner of a vessel under State legislation

The Marine Act or related legislation of all States contains a definition of “owner”. The definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.33 It generally includes a charterer and any person who exercises the functions of the owner of a vessel. The Northern Territory’s Marine Act has no definition of an owner.

Relationship between co-owners of a ship [5.130]

As between themselves, and in the absence of any statutory provision on point, the co-owners of a ship are ordinarily tenants in common, and not joint tenants.34 The co-owners of a ship may nonetheless hold their interest as joint tenants if they so choose.35 In this case, each co-owner has an equal interest in the ship, and the right of

30 Kent v SS Maria Luisa (No 1) (2002) 130 FCR 1 at 9; Comandate Marine Corporation v Ship Boomerang I (2006) 151 FCR 403 at 405, 411. 31 Kent v SS Maria Luisa (No 1) (2002) 130 FCR 1 at 9. 32 Tisand Pty Ltd v Owners of Ship MV Cape Moreton (Ex parte Freya) (2005) 143 FCR 43 at 65-73. 33 Marine Safety Act 1998 (NSW), s 7; Marine Safety Act 2010 (Vic), s 3(1); Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld), s 9; Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 (SA), s 4(1); Western Australian Marine Act 1982 (WA), s 3(1); Marine and Safety Authority Act 1997 (Tas), s 3. 34 R v Collector of Customs at Liverpool (1813) 2 M & S 224; 105 ER 366; Ex parte Young (1813) 2 V & B 242; 35 ER 311; Ex parte Leslie; Re Drury and Hudson (1833) 3 LJ Bcy 4 at 5; Green v Briggs (1848) 6 Hare 395; 67 ER 1219 esp at 408; 1225. 35 Ex parte Leslie; Re Drury and Hudson (1833) 3 LJ Bcy 4 at 5.

100

Shipping Law

[5.140]

survivorship applies upon the death of one of the co-owners in the same way as it does in respect of joint tenants of real property.36 Co-owners of a ship are not, by virtue of this fact alone, partners.37 They are partners only if they have agreed to carry on a business together.38 This now well-established fact is unexceptional, for the fact that two or more persons together own a ship does not necessarily mean that they intend to run a business enterprise together with this property. One natural consequence of the ordinary relationship between co-owners of a ship is that one co-owner has no authority to bind any other co-owner without his or her authority.39 This is so even in respect of repairs to a ship or any other necessary expenses.40 It may also be observed in this connection that the registered owner of a ship or share in a ship is not without more the agent of any beneficial owner of this ship or share.41

Management of a ship by co-owners [5.140]

Unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the owners of shares in a ship, the control and management of a ship lies with the will of the majority of shareholders.42 In this regard, the law is different from that concerning the control and management of chattels generally.43 In voting upon the management of a ship, co-owners of individual shares in a ship have together just one vote.44

Where shares in a ship are owned by a number of separate persons, the day-to-day management of the ship is usually consigned to a managing agent. The old term for a ship’s managing agent was the ship’s managing owner if he or she was also a part owner of the ship, and the ship’s husband if he or she was not. Both of those appellations are now obsolete. 36 See C Butler (ed), Coke upon Littleton (19th ed, J & W T Clarke, London, 1832), pp 181a-182a. 37 Helme v Smith (1831) 7 Bing 709; 131 ER 274 at 713; 276; Brodie v Howard (1855) 17 CB 109; 139 ER 1010 esp at 117-118, 120, 122 (CB); 1013, 1014-1015 (ER); The Spirit of the Ocean (1865) 12 LT 239; Frazer & Co v Cuthbertson (1880) 6 QBD 93 at 97. 38 On the relationship between co-owners of a ship and partners, see The Pongola (1895) 8 Asp MLC 89. 39 Brodie v Howard (1855) 17 CB 109; 139 ER 1010 at 118; 1013; Frazer & Co v Cuthbertson (1880) 6 QBD 93 at 98. 40 Chappell v Bray (1860) 6 H & N 145; 158 ER 60 at 149; 62; Frazer & Co v Cuthbertson (1880) 6 QBD 93 at 97. 41 Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484 at 500, 501. 42 The Margaret (1829) 2 Hag Adm 275; 166 ER 244 at 276; 245; Japp v Campbell (1887) 57 LJQB 79 at 81. On the respective rights and powers of majority and minority shareholders, see Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed, Butterworths, London, 1984), Vol 43, pp 93-94, paras 127-128. 43 See J P Aspinall, B Aspinall, H S Moore (eds), Abbott’s Law of Merchant Ships and Seamen (14th ed, Shaw & Sons, London, 1901), Vol 1, p 117. 44 Note the related provision in the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 11(2).

[5.160]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

101

Many ships today are owned by a single company, with investors having shares in the company rather than in the ship itself. The control and management of the ship then lies with the directors of the company in accordance with the company’s constitution.

EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN REGISTERED SHIPS Recognition of equitable interests [5.150]

Equitable interests can exist in a registered ship as in any other chattel. In this regard, a registered ship is no different from any other item of personal property. A trust can accordingly arise in respect of a registered ship in precisely the same way as it can arise in respect of other property. Similarly, presumptions of the existence of a trust can arise in respect of a registered ship in the same way as with other property.45

There are no statutory restrictions on equitable interests in registered ships. This is confirmed by the provisions of s 11(1)(b) of the Shipping Registration Act. This limits the number of persons who can be registered as the sole owners of a ship at any time to 64, but adds that “nothing in this paragraph affects the beneficial interests of any number of persons or of a body corporate represented by or claiming under or through a registered owner (including a registered joint owner)”. By s 3(1), beneficial interests include interests arising under contract and other equitable interests. Accordingly, it is clear that any number of people may have an equitable interest in a registered ship notwithstanding the statutory limit on the number of persons who can be registered as the owners of a ship.

Equitable interests and registration [5.160]

Although there are no statutory restrictions on the equitable interests that can exist in a registered ship, there are restrictions on the entry of information concerning these interests in the relevant Shipping Register. There is an implied general restriction on the entry of such information by virtue of the fact that there is no provision for details of any equitable interest to be entered in the relevant Register.46 More importantly, there is a specific restriction in s 46 of the Shipping Registration Act. This states that no notice of any trust, whether express, implied or constructive, may be entered in the relevant Register or may be received by the Registrar. This means that the Register cannot indicate whether any person named as the owner of a ship or a share enjoys the sole beneficial interest in this property, or whether he or she holds this property in trust for someone else.

45 See eg The Venture [1908] P 218 at 229-230 (presumption of a resulting trust arises where one person advances money to another for the purchase of a ship). 46 See Shipping Registration Regulations, reg 11(1).

102

Shipping Law

[5.170]

[5.170]

Limits of section 46

The object of s 46 of the Shipping Registration Act is simply to prohibit notice of any trust from appearing in either of the Shipping Registers. This section does not prohibit the recognition of equitable interests in registered ships. This is made quite clear by s 47, which states that beneficial interests in ships may be enforced by or against the owner or mortgagee of a ship or of a share in a ship in the same manner as in respect of any other personal property. A court may thus always look behind a Register and give effect to any equitable interests that a person might have in a registered ship.47

REGISTRATION OF OWNERSHIP AND TITLE TO PROPERTY IN SHIPS Statutory provisions on registration and title [5.180]

The Shipping Registration Act does not specify any legal consequence as flowing from the entry in either Shipping Register of a person’s name as that of the owner of a ship or of a share in a ship.48 The Act is thus not specifically concerned with the relationship between the entry of a person’s name as that of the owner of a ship or share, and his or her title to this property. The Act does, however, contain four provisions which indicate a relationship, either positive or negative, between the entry of a person’s name as that of the owner of a ship or of a share in a ship (what may loosely be termed “registration of ownership”49) and title to this property, at least upon the transfer or transmission of the ship or share. The first is in s 36(1). This requires a registered ship or a share in a registered ship to be transferred by a bill of sale made in accordance with the regulations. The second and third are in ss 36(2) and 37(1). These require a person who becomes an owner of a registered ship or a share in a registered ship, whether by transfer or transmission, to take steps to have his or her name entered as owner in the relevant Shipping Register. The clear implication of these three provisions is that property passes prior to, and without need for, registration of ownership. The fourth provision is in s 36(5). This requires that bills of sale for the transfer of any registered ship or share in a registered ship be registered 47 Stapleton v Haymen (1864) 2 H & C 918; 159 ER 380 at 924-925; 383; The Innisfallen (1866) LR 1 A & E 72 at 76; The Jane (1870) 23 LT 791; Batthyany v Bouch (1881) 50 LJQB 421 at 424. 48 Note, however, s 77(1), with reg 34, which creates a rebuttable presumption inter alia that the person named as the owner of a ship or share in a registration certificate, provisional registration certificate or temporary pass is in fact the owner. 49 Strictly, only a ship and a bill of sale transferring property in a ship are registered: see ss 15E, 36(2A). The name of an owner of property in a ship (including the name of a new owner upon a transfer or transmission) is technically only entered in the relevant Shipping Register: see ss 36(2A), 37(1A).

[5.190]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

103

in order of lodgment with the Registrar. The implication of this is that registration affects priorities in respect of persons claiming competing interests in registered ships. The provisions which have just been noted derive from British provisions of a similar kind. The British provisions were briefly considered by the Court of Appeal in Union Bank of London v Lenanton.50 There Bramwell LJ said, concerning the effect of non-registration of a bill of sale for the transfer of a ship: “I incline to think that the consequence of not producing the transfer [for registration] is that a subsequent transferor or incumbrancer takes precedence — whoever gets first on the register takes precedence”.51 There was no suggestion by any member of the Court of Appeal that non-registration of a bill of sale otherwise affects the transferee’s title. There is, however, one further statutory provision that should be observed in this connection. This is in s 45. This states that “The owner of a [registered52] ship or of a share in a [registered] ship has power … absolutely to dispose of the ship or share and to give effectual receipts in respect of the disposal”. According to a 19th century case on the corresponding English provision, the purpose of this section is “to give evidence of title by the name of the owner appearing upon the Register”.53 From this it would appear that s 45 is concerned with evidence of title upon registration, and not — or not merely — with powers of ownership. In the modern Australian case of Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps,54 however, Bollen J adopted a somewhat different interpretation of s 45 and intimated that this section is not concerned with evidence of title. He said: “It takes the situation of title having passed and registration having been achieved. From that situation it says that he who has registered may dispose.”55

Relationship between registration and title [5.190]

The present law concerning the relationship between the entry of the name of a person in the relevant Shipping Register as being that of the owner of a ship or share in a ship, and this person’s title to this property, may be summarised in three rules. The first is that entry of a person’s name in the relevant Shipping Register as being the owner of a

50 Union Bank of London v Lenanton (1878) 3 CPD 243. 51 Union Bank of London v Lenanton (1878) 3 CPD 243 at 248. 52 See s 34. 53 The Horlock (1877) 2 PD 243 at 249-250. See also Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484 at 496, 498, 501-503. 54 Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274. 55 Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 at 281.

104

Shipping Law

[5.190]

ship or share at the time of the ship’s registration neither confers nor confirms title.56 There is no exception to this rule. The second rule is that title to a registered ship ordinarily passes upon the execution of a bill of sale or upon transmission, and not upon the entry of the name of the new owner in the relevant Register.57 As has already been observed, this is clearly implied by ss 36(1), (2) and 37(1) of the Shipping Registration Act.58 The name stated in a Register as being that of the owner of a ship or share ship might thus be wrong, for the bill of sale might be invalid,59 or title might since have passed to someone else. A person may accordingly make a mistake if he or she treats the individual named in the Register as the owner of a ship or share as the true owner of this property.60 A further consequence of the second rule is that the entry of a person’s name in the relevant Register as being that of the owner of a ship or share does not, without more, guarantee title. Entry of ownership in the relevant Register ordinarily involves just the registration of existing title, and not title by registration. As Dr Lushington said in The Spirit of the Ocean,61 “Registration is but the record of a fact done — a record of the sale, not the sale itself”.62 The registration of ownership of ships is to this extent quite different from the registration of ownership of land under the Torrens system.63 The second rule is, however, subject to the third. This is that the entry of a person’s name in the relevant Register as that of the owner of a ship or share in a ship will always give this person good title if he or she is a bona fide purchaser for value from the person last named in the Register as the owner of the property.64 It is immaterial in such circumstances that the person last named in the Register as the owner does not have good 56 Bray v Macdonald (1867) 1 SALR 20. See also Household Financial Services Ltd v Island and River Trading Pty Ltd [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 10. 57 Stapleton v Haymen (1864) 2 H & C 918; 159 ER 380 at 925; 383; The Spirit of the Ocean (1865) 12 LT 239 at 240; The Two Ellens (1871) LR 3 A & E 345 at 355; Kali Boat Building & Repairs Pty Ltd v Motor Fishing Vessel Bosna (1977) 19 SASR 112 at 115. See also Reid and Stewart v Fairbanks, Allison and Allison (1853) 13 CB 692; 138 ER 1371 at 731; 1388; The Jane (1870) 23 LT 791 at 792; Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 at 281. 58 See Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 at 281. 59 See Orr v Dickinson (1859) Johns 5; 70 ER 315 at 12-13; 319-320. 60 See Young v Brander and Dunbar (1806) 8 East 10; 103 ER 248 at 11-12; 249; M’Iver v Humble, Holland & Williams (1812) 16 East 169; 104 ER 1053 at 176; 1055. 61 The Spirit of the Ocean (1865) 12 LT 239. 62 The Spirit of the Ocean (1865) 12 LT 239 at 240. See also Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 at 281; Advertising Department Pty Ltd v Ship MV Port Phillip (2004) 141 FCR 251 at 260. 63 General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Registrar of Ships (1982) 61 FLR 329 at 333, 335. 64 Stapleton v Haymen (1864) 2 H & C 918; 159 ER 380 at 925; 383; The Horlock (1877) 2 PD 243 at 249-250; Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484 at 496, 498, 501-503. See also Household Financial Services Ltd v Island and River Trading Pty Ltd [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 10.

[5.200]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

105

title to give. This consequence, which originates from the superseded Imperial legislation, is assumed to follow in Australia today from the provisions of s 45 of the Shipping Registration Act. It follows from what has just been said that if a registered owner of a ship or share disposes of this property to one purchaser, and then purports to dispose of this same property to another purchaser, the second purchaser will acquire good title if he or she makes the purchase in good faith and for valuable consideration, and then obtains entry of his or her name in the relevant Register as owner of this property before the first purchaser. Although in the absence of registration of ownership any such purported second disposition of the same property in a registered ship is a nullity — for the ordinary rule is that no one can dispose of what he or she has ceased to own — this fundamental deficiency is cured in the case of a bona fide purchaser for value by the entry of his or her name as owner in the relevant Register before that of a prior purchaser.65 As Finkelstein J said in the recent case of Advertising Department Pty Ltd v Ship MV Port Phillip:66 If a person in good faith acquires an interest in a ship from the registered owner he will obtain an indefeasible title that will defeat any prior unregistered right or interest, regardless of whether the prior right or interest is legal or equitable. It makes no difference that the owner obtained his registration by fraud, provided the person who acquired the interest was not a party to, or did not know of, the fraud.

This third rule concerns only a purchaser from a person who is named in the relevant Register as the owner of a ship or share in a ship. It does not concern a purchaser from any other person. Accordingly, the title of a purchaser from a purported owner of a registered ship or share is not protected by entry of the former’s name in the relevant Register if the latter is not the person named as the registered owner.67 And a fortiori the title of a purchaser from a purported owner of an unregistered ship or share is not protected by entry of the former’s name in the relevant Register upon the ship’s initial registration.68

Consideration of the law on registration and title [5.200]

The established law concerning registration of ownership and title does not sit easily with the ordinary rules of law and equity. It nonetheless clearly derives from them. The present rules concerning registration of ownership and title appear to result from divergent judicial attitudes to the significance of registration of ownership of ships. According to one view, registration of ownership is no more than a

65 Stapleton v Haymen (1864) 2 H & C 918; 159 ER 380 at 925; 383. See also The Horlock (1877) 2 PD 243 at 249-250. 66 Advertising Department Pty Ltd v Ship MV Port Phillip (2004) 141 FCR 251 at 260. 67 Holderness v Lamport (1861) 29 Beav 129; 54 ER 576 at 133; 577. 68 Bray v Macdonald (1867) 1 SALR 20. See also Household Financial Services Ltd v Island and River Trading Pty Ltd [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 10.

106

Shipping Law

[5.210]

formality, which does not affect title. Under this view, title can pass regardless of registration of ownership.69 This view has led to the first two rules set out at [5.190]. It is also reflected in the provisions of the Shipping Registration Act. According to the other view, however, registration of ownership is the sole means of acquiring good legal (as opposed to equitable) title to a registered ship. According to this view, a transfer of title by a registered owner confers simply an equitable interest in the transferee until he or she becomes registered as the new owner. Until registration, the transferor retains the legal title but holds the property in trust for the transferee.70 It is for this reason that a registered owner can give good legal title free of any prior equitable interests to a bona fide purchaser for value provided the name of this purchaser is entered in the relevant Register in place of the name of the registered owner. A registered owner can give good title in such circumstances because a trustee can always give good legal title to trust property, free of any equitable interest, to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of such interest. There is a paucity of modern cases on the relationship between registration of ownership and title to a registered ship, and none at all which attempts to clarify or reconsider the two distinct approaches which emerge from the old English decisions on this subject. In light of the support that is given to the first and second rules by the Shipping Registration Act, it is tempting to surmise that Australian courts may be disposed to abolish, or at least dilute, the law supporting the third rule concerning the conferment of title on a bona fide purchaser. This, however, appears unlikely, not least because the Australian Act for the most part follows the English legislation, on which the third rule is firmly based. The third rule appears anyway to be accepted as part of Australian shipping law.71

[5.210]

Practical approach to the divergent lines of judicial reasoning

For the time being, perhaps the most satisfactory approach to the established law concerning registration of ownership and title is to distinguish between ownership for the purpose of transfer, and ownership

69 Stapleton v Haymen (1864) 2 H & C 918; 159 ER 380 at 925; 383; The Spirit of the Ocean (1865) 12 LT 239 at 240; Kali Boat Building & Repair Pty Ltd v Motor Fishing Vessel Bosna (1977) 19 SASR 112 at 115. 70 Stapleton v Haymen (1864) 2 H & C 918; 159 ER 380 at 924-925; 383. See also Re Mortgages of the Ships Albion, Myrtle and George (1864) 3 SCR 138 at 145; Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484 at 496, 497-498. 71 See Household Financial Services Ltd v Island and River Trading Pty Ltd [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 10.

[5.210]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

107

for all other purposes. For the purpose of the transfer of property in a registered ship or share — in other words, as between transferor and transferee — the better approach would appear to be to regard the registered owner of a ship or share as its legal owner.72 On this basis, any transferee of a registered ship or share can have only an equitable interest in this property until he or she is registered as the new owner. However, for all other purposes where the ownership of a ship or share is in issue, the better approach would appear to be to regard the owner of a ship or share as ordinarily the person to whom the ship has been transferred by bill of sale or transmitted by operation of law, regardless of whether the name of this person has been entered in the relevant Shipping Register. There is sound authority for this proposition, for it now appears to be well established that if the law imposes a liability on the owner of a ship or share, then unless statute indicates otherwise,73 this liability ordinarily falls upon the person who has title by bill of sale or transmission, regardless of whether this person’s name appears as the owner in the relevant Register.74 It is possible to unify these two approaches by saying that for all purposes the legal owner of a ship is the person in whose name a ship or share is registered, that any other person can at most have only an equitable interest in such property, and that except for the purpose of transferring property in a ship or share (in other words, except as between transferor and transferee), the person who is to be regarded as the “owner” of the property is ordinarily its equitable, or beneficial, owner. This certainly achieves a consistency in the cases and is supported by some authorities.75 However, consistency is achieved in this way only at the price of distorting what the judges in many leading cases have either said or clearly implied. It also distorts the apparent implication of ss 36 and 37 of the Shipping Registration Act, that legal ownership (as opposed to registered ownership) of a ship is not dependent upon registration. This alternative, purposive approach has at least the advantage of preserving the intentions of both the judges and the Parliament whilst at the same time providing some coherence to otherwise divergent lines of cases.

72 Note, however, the situation in The Bineta [1967] 1 WLR 121, which turns on its own special facts (an original transferor held able to transfer title to a second transferee pursuant to a right to re-sell under the Sale of Goods Act, notwithstanding that the name of the defaulting first transferee has been registered as owner pursuant to the first transfer). 73 As it does eg in s 3(1) of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (“owner” generally means registered owner). 74 See Young v Brander and Dunbar (1806) 8 East 10; 103 ER 248 at 12-13; 249; The Spirit of the Ocean (1865) 12 LT 239 at 240. 75 Von Freeden v Hull, Blyth & Co; GP Turner & Co, Third Parties (1906) 10 Asp MLC 247 at 249-250; Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed, Butterworths, London, 1974), Vol 43, p 89, para 119.

108

Shipping Law

[5.220]

Registration of ownership as evidence of title [5.220]

The fact that a person’s name is entered in one of the Shipping Registers as the owner of a ship or share may naturally be evidence of the fact that he or she is the owner.76 However, this fact does not, without more, raise any legal presumption of ownership. Such a presumption does arise indirectly from registration. By s 77(1) of the Shipping Registration Act, with reg 34 of the Shipping Registration Regulations, a registration certificate is admissible in evidence as prima facie evidence of any matter stated in it pursuant to this Act. This means that there is a rebuttable presumption that the person who is named in a registration certificate as being the owner of the ship or of shares in the ship is in fact the owner of the ship or shares.

CAVEATS Caveats and caveatable interests [5.230]

Any person who claims an unregistered interest in a registered ship or in a share in a registered ship may protect this interest by lodging a caveat with the Registrar of Ships.77 A caveat is a formal notice in which a person claiming an interest in a registered ship or share forbids the Registrar from entering in the Register any instrument relating to any dealing with this property.78

[5.240]

Caveatable interests

By s 47A(1) of the Shipping Registration Act, a caveat can be used to protect “an interest in a [registered79] ship or in a share in a [registered] ship under any unregistered instrument, or by operation of law or otherwise”. In practice caveats are commonly used to protect the following interests: • the interest of a prospective purchaser of a ship during negotiations for the sale of the ship, to ensure that it is not sold to a third party; • the interest of a mortgagee pending the registration of the mortgage, to ensure that no other mortgage is registered in the meantime; • the interest of an owner in common of a share in a ship, to ensure that another owner in common of the same share does not dispose of his or her interest without the knowledge of the caveator; • the interest of a person claiming payment of wages for services on, or in respect of, a ship; • the interest of a person claiming payment for the supply of provisions, ship repairs, or the like; and • the interest of a charterer under a charterparty. 76 Hibbs v Ross (1866) LR 1 QB 534 at 543. 77 Section 47A(1). 78 Sections 47A(1), 47D(1); Shipping Registration Regulations, reg 28A(1), Sch 2, Form 5. 79 See s 34.

[5.270]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

109

The propriety of these uses of caveats has not yet been considered by the courts.

[5.250]

Liability of caveator compensation

without

reasonable

cause

to

pay

Any person who lodges a caveat with the Registrar without reasonable cause is liable to pay compensation to anyone who suffers damage as a consequence.80

Procedure [5.260]

A person wishing to protect an interest in a ship or share by means of a caveat must lodge a caveat in the prescribed form with the Registrar of Ships.81 Once a caveat has been lodged with the Registrar, the Registrar must enter the caveat in the relevant Shipping Register.82 He or she does this by entering the name and address of the caveator, and the date of the caveat. The Registrar must then give particulars of the caveat to every person named in the Register as an owner or part-owner of the ship or share in which the caveator is claiming an interest.83 Any person who has, or should have, received notice of a caveat may then summon the caveator to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory to show cause why the caveat should not be removed.84 Upon the hearing of the summons, the Supreme Court may make such order as it thinks fit either in favour of or against the caveator.85

Effect of a caveat [5.270]

As a general rule, for so long as a caveat remains in force in respect of a ship or share in a ship, the Registrar may not enter particulars of any dealing with this property in the relevant Shipping Register without the consent in writing of a person entitled to withdraw this caveat.86 The Registrar may, however, enter a dealing in the Register if this has already been lodged with him or her prior to the lodgment of the caveat,87 or if he or she is satisfied that this will vest in the caveator the interest which the latter is claiming in the caveat.88

80 Section 47E. 81 Section 47A(1). The prescribed form is Form 5 in Sch 2 to the Shipping Registration Regulations. 82 This duty is not expressed in the Act; it is nonetheless understood to be implied by s 47A. 83 Section 47B(1). 84 Section 47B(2). 85 Section 47B(3). 86 Section 47D(1). 87 Section 47D(2). 88 Section 47A(7).

110

Shipping Law

[5.280]

Unless a caveat specifies to the contrary, it does not prevent the Registrar from entering in the relevant Shipping Register the transmission of a registered ship or share by operation of law.89

[5.280]

Caveat cannot prevent a transfer of title

As title to a ship or share in a ship does not ordinarily depend upon registration, a caveat cannot ordinarily prevent the transfer of title to a registered ship or share in a ship. A caveat simply prevents the registration of a transfer of title.

Cessation of caveat [5.290]

A caveat continues in operation until:

• it is withdrawn by the caveator or by his or her agent or representative;90 • it is removed by order of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory pursuant to a summons against the caveator to show cause why this should not be done;91 or • it has lapsed or is deemed to have lapsed. A caveat lapses when the Registrar enters a dealing in the relevant Shipping Register which vests in the caveator the interest which he or she is claiming in the caveat.92 A caveat is also normally deemed to have lapsed 14 days after notice has been given to the caveator by the registered owner or other person interested that an application had been made for the registration of a dealing with the property in which the caveator is claiming an interest.93 The Supreme Court of a State or Territory is, however, empowered to make an order that a caveat not lapse after the expiration of the 14 days’ notice.94 It is likely to do so, for example, where the caveator has instituted proceedings or has taken other steps within the 14-day period to protect his or her interest in the property.

Postscript: caveat against arrest or release of ships [5.300]

A caveat forbidding the registration of certain instruments in the relevant Shipping Register must be distinguished from a caveat against the arrest or release of a ship or other maritime property in proceedings in rem. The former is a creature of the Shipping Registration Act; the latter is a creature of Admiralty rules of court.

89 Section 47D(3). 90 See s 47A(6). The Australian Shipping Registration Office has produced its own form for this purpose. It is available on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s website. 91 See s 47B(2), (3). 92 Section 47A(7). 93 Section 47C. 94 Section 47C.

[5.330]

[5.310]

5 Property, Ownership and Title

111

Caveat against the arrest of a ship

A caveat against the arrest of a ship or other maritime property is a formal notice, effected by filing an appropriate form in any Federal Court registry, that a person wishes to prevent the arrest of particular property and to this end has undertaken both to enter an appearance in any action that may be commenced against the property, and to give bail or pay money into court up to a particular sum, within three days of service of the process.95 The entry of a caveat does not prevent the arrest of the property in question. However, if the property is subsequently arrested without good and sufficient reason, the caveator may apply to the court not only for its release but also for an award of costs and damages against the person responsible for the arrest.

[5.320]

Caveat against the release of a ship

A caveat against the release of a ship or other property arrested in proceedings in rem is a formal notice, effected by filing an appropriate form in the court by which the arrest warrant was issued, that a person wishes to prevent the release of arrested property.96 This caveat has the effect of preventing the release of the property until notice has been given to the caveator. If the caveat results in a delay in the release of the property or proceeds of sale, the caveator is liable to pay damages in respect of any loss suffered by reason of the delay unless the court is satisfied that the caveator had a good and sufficient reason for entering the caveat.

[5.330]

Duration of a caveat

A caveat against arrest or release normally lasts for 12 months, or for such shorter period as is specified in the caveat, unless it is withdrawn by the caveator before then.97

95 Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth), r 7, Form 2. 96 Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth), r 10, Form 4. 97 Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth), rr 12(1), 13.

6

Acquisition of Property in Ships [6.10] METHODS OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY IN SHIPS ................................. 113 [6.20] CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS ......................................................................... 114 [6.50] TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN SHIPS ......................................................... 116

[6.50] Transfer of property in registered ships ........................................ 116 [6.190] Transfer of property in unregistered ships ................................. 121 [6.200] No restrictions on persons to whom ships may be transferred ......................................................................................... 122 [6.210] TRANSMISSION OF PROPERTY IN SHIPS ............................................. 122

[6.210] Transmission of property in registered ships ............................. 122 [6.280] Transmission of property in unregistered ships ........................ 125

METHODS OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY IN SHIPS [6.10]

A person can acquire a ship in one of three ways: by construction, by transfer or by transmission. Construction here includes not only personal construction, but also having a ship built by a shipbuilder pursuant to a shipbuilding contract. Transfer means a deliberate conveyance of property in an existing ship.1 This can result from a sale, an exchange or a gift. Transmission means the conveyance of property in a ship solely by operation of law, for example as a result of the death or bankruptcy of the owner of a ship or by an order of a court.2 The transfer and transmission of property in registered ships are the subject of special provisions of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth). Until the middle of the 19th century, a person might also acquire a ship by capture pursuant to letters of marque, followed by condemnation of the ship by a court of competent jurisdiction. Letters of marque were letters under the hand of a sovereign which permitted a subject to fit out an armed vessel and use it to capture merchant shipping belonging to the 1 Chasteauneuf v Capeyron and Delange (1881) 7 App Cas 127 at 133-134. 2 Chasteauneuf v Capeyron and Delange (1881) 7 App Cas 127 at 133-134.

114

Shipping Law

[6.20]

subjects of a hostile state. They thus legalised acts which would otherwise constitute piracy. Letters of marque were abolished by the Declaration of Paris 1856.3 The Crown can still acquire an enemy ship by capture in times of war, followed by condemnation by a Prize Court. This is the subject of the law of prize, which is not considered further in this work.

CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS [6.20]

There are no statutory provisions which specifically concern the acquisition of property in a ship by construction. Accordingly, the ordinary law of personal property applies. Where construction is undertaken by a third party for payment, the ordinary law concerning the sale of goods is also applicable.4

[6.30]

Property-passing provision in a shipbuilding contract

Under a typical shipbuilding contract, the purchaser of a ship under construction undertakes to pay the purchase price by instalments, the first upon the signing of the contract and the others at various stages of the ship’s construction. The shipbuilder for his or her part usually agrees that upon payment of the first instalment, property in the ship under construction vests in the purchaser subject to the shipbuilder’s lien for any unpaid instalments.5 This means that during construction the ship cannot be taken by the shipbuilder’s creditors.6 There is authority for the proposition that by virtue of the usual terms of a shipbuilding contract, an agreement to pay an initial instalment of the purchase price of a ship under construction, either forthwith or at a particular stage of its construction, is prima facie evidence of an intention by the parties that property in the ship will pass upon payment of this instalment.7 This is subject to any clear intention to the contrary, for example by an agreement that the ship is not to be accepted and property pass until after successful trials have been carried out.8 3 Under s 8 of the Constitution of the United States, Congress still has power to grant letters of marque. 4 Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649; Lloyd del Pacifico v Board of Trade (1930) 35 Ll L Rep 217; McDougall v Aeromarine of Emsworth Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1126 at 1129; Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 at 465-466. 5 Howden Brothers Ltd v Ulster Bank Ltd and Hugh Boyd and the Olderfleet Shipbuilding and Engineering Co Ltd [1924] 1 Ir R 117 at 125-126. 6 Re Blyth Shipbuilding & Dry Docks Co Ltd; Forster v Blyth Shipbuilding & Dry Docks Co Ltd [1926] Ch 494. 7 Woods, Assignee of Alexander Paton, a Bankrupt v Russell (1822) 5 B & Ald 942; 106 ER 1436 at 946; 1438; Clarke v Spence (1836) 4 Ad & E 448; 111 ER 855 at 470-472; 864; Seath & Co Ltd v Moore (1886) 11 App Cas 350 at 380; D Maclachlan, G St Clair Pilcher and O Bateson, A Treatise on the Law of Merchant Shipping (7th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1932), p 5. 8 See Sir James Laing & Sons Ltd v Barclay, Curle & Co Ltd [1908] AC 35.

[6.40]

6 Acquisition of Property in Ships

115

If it is agreed by the parties that property in a ship under construction is to pass at a particular stage in its construction, once that stage is reached, property in the partly completed ship and in all subsequent additions and improvements to it vest in the purchaser.9 Any problems arising under a shipbuilding contract involving a propertypassing provision (for example, if at the time that a relevant instalment is paid there is nothing yet physically in existence, and whether property also passes in materials — and in particular worked materials and distinct chattels — that are set aside for incorporation but not yet incorporated in the ship) rely for their solution on the terms of the contract and the ordinary law concerning the sale of goods.10 A property-passing provision in a shipbuilding contract does not without more deprive the purchaser of the right to reject the ship when it is completed if it is found to be defective.11

[6.40]

Passing of property in other circumstances

If a shipbuilding contract does not contain a property-passing provision and there is no agreement between the parties to the contrary, property in the ship passes to the purchaser upon either its completion and delivery12 or its completion and approval by the purchaser,13 whichever is the earlier. In the meantime, property remains with the builder. This is so even if the purchaser agrees to pay the purchase price in simple instalments14 (as opposed to payment by instalments at certain stages of a particular ship’s construction), and indeed even if he or she pays the entire purchase price in advance.15 Where the property in a ship under construction is to pass to a purchaser upon completion, the shipbuilder may always expressly or impliedly consent to passing property in the ship to the purchaser before then, for

9 Clarke v Spence (1836) 4 Ad & E 448; 111 ER 855 at 470-471; 380. 10 Wood v Bell, Rhodes and Moser (1856) 6 El & Bl 355; 119 ER 897 at 361-362; 900; Seath & Co v Moore (1886) 11 App Cas 350; Reid v Macbeth & Gray [1904] AC 223; Re Blyth Shipbuilding & Dry Docks Co Ltd; Forster v Blyth Shipbuilding & Dry Docks Co Ltd [1926] Ch 494; McDougall v Aeromarine of Emsworth Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1126. 11 McDougall v Aeromarine of Emsworth Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1126 at 1130. 12 Mucklow, Assignees of Royland v Mangles (1808) 1 Taunt 318; 127 ER 856; Atkinson, Assignees of Sleddon v Bell (1828) 8 B & C 277; 108 ER 1046 at 282; 1048; Howden Brothers Ltd v Ulster Bank Ltd and Hugh Boyd and the Olderfleet Shipbuilding and Engineering Co Ltd [1924] 1 Ir R 117 at 123. 13 Clarke v Spence (1836) 4 Ad & E 448; 111 ER 855 at 467-469; 863; Heilbutt v Hickson (1872) LR 7 CP 438 at 449. 14 Clarke v Spence (1836) 4 Ad & E 448; 111 ER 855 at 466; 862. 15 Mucklow, Assignee of Royland v Mangles (1808) 1 Taunt 318; 127 ER 856.

116

Shipping Law

[6.50]

example by signing the builder’s certificate before completion to enable the advance registration of the ship in the name of the purchaser.16

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN SHIPS Transfer of property in registered ships Owner’s right to transfer interest in a registered ship

[6.50]

By s 45 of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), the sole registered owner17 of a registered ship18 or of a share in a registered ship may ordinarily dispose of this property whenever he or she pleases, without regard to any other person. The sole owner of a share in a registered ship may thus ordinarily dispose of this property without the concurrence of the owners of the other shares. By virtue of s 11(1)(d), however, a joint owner of a registered ship or of a share in a registered ship, cannot dispose of his or her interest alone. All joint owners must join together in disposing of a jointly-owned interest in a registered ship or share in such a ship. Although the sole owner of a registered ship or of a share in a registered ship may ordinarily dispose of this property whenever he or she pleases without regard to any other person, there may of course be constraints outside the Act on an owner’s ability to dispose of a ship or share, for example a provision in a mortgage which restrains sale.

Requirement of transfer by bill of sale

[6.60]

A registered ship, or share in a registered ship, can be transferred only by a bill of sale made in accordance with the regulations under the Shipping Registration Act.19 A bill of sale in this context is simply an instrument of assignment;20 it is not a bill of sale in any more restricted sense, for example in the sense of an instrument transferring title to goods where possession is to be retained by the transferor.21

[6.70]

Statutory requirements of a bill of sale for transfer of a registered ship

Under the Shipping Registration Regulations 1981 (Cth), a bill of sale transferring a registered ship or share in a registered ship must specify the name and official number of the ship, the number of shares in the ship 16 See Woods, Assignee of Alexander Paton, a Bankrupt v Russell (1822) 5 B & Ald 942; 106 ER 1436 at 946-947; 1438-1439; Gross, Assignee of Williams, a Bankrupt v Quinton (1842) 3 Man & G 825; 133 ER 1372. 17 See s 3(1) (definition of “owner”). 18 Section 34. 19 Section 36(1), with s 34; Household Financial Services Ltd v Island and River Trading Pty Ltd [1994] ACL Rep 295 NSW 10. 20 Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 at 277. 21 Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 at 277.

[6.100]

6 Acquisition of Property in Ships

117

to which the bill of sale relates, and the name and address of each transferor and transferee.22 It must also be signed by each transferor.23

[6.80]

Form produced by the Australian Shipping Registration Office

There is no prescribed form which must be used for a bill of sale for the transfer of a registered ship or share. The Australian Shipping Registration Office has produced its own form, “Bill of Sale”, which covers all the requirements for an effective transfer of a registered ship or share. This is available on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s website.24

[6.90]

Effect of non-compliance with statutory requirements

A purported transfer of a registered ship or a share in a registered ship other than by a bill of sale containing the required information is void.25 Limits of the requirement of transfer of a registered ship by a bill of sale

[6.100]

The requirement in the Shipping Registration Act that a registered ship, or a share in a registered ship, be transferred by a bill of sale made in accordance with the regulations applies only to a deliberate assignment by the owner of such property. This is clear from the use of the term “transferred” in s 36(1). This requirement thus does not apply to the transmission of a ship or share. Separate provisions apply to that situation, which are considered separately at [6.210]–[6.240]. Other limits of the statutory requirement are also evident from the terms of the relevant statutory provisions. Thus, the requirement applies only to a registered ship.26 The transfer of an unregistered ship or of a share in an unregistered ship is consequently not covered by this requirement, even if the ship is one which is required to be registered under the Act.27

There is old English authority for the proposition that the transfer of even a registered ship is not covered by the statutory requirement if the ship is otherwise exempt from registration.28 It is highly doubtful, however, whether this is good law in Australia today, for the terms of s 36(1), with s 34, seem clearly to indicate that all registered ships without exception must be transferred by a bill of sale made in accordance with the regulations.

22 Regulation 23(1)(a). 23 Regulation 23(1)(b). 24 See: http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/AMSA159.pdf. 25 Batthyany v Bouch (1881) 50 LJQB 421 at 424. 26 See s 34. 27 See Union Bank of London v Lenanton (1878) 3 CPD 243 at 248. 28 Benyon v Cresswell (1848) 12 QB 899; 116 ER 1107 at 903-904; 1109.

118

Shipping Law

[6.110]

The statutory requirement does not apply if a ship’s registration is closed or deemed to be closed.29 This follows from the fact that closure of registration places a ship in the same position as an unregistered ship. The statutory requirement of s 36(1) applies only to the transfer of a ship or share in a ship. It accordingly does not apply to a mere agreement to transfer such property.30 There is English authority for the proposition that if a registered ship ceases to be a ship for any reason (for example, because it has since become a floating store and is no longer able, and is not intended ever again, to be used in navigation31), its transfer is not subject to the statutory requirements, even though its registration may still technically be open.32 This, however, is probably no longer good law in Australia in light of the broad terms of s 36(1), with s 34.

[6.110]

Caveat to the foregoing

The preceding discussion of the limits of the statutory requirement concerning the transfer of a ship or share implies that in all situations outside these limits, a ship can be transferred not only without a bill of sale made in accordance with the regulations, but without a bill of sale of any kind. Whilst there is authority for the proposition that a ship not covered by the statutory requirement can be transferred without a bill of sale, in the same way as any other ordinary chattel, there is also authority for the proposition that all ships must be transferred by a bill of sale, whether or not they are registered. This matter is considered further at [6.190]. Required formalities upon the transfer of registered ship

[6.120]

Upon the transfer of a registered ship or share in a registered ship, the bill of sale and a declaration of transfer must be lodged by the transferee with the Registrar of Ships.33 This must normally be done within 14 days of the execution of the bill of sale, though the Registrar

29 Manchester Ship Canal Co v Horlock [1914] 2 Ch 199 at 207. 30 Batthyany v Bouch (1881) 50 LJQB 421. 31 European & Australian Royal Mail Co v Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co (1866) 14 LT 704. 32 European & Australian Royal Mail Co v Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co (1866) 14 LT 704. Note, however, that if a registered ship ceases to be a “ship” as defined in s 3(1), the owner is required by s 66(1)(b) to give notice of this fact to the Registrar of Ships, as a result of which the ship’s registration will be deemed to be closed: see s 66(2), (3)(b). 33 Section 36(2).

[6.140]

6 Acquisition of Property in Ships

119

may extend this period in special circumstances.34 The ship’s registration certificate must also be delivered to the Registrar for endorsement with particulars of the change of ownership.35

[6.130]

Declaration of transfer

The object of the declaration of transfer is to indicate to the Registrar of Ships that the ship is still entitled to be registered in the relevant Shipping Register. The declaration must be in writing and it must specify the name and official number of the ship, the date of the bill of sale, the nationality of each transferee, the grounds upon which he or she claims such nationality, and the extent of each transferee’s interest in the ship.36 If a transferee is a company or a corporation, the declaration must specify instead of nationality the country in which it is incorporated.37 No statement of nationality is required if the transferee is the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.38 The declaration of transfer must also contain a statement that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the declaration the ship will not cease to be an Australian-owned ship, or in the case of a ship on demise charter will not cease to be on demise charter to an Australianbased operator, as a result of the transfer.39 If the ship is a “small craft” as defined in the Act, the declaration must also specify the transferee’s normal place of residence (or in the case of a company or corporation, its principal place of business) and a statement that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the declaration, the ship will not cease as a result of the transfer to come within the class of small craft that are entitled to be registered under the Act.40 No statement concerning the continuing status of the ship is required if the transferee is the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.41 A declaration of transfer must be signed by each transferee.42

[6.140]

Change of registered agent

If the transfer of a registered ship or share leads to a change in the ship’s registered agent, a notice of this change must be lodged with the Registrar of Ships along with the bill of sale.43 34 Section 36(2). 35 Section 37A. 36 Section 36(3); reg 23(2)(a), (b), (c). 37 Section 36(3)(a)(i), (b)(i). 38 Section 36(3). 39 Section 36(3)(a)(ii), (b)(iii), (4). 40 Section 36(3)(b)(ii), (iii). 41 Section 36(3). 42 Section 36(3); reg 23(2)(d). 43 Regulation 23(3).

120

Shipping Law

[6.150]

[6.150]

Forms produced by the Australian Shipping Registration Office

The Australian Shipping Registration Office has produced its own internal forms entitled “Declaration of Transfer” and “Notice of Appointment of Registered Agent (Ship’s Manager)”. These are available on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s website.44

[6.160]

Registration of bill of sale by Registrar of Ships

As soon as practicable after both the bill of sale and the declaration of transfer have been lodged with the Registrar of Ships, the Registrar is required to register the bill of sale in the relevant Shipping Register.45 Registration is effected by the Registrar entering in the relevant Register the name of the transferee as the owner of the ship or of a particular number of shares in the ship.46 The register entry in relation to a transfer in fact goes further than this. It sets out the transferor’s name, the number of shares transferred, the date and time of registration, the date of the bill of sale, and the name, address and nationality of the transferee. The Registrar must also endorse on the bill of sale a note of the fact that entry has been made in the relevant Register, and the date and time of the entry.47 Bills of sale must be registered in the order of their lodgment with the Registrar of Ships.48

[6.170]

Delivery and endorsement of registration certificate

When a registered ship or a share in a registered ship is transferred by a bill of sale, the person who has possession or control of the registration certificate must deliver it to the transferee at the time of the transfer, or if the ship is not then at an Australian port, as soon as practicable afterwards.49 Once the transferee has received the registration certificate, he or she must immediately deliver it to the Registrar of Ships.50 The Registrar must then endorse the registration certificate with the particulars of the change of ownership and return it either to the ship’s registered agent or to such other person as the registered agent directs.51

44 See: http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications. 45 Section 36(2A). 46 Section 36(2A). 47 Section 36(2A). 48 Section 36(5). 49 Section 37A(1). 50 Section 37A(2). 51 Section 37A(3).

[6.190]

[6.180]

6 Acquisition of Property in Ships

121

Offences

It is an offence for a transferee of a registered ship or share not to lodge the bill of sale and a declaration of transfer with the Registrar of Ships within the time specified by the Act.52 It is also an offence for the person required to deliver the ship’s registration certificate to the transferee not to do so, and for the transferee then not to deliver the registration certificate to the Registrar for endorsement with the particulars of change of ownership.53 These latter are offences of strict liability.54

Transfer of property in unregistered ships [6.190]

There are no legislative provisions, whether Commonwealth, State or territorial, which specifically concern the transfer of property in an unregistered ship. Modern Australian authority supports the proposition that the ordinary rules on the transfer of property in chattels therefore apply,55 with the result that an unregistered ship can be transferred by delivery without writing. There is, indeed, good English authority for the latter point.56 However, there is also authority for the proposition that there are special common law rules concerning the transfer of property in ships,57 and that for such a transfer a bill of sale is nonetheless required.58 Whether or not a bill of sale is strictly necessary for the transfer of an unregistered ship — and modern Australian authority supports the view that it is not required59 — it is certainly the usual means by which such a transfer is effected. This practice has long historical antecedents60 and derives from the fact that delivery of a ship might be impractical and at

52 Section 36(2), with s 74(1). 53 Section 37A, with s 74(1A). 54 Section 37A(1A), (2A). 55 Bluecorp Pty Ltd (In liq) v ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd (1995) 127 FLR 120 at 131-132; Mentink v Registrar of the Australian Register of Ships (2012) 277 FLR 248 at 259. See also Union Bank of London v Lenanton (1878) 3 CPD 243 at 250. 56 Benyon v Cresswell (1848) 12 QB 899; 116 ER 1107 at 903-904; 1109; Manchester Ship Canal Co v Horlock [1914] 2 Ch 199, esp at 207; The James W Elwell [1921] P 351 at 368. 57 See, eg, Hooper v Gumm; McLellan v Gumm (1867) 2 Ch App 282 at 290: “A ship is not like an ordinary personal chattel; it does not pass by delivery, nor does the possession of it prove the title to it.” For a consideration of this statement, see Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 at 465. 58 The Sisters (1804) 5 C Rob 155; 165 ER 731 at 159; 732-733. For a consideration of this decision, see Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 at 462-464. 59 Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 at 464. See also Tisand Pty Ltd v Owners of Ship MV Cape Moreton (Ex parte Freya) (2005) 143 FCR 43 at 76. 60 Bill of sale for the transfer of a ship was recognised in statute as early as 1786: see Merchant Shipping Act 1786, s 17.

122

Shipping Law

[6.200]

times impossible (for example, when the ship is away at sea),61 with the result that transfer must then be effected in some other way, and a bill or sale was perhaps the most obvious in a maritime context.

No restrictions on persons to whom ships may be transferred [6.200]

There are no restrictions on those to whom a ship, or a share in ships, may be transferred. This freedom of transfer has not always been part of Australian law. From the commencement of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956 (Cth) (now entitled the ANL Act 1956 (Cth)) until 1984, there was a prohibition on the transfer of certain ships, or of shares in such ships, to any person who was not resident in Australia, or to any company or corporation whose principal place of business was not in Australia, without the consent of the Minister for Transport.62 This prohibition applied to all ships that were registered in Australia, or were owned, managed or controlled by an Australian resident or by a company or corporation which had its principal place of business in Australia, and which had a gross tonnage of 200 tons and were not more than 25 years old.63 The Minister was empowered to consent to the transfer of such ships to persons outside Australia only if this would help to provide adequate commercial shipping services within Australia.64

The purpose of the former restrictions was twofold. First, it was to help prevent a run down of Australia’s commercial shipping services, and secondly, to ensure that any ship built in an Australian shipyard with the assistance of a government subsidy would serve Australia for the bulk of its useful life.65

TRANSMISSION OF PROPERTY IN SHIPS Transmission of property in registered ships [6.210]

There is no special law relating to the process of transmission of property in registered ships. The law on this matter is the same as that relating to the transmission of chattels generally. There are, however, statutory requirements which must be complied with by a person who acquires property in a registered ship as a result of transmission. When a person becomes the owner of a registered ship or a share in a registered ship by transmission, he or she is required to lodge with the Registrar of Ships a declaration of transmission and any prescribed evidence of transmission within 14 days.66 This period may be extended

61 Atkinson v Maling (1788) 2 TR 462; 100 ER 249. 62 Section 48(1)(a). 63 Section 48(1)(a), (6). 64 See s 48(5). 65 See 11 H Rep Deb 3022 (8 June 1956). 66 Section 37(1), with s 34.

[6.230]

6 Acquisition of Property in Ships

123

by the Registrar in special circumstances.67 The ship’s registration certificate must also be delivered to the Registrar for endorsement with particulars of the change of ownership.68 Upon receipt of a declaration of transmission and any prescribed evidence of transmission, the Registrar is required to enter the name of the new owner in the relevant Shipping Register as soon as practicable.69

[6.220]

Declaration of transmission

A declaration of transmission is very similar to a declaration of transfer. It must be in writing and it must specify the name and official number of the ship, the name and address of the person who has ceased to be the owner, or one of the owners, of the ship or share in the ship by virtue of the transmission, and the name, address and nationality of the person to whom the ship or share is transmitted.70 Except where the person entitled under the transmission is the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, a declaration of transmission must also contain the same information concerning the nationality of the new owner and the continuing status of the ship as is required in a declaration of transfer.71 A declaration of transmission must be signed by the person to whom the ship or share is transmitted.72

[6.230]

Prescribed evidence of transmission upon death and by court order

Evidence is presently prescribed for the transmission of a registered ship, or of a share in a registered ship, in just two circumstances, namely upon the death of an owner and by a court order. In the case of transmission upon the death of the sole owner or an owner in common of a ship or share in a ship, the prescribed evidence is the instrument (or an office copy of the instrument) constituting a person as the deceased’s legal personal representative and an instrument identifying the person who is to become the owner of the ship or share as a result of the transmission.73 In the case of transmission upon the death of a joint owner of a ship, or a joint owner of a share in a ship, the prescribed evidence of transmission is either the deceased owner’s death or burial certificate, or the probate or letters of administration of the deceased’s estate (or an office copy of any such document), and a statutory declaration by a person well acquainted 67 Section 37(1), with s 34. 68 Section 37A. 69 Section 37(1A). 70 Section 37(2); reg 24(2)(a), (b). 71 Section 37(2). 72 Section 37(2); reg 24(2)(c). 73 Shipping Registration Regulations, reg 24(1)(b).

124

Shipping Law

[6.240]

with the facts of the case that the deceased is the same person as the joint owner named in the relevant Shipping Register.74 If transmission occurs as a result of a court order, the prescribed evidence is an office copy of the order.75

[6.240]

Evidence of transmission upon bankruptcy

There is no prescribed evidence for the transmission of a ship, or share in a ship, upon bankruptcy. However, as a matter of practice the Registrar of Ships requires evidence of the appointment of a trustee, or such other evidence of the bankruptcy as he or she considers appropriate. This is done by virtue of the powers conferred upon the Registrar by reg 40 (“Verification of information etc”) of the Shipping Registration Regulations.

[6.250]

Forms produced by the Australian Shipping Registration Office

There is no prescribed form which must be used to satisfy the formal requirements for the acquisition of a registered ship or share by transmission. The Australian Shipping Registration Office has, however, produced its own form for this purpose entitled “Declaration of Transmission of Ownership by Operation of Law”. This is available on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s website.76

[6.260]

Delivery and endorsement of registration certificate

Upon transmission of a registered ship or share, the person who has possession or control of the ship’s registration certificate must give it to the transmittee, who is then required to deliver it to the Registrar of Ships for endorsement with particulars of the change of ownership.77 The requirements here are the same as those applying upon the transfer of a ship or share in a ship.

[6.270]

Offences

It is an offence for a person to whom a registered ship or share in a registered ship is transmitted not to lodge a declaration of transmission and the prescribed evidence of transmission to the Registrar of Ships within the time specified by the Act.78 It is also an offence for the person required to deliver the ship’s registration certificate to the transmittee not to do so, and for the

74 Regulation 24(1)(a). 75 Regulation 24(1)(c). 76 See: http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications. 77 Section 37A. 78 Section 37(1), with s 74(1).

[6.280]

6 Acquisition of Property in Ships

125

transmittee then not to deliver the registration certificate to the Registrar for endorsement with the particulars of change of ownership.79 These latter are offences of strict liability.80

Transmission of property in unregistered ships [6.280]

There are no special requirements which must be complied with by a person who acquires property in an unregistered ship as a result of transmission.

79 Section 37A, with s 74(1A). 80 Section 37A(1A), (2A).

7

Introduction to Charges over Ships [7.10] CLASSIFICATION OF CHARGES OVER SHIPS ....................................... 127 [7.40] POSITION OF CHARGES OVER SHIPS UNDER THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES ACT ....................................................................... 128 [7.50] PRIORITY OF CHARGES OVER A SHIP .................................................... 129 [7.80] PARAMOUNT STATUTORY CHARGES ..................................................... 130

CLASSIFICATION OF CHARGES OVER SHIPS [7.10]

A charge, or encumbrance, can arise over a ship either intentionally or by operation of law. In theory, two kinds of charge can be created over a ship intentionally. These are a mortgage and bottomry, though bottomry is now obsolete. Three kinds of charge can arise over a ship by operation of law. These are a maritime lien, a possessory (or common law) lien, and a statutory charge.

[7.20]

Mortgage and bottomry

The principal charge that can be created over a ship intentionally is a mortgage. A mortgage of a ship, like a mortgage of any other property, can be created only by the owner or his or her authorised agent. Ships are, however, different from other forms of property in that they can, in theory at least, be made the subject of something akin to a mortgage without the knowledge or express authority of the owner. A ship’s master can in theory always charge his ship when in foreign parts in order to obtain necessary repairs or supplies for the voyage to continue. This charge is called bottomry. It is created by a bond called a bottomry bond. A ship’s master can also charge the ship’s cargo on a similar basis. The charge is then known as respondentia. Bottomry and respondentia are now obsolete. A mortgage, on the other hand, remains a very popular form of charge on a ship. It is indeed the principal means by which a ship is used as security for a loan.

[7.30]

Possessory liens, maritime liens and statutory charges

Two kinds of lien can attach to a ship, namely a possessory lien and a maritime lien. Both arise solely by operation of law. They thus arise independently of the will of the ship’s owner, and also independently of the will of the ship’s master. A possessory lien is the ordinary common

128

Shipping Law

[7.40]

law charge which entitles a person to retain possession of property until a debt incurred in relation to it has been paid. In shipping law, a possessory lien commonly arises in favour of a shipbuilder or ship repairer in possession of a ship to secure the purchase price of the ship or the cost of repairs. A maritime lien is altogether different. This is a charge that arises by operation of law over a ship or certain other property, irrespective of possession, in order to secure particular types of claims. One such claim is for damage caused by the ship; another is for salvage reward; and a third is for crew wages. The maritime lien that secures these three claims is a creature of general maritime law — the “common law” of courts exercising Admiralty jurisdiction1 which is now part of the common law of Australia.2 Statute has since created certain statutory maritime liens. Statute has also created other forms of statutory charges over ships, including paramount statutory charges and so-called “statutory liens” which are different from statutory maritime liens. Despite their disparity, all liens have this in common: they operate as security for an outstanding claim of money. If such a claim is not available for any reason, the foundation for the claim does not exist.3

POSITION OF CHARGES OVER SHIPS UNDER THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES ACT [7.40]

Both maritime liens and possessory (common law) liens fall outside the scope of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). This is because the Act excludes from its operation “a lien, charge, or any other interest in personal property, that is created, arises or is provided for by operation of the general law”.4 “General law” here means the principles and rules of the common law and equity.5 A statutory lien also does not come within the scope of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) because it too arises by operation of the general law — more particularly here by virtue of general maritime law, which is now part of the common law.6 A statutory lien arises as a consequence of a claimant instituting proceedings in rem. In any event, a statutory lien is anyway not a “security interest” with which the Act is concerned because it does not result from “a transaction that … secures payment or performance of an obligation”.7 1 See The Gaetano and Maria (1882) 7 PD 137 at 143. 2 Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 471. 3 Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369 at 411. 4 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), s 8(1)(c). Note the limited provisions on priority of interests that arise by law and other security interests in s 73(1). 5 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), s 10. 6 Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 471. 7 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), s 12.

[7.60]

7 Introduction to Charges over Ships

129

A paramount statutory charge also does not come within the scope of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 because the Act excludes “a lien, charge, or any other interest in personal property, that is created, arises or is provided for under a law of the Commonwealth … a State or a Territory”.8 Both a ship mortgage and bottomry, on the other hand, do come within the scope of the Act because both are charges that are deliberately created in order to secure payment of a financial liability.

PRIORITY OF CHARGES OVER A SHIP [7.50]

It is possible for a ship to be subject not only to different kinds of charges, but also to different charges of the same kind. For example, a ship might be encumbered by a mortgage. This ship might then collide with a vessel at sea and thus be subject to a maritime lien to secure a claims for ship damage. The ship might subsequently founder. Salvors might then salvage the vessel and take it to a shipyard where it receives extensive repairs. As a result of the salvage exercise, the salvors will enjoy a maritime lien to secure their claim for salvage reward, and for so long as the ship is in the possession of the ship repairer, he or she will enjoy a possessory lien to secure the cost of the repairs. The owner of the ship might then become insolvent. In a case like this it becomes essential to determine the order of priority of the various charges to which the ship is now subject, for this will regulate the order in which the chargees will be satisfied from the proceeds of sale of the ship. The subject of priorities among maritime charges is complex. However, under general maritime law the basic order of priorities between different kinds of maritime charges is as follows: • paramount statutory charges; • maritime liens (including statutory maritime liens); • possessory liens; • bottomry and respondentia; • mortgages; and • statutory liens. With the exception of statutory liens, these charges are considered in turn in this chapter and in Chapters 8–10 according to the order of priorities just presented. Statutory liens are considered in the context of maritime liens, with which they have clear similarity. The order of priorities among charges of the same kind is considered in the course of the examination of each type of charge.

[7.60]

Effect of the Personal Property Securities Act

As is discussed in Chapters 8 and 9, maritime liens, possessory liens, paramount statutory charges and statutory liens, do not come within the 8 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), s 8(1)(b). Note the limited provisions on priority of interests that arise by law and other security interests in s 73(1).

130

Shipping Law

[7.70]

scope of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). As a consequence of this they retain their order of priority under general maritime law. It would appear that these charges also take priority to any charge that comes within the scope of the Act. Ship mortgages and bottomry, however, are subject to the rules of priority prescribed by the Act. These rules are considered in Chapter 10.

[7.70]

Legal costs

Under general maritime law, legal costs ordinarily rank with the claim involved.9

PARAMOUNT STATUTORY CHARGES [7.80]

Statute can always impose a charge upon a ship to secure a particular payment and give this charge priority over all other charges. It is not usual for a statute to do this expressly. It is, however, reasonably common for a statute to do so impliedly by giving a person or body the power to detain a ship for non-payment of certain fees or charges. This power sometimes has associated with it a further power to sell the ship and take the amount owing from the proceeds of sale if payment is not made within a particular period. A provision of either the narrower or the broader kind was once a common feature of harbour legislation to secure the payment of harbour dues,10 though it is now more often found in other legislation involving shipping.11

[7.90]

Paramountcy of statutory charge

A statutory power to detain a ship for non-payment of fees or other financial liability clearly creates a form of statutory possessory lien.12 It does not, however, usually confer any express right of priority over any other charge. English cases, however, make it clear that such a power creates a paramount charge, for they hold that the right to payment which is secured by a statutory possessory lien takes priority over all other charges.13 This is so whether or not there is also a power of sale.14 Consistently with the rules relating to common law possessory liens, the right of priority afforded by a statutory possessory lien is lost if the ship is 9 The Heinrich (1872) LR 3 A & E 505; The Immacolata Concezione (1883) 9 PD 37. 10 For a current instance, see Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 (SA), s 31C. 11 See Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth), s 65; Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cth), s 17(3). 12 Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Hay: SS The Countess [1923] AC 345, esp at 354, 366-367. 13 The Emilie Millon [1905] 2 KB 817; R v Carrick District Council; Ex parte Prankerd [1999] 2 WLR 489 at 491-492. 14 The Emilie Millon [1905] 2 KB 817; The Spermina (1923) 17 Ll L Rep 17 at 18; Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Hay: SS The Countess [1923] AC 345 at 374; The Spermina (1923) 17 Ll L Rep 52 at 53; British Transport Docks Board v Owners of the Proceeds of Sale of the Charger and Other Vessels: The Charger and Other Vessels [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 670 at 671-672.

[7.110]

7 Introduction to Charges over Ships

131

not detained or if it is prematurely freed from detention. In that event, any fees or liabilities due have no priority over any other charge.15

[7.100]

Paramount statutory charges and Admiralty proceedings in rem

A ship which has been detained pursuant to a statutory power of detention in relation to a civil claim is nonetheless susceptible to arrest in Admiralty proceedings in rem.16 If it is arrested, then for so long as it remains under arrest, the detention of the ship is suspended.17 If the ship is subsequently sold in proceedings in rem, the priority originally secured by the detention under the statutory power is transferred to the proceeds of sale of the ship.18 A ship which has been detained with a view to forfeiture by way of a penalty can also be arrested in proceedings in rem, though the court then has a discretion on how to adjust the rights of the competing claimants.19 A ship which is under arrest in proceedings in rem cannot be detained pursuant to a statutory power of detention if this power relates to a civil claim.20

[7.110]

Effect on mortgage upon a sale pursuant to a statutory right of sale

If a ship is sold pursuant to a statutory right of sale, the ship is sold free of any mortgage, at least if the purchaser was unaware of this encumbrance at the time of the sale.21

15 The Emilie Millon [1905] 2 KB 817; British Transport Docks Board v Owners of the Proceeds of Sale of the Charger and Other Vessels: The Charger and Other Vessels [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 670 at 672. 16 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 36(1), (3). 17 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 36(4). 18 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 36(5). 19 Readhead v Admiralty Marshal, Western Australia District Registry (1998) 87 FCR 229 at 246-247. 20 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 36(1), (2). 21 The Blitz [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 441 at 443.

8

Maritime Liens [8.10] NATURE OF A MARITIME LIEN ................................................................. 134

[8.10] Introduction to maritime liens ........................................................ 134 [8.30] Maritime liens and proceedings in rem ......................................... 135 [8.60] PROPERTY TO WHICH A MARITIME LIEN ATTACHES ...................... 137

[8.60] Property capable of attracting a maritime lien ............................ 137 [8.90] The particular property to which a maritime lien attaches ....... 138 [8.100] Surrogate ships not available for enforcement of a maritime lien ...................................................................................................... 139 [8.120] CLAIMS SUPPORTING A MARITIME LIEN ........................................... 140

[8.120] Maritime lien for ship damage ...................................................... 140 [8.190] Maritime lien for salvage reward ................................................. 144 [8.220] Maritime lien for wages ................................................................. 145 [8.310] CLAIMS NOT SUPPORTING A MARITIME LIEN ................................. 152 [8.350] PRIORITIES OF MARITIME LIENS ........................................................... 154

[8.350] Introduction to priorities of maritime liens ................................ 154 [8.370] Priority between maritime liens and other charges .................. 155 [8.420] Priority between different kinds of maritime liens ................... 156 [8.440] Priority between maritime liens of the same kind .................... 157 [8.450] EFFECT OF PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON MARITIME LIENS ................................................................................................................ 158

[8.450] Effect of change of ownership of ship ......................................... 158 [8.470] Effect of judicial sale following arrest .......................................... 160 [8.480] Effect of shipwreck .......................................................................... 161 [8.490] PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS .......................................................................... 161 [8.520] EXTINGUISHMENT OF MARITIME LIENS ............................................ 162 [8.590] MARITIME LIENS AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ............... 164 [8.600] PROPOSALS FOR REFORM OF THE LAW OF MARITIME LIENS ... 165 [8.620] STATUTORY RIGHTS OF ACTION IN REM AND STATUTORY LIENS ................................................................................................................ 166

134

Shipping Law

[8.10]

NATURE OF A MARITIME LIEN Introduction to maritime liens [8.10]

A maritime lien is a species of charge that attaches to particular property — most commonly a ship — to secure certain types of claims. Under general maritime law, a maritime lien secures a claim for damage caused by a ship, salvage reward, and crew’s wages. The last category has, however, been extended by statute to include claims for masters’ wages and masters’ disbursements.1 (The position of bottomry and respondentia are considered separately in Chapter 9 on account of their distinctive nature.) Although maritime liens have been recognised as a distinct form of charge on property for over 160 years,2 certain aspects of their nature remain a source of controversy and debate. For example, it is still not entirely clear whether a maritime lien confers on the lienee an interest in property or only a right against property. Nor is it clear whether, or to what extent, a maritime lien is transferable. One English authority on maritime liens said some 70 years ago, “No branch of English law would seem to involve more difficulty and inconsistency than that portion of Admiralty jurisdiction relating to the concept of the maritime lien”.3 This is certainly an overstatement, but the point is well taken: the law relating to maritime liens is not as well developed, either in England or in Australia, as many other branches of law.

[8.20]

Four characteristics of a maritime lien

Four characteristics of a maritime lien are clear. The first is that a maritime lien is a charge over property which is enforceable by proceedings instituted directly against the property itself.4 These proceedings are known as proceedings “in rem”, that is, against a “thing” (in Latin “res”). A maritime lien is, indeed, enforceable only by proceedings in rem. The claim which gives rise to a maritime lien may also be enforceable by proceedings “in personam” (against a person), but the lien itself is not. The relationship between a maritime lien and proceedings in rem is considered in more detail at [8.50]. The second characteristic of a maritime lien is that it attaches to property automatically, by operation of law, upon the occurrence of certain acts or 1 See Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(2). This list is not exclusive: Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 470-471. 2 The case which is regarded as marking the emergence of the modern maritime lien is Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884. For the history of maritime liens, see P M Herbert, “The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens” (1930) 4 Tulane Law Review 381; D R Thomas, Maritime Liens (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1980), pp 6-9. 3 G Price, “Maritime Liens” (1941) 57 LQR 409. 4 See Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 at 282-283; 889-890.

[8.40]

8 Maritime Liens

135

events.5 A maritime lien cannot be granted or otherwise specifically created.6 There may appear to be an exception to this rule, for bottomry and respondentia are traditionally classified as maritime liens, and they were always deliberately created by the owner or master of a ship. These two charges, however, are so distinctive, not only in this but in other respects, that they are treated in this work as sui generis and not as a species of maritime lien. The third characteristic of a maritime lien is that it continues to adhere to property notwithstanding any change in ownership. This is so even though the new owner might be a bona fide purchaser for value. The fourth characteristic is that a maritime lien enjoys priority over most other charges, the principal exception being a paramount statutory charge. All of these characteristics are considered in detail in this chapter.

Maritime liens and proceedings in rem [8.30]

Notwithstanding the common meaning of the word “lien”, a maritime lien does not require possession, as does a possessory lien.7 Nor does it give any right to possession.8 A maritime lien gives only a right to enforce a claim by the institution of proceedings in rem in a court exercising Admiralty jurisdiction.9

[8.40]

Proceedings in rem

Proceedings in rem are commenced by the issue of a writ directed against the subject property itself,10 not against the owner of the ship. Upon the issue of the writ, a party — usually the plaintiff — may apply to the Registrar of the court to have the property arrested by the Admiralty Marshal.11 The arrest of the property might well induce the owner to enter a formal appearance in the proceedings, for unless the owner does so, he or she cannot defend the action. If the action is not defended, the court will without more make an order for the sale of the arrested property and for the proceeds to be applied to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim. If the owner does enter an appearance, the proceedings then continue, not simply as proceedings in rem, but also as proceedings in personam — 5 The Pacific (1864) Br & Lush 243; 167 ER 356 at 246; 358; The Mary Ann (1865) LR 1 A & E 8 at 11; Johnson v Black: The Two Ellens (1872) LR 4 PC 161 at 169; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 150. 6 See Admiralty Commissioners v Valverda (Owners) [1938] AC 173 at 186. 7 Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 at 284; 890. 8 The Tervaete [1922] P 259 at 274. 9 Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 at 284; 890; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 242; The Tervaete [1922] P 259 at 274. Note also Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(1). 10 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 3(2); Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth), r 19. 11 See Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth), Pt VI, Div 1.

136

Shipping Law

[8.50]

that is, against the owner personally.12 In this event, all the owner’s assets — and not just the arrested property — are available to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim.13 Proceedings in rem have the advantage of enabling a plaintiff to obtain security for his or her claim by the arrest of the subject property. They often have the disadvantage, however, of effectively limiting the plaintiff’s claim to the value of this property, for unless the owner enters an appearance this is all that the plaintiff can recover in the proceedings. But that is not necessarily the end of the matter. If the owner does not enter an appearance and the plaintiff does not obtain full satisfaction from proceedings in rem, he or she may then institute separate proceedings in personam against the owner or other person liable in order to obtain full satisfaction.14 Similarly, if the plaintiff first institutes proceedings in personam and does not obtain full satisfaction, he or she may then institute proceedings in rem for the difference.15 This assumes, of course, that the owner or the property is within the jurisdiction of the court, which might not be the case. The nature of proceedings in rem has given rise to differences of opinion on whether an action in rem is in reality an action against the owner of the ship (the personification theory) or whether it is first and foremost an action against property (the procedural theory). Australia presently espouses the latter,16 whilst England supports the former.17

[8.50]

Relationship between maritime liens and proceedings in rem

All maritime liens confer a right on the lienee to institute proceedings in rem, for this is essential to the nature of a maritime lien.18 Not every right to institute proceedings in rem, however, involves a maritime lien, for statute also confers this right upon the holder of other types of claim.19 12 The Dictator [1892] P 304 at 319-321; The Gemma [1899] P 285 at 291-292; The Beldis [1936] P 51 at 75-76; Compania Naviera Vascongada v SS Christina [1938] AC 485 at 492; Monte Ulia (Owners) v Banco (Owners): The Banco [1971] P 137 at 151; The Conoco Britannia [1972] 2 QB 543 at 555; Aichhorn & Co KG and Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd v The Ship MV Talbot (1974) 132 CLR 449 at 456; Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Dredge Willemstad (1976) 136 CLR 529 at 538-539; The August 8 [1983] 2 AC 450 at 456; Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] AC 878 at 908. 13 The Beldis [1936] P 51 at 76; Compania Naviera Vascongada v SS Christina [1938] AC 485 at 492; Monte Ulia (Owners) v Banco (Owners): The Banco [1971] P 137 at 151; Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Dredge Willemstad (1976) 136 CLR 529 at 538-539. 14 Yeo v Tatem and Dwerry House Braginton; The Orient (1871) LR 3 PC 696 at 702; The Nordglimt [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470 at 483. Quaere, is this rule limited to cases involving maritime liens? See Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] AC 878 at 911-912. 15 Ocean Industries Pty Ltd v Owners of the Ship MV Steven C [1994] 1 Qd R 69 at 72. 16 See Comandate Marine Corporation v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45. 17 Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] AC 878. 18 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(1). 19 See Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), ss 16 – 18.

[8.60]

8 Maritime Liens

137

The difference between a claim secured by a maritime lien and a claim giving rise to a statutory right of action in rem is considered in more detail at [8.620]–[8.650]. One fundamental difference, however, concerns priority. A claim secured by, and enforced as, a maritime lien has a higher priority than a claim giving rise simply to a statutory right of action in rem. This results from the fact that the priority of a maritime lien dates from the moment the claim arises, for this is when the lien attaches to the property.20 From this moment the claimant — the lienee — becomes a secured creditor. The priority of a statutory right of action in rem, however, dates only from the time proceedings in rem are commenced, for only then does a charge attach to the property to secure the claim.21 The right to institute proceedings in rem, and the right of priority in the distribution of the proceeds of sale, are not just incidental aspects of a maritime lien: they are fundamental to the notion, and thus to the definition, of this species of charge. This has been well recognised by the courts, with particular reference to ships. In The Tolten,22 for example, Scott LJ described a maritime lien as, “The substantive right of putting into operation the admiralty court’s executive23 function of arresting and selling the ship … thereby enforcing distribution of the proceeds among the lien creditors in accordance with their several priorities”.24 In The Tervaete,25 Scrutton LJ defined a maritime lien more shortly as essentially a “priority in claim over the proceeds of sale of the ship in preference to other claimants”.26

PROPERTY TO WHICH A MARITIME LIEN ATTACHES Property capable of attracting a maritime lien [8.60]

A maritime lien can attach to three species of property, namely a ship, cargo, and freight (ship’s earnings). These three species of property constitute the class of “maritime property”.

20 See The Pacific (1864) Br & Lush 243; 167 ER 356 at 246; 358; The Mary Ann (1865) LR 1 A & E 8 at 11; Johnson v Black: The Two Ellens (1872) LR 4 PC 161 at 169; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 150. See also Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 at 285; 890-891. 21 C & CJ Northcote v The Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 at 277; The Cella (1888) 13 PD 82; Dalgety & Co Ltd v Aitchison: The Rose Pearl (1957) 2 FLR 219 at 227; John Carlbom & Co Ltd v Zafiro (Owners): The Zafiro [1960] P 1 at 13; Dalgety & Co Ltd v Aitchison: The Rose Pearl (1957) 2 FLR 219 at 227. 22 The Tolten [1946] P 135. 23 The judge subsequently explained (The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 146): “I call that function of the court ‘executive’ because, once the lien is admitted, or is established by evidence of the right to compensation … there is then no further judicial function for the court to perform, save that in the registry where priorities, quantum and distribution are dealt with.” 24 The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 145-146. 25 The Tervaete [1922] P 259. 26 The Tervaete [1922] P 259 at 270; see also at 274.

138

[8.70]

Shipping Law

[8.70]

“Ship”

For the purpose of the law of maritime liens, a “ship” includes not only the hull of a ship but also its tackle and equipment, for example its sails, rigging, and fishing gear.27 A maritime lien cannot attach to a structure which, though it may have certain features of a ship, is not in fact a ship.28 A maritime lien accordingly cannot attach to a hovercraft if this is not technically classifiable as a ship (a question which is still unresolved29). The extended definition of a ship to include a hovercraft in s 3(1) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) probably does not resolve this point as this Act does not purport to affect the substantive law of maritime liens.30

[8.80]

Relevance of nationality and sovereign immunity

A maritime lien can attach to property regardless of its nationality or the nationality of its owner.31 A lien cannot, however, attach to property owned by a person who enjoys immunity from process.32 This is because a maritime lien can be enforced only by proceedings in rem against the subject property. Accordingly, if the right to institute these proceedings is denied by immunity from process, the lien itself cannot exist.33 A maritime lien can, however, attach to property which is simply requisitioned by a person enjoying immunity from process, though it cannot be enforced for so long as it remains requisitioned.34 Because the Crown ordinarily enjoys immunity from process, a maritime lien cannot normally attach to any property which is owned by the Crown.35

The particular property to which a maritime lien attaches [8.90]

It is commonly said that a maritime lien attaches only to the particular property in respect of which the claim founding the lien arises; in other words, only to the property which gives rise to the relevant claim. Although this is broadly true, it is not entirely accurate, for although the particular property in respect of which a maritime lien may

27 The Alexander (1812) 1 Dods 278; 165 ER 1310 at 282; 1312. See also The Dundee (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 109; 166 ER 39 at 124; 45. 28 On the characteristics of a ship, see Chapter 1. 29 For judicial indications that a hovercraft might be classifiable as a ship, see Noseda v Hoverlloyd Ltd [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 448 at 451; Imperial Oil Ltd v The Expo Spirit (1987) 80 NR 259. 30 See the broad scope of Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 15. 31 See Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 235-236. 32 The Tervaete [1922] P 259. 33 The Tervaete [1922] P 259 at 274. 34 The Broadmayne [1916] P 64. See also The Meandros [1925] P 61. 35 Young, Master of SS Furnesia v SS Scotia [1903] AC 501 at 504-505. On the immunity of the Crown in right of both the Commonwealth and the States from proceedings in rem, see Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 8.

[8.110]

8 Maritime Liens

139

arise is either a ship or cargo, a maritime lien extends from such property to any related freight (ship’s earnings).36 It should be observed that it is only in this indirect way that a maritime lien can attach to freight: a maritime lien cannot attach to freight alone.37 The basic rule may perhaps be put better negatively, that a maritime lien cannot attach to maritime property which is unconnected with the circumstances giving rise to the lien.38 A maritime lien which attaches to a ship does not extend to its cargo.39 A lien can attach to a ship’s cargo only by salvage of the cargo.40 Once a maritime lien attaches to a ship or other property, it continues to adhere to any remaining part of it in the event of wreckage.41

Surrogate ships not available for enforcement of a maritime lien [8.100]

Proceedings in rem for the enforcement of a maritime lien may be instituted against only the particular property to which the lien attaches.42 This rule can result in an injustice, not least by virtue of the procedural rule that a writ in rem can be served on property only if it is within the jurisdiction.43 The owner of property to which a maritime lien attaches can thus avoid proceedings in rem simply by keeping the property out of the jurisdiction. So, for example, the owner of a ship that has caused damage in a collision, and to which a maritime lien for damage consequently attaches, can avoid proceedings in rem against the ship in Australia simply by keeping it outside Australian waters. Under general maritime law, one ship cannot be substituted for another in proceedings in rem, even if they are both owned by the same person.

[8.110]

Admiralty Act provisions not available

The Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) has amended to a limited extent the old rule prohibiting the substitution of one ship for another in proceedings in rem: 36 Smith v Plummer (1818) 1 B & Ald 575; 106 ER 212 at 582; 214; The Lady Durham (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 at 200, 201; 380; Morgan v Castlegate Steamship Co Ltd: The Castlegate [1893] AC 38 at 48-49, 54-55, 55-56. 37 Smith v Plummer (1818) 1 B & Ald 575; 106 ER 212 at 582; 214; Morgan v Castlegate Steamship Co Ltd: The Castlegate [1893] AC 38 at 48-49, 54-55, 55-56. 38 The Beldis [1936] P 51, esp at 70-73, 86. 39 The Victor (1860) Lush 72; 167 ER 38 at 76; 40. 40 See The Lady Durham (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 at 200; 380; The Riby Grove (1843) 2 W Rob 52; 166 ER 675 at 59-60; 677. 41 The Sydney Cove (1815) 2 Dodds 11; 165 ER 1399 at 13; 1400; The Neptune (1824) 1 Hagg Adm 227; 166 ER 81 at 238; 85; The Reliance (1843) 2 W Rob 119; 166 ER 700; The Lady Durham (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 at 201; 380. 42 The Beldis [1936] P 51. 43 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 22. See also Aichhorn & Co KG and Switzerland General Insurance Co Ltd v The Ship MV Talbot (1975) 132 CLR 449; The Nord Sea and Freccia del Nord: The Freccia del Nord [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 388 at 392.

140

Shipping Law

[8.120]

s 19 now enables a person who is entitled to commence certain proceedings in rem against one ship to commence these proceedings against another ship owned by the same person in its place.44 This right to proceed in rem against “surrogate ships” (sometimes also called “sister ships”45) does not, however, extend to the enforcement of maritime liens. The 1988 Act thereby follows the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report on civil Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia.46 The Commission argued that as maritime liens are a form of inchoate security interest in particular property, proceeding against other property would not be appropriate.47 It expressed the opinion that this restriction would rarely cause an injustice in practice as a claimant in respect of a maritime lien would usually be able to proceed against a surrogate ship pursuant to a statutory right of action in rem covering the same cause of action.48

CLAIMS SUPPORTING A MARITIME LIEN Maritime lien for ship damage [8.120]

If a ship causes damage by reason of a negligent or otherwise wrongful act or manoeuvre for which the owner is responsible, a maritime lien immediately arises against it for the amount of the damage sustained.49 The limits of any damages claim which is supportable by this lien are simply the limits of Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of actions for damage caused by a ship.50 The Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) expressly states that courts exercising Admiralty jurisdiction have jurisdiction in respect of any claim for damage done by a ship, whether by collision or otherwise.51

44 See D Cremean, “Surrogate Ship Arrest” (2014) 88 ALJ 96. 45 The term “sister ship” is often used to mean simply a ship of the same design as another. For this reason the term “surrogate ship” is more appropriate in the present context. 46 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), pp 153-161, paras 202-209. 47 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), pp 159-160, para 208. 48 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), pp 159-160, para 208. 49 Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 152. 50 The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 311; Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson (1969) 119 CLR 191 at 202. 51 See Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(3)(a), with ss 9, 10, 15, 17. Note, however, s 5(3), (4).

[8.140]

[8.130]

8 Maritime Liens

141

Meaning of “damage”

The term “damage” in the present context has a broad meaning. It covers both direct and consequential damage, and it covers personal injury52 as well as damage to property. The property which may be damaged can be property of any kind, movable or immovable, afloat or on shore.53 A maritime lien for damage by a ship is thus not restricted simply to damage to another vessel, though this is a common instance. It can include, for example, damage to a submarine cable,54 a wharf,55 a landing stage,56 or a breakwater.57

[8.140]

“Damage” does not now include loss of life

By virtue of the limits of Admiralty jurisdiction, the notion of damage does not include loss of life.58 Before the commencement of the Admiralty Act, s 262 of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) provided that any enactment which conferred Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of damage had effect as though reference to damage included loss of life.59 This section was repealed by the Admiralty Act,60 but no similar provision was substituted. The provision in the Admiralty Act which specifically concerns claims for loss of life61 does not affect the meaning of the term “damage”. It would accordingly appear that in Australia today a maritime lien cannot arise in respect of damage by a ship in so far as it causes loss of life. This is so notwithstanding reg 14(1) of the Navigation Regulation 2013 (Cth), which provides that “if a person on board a vessel suffers personal injury or dies because of the fault of the vessel and of another vessel, the liability of the owners of the vessels is joint and several”. This sub-regulation does not affect the meaning of the term “damage”.

52 The Theta [1894] P 280; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 147; Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688 at 693-696; Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson (1969) 119 CLR 191, esp at 202; Bistricic v Rokov (1976) 135 CLR 552 at 560. 53 The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 147, 152. 54 The Clara Killam (1870) LR 3 A & E 161. 55 The Tolten [1946] P 135. 56 The Veritas [1901] P 304. 57 The Uhla (1867) LR 2 A & E 29n. 58 Smith v Brown (1871) 6 QB 729; Seward v Owner of the Vera Cruz: The Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App Cas 59; Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688 at 693-695. Compare The Guildfaxe (1868) LR 2 A & E 325; The Explorer (1870) LR 3 A & E 289; The Franconia (1877) 2 PD 163. 59 There were, however, doubts on the constitutionality of this section: see Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688 at 695-696; Parker v Commonwealth (1965) 112 CLR 295 at 298. 60 Section 55(1). 61 See s 4(3)(d).

142

Shipping Law

[8.150]

[8.150]

Shipowner must be liable for the damage

The basis of a maritime lien for ship damage is a negligent or otherwise wrongful act or manoeuvre for which the ship’s owner62 is liable, either directly or vicariously.63 If at the time of the damage there was no negligent or wrongful act for which the owner is liable, there can be no lien.64 A maritime lien thus does not arise if a ship causes damage when it is simply lying as a wreck,65 or drifting out of control, where no related liability can be established in the owner. A maritime lien similarly does not arise from an act or manoeuvre which is performed without the authority of the ship’s owner.66 Nor does a lien arise if a ship causes damage when it is under the control of an independent contractor,67 and a fortiori when it is under the wrongful control of another.

[8.160]

Ship must be the cause of the damage

For a maritime lien to arise for damage by a ship, the ship must itself be the cause of the damage.68 This is often expressed in terms that the ship must be the “instrument” of the damage.69 The term “ship” in the present context refers not only to the hull of a ship but also to the machinery and equipment on board the ship.70 It also includes members of the crew fulfilling their duties aboard the ship.71 62 A shipowner for present purposes includes a demise charterer: The Ticonderoga (1857) Swa 215; 166 ER 1103 at 217; 1104; The Lemington (1874) 2 Asp MLC 475 at 478; Medway Drydock & Engineering Co Ltd v MV Andrea Ursula: The Andrea Ursula [1973] QB 265 at 270. 63 The Lemington (1874) 2 Asp MLC 475 at 478; Owners of SS Utopia v Owners of SS Primula: The Utopia [1893] AC 492 at 499; Berliner Bank AG v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd; The Rama [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 at 293, 295. 64 The Parlement Belge (1880) 5 PD 197 at 218; Morgan v Castlegate Steamship Co Ltd: The Castlegate [1893] AC 38 at 52; Owners of SS Utopia v Owners of SS Primula: The Utopia [1893] AC 492 at 499; The Sylvan Arrow [1923] P 220. See also Rosenfeld Hillas & Co Pty Ltd v Ship Fort Laramie (1922) 31 CLR 56 at 63. 65 Owners of SS Utopia v Owners of SS Primula: The Utopia [1893] AC 492. 66 The Lemington (1874) 2 Asp MLC 475 at 478; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 244-245. See also The Druid (1842) 1 Wm Rob 391; 166 ER 619 at 399-400; 622; The Ida (1860) Lush 6; 167 ER 3 at 9; 5. 67 See The Sylvan Arrow [1923] P 220. Compare, however, The Ruby Queen (1861) Lush 266; 167 ER 119, which can no longer be good law in light of the following cases: The Lemington (1874) 2 Asp MLC 475 at 478; Owners of SS Utopia v Owners of SS Primula: The Utopia [1893] AC 492 at 499; Berliner Bank AG v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd; The Rama [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 at 293, 295. 68 Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97. See also The Vera Cruz (No 2) (1884) 9 PD 96 at 99, 101; Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688 at 698-700; The Eschersheim [1976] 1 WLR 430 at 438. 69 See Berliner Bank AG v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd; The Rama [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 at 293, 295. 70 The Minerva [1933] P 224; Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688, esp at 700; Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson (1969) 119 CLR 191. See also The Sylph (1867) LR 2 A & E 24. 71 The Clara Killam (1870) LR 3 A & E 161.

[8.170]

8 Maritime Liens

143

It follows from what has just been said that it is not sufficient that damage be caused simply by persons who happen to be on board the ship, even if they be members of the crew, provided they are not then fulfilling their duties.72 Nor is it sufficient that damage be caused by persons off the ship though whilst acting for the benefit of the ship.73 In neither case is the ship then the cause of the damage. In Australia, any damage gives rise to a maritime lien provided it is caused by the ship in the sense just indicated. There is thus no requirement in Australia that the damage be external to the ship.74 There is modern English authority, however, for the proposition that damage gives rise to a maritime lien only if it is sustained by a person or property external to the ship.75 In neither Australia nor England is there any requirement that the damage result from a collision.76

[8.170]

Location of accident generally irrelevant

Provided the damage does not occur on Australian inland waters,77 the geographical location of where the damage occurs is immaterial. English and Australian cases have held a maritime lien to attach to a ship that has caused damage, among other places, on a river78 and in a dock.79 The damage can, moreover, be caused anywhere in the world.80 Some early 19th century cases indicate that the damage must be caused “on the high seas outside the body of a county”. This, however, was due to jurisdictional limitations of the old High Court of Admiralty. Under the Admiralty Act, the only related limitation prevents the institution of

72 Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688 at 698. 73 Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97, esp at 101, 106-107, 108. 74 Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson (1969) 119 CLR 191, esp at 202-203, 209, 211-212. Compare Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 462. 75 Berliner Bank AG v C Czarnikow Sugar Ltd; The Rama [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281 at 293, 295. See also The Theta [1894] P 280. 76 Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson (1969) 119 CLR 191; The Eschersheim [1976] 1 WLR 430 at 438. See also The Sylph (1867) LR 2 A & E 24; The Minerva [1933] P 224; Nagrint v Ship Regis, formerly the Ship Rodney (1939) 61 CLR 688. 77 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 5(3)(b) (but note subs (4)). 78 See Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 (collision on the River Humber). See also Malcolmson v Meeson: The Malvina (1863) 1 Moo PCC (NS) 357; 15 ER 736 (collision at Blackwall Reach on the River Thames). 79 See The Veritas [1901] P 304 (collision in the Mersey Docks); Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson (1969) 119 CLR 191 (accident at a wharf at Burnie). 80 See The Diana (1862) Lush 539; 167 ER 243 (collision in the Great North Holland Canal); The Courier (1862) Lush 541; 167 ER 244 (collision in the port of Rio Grande); The Tolten [1946] P 135 (damage to a wharf at Lagos).

144

Shipping Law

[8.180]

proceedings for any cause of action arising in respect of an Australian ship on inland waters within Australia.81 By “inland waters” here is meant non-tidal waters.82

[8.180]

Lien against associated freight

When a maritime lien attaches to a ship for damage done by it, a lien also attaches to any freight that is then being earned by the ship.83

Maritime lien for salvage reward [8.190]

A maritime lien attaches to any salvable property which is saved as a result of salvage services.84 Salvable property is of two basic kinds: a ship and its cargo.85 When a maritime lien attaches to such property, it also attaches to any freight that is consequently saved.86 The maritime lien secures the salvor’s reward for the successful salvage of the property. As under general maritime law there is no salvage reward for unsuccessful salvage services, no maritime lien attaches to property for any salvage services that are unsuccessful.87 It would also appear that there is no maritime lien for “special compensation” under the International Convention on Salvage 1989, which is now part of the salvage law of Australia.88 If more than one salvor salvages property, each has a separate lien on the property to secure his or her own reward.89 If more than one item of salvable property is saved, the lien on each item ordinarily secures an amount of the total reward that is proportionate to its value.90 Like all maritime liens, the lien for salvage reward arises by operation of law. It is not, and cannot be, created by contract.91 Any purported creation of a salvage lien in a salvage contract at most simply confirms the 81 Section 5(3)(b) (but note subs (4)). 82 Section 3(1) (definitions of “inland waters”, “sea”). 83 The Orpheus (1871) LR 3 A & E 308 at 312-313. 84 See The Two Friends (1799) 1 C Rob 271; 165 ER 174 at 277; 176; The Gustaf (1862) Lush 506; 167 ER 230 at 508; 231; HMS Thetis (1833) 3 Hagg Adm 14; 166 ER 312 at 48; 324-325; Cargo Ex Schiller (1877) 2 PD 145 at 149; The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 311-312; Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283 at 320. 85 See Chapter 20. 86 See The Westminster (1841) 1 W Rob 229; 166 ER 558. 87 The India (1842) 1 W Rob 406; 166 ER 625 at 408 (W Rob); The Cheerful (1885) 11 PD 3. 88 See Navigation Regulation 2013 (Cth), reg 17. 89 The Two Friends (1799) 1 C Rob 271; 165 ER 174 at 277; 176. 90 The Westminster (1841) 1 Wm Rob 229; 166 ER 558 at 233; 559-560; The Pyrennee (1863) Br & Lush 189; 167 ER 330. Note in this connection Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 315; Sch 9, Art 13.2. 91 Admiralty Commissioners v Valverda (Owners) [1938] AC 173 at 186. See also The Ever Success [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 824 at 828.

[8.220]

8 Maritime Liens

145

existence of the lien. Parties can, however, always settle between themselves the incidents of a salvage lien by contract. For example, they can determine the quantum of the salvage reward,92 the particular person liable to pay the reward,93 and the conditions under which the reward is to be paid. By s 243 of the Navigation Act 2012, the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory is entitled to claim payment for any salvage operation that it undertakes the same as any other salvor. This almost certainly means that such payments are secured by a maritime lien.

[8.200]

No lien for mere towage services

Notwithstanding an old Australian decision to the contrary,94 it is now understood that a maritime lien does not arise simply from towage services where these do not form part of salvage services.95 Towage services do, however, give rise to a statutory right of action in rem enabling the person providing these services to commence proceedings directly against the ship for the costs involved.96

[8.210]

No lien for saving life

Under general maritime law, no maritime lien arises for saving life. The reason for this is that there is no “thing” (“res”) to which a lien can attach.97 There is simply an individual who has been saved, and liens do not attach to a person. Something akin to a statutory maritime lien for saving life formerly arose under s 315 of the Navigation Act 1912. However, that provision was repealed in 1995.

Maritime lien for wages Maritime lien for crew wages

[8.220]

A maritime lien attaches to a ship to secure the wages due to the crew for services performed aboard, or otherwise for the benefit of, the ship.98 The same lien also secures certain other expenses and payments which are regarded by the courts as associated with the crew’s employment. A maritime lien does not attach to a ship to secure wages for services performed aboard another ship owned by the same owner.99

92 The Inna [1938] P 148. 93 See The Cumbrian (1887) 6 Asp MLC 151; The Prince Heinrich (1888) 13 PD 31. 94 The Macgregor: Heselton’s Claim (1876) 14 SCR 107 at 111-113. 95 C & CJ Northcote v Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 at 283; Westrup v Great Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co (1889) 43 Ch D 241. 96 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(3)(j), with s 17. 97 See Cargo ex Schiller (1877) 2 PD 145 at 149-150. 98 The Tarcoma City [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 408 at 411; The Tarcoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 347. 99 The Julindur (1853) 1 Spinks Ecc & Ad 71; 164 ER 42; The Tarcoma City [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 408 at 411; The Tarcoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 347.

146

Shipping Law

[8.230]

When a maritime lien for wages attaches to a ship, it also attaches to the ship’s freight.100 The lien does not, however, extend to the ship’s cargo.101 Nor does it attach to the proceeds of sale of a ship following sale by order of a court in proceedings in rem. In the latter case, the right of priority of any lien attaching to the ship at the time of its sale then transfers to the proceeds of sale102 (a matter considered further at [8.470]). One consequence of the fact that a lien does not attach to the proceeds of sale of a ship is that there can be no lien to secure an entitlement to any further wages that become due following the sale of the ship.103

[8.230]

“Wages”

In the context of maritime law, the term “wages” has a broad meaning and includes not only wages in the strict sense but also emoluments.104 An emolument here is any allowance, bonus or other financial benefit that accrues to the advantage of a member of the crew of a ship as contractual recompense for services that have either been rendered, or in normal circumstances would be rendered,105 for the benefit of the ship.106 An emolument need not be paid, or made, directly to the crew member provided that it nonetheless accrues to the crew member’s advantage by virtue of his or her contract of service. Modern cases have held a crew member’s emoluments to include statutory contributions for social welfare benefits which a shipowner had agreed to pay,107 union contributions paid by a shipowner on behalf of the crew,108 and employer contributions to a superannuation fund.109 All of these financial benefits are accordingly covered by a maritime lien for wages.

100 The Lady Durham (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 at 200; 380; The Riby Grove (1843) 2 W Rob 52; 166 ER 675 at 59; 677. 101 The Lady Durham (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 at 200; 380; The Riby Grove (1843) 2 W Rob 52; 166 ER 675 at 59; 677. 102 R Williams, G Bruce, C Jennett and G Phillimore, Williams’ and Bruce’s Admiralty Practice (3rd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1902), p 319. 103 United States Trust Co of New York v Master and Crew of the Ship Ionian Mariner (1997) 77 FCR 563 at 590-591. 104 Note in this regard Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 6(1): “Wages includes emoluments”. 105 See The Tarcoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 346. 106 See The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 32; Shelford v Mosey [1917] 1 KB 154; The British Trade [1924] P 104 at 108-110; The Westport (No 4) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 559 at 562; The Halcyon Skies [1977] QB 14 at 22. See also The Elmville (No 2) [1904] P 422 at 428; The Louise Roth [1905] SALR 107 at 111; Thompson v H & W Nelson Ltd [1913] 2 KB 523; The Halcyon Skies [1977] QB 14 at 22, 31. 107 The Gee-Whiz [1951] Lloyd’s Rep 145; The Arosa Kulm (No 2) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 97. Compare The Acrux [1965] P 391. 108 The Fairport (No 3) [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 253. 109 The Halcyon Skies [1977] QB 14.

[8.240]

8 Maritime Liens

147

It has been held in England that the notion of “wages” in the present context does not include redundancy, or severance, pay.110 The reason for this is that redundancy pay is basically compensation for losing employment, and not part of the emoluments of employment.111 Put another way, it is not a payment for services rendered, but payment because services are no longer required.112 Certain other expenses and payments are also covered by the wages lien. These include the cost of repatriation in the event of the premature termination of a voyage (“viaticum” as it was formerly called),113 a subsistence allowance pending repatriation,114 and compensation for wrongful dismissal.115

[8.240]

“Crew”

The term “crew” is used here as a modern synonym for the wellestablished legal term “seaman”. The latter word is not particularly apt as there has never been any doubt that a woman can be a seaman just as much as a man.116 The ambit of the terms “crew” or “seaman” depends upon context. In a narrow sense these terms cover every member of a ship’s complement, other than the master or a pilot.117 However, in a broader sense, and in particular in the context of maritime liens, “crew” or “seaman” have been held to mean any person “who is connected with the ship as a ship”.118 In this latter sense, the “crew” of a ship has been held to include not only every member of a ship’s complement other than the master,119 but also anyone who is otherwise employed in service aboard a ship,120 and any person who acts as a member of a ship’s crew unless this person knows 110 The Tarcoma City [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 408 at 415; The Tarcoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 343-345, 346, 348. 111 The Tarcoma City [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 408 at 415; The Tarcoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 343-344. 112 The Tarcoma City [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 408 at 415; The Tarcoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 343-344. 113 The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 32; The Halcyon Skies [1977] QB 14 at 22. See also Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 85(1)(a). 114 The Madonna D’Idra (1811) 1 Dods 37; 165 ER 1224 at 40; 1225; The Immacolata Concezione (1883) 9 PD 37 at 42-43. See also Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), s 85(1)(b). 115 The Great Eastern (1867) LR 1 A & E 384; The Halcyon Skies [1977] QB 14 at 22, 31. Compare The British Trade [1924] P 104 at 110. 116 The Jane and Matilda (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 187; 166 ER 67. 117 See Re Great Eastern Steamship Co; Claim of Williams (1885) 5 Asp MLC 511 at 512-513; Fair Work Ombudsman v Pocomwell Ltd (No 1) (2013) 218 FCR 94 at 124. 118 R v Judge of the City of London Court and the Owners of the SS Michigan (1890) 25 QBD 339 at 343. 119 See Re Great Eastern Steamship Co; Claim of Williams (1885) 5 Asp MLC 511 at 512-513. 120 See Thompson v H & W Nelson & Co [1913] 2 KB 523.

148

Shipping Law

[8.250]

that he or she is not entitled to do so.121 The term has been held to include a ship’s cook,122 a ship’s carpenter,123 a ship’s purser124 and a steward in charge of a bar on a ship.125 There is old authority for the proposition that a seaman can include a person who is simply looking after a ship whilst it is laid up in harbour,126 and even a stevedore.127 A member of the crew of a ship is defined in s 3(1) of the Admiralty Act 1988 as meaning a person who is employed or engaged in any capacity on board the ship on the business of the ship other than the ship’s master, a pilot of the ship and any person temporarily employed on the ship in port. It is probable, however, that this definition does not affect the scope of a maritime lien for crew wages as this Act does not purport to affect the substantive law of maritime liens.128

[8.250]

Ambit of the lien for crew wages

A maritime lien for wages covers work undertaken by a member of a ship’s crew not only on a ship but also off the ship provided the services are referable to the ship.129

[8.260]

Lien for wages and special contracts

Under general maritime law, the lien for wages arose only under a seaman’s contract, and not under a special contract.130 A seaman’s, or “mariner’s”, contract was any oral or written contract (but not a contract under seal) by which a seaman agreed with a shipowner, either directly or through his agent (who could be a ship’s captain131), to render service at an agreed rate for a particular voyage.132 Any other form of contract — for example, one which was under seal, or which was for service for a period of time rather than for a particular voyage — was strictly a special contract. The reason why under general maritime law a maritime lien attached only to a seaman’s contract had to do with the limited jurisdiction of the old High Court of Admiralty. Following successful attempts by the 121 The Ever Success [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 824 at 829-830. 122 The Jane and Matilda (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 187; 166 ER 67. 123 The Bulmer (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 163; 166 ER 59. 124 The Prince George (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 376; 166 ER 445. 125 Thompson v H & W Nelson & Co [1913] 2 KB 523. 126 The Jane and Matilda (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 187; 166 ER 67; The Collaroy: Harris v Robertson (1887) 3 WN (NSW) 97. 127 R v Judge of the City of London Court and the Owners of the SS Michigan (1890) 25 QBD 339 at 342. 128 See the broad scope of s 15. 129 The Ever Success [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 824 at 832. 130 The British Trade [1924] P 104 at 111-112. 131 Re Great Eastern Steamship Co; Claim of Williams (1886) 6 Asp MLC 511 at 513. 132 The Minerva (1825) 1 Hagg Adm 347; 166 ER 123 at 352-353; 125-126.

[8.270]

8 Maritime Liens

149

common law courts to restrict the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty, it became settled that the jurisdiction of the latter court in respect of crew contracts of service was restricted to seamen’s contracts. Special contracts therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the common law courts. This jurisdictional barrier was broken down in 1861 when s 10 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 (ENG) provided that the High Court of Admiralty could exercise jurisdiction “over any claim by a seaman of any ship for wages earned by him on board the ship, whether the same be due under a special contract or otherwise”. Following the commencement of s 10 of the 1861 Act, it was argued that the effect of this section was to extend not only the jurisdiction of the court but also the scope of the maritime lien for crew wages, with the result that a maritime lien would arise in respect of all crew contracts. For a long time the principal authority on point was against this proposition.133 In the more recent English case of The Halcyon Skies,134 however, Brandon J held at first instance that s 10 did extend the maritime lien for wages to wages due under a special contract.135 This was a welcome decision as seamen’s contracts had long ceased to be used in England, or in Australia. Until the commencement of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), the provisions of the English Admiralty Court Act 1861 applied to Australia by virtue of s 2 of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (IMP). In Australia today, the jurisdiction previously conferred by s 10 of the 1861 Act is conferred by s 4(3)(t), with Pt II, of the Admiralty Act. This confers jurisdiction on Australian courts with respect to any claim for, inter alia, crew wages. Statutory maritime lien for master’s wages and disbursements

[8.270]

Under general maritime law, a maritime lien secured only the wages of the crew, and not also the wages of the ship’s master.136 The formal reason for this was that a master’s contract of service was a contract solely upon the credit of the owner and not, like a seaman’s contract, equally a contract upon the credit of the ship.137 The real reason was probably one of public policy.138 In any event, this lacuna has been remedied by statute.

133 The British Trade [1924] P 104. 134 The Halcyon Skies [1977] QB 14. 135 The Halcyon Skies [1977] QB 14 at 30-31. See also Hamilton v Baker: The Sara (1889) 14 App Cas 209 at 216; The Royal Wells [1985] QB 86 at 92. 136 Wilkins, Assignee of Brooke v Carmichael (1779) 1 Doug 101; 99 ER 70 at 105; 72; Smith v Plummer (1818) 1 B & Ald 575; 106 ER 212. 137 Clay v Snelgrave (1700) 1 Ld Raym 576; 91 ER 1285 at 578; 1286. 138 Wilkins, Assignee of Brooke v Carmichael (1779) 1 Doug 101; 99 ER 70 at 105; 72.

150

Shipping Law

[8.280]

[8.280]

Current uncertain state of Commonwealth law

Until 2012, s 94(1) of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), gave the master of an Australian139 ship140 “the same rights, liens, and remedies for the recovery of his or her wages as a seaman has by law or custom”.141 By s 6(1), the term “wages” included emoluments. Section 94(2) of the Act, however, went further. This gave the master of an Australian ship similar rights, liens and remedies for the recovery of any disbursements that he has properly made, or liabilities which he has properly incurred, on account of the ship.142 Cases on the related English provision indicated that to come within this subsection the master must have made disbursements, or have incurred liabilities, on account of the ship with either the express or the implied authority of the ship’s owner. In the absence of any express authority, this section was restricted to disbursements made and liabilities incurred by a master for necessaries;143 in other words, it was then confined to the ambit of a master’s implied agency of necessity.144 Both from the terms of s 94 and from cases on the English provisions, the effect of this section was to create a statutory maritime lien for a master’s wages, liabilities and disbursements.145 It was irrelevant to the existence of this lien that the master was also a part-owner of the ship.146 The Navigation Act 1912 was repealed by the Navigation (Consequential Amendments) Act 2012 (Cth),147 and no related provisions were included in the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth), which took its place. It is quite clear, however, that Australian law still recognises a maritime lien that secures a master’s wages and a master’s disbursements, as these are specifically referred to in the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth).148 The ambit of the lien for master’s wages and disbursements in Australia might still be that set out in s 94 of the repealed Act on the basis that the substance of that section has now become part of general maritime law, independent of statute.

139 As defined in s 10. 140 Note, however, the exclusionary provisions of ss 2(1), 9A. 141 See also Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(2)(c). 142 See also Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(2)(d). 143 Morgan v Castlegate Steamship Co Ltd: The Castlegate [1893] AC 38, esp at 47-48, 53; The Orienta [1895] P 49. See also The James Seddon (1866) LR 1 A & E 62. 144 On the scope of this agency, see Wallace v Fielden: The Oriental (1851) 7 Moo PC 398; 13 ER 934 at 409; 938; Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262 at at 441; 1271; The Orienta [1895] P 49 at 54. See also Holmes v Norton (1870) 1 AJR 93; Smith v Blair (1884) 5 ALT 177. 145 See The Mary Ann (1865) LR 1 A & E 8 at 12; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 242. 146 The Feronia (1868) LR 2 A & E 65 at 74-75. 147 Section 3, Sch 1. 148 Section 15(2)(c), (d); Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369 at 396-399.

[8.300]

[8.290]

8 Maritime Liens

151

Related State law

It is arguable that the provisions of s 167 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (IMP), similar to those in s 94 of the repealed Navigation Act, continue to apply under State and Territorial law unless these have been superseded or repealed. The main difference is that s 167 of the Imperial Act applies to the master of any ship whatsoever whereas s 94 of the Commonwealth Act applied only to the master of an Australian ship. Prima facie, the provisions in s 167 of the Merchant Shipping Act should be more restricted in scope than has just been indicated, because s 260 of the 1894 Act ostensibly confines the operation of Pt II of the Act, in which s 167 appears, to ships registered in the United Kingdom. However, this section has been consistently interpreted more broadly by English courts.149 It is true that early last century a South Australian judge expressed the opinion that the operation of s 167 of the Imperial Act should be confined to ships registered in the United Kingdom,150 but he appears to have been unaware of the English authorities on point. South Australia has terminated the operation of Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act to this State.151 Queensland has also done so to a limited extent.152 The Australian Capital Territory has repealed the application of the whole of the 1894 Act to this Territory.153 Both Queensland and the Northern Territory once had provisions concerning a master’s lien,154 but these have since been repealed.

[8.300]

Who is a ship’s master for the purposes of a master’s lien?

A master is any person who has command or charge of a ship other than a pilot.155 A person may have command or charge of a ship, and accordingly be its master, even though the ship is laid up with the result that the master is for the time being acting simply as a caretaker.156 There is old Victorian authority for the proposition that if the name of a person is endorsed on a ship’s registration certificate as being the master of that ship, a lien for master’s wages and disbursements can arise in 149 The Milford (1858) Swab 362; 166 ER 1167 at 367; 1170; Poll v Dambe [1901] 2 KB 579 at 586-587; The Tagus [1903] P 44. See also R v Stewart [1899] 1 QB 964. 150 The Louise Roth [1905] SALR 107 at 112-113. 151 Marine Act 1936 (SA), s 131. Although this Act has been repealed, note Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA), s 17 (“Repeal not to revive previously repealed enactments”). 152 Queensland Marine Act 1958, s 255. Although this Act has been repealed, note Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 20 (“Saving of operation of repealed Act etc”). 153 Statute Law Amendment Act (No 2) 2002, s 6(1); Sch 4, Pt 4.9. 154 Queensland Marine Act 1958 (Qld), s 77(1), (2); Marine Act (NT), s 49(3). 155 See the definitions in Navigation Act 2012, s 14(1); Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 3(1) (does not exclude pilot). 156 The Collaroy; Harris v Robertson (1887) 3 WN (NSW) 97.

152

Shipping Law

[8.310]

favour of this person only, and not in favour of any other person who may have a claim to be the master of the ship.157

CLAIMS NOT SUPPORTING A MARITIME LIEN [8.310]

Except for claims for ship damage, salvage reward and crew wages, and those other claims which statute has provided to be recoverable in like manner, no claim gives rise to a maritime lien, no matter how close a connection a claim may have to ships and shipping. Special mention should nonetheless be made of claims for towage, pilotage and the supply of necessaries.

[8.320]

Towage and pilotage

Notwithstanding an old Australian decision to the contrary,158 it is now understood that a claim for towage services does not give rise to a maritime lien unless these form part of salvage services.159 It is also now accepted that a claim for pilotage services does not give rise to a maritime lien.160 A claim for both towage and pilotage services does, however, give rise to a statutory right of action in rem enabling the person providing these services to commence proceedings directly against the ship for the costs or charges involved.161

[8.330]

Supply of necessaries

In some jurisdictions, including the United States, a maritime lien secures the costs involved in the provision of necessary goods and services for a ship. This gives “necessaries men” (or “material men”), as the providers of such goods and services have sometimes been called, an important security for their costs. A maritime lien for the provision of necessaries is, however, unknown to either Australian162 or English law.163 For this reason, the possessory lien becomes particularly important to such people as ship repairers, who in other parts of the world might have a maritime lien to secure their costs. 157 The Albion (1872) 3 VR (A) 1 at 6. See also Re the SS Albion: Dunn v Hoyt (1873) 4 AJR 3. 158 The Macgregor: Heselton’s Claim (1876) 14 SCR 107 at 111-113. 159 C & CJ Northcote v Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 at 283; Westrup v Great Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co (1889) 43 Ch D 241. 160 See The Ambatielos; The Cephalonia [1923] P 68 at 75; D R Thomas, Maritime Liens (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1980), p 17. Compare The St Lawrence (1880) 5 PD 250 at 253. 161 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(3)(j), (k), with s 17. 162 Shell Oil Co v The Ship Lastrigoni (1974) 131 CLR 1 at 4. Compare Dalgety & Co Ltd v Aitchison: The Rose Pearl (1957) 2 FLR 219 at 226-227. 163 The Pacific (1864) Br & Lush 243; 167 ER 356 at 246; 358-359; Johnson v Black: The Two Ellens (1872) LR 4 PC 161; Laws v Smith: The Rio Tinto (1883) 9 App Cas 356 at 359, 364; C & CJ Northcote v Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270, esp at 278-279; Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221.

[8.340]

8 Maritime Liens

153

The position of a provider of any goods and services for a ship is, indeed, particularly poor under Australian and English law, for unless he or she has a possessory lien or some other form of security, the provider’s position is simply that of an unsecured creditor. He or she thus ranks below not only any maritime lienee but also any mortgagee.164 This is so notwithstanding that the provision of services in the form of, for example, ship repairs may increase the value of the ship and thus enhance the security of any existing lienee or subsequent mortgagee.165 A claim for the supply of necessaries does, however, give rise to a statutory right of action in rem as a claim under the Admiralty Act 1988 “in respect of goods, materials or services166 … supplied or to be supplied to a ship for its operation167 or maintenance”.168 This enables the person providing these necessaries to commence proceedings directly against the ship for the costs or charges involved. Upon the commencement of these proceedings, a statutory lien attaches to the ship. Statutory rights of action in rem and the resulting statutory liens are considered at [8.620].

[8.340]

No new maritime liens created by the Admiralty Act

In its report on civil Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia,169 the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended against the creation of any new maritime liens.170 The resulting legislation, the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), specifically states in s 6(a) that the provisions of this Act do not create any new maritime lien.171 This does not preclude the possibility of the courts recognising new maritime liens in circumstances require that this,172 though this is considered to be unlikely. 164 Johnson v Black: The Two Ellens (1872) LR 4 PC 161, esp at 170; Giovanni Dapueto v James Wyllie & Co: The Pieve Superiore (1874) LR 5 PC 482 at 491; The Colorado [1923] P 102 at 108, 109; The Zigurds [1932] P 113 at 129; The Pickaninny; George Hammond & Co (Interveners) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 533. See also The Arosa Star [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 396 at 400. 165 As in The Pickaninny; George Hammond & Co (Interveners) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 533. 166 On the scope of “services” in this context, see Port of Geelong Authority v The Bass Reefer (1992) 37 FCR 374 at 385-387. 167 On the scope of “operation” in this context, see Port of Geelong Authority v The Bass Reefer (1992) 37 FCR 374 at 387. 168 Section 4(3)(m), with s 17. This clearly includes the supply of necessaries: The River Rima [1988] 1 WLR 758 at 764; Port of Geelong Authority v The Bass Reefer (1992) 37 FCR 374 at 387. See also The Fairport (No 5) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 162; The Queen of the South [1968] P 449 at 455. 169 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986). 170 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), pp 88-89, para 121. 171 Section 6(a). 172 See the non-exclusive terms of s 15(2); Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 471.

154

Shipping Law

[8.350]

PRIORITIES OF MARITIME LIENS Introduction to priorities of maritime liens [8.350]

The rules concerning the priority of maritime liens are notoriously complex. One difficulty in trying to reduce them to a basic scheme is that they are not inflexible. An order of priorities adopted in one case may not be followed in another if the court believes that considerations of justice or public policy warrant a departure from the established rules of ranking. The foregoing has led some commentators to deny the existence of any strict rules of ranking at all. One modern writer, for example, has said:173 “Rules of ranking” are no more than visible manifestations of an underlying equity, policy or other consideration. Upon the underlying equity, policy or other consideration being displaced, either for want of substantiation or from the competitiveness of a greater equity or policy, so also the “rule” becomes inoperative or inapplicable. In the realm of priorities there would appear to be no immutable rules of law, but only a number of guiding principles.

Although there is much truth in such an assertion, it is nonetheless clear that there is a system of rules of priority which is ordinarily followed by the courts and which can be departed from only in cases involving important considerations of equity or public policy.174 The following is an account of these rules as they appear at the present day.175

[8.360]

Maritime liens and the Personal Property Securities Act

All liens, whether maritime liens or possessory (common law) liens, fall outside the scope of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). This is because the Act excludes from its operation “a lien, charge, or any other interest in personal property, that is created, arises or is provided for by operation of the general law”.176 “General law” here means the principles and rules of the common law and equity.177 General maritime law is now part of Australia’s common law.178

173 D R Thomas, Maritime Liens (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1980), pp 234-235. See also The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73 at 82; The Ruta [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 359 at 364. 174 See The Pickaninny; George Hammond & Co (Interveners) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 533 at 537; Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of the Vessel MV Skulptor Konenkov (1997) 75 FCR 47 at 50. 175 For a more detailed account of priorities under English Admiralty law in 1980, see D R Thomas, Maritime Liens (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1980), Ch 9. 176 Section 8(1)(c). 177 Section 10. 178 Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 471.

[8.400]

8 Maritime Liens

155

Priority between maritime liens and other charges [8.370]

Broadly speaking, a maritime lien takes priority over all other charges. There are however, exceptions to this rule. The most obvious exception is a paramount statutory charge, though there are others. The particular rules of priority of maritime liens currently appear to be as follows. 179

[8.380]

Maritime lien and mortgage

A maritime lien on a ship takes priority over any mortgage on the ship, whether registered or unregistered, and whether prior or later in time.180 It is probable that this is so notwithstanding any apparent priority that might be afforded to the mortgage under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).181

[8.390]

Maritime lien and bottomry bond

As a general rule, a maritime lien takes priority over any bottomry bond.182 This is always the case where the bond was executed before the lien arose, and it is usually the case where it was executed afterwards.183 It is probable that the priority provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) do not affect this.184

[8.400]

Maritime lien and possessory lien

Priority between a maritime lien and a possessory lien is determined by the order of the time of their attachment to the ship. A shipwright’s possessory lien for ship repairs is accordingly subject to any maritime lien which was attached to the ship prior to its entering the shipyard, but a

179 Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of the Vessel MV Skulptor Konenkov (1997) 75 FCR 47 at 50. 180 The Dowthorpe (1843) 2 W Rob 73; 166 ER 682 at 79; 684-685; The Chieftain (1863) Br & Lush 212; 167 ER 340; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 244; Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97 at 105; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 150; Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 233, 244, 246; The Tacoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 332, 347. 181 Note the limited provisions on priority of interests that arise by law and other security interests in s 73(1). 182 The Aline (1839) 1 W Rob 111; 166 ER 514 at 118-119; 517; The Dowthorpe (1843) 2 W Rob 73; 166 ER 682 at 79; 684-685; Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97 at 105-106. See also The Sydney Cove (1815) 2 Dods 11; 165 ER 1399; The Union (1860) Lush 128; 167 ER 60 at 137; 65-66. 183 See The Aline (1839) 1 W Rob 111; 166 ER 514 at 119-120; 517-518 (maritime lien for damage does not necessarily take precedence over a bottomry bond subsequently granted to enable the ship to be repaired). See also The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73 at 83. 184 Note the limited provisions on priority of interests that arise by law and other security interests in s 73(1).

156

Shipping Law

[8.410]

shipwright’s possessory lien then takes priority over any maritime lien which attaches after the shipowner has become indebted to him or her.185 A possessory lien also takes priority over any further claim under an existing maritime lien for wages. So if members of the crew remain on board after a ship enters a shipyard for repairs, their maritime lien for wages up to that time takes priority over the shipwright’s possessory lien, but the possessory lien then takes priority over any claim by the crew for subsequent wages.186

[8.410]

Maritime lien and statutory lien

Priority between a maritime lien and a statutory lien is also normally determined by the order of the time of their attachment. This means that a maritime lien usually takes priority over a statutory lien because the latter attaches only at the time of the commencement of proceedings in rem and not at the time the claim arose.187 It has, however, been held, simply on grounds of equity, that a statutory lien for the provision of necessaries — and semble now for the supply of goods and services in proceedings in rem under the Admiralty Act 1988 — takes priority over a maritime lien for master’s wages and disbursements if the master is either the owner or a part-owner of the ship.188 If it were otherwise, an owner or part-owner would enjoy priority for the payment of his or her own wages and disbursements over payment for the supply of goods and services, even though he or she might have ordered the goods or services involved.

Priority between different kinds of maritime liens [8.420]

Under general maritime law, a maritime lien for damages ordinarily has priority over a prior lien for salvage or wages.189 However, this order may be departed from in order to do justice.190 One reason given for the main rule is that a claim for reparation of damage should come before the claims of those who have chosen to enter into a relationship with the vessel for their own benefit and with the knowledge of the risks that are involved.191

185 The Gustaf (1862) Lush 506; 167 ER 230 at 507-508; 231; The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 33-34. See also The Russland [1924] P 55 at 59. 186 The Gustaf (1862) Lush 506; 167 ER 230 at 507-508; 231; The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 32-33. 187 C & CJ Northcote v The Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 at 277; The Cella (1888) 13 PD 82; Dalgety & Co Ltd v Aitchison: The Rose Pearl (1957) 2 FLR 219 at 227; John Carlbom & Co Ltd v Zafiro (Owners): The Zafiro [1960] P 1 at 13. 188 The Eva [1921] P 454. See also The Jenny Lind (1872) LR 3 A & E 529. 189 The Linda Flor (1857) Swab 309; 166 ER 1150; Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97 at 105-106; The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 313, 314-315; The Inna [1938] P 148 at 152-153. See also Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd v Ship MV Turakina (No 1) (1998) 84 FCR 493 at 499. 190 See The Ruta [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 359. 191 See The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 313.

[8.440]

8 Maritime Liens

157

Under general maritime law, a lien for damages also takes priority over a subsequent lien for wages,192 but is subject to a subsequent lien for salvage.193 Until recent times, a maritime lien for salvage and for crew wages took priority one against the other in inverse order of the time of their attachment to the ship.194 This rule was based on the principle that as both types of lien concern claims for services rendered, priority should be given to the claims for the later services as they may be regarded as operating for the protection of the claims for earlier services.195 More modern authority, however, is in favour of the proposition that a lien for salvage always takes priority.196

[8.430]

Repealed statutory provision for priority of crew wages

The order of priority between the different liens was altered by s 83(2) of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) so far as crew wages are concerned. By that subsection, the lien for the wages of a seaman aboard an Australian197 ship198 had priority over “all other liens”. It is probable that the term “liens” in that context meant simply maritime liens, and not also possessory liens. There was a related provision in the Marine Act of the Northern Territory.199 Both the Navigation Act and the provision in the Northern Territory’s Marine Act have since been repealed. Whether the statutory rule is nonetheless now part of general maritime law must await judicial determination.

Priority between maritime liens of the same kind [8.440]

If there is more than one maritime lien against a ship for damage caused by the ship, all rank pari passu (that is, on an equal footing), regardless of the date of attachment.200

If there is more than one maritime lien against a ship for salvage as a result of different accidents, they rank in the inverse order of the time of their attachment to the ship.201 If there is more than one lien against a ship for salvage relating to the same accident, they rank pari passu.202 192 The Elin (1882) 8 PD 39, and on appeal, The Elin (1883) 8 PD 129. 193 The Inna [1938] P 148 at 153-155; The Lyrma (No 2) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 30 at 33. See also The Sea Spray [1970] P 133. 194 The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 312-313, 315-316; The Lyrma (No 2) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 30 at 33-34 (earlier wages lien and later salvage lien). See also The Mons [1932] P 109 at 112. 195 The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 312-313. 196 The Lyrma (No 2) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 30 at 34-35. 197 As defined in s 10. 198 Note the exclusionary provisions of ss 2(1), 9A. 199 Section 49(1). 200 The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73, esp at 76-77, 86-87. 201 The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 312-313, 315-316; The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73 at 82. 202 The Russland [1924] P 55 at 60.

158

Shipping Law

[8.450]

If there is more than one maritime lien against a ship for crew wages, they also rank pari passu.203 Until modern times, a lien for crew wages took priority over a lien for master’s wages.204 This was deemed to follow from the old rule that seamen could recover their wages from the master.205 Now that a master is no longer personally liable to pay crew wages, it has been held in England that both types of lien rank pari passu.206 A master’s lien for wages, and the same master’s lien for liabilities and disbursements, rank pari passu.207 Liens by different masters for liabilities and disbursements in respect of the same ship also rank pari passu.208

EFFECT OF PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES UPON MARITIME LIENS Effect of change of ownership of ship [8.450]

A maritime lien not only attaches to a ship, it is also said to travel with the ship, for with just one exception it is enforceable against the ship notwithstanding any change in possession or ownership.209 This rule is strict. A maritime lien is thus not lost by the sale of the ship even to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the lien.210 Every purchaser of a ship thus normally incurs the risk that there may be one or more maritime liens attaching to the vessel at the time of the sale.211 The only situation where there is no such risk is where a ship is purchased upon a sale ordered by a court in proceedings in rem. This point is considered further at [8.470]. Because a maritime lien is ordinarily enforceable against a ship despite any change in possession or ownership, it is sometimes said that it confers 203 The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73 at 82. Compare, however, The Veritas [1901] P 304 at 312-313. 204 The Salacia (1862) Lush 545; 167 ER 246 at 547-548; 247; The Anglo-Indian (1868) 8 SCR 102; The Mons [1932] P 109 at 110. See also The Tiburnia (No 1) (1887) 8 LR (NSW) (A) 1. 205 The Salacia (1862) Lush 545; 167 ER 246 at 547-548; 247. 206 The Royal Wells [1985] QB 86 at 92. 207 The Mons [1932] P 109 at 110-111. 208 The Mons [1932] P 109 at 111-112. 209 The Dowthorpe (1843) 2 W Rob 73; 166 ER 682 at 79; 684-685; Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 at 284-285; 890-891; Johnson v Black: The Two Ellens (1872) LR 4 PC 161 at 169; C & CJ Northcote v Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 at 277; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 242; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 150. See also The Optima (1905) 10 Asp MLC 147. 210 Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 150; Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 234. 211 See The Monica S [1968] P 741 at 769.

[8.450]

8 Maritime Liens

159

an interest similar to a proprietary interest in a ship.212 There is an element of truth in this statement, for according to one judicial statement a maritime lien detracts from the absolute title of the owner of the ship.213 However, it confers no title to, or right to possession of, the ship. Nor does it confer any immediate rights in the property of the ship. In other words, it does not confer any rights which can be exercised directly against the ship without recourse to the courts. As has already been observed, the rights created by a maritime lien depend for their effect upon proceedings in rem. They are ultimately rights against the bail or the proceeds of a court-enforced sale of the ship, and not rights against the ship itself.214 Although a maritime lien is not normally lost by any change in ownership, under general maritime law it could nonetheless be lost through laches215 by the lienee upon a change in ownership of the ship involved. This resulted from the rule that a maritime lien could be lost where an unreasonable delay resulted in the compromise of the rights of a third party.216 This point was often summarised in the proposition that although a maritime lien travelled with a ship, it was not indelible. Laches has now effectively been abolished in respect of maritime liens by s 37(5) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). This states that laches does not apply to a claim on (inter alia) a maritime lien that is brought within a time period fixed by this section. It would appear that a maritime lien is not transferable,217 at least without the consent of the court.218 Although there are some judicial statements to the contrary,219 the current law would seem to be that a third party who

212 See Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 234; cf at 250. See also D R Thomas, Maritime Liens (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1980), pp 22-23. 213 The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 242. 214 Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 234, 237. 215 On what constitutes laches in this context, see The Kong Magnus [1891] P 223 at 228; The Alletta [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 40 at 45. 216 Harmer v Bell: The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267; 13 ER 884 at 285; 891; Johnson v Black: The Two Ellens (1872) LR 4 PC 161 at 169; C & CJ Northcote v Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 at 277; Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Inc [1981] AC 221 at 234. 217 The Rebecca (1804) 5 C Rob 102; 165 ER 712 at 104; 713; The Catherine (1847) 3 W Rob 1 at 2. See also Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369 at 398. 218 See Sameiet Stavos (OH Meling Rederi) v The Berostar (Owners) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403. 219 See The Tagus [1903] P 44 at 54; Dalgety & Co Ltd v Aitchison: The Rose Pearl (1957) 2 FLR 219 at 227. See also The Anglo-Indian (1868) 8 SCR 102 at 103.

160

Shipping Law

[8.460]

voluntarily pays off a debt which attracts a maritime lien cannot then claim the benefit of that lien as of right.220

[8.460]

Transfer to owner with immunity from process

Although there is no case directly on point, it would appear that a maritime lien is not lost if the ship to which it attaches is sold to a person who is able to claim immunity from process, though it cannot then be enforced.221 It would seem that the lien can subsequently be enforced if either the owner ceases to be able to claim immunity or the ship is transferred to a person who does not enjoy this privilege.222

Effect of judicial sale following arrest [8.470]

If a ship which has been arrested in proceedings in rem is subsequently sold pursuant to a judicial order, the purchaser receives a clean title, free of any charge or claim.223 Any charge or claim on the ship prior to the sale then becomes a claim on the proceeds of sale.224 The purchaser thus takes the ship free of any paramount statutory charge,225 maritime lien,226 possessory lien227 or mortgage.228 It is important to observe that a purchaser receives this clean title only pursuant to a sale in proceedings in rem, and not pursuant to a sale in any other proceedings.229 The sale of a ship pursuant to foreign proceedings in rem confers the same clean title as a sale pursuant to domestic proceedings.230

220 The Petone [1917] P 198, esp at 208-209; The Leoborg (No 2) [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 380 at 383. See also The Victoria (1867) 37 LJ Adm 12; The Louise Roth [1905] SALR 107; The James W Elwell [1921] P 351 at 363. 221 See The Parlement Belge (1880) 5 PD 197. 222 See The Tervaete [1922] P 259 at 265. See also The Meandros [1925] P 61. 223 The Catherine, formerly the Croxdale (1851) 15 Jur 231; The Acrux [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 405 at 409; Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer Queen of the South: The Queen of the South [1968] P 449 at 461-462; The Cerro Colorado [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 at 60-61; Readhead v Admiralty Marshal, Western Australia District Registry (1998) 87 FCR 229 at 242. 224 R Williams, G Bruce, C Jennett and G Phillimore, Williams’ and Bruce’s Admiralty Practice (3rd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1902), p 319. 225 See Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 36(5). 226 The Catherine, formerly the Croxdale (1851) 15 Jur 231; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 145-146; The Cerro Colorado [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 at 60-61. 227 The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 32-33; Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer Queen of the South: The Queen of the South [1968] P 449 at 461-462. 228 The Catherine, formerly the Croxdale (1851) 15 Jur 231; The Acrux [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 405; Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer Queen of the South: The Queen of the South [1968] P 449 at 461-462; The Cerro Colorado [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 at 60-61. 229 Chasteauneuf v Capeyron (1882) 7 App Cas 127 at 135. See also The James W Elwell [1921] P 351 at 356-357. 230 The Acrux [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 405; The Cerro Colorado [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 at 61.

[8.500]

8 Maritime Liens

161

Effect of shipwreck [8.480]

A maritime lien is destroyed if the ship or other maritime property is itself destroyed. A maritime lien is not, however, destroyed if the ship is simply wrecked or partially destroyed. The lien then attaches to the wreck, or to whatever remains of the ship.231

PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS [8.490]

Under general maritime law, there was no fixed period of limitations within which maritime claims, and thus claims involving a maritime lien, had to be commenced. Maritime claims were lost only by laches.232 Since the commencement of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), a claim of laches no longer applies to maritime claims.233 The Admiralty Act provides that, subject to any overriding provisions of Commonwealth law, the period of limitations for maritime claims is governed by the Limitation Acts of the States and the Northern Territory234 or, in default, three years.235

[8.500]

Limitation periods in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory

New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory all have limitation periods which concern, or which can concern, claims involving a maritime lien. In New South Wales and Tasmania, there is a six-year limitation period for the commencement of actions in rem for the recovery of seamen’s wages,236 and a two-year period for the commencement of proceedings to enforce a lien against a ship for damage caused by collision with another ship or for salvage services.237 In the Northern Territory the limitation periods for the commencement of such actions are three years and two years respectively.238 In South Australia, there is a limitation period of six years for the commencement of actions for seamen’s wages.239 231 The Sydney Cove (1815) 2 Dods 11; 165 ER 1399 at 13; 1400; The Neptune (1824) 1 Hagg 227; 166 ER 81 at 238; 85; The Reliance (1843) 2 W Rob 119; 166 ER 700; The Lady Durham (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 at 201; 380. 232 Young v The Steamboat Key City 20 US 896 (1872) at 898; adopted in The Alletta [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 40 at 45. On what constitutes laches in this context, see The Kong Magnus [1891] P 223 at 228; The Alletta [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 40 at 45. 233 Section 37(5). 234 Section 37(2). 235 Section 37(1)(b). 236 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 22(1); Limitation Act 1974 (Tas), s 8(1). 237 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 22(2), (3); Limitation Act 1974 (Tas), s 8(2), (3). 238 Limitation Act (NT), s 20(2), (3), (4). Notwithstanding the final words of subs (2), there can be no doubt that s 20 applies to proceedings in rem. 239 Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA), s 35(g).

162

Shipping Law

[8.510]

[8.510]

Limitation periods in other jurisdictions

Some jurisdictions have more general time limitation provisions which can apply to proceedings involving a maritime lien.240 If there is no State or Territorial limitation period applicable to a particular maritime claim, the Admiralty Act provides that the period is the same as that which would apply under State or Territorial law to proceedings on the same claim instituted other than under this Act241 — in other words, the period is that applicable to non-Admiralty proceedings on the same claim instituted in personam. The Act then goes on to provide that if proceedings on a claim can be brought only under this Act, the limitation period is three years.242

EXTINGUISHMENT OF MARITIME LIENS [8.520]

There are six ways in which a maritime lien can effectively be extinguished. These are by payment of the sum secured by the lien, by provision of bail or other security for the release of the ship, by sale by order of the court in proceedings in rem, by expiry of the statutory limitation period, by abandonment of the lien, and by the total destruction of the property to which the lien attaches. These are considered in turn.

[8.530]

Payment of the sum secured

A maritime lien is automatically extinguished upon payment of the sum it secures.243 This payment may be made by anybody.244

[8.540]

Provision of bail or other security

A maritime lien attaching to a ship is extinguished by the provision of bail by the ship’s owner following the arrest of the ship in proceedings in rem. Bail is a covenant made to the court to pay a particular sum of money as security for the release of the ship. The sum involved is either agreed between the parties or determined by the court.245 The secured sum is then treated as equivalent to the ship for the purpose of the financial claim by the lienee who instituted the proceedings.246 By virtue of this process of substitution, after the provision of bail the released ship is free 240 See Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), p 202. 241 Section 37(1)(a), (2). 242 Section 37(1)(b). 243 The James W Elwell [1921] P 351 at 363. 244 The James W Elwell [1921] P 351 at 363. 245 On the discretion of the court in this regard, see Owners of Ship Carina v Owners or Demise Charterers of Ship MSC Samia (1997) 78 FCR 404. 246 The Kalamazoo (1851) 15 Jur 885; The Christianborg (1885) 10 PD 141 at 155; The Dictator [1892] P 304 at 322.

[8.570]

8 Maritime Liens

163

of the subject lien (but not of any other lien).247 This is so notwithstanding that the amount secured by the bail-bond is subsequently found to be insufficient to meet the claim involved in the proceedings, or that the money accepted as bail is less than the value of the ship itself.248 There are certain alternatives to the provision of bail. One is the payment of money into court, and another is the provision by a third party of a guarantee to pay the plaintiff any sum awarded by the court. A ship released by the provision of an alternative to bail is also free of the lien to which the proceedings relate.249 The provision of security for a binding arbitration in respect of a claim secured by a maritime lien similarly frees a ship of the lien concerned.250 A maritime lien once extinguished does not revive, even if the security provided becomes valueless (for example, on account of the subsequent insolvency of the guarantor).251

[8.550]

Sale in proceedings in rem

A maritime lien is extinguished upon sale by order of a court in proceedings in rem. Any claim or charge against the ship is then extinguished. The right of priority which any lien had previously secured against the ship then transfers to the proceeds of sale held by the court.252

[8.560]

Expiry of the limitation periods

A maritime lien cannot be enforced, and is to this extent extinguished, after the statutory limitation period has expired.253

[8.570]

Abandonment of the lien

It would appear that a maritime lien can also be extinguished by abandonment of the lien by the lienee accepting some other form of security in place of it.254 However, the authorities on this matter are not strong, and the conditions for an effective abandonment are uncertain. 247 The Kalamazoo (1851) 15 Jur 885 at 886; The Wild Ranger (1863) Br & Lush 84; 167 ER 310 at 87; 312; The Christianborg (1885) 10 PD 141 at 156. 248 The Kalamazoo (1851) 15 Jur 885 at 886; The Wild Ranger (1863) Br & Lush 84; 167 ER 310 at 87; 312. See also The Point Breeze (1928) 30 Ll L Rep 229. 249 See D R Thomas, Maritime Liens (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1980), pp 290-291. For judicial consideration of this matter in Canada, see Paterson (NM) & Sons Ltd v The Birchglen (1990) 36 FTR 92. 250 Loucas G Matsas Salvage & Towage Maritime Co v Fund on Sale of the Ionian Mariner (1997) 79 FCR 351 at 359-362. 251 Loucas G Matsas Salvage & Towage Maritime Co v Fund on Sale of the Ionian Mariner (1997) 79 FCR 351 at 362-363. 252 R Williams, G Bruce, C Jennett and G Phillimore, Williams’ and Bruce’s Admiralty Practice (3rd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1902), p 319. See [8.470]. 253 See [8.490]–[8.510]. 254 See The William Money (1827) 2 Hagg Adm 136; 166 ER 193 at 194; The Albion (1872) 3 VR (A) 1 at 6-7.

164

Shipping Law

[8.580]

[8.580]

Destruction of the property to which the lien attaches

A maritime lien is extinguished upon the total destruction of the maritime property to which it attaches. If the property is only partially destroyed, any lien continues to attach to whatever remains.255

MARITIME LIENS AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW [8.590]

Maritime liens are known to many legal systems. However, the precise acts and events that give rise to maritime liens, and their priorities, can differ from one jurisdiction to another.

In Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle,256 the Privy Council held that the question of whether any act or event gives rise to a maritime lien (or semble any other maritime claim257), and if it does, the priority to be afforded to it, is determined solely by the law of the jurisdiction determining the matter (the lex fori), and not by the law of the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose (the lex causae).258 Under the rule in The Halcyon Isle, a court will recognise and enforce only those maritime liens which are known to the law of the forum. It follows from this that the court will not recognise a foreign act or event as giving rise to a maritime lien, even though it would be so recognised in the jurisdiction where it occurred, if it is not recognised by the law of the forum. It similarly follows that the court will recognise a maritime lien as existing if the conditions required by the law of the forum are fulfilled, even though no such lien would be recognised under the law of the jurisdiction in which the relevant act or event took place. The decision of the Privy Council in The Halcyon Isle is contentious.259 In Australia, it was followed by the Federal Court of Australia at first instance in Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of Ship Skulptor Vuchetich260 but not by the more recent case at first instance of Reiter Petroleum Inc v The Ship Sam Hawk.261 It is probable that the latter case will be followed in Australia in light of the more recent decision of the High 255 The Sydney Cove (1815) 2 Dods 11; 165 ER 1399 at 13; 1400; The Neptune (1824) 1 Hagg 227; 166 ER 81 at 238; 85; The Reliance (1843) 2 W Rob 119; 166 ER 700; The Lady Durham (1835) 3 Hagg Adm 196; 166 ER 378 at 201; 380. 256 Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221. 257 See Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 233. 258 Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 235, 238-239, 241, 242. 259 See C A Ying, “Priorities and the Foreign Maritime Lien” (1982) 8 Adel L Rev 95; M M Cohen, “In Defense of The Halcyon Isle” [1987] LMCLQ 152; W Tetley, “In Defence of the Ioannis Daskalelis” [1989] LMCLQ 11; H Staniland “The Halcyon Isle Revisited: A South African Perspective” [1989] LMCLQ 174. 260 Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd v Proceeds of Sale of Ship Skulptor Vuchetich [1997] ACL Rep 270 FC 7. 261 Reiter Petroleum Inc v The Ship Sam Hawk [2015] FCA 1005 at [119].

[8.600]

8 Maritime Liens

165

Court in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson.262 There the High Court held that any question of substance concerning torts with an interstate element — including questions relating to the existence, extent and enforceability of a tort — is governed by the law of the place where the tort occurred, and not the law of the forum. The decision in The Halcyon Isle has been followed in New Zealand263 and South Africa,264 though not in other jurisdictions, for example Canada.265 In the latter jurisdictions, the question of whether any act or event gives rise to a maritime claim, including a maritime lien, is determined by the lex causae, though the priority to be afforded to the claim is then determined by the lex fori.

PROPOSALS FOR REFORM OF THE LAW OF MARITIME LIENS [8.600]

Three international conventions have sought to unify the law of maritime liens, and also of ship mortgages. The first is the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1926. The second is an identically named Convention of 1967.266 The third is the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993. Australia has not yet ratified any of these Conventions. The 1926 Convention remains in force among the countries that have ratified it. The 1967 Convention has not yet come into force owing to insufficient ratifications, and in light of the subsequent 1993 Convention, it is unlikely ever to do so. The 1993 Convention came into force on 5 September 2004 among those countries that have ratified it. These include China and Indonesia, but not the United States or the United Kingdom. Under the 1993 Convention, a maritime lien is recognised for pilotage dues as well as for ship damage, master and crew wages, loss of life resulting from the operation of a vessel and salvage.267

262 John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503. See M Davies and K Lewins, “Foreign Maritime Liens: Should they be Recognised in Australian Courts?” (2002) 76 ALJ 775. 263 See The Ship Betty Ott v General Bills Ltd: The Betty Ott [1992] 1 NZLR 655; ABC Shipbrokers v The Ship Offi Gloria [1993] 3 NZLR 576; Fournier v The Ship Margaret Z [1999] 3 NZLR 111 at 115-116. 264 See Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co v MV Kalantiao 1987 (4) SA 250; Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity 1989 (4) SA 325. 265 See Todd Shipyards Corp v Altema Compania Maritima SA (1973) 32 DLR (3d) 572 (more commonly known as The Ioannis Daskalelis); Metaxas v Ship The Galaxias [1989] 1 FC 386. Compare Marlex Petroleum Inc v The Ship Har Rai (1984) 4 DLR (4th) 739. 266 For the text of these Conventions, see N Singh, International Maritime Law Conventions (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1983), Vol 4, pp 3,053-3,054. 267 For accounts of the 1993 Convention, see D C Jackson, “International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993” [1994] LMCLQ 12; F Berlingieri, “The 1993 Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages” [1995] LMCLQ 57.

166

Shipping Law

[8.610]

[8.610]

Recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission

As part of its reference into the Admiralty jurisdiction of Australia, the Australian Law Reform Commission considered whether any new maritime liens should be created for the purposes of Australian law. In its report, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction,268 published in 1986, the Commission recommended against the creation of any new maritime liens for two main reasons. The first was that there appeared to be little demand or need for any new maritime liens in Australia.269 The second was to await international agreement on the proper scope of such charges.270

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF ACTION IN REM AND STATUTORY LIENS [8.620]

A statutory right to institute proceedings in rem is said to give a claimant a “statutory right of action in rem”, and the commencement of these proceedings is said to create a “statutory lien” over the subject ship or property. This statutory lien differs from a maritime lien in that it attaches to a ship or property only at the time of the commencement of the proceedings (that is, the time the writ is issued271) and not at the time the claim first arises.272 Because statute provides only for the right to institute proceedings in rem and says nothing about the consequential security, the term “statutory” lien is something of a misnomer. A statutory lien is basically a secured charge which gives priority to a claimant over any unsecured creditor in the distribution of the proceeds of sale of the ship or property.273 If more than one claimant institutes statutory proceedings in rem against the same ship, each is ordinarily entitled to be paid pro rata out of the proceeds of sale of the ship.274 Although statutory proceedings in rem are, like all proceedings in rem, formally instituted against a ship or other property, they ordinarily concern a personal liability. They are indeed for the most part simply an alternative to proceeding in personam to enforce the liability. In light of 268 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986). 269 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), p 89, para 121. 270 Australian Law Reform Commission, Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC 33, AGPS, 1986), p 89, para 121. 271 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 17, with s 3(2). See also The Pickaninny; George Hammond & Co (Interveners) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 533 at 536; The Monica S [1968] P 741, esp at 770-771; Re Aro Co Ltd [1980] Ch 196 at 208-209. 272 C & CJ Northcote v The Owners of the Henrich Bjorn: The Henrich Bjorn (1886) 11 App Cas 270 at 277; The Cella (1888) 13 PD 82; Dalgety & Co Ltd v Aitchison: The Rose Pearl (1957) 2 FLR 219 at 227; John Carlbom & Co Ltd v Zafiro (Owners): The Zafiro [1960] P 1 at 13. 273 The Cella (1888) 13 PD 82; John Carlbom & Co Ltd v Zafiro (Owners): The Zafiro [1960] P 1 at 13. 274 The Africano [1894] P 141 at 149; The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73 at 82. See also The Mons [1932] P 109 at 112.

[8.620]

8 Maritime Liens

167

this it would clearly be inappropriate if proceedings in rem could be instituted against a ship or property in circumstances where the current owner is not liable in respect of the claim. Section 17 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) therefore places restrictions on who can institute such proceedings. Section 17 provides that proceedings in rem can be instituted in respect of a general maritime claim275 only if a person who would be liable276 on the claim in a proceeding commenced in personam277 was either the owner278 or charterer, or in possession or control, of the ship or property at the time the cause of action arose, and if he or she is also the owner of the ship or property at the time the proceedings are commenced.279 (It is interesting to observe that the person referred to in s 17 need not in fact be a defendant to the proceedings in rem,280 though he or she usually will be.) In some circumstances the requirements of s 17 can clearly frustrate a litigant wishing to enforce a claim for the supply of goods or services, or indeed wishing to enforce any general maritime claim, by proceedings in rem. For example, a supplier of goods or services upon the order of a charterer will not normally be able to commence proceedings in rem after the expiration of the charterparty,281 for then the former charterer and the current owner will usually be different people. The supplier of goods and services to an owner who has mortgaged his or her ship may also be in a difficult position by virtue of s 17. Under general maritime law, the “owner” of a mortgaged ship is either the mortgagor or the mortgagee, depending on who is in possession.282 If a mortgagor therefore orders goods or services for his or her ship but fails to pay for them, the supplier has a remedy against the ship only for so long as the mortgagor remains in possession. After the mortgagee enters into possession, the supplier loses his or her ability to institute proceedings directly against the ship. 275 General maritime claims are listed in Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(3). 276 “Would be liable” includes “is (or has been found to be) liable”: Ocean Industries Pty Ltd v Owners of the Ship MV Steven C [1994] 1 Qd R 69 at 73-95. On the meaning of “would be liable” where no liability has been established, see KMP Coastal Oil Pty Ltd v Owner of MV Iran Amanat (1997) 75 FCR 78 at 83-85. 277 See Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 3(1) (definition of “relevant person”). On the interpretation of this definition, see Ocean Industries Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed t/as Markwell Chandlery) v Owners of the Ship MV Steven C (1991) 104 ALR 353. 278 “Owner” here means beneficial owner, and not registered owner: see Devine Shipping Pty Ltd v BP Melbourne (1994) 3 Tas R 456 at 461; Malaysia Shipyard and Engineering Sdn Bhd v Iron Shortland (1995) 59 FCR 535 at 547-548 (concerning s 19). 279 For a consideration of this provision, see Ocean Industries Pty Ltd v Owners of the Ship MV Steven C [1994] 1 Qd R 69 at 72-73, 75. 280 Allanah Pty Ltd v The Ship Amanda N (1989) 21 FCR 60 at 63. 281 Note in this connection the facts in Smith’s Dock Co Ltd v The St Merriel (Owners): The St Merriel [1963] P 247. 282 See Chapter 10.

168

Shipping Law

[8.630]

[8.630]

Position of purchaser of ship or other maritime property

Once a writ has been issued in proceedings in rem on a statutory right of action, the resulting statutory lien binds any subsequent purchaser of the ship or property.283 Until then, a subsequent purchaser, even with notice of a claim justifying proceedings in rem, takes the ship or property free of any such claim.284

[8.640]

Statutory liens and the Personal Property Securities Act

A statutory lien does not come within the scope of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) because it arises by operation of the general law285 — more particularly here by virtue of general maritime law which the common law now encompasses.286 It is not deliberately created by the action of parties, but arises simply as a consequence of a claimant instituting proceedings in rem. A statutory lien also does not come within the scope of the Act because it is not a “security interest” with which the Act is concerned, as it does not result from “a transaction that … secures payment or performance of an obligation”.287

[8.650]

Priority of a statutory lien

Priority between a statutory lien and any other charge except a paramount statutory charge is ordinarily determined by the order of the time of their attachment or creation: the first in time normally has priority. This is certainly true of priority between a statutory lien and a mortgage,288 and it is generally also true of priority between a statutory lien and a maritime lien. It has, however, been held, simply on grounds of equity, that a statutory lien for the provision of necessaries — and semble now for the supply of goods and services in proceedings in rem under the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) — takes priority over a maritime lien for master’s wages and disbursements if the master is either the owner or a part-owner of the ship.289 Otherwise an owner or part-owner would enjoy priority for the payment of his or her own wages and disbursements over payment for the supply of goods and services even though he or she might have ordered the goods or services involved.

283 See The Monica S [1968] P 741, esp at 771; Re Aro Co Ltd [1980] Ch 196 at 208, 209. 284 See The Aneroid (1877) 2 PD 189 at 191; The Heinrich Bjorn (1885) 10 PD 44 at 61. See also Giovanni Dapueto v James Wyllie & Co: The Pieve Superiore (1874) LR 5 PC 482 at 491-492. 285 Section 8(1)(c). 286 Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 471. 287 Section 12. 288 See The Rama (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 369; The Colorado (1922) 13 Ll L Rep 474; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v The Orion Expeditor (1991) 43 FTR 284. 289 The Eva [1921] P 454. See also The Jenny Lind (1872) LR 3 A & E 529.

9

Possessory Liens and Bottomry [9.10] POSSESSORY LIENS ........................................................................................ 169

[9.10] Possessory liens and ships ............................................................... 169 [9.30] Priority of possessory liens .............................................................. 170 [9.50] BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA ........................................................... 170

[9.50] The nature of bottomry and respondentia .................................... 170 [9.80] Priority of bottomry .......................................................................... 173

POSSESSORY LIENS Possessory liens and ships [9.10]

The common law relating to possessory liens applies equally to a ship as to any other chattel. Accordingly, any person who builds or repairs a ship enjoys a possessory lien over it for the cost of the materials and labour involved for so long as he or she remains in possession.1 Similarly, anyone who sells a ship enjoys a possessory lien for any outstanding purchase money whilst he or she remains in possession. In a shipping law context, possessory liens are sometimes referred to as common law liens to distinguish them from maritime liens.

[9.20]

When does a person have possession of a ship?

A person has possession of a ship for the purpose of claiming a possessory lien when he or she is able to exercise such physical control over the vessel that it cannot be taken out of his or her custody.2 Whether a person has sufficient control over a ship to found a possessory lien is a question of fact and degree in every case.3 A person can have possession of a ship for the purpose of exercising a possessory lien despite the fact that the master and crew remain on board.4 1 See Delantera Amadora SA v Bristol Channel Ship-repairers Ltd and Swansea Dry Dock Co: The Tatingaki [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 372 at 375. 2 The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 33. See also The Scio (1867) LR 1 A & E 353; The Narada [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 256. 3 The Narada [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 256. 4 The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 33; The Narada [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 256.

170

Shipping Law

[9.30]

Priority of possessory liens [9.30]

A possessory lien on a ship or other item of maritime property is subject to any prior maritime lien,5 but it takes priority over any subsequent maritime lien.6 A possessory lien also takes priority over any further claim under an existing maritime lien for wages.7 A possessory lien takes priority over bottomry and respondentia.8 It also takes priority over any mortgage, including any prior mortgage.9 Although there is no authority on point, it seems evident as a matter of principle that priority between a possessory lien and a statutory lien is determined by the order of their creation. In other words, the first in time has priority.

[9.40]

Position of possessory lienee after arrest of ship

The advantage of priority enjoyed by a person with a possessory lien is not lost by the arrest of the ship following the institution of proceedings in rem. The court will then recognise the lienee as having due priority over the proceeds of sale of the ship notwithstanding its arrest.10

BOTTOMRY AND RESPONDENTIA The nature of bottomry and respondentia [9.50]

The security known as bottomry was closely allied to a master’s implied agency of necessity. By virtue of his agency of necessity, a master who was unable to make contact with the ship’s owner could pledge the owner’s credit for any necessaries that were required for a voyage to continue.11 A supplier of necessaries might not, however, be content to rely simply upon the ship owner’s credit: he or she might also want security. Bottomry could supply this security. Bottomry may be defined shortly as a charge which is created over the fabric of a ship in order to secure money for necessaries so that a voyage can continue. It is called “bottomry”, from the Dutch “bodemerij”, because the charge is founded on the keel, or “bodem” (“bottom”), of the ship as representing the entire vessel. Bottomry could be expressed to include a charge on the ship’s freight and cargo as well. 5 The Gustaf (1862) Lush 506; 167 ER 230 at 507-508; 231; The Russland [1924] P 55 at 59. 6 The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 33-34. 7 The Gustaf (1862) Lush 506; 167 ER 230 at 508; 231; The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 33-34. 8 See Cargo ex Galam (1863) Br & Lush 167 at 181. 9 Williams v Allsup (1861) 10 CB (NS) 417; 142 ER 514; The Scio (1867) LR 1 A & E 353 at 355; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 244. See also The Sherbro (1883) 5 Asp MLC 88. 10 The Tergeste [1903] P 26 at 33-34. 11 Wallace v Fielden: The Oriental (1851) 7 Moo PC 398; 13 ER 934 at 409; 938; Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262 at 441; 1271; The Orienta [1895] P 49 at 54. See also Holmes v Norton (1870) 1 AJR 93; Smith v Blair (1884) 5 ALT 177.

[9.50]

9 Possessory Liens and Bottomry

171

The rules relating to bottomry were developed during the course of the 19th century to meet the shipping requirements of that era. It then became settled that bottomry could be created only when a ship was at a foreign port and required money urgently for necessaries in the form of either supplies or repairs so that it could continue its voyage.12 Bottomry could be created by either the ship’s owner or its master.13 In the majority of circumstances where the owner was not also the master, it was the master who created this charge. A master had authority ex officio to create bottomry. He was required, however, first to communicate with the ship’s owner if this was reasonably possible without endangering the ship.14 It was held desirable that the master also give prior notice to any mortgagee.15 It was a fundamental condition of bottomry that the money it secured be repayable only upon the arrival of the ship at its destination at the end of the voyage.16 Bottomry could not impose a liability on the ship’s owner personally.17 If the ship was lost before arrival at its final destination, the money secured by the charge was also lost.18 If the ship was simply wrecked, the charge attached to whatever was left of it.19 The repayment of money raised by way of bottomry was thus always subject to the risk that the ship might be lost before the voyage ended. To cover this risk, a high rate of interest, commonly known as “maritime interest”, could be charged.20 Because of the exceptional nature of bottomry, and in particular because of the economic effect that it has upon the shipowner by virtue of attracting maritime interest, the rule evolved that bottomry had to be a charge of last resort: it could not be created if adequate funds could be 12 The Rhadamanthe (1813) 1 Dods 201; 165 ER 1283 at 204; 1284-1285; The Augusta (1813) 1 Dods 283; 165 ER 1312 at 286-287; 1313-1314; The Hersey (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 404; 166 ER 455 at 407-408; 456; The St George [1926] P 217 at 226-227. See also The Karnak (1868) LR 2 A & E 289, esp at 299-301. 13 The Duke of Bedford (1829) 2 Hagg Adm 294; 166 ER 251 at 302-303; 254. 14 Wallace v Fielden: The Oriental (1851) 7 Moo PC 398; 13 ER 934; Barron v Stewart: The Panama (1870) LR 3 PC 199; Kleinwort, Cohen & Co v Cassa Marittima of Genoa (1877) 2 App Cas 156 at 157-158; The St George [1926] P 217 at 227. See also Re the Lady Franklin (1874) 5 AJR 185. 15 The St George [1926] P 217 at 228. 16 The Armadillo (1841) 1 W Rob 215; 166 ER 566 at 255; 567; Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262 at 442-443, 444; 1272; The James W Elwell [1921] P 351 at 365-366. 17 The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 245-246. 18 The Atlas (1827) 2 Hagg Adm 48; 166 ER 162 at 52; 164; The James W Elwell [1921] P 351 at 365-366. 19 The Catherine, formerly the Croxdale (1851) 15 Jur 231 at 232; Stephens v Broomfield: The Great Pacific (1869) LR 2 PC 516 at 522-523. 20 See, eg, Stephens v Broomfield: The Great Pacific (1869) LR 2 PC 516 at 521 (interest charged at 45%).

172

Shipping Law

[9.60]

obtained in some other way.21 Bottomry accordingly could not be created if adequate funds could be raised simply upon the personal credit of the owner or master.22 Bottomry was created by the execution of a bond, called a bottomry bond. It then attached to the ship immediately.23 Once bottomry attached to a ship, it remained attached notwithstanding any change of ownership of the ship.24 Bottomry thus travelled with the ship in the same way as a maritime lien. Bottomry was important when global communications were poor, for it then provided a means by which the master of a ship could raise funds urgently so that the voyage could continue. With modern communications facilities now available at all ports — indeed with most ships able to communicate by radio directly with the rest of the world — and with banks now able to transmit funds promptly to almost any port around the globe, bottomry and respondentia have become obsolete.25

[9.60]

Respondentia

Respondentia (Latin for “things responding” or “things paying back”) is a charge solely on a ship’s cargo.26 The rules of respondentia were very similar to those of bottomry.

[9.70]

Enforcement of bottomry

Bottomry was similar to a ship mortgage in that it involved a loan which was secured on the ship itself.27 It is different from a mortgage, however, in that it did not confer any interest in the property of the ship.28 It consequently could not be enforced by any extrajudicial means. Bottomry, like a maritime lien, was enforceable only by judicial proceedings in rem.29 21 The Rhadamanthe (1813) 1 Dods 201; 165 ER 1283 at 204; 1284-1285; The Nelson (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 169; 166 ER 61 at 175-176; 63; The Hersey (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 404; 166 ER 455 at 408; 456; Wallace v Fielden: The Oriental (1851) 7 Moo PC 398; 13 ER 934 at 409; 938. 22 The Augusta (1813) 1 Dods 283; 165 ER 1312 at 286; 1313; The Nelson (1823) 1 Hagg Adm 169; 166 ER 61 at 176; 63; The Hersey (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 404; 166 ER 455 at 408; 456; Wallace v Fielden: The Oriental (1851) 7 Moo PC 398; 13 ER 934 at 409; 938; Stainbank v Fenning (1851) 11 CB 51; 138 ER 389 at 88-89; 403-404. See also Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262 at 443-444; 1272; Re the Lady Franklin (1874) 5 AJR 185. 23 The Nymph (1856) Sw 86; 166 ER 1033. 24 The Catherine, formerly the Croxdale (1851) 15 Jur 231; The Nymph (1856) Sw 166 ER 1033. 25 Bottomry was regarded as obsolescent as long ago as 1926: see The St George [1926] P 217 at 222. A pending claim for bottomry was, however, referred to in The Conet [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 195 at 196. Bottomry was treated as obsolete in 1980: see Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 232. 26 Cargo ex Sultan (1859) Swab 504; 166 ER 1235 at 510; 1238. 27 The Atlas (1827) 2 Hagg Adm 48; 166 ER 162 at 53; 164. 28 The Tobago (1804) 5 C Rob 218; 165 ER 754 at 222; 755. 29 Stainbank v Fenning (1851) 11 CB 51; 138 ER 389 at 88-89; 403; Stainbank v Shepard (1853) 13 CB 418; 138 ER 1262 at 441-442; 1271.

[9.90]

9 Possessory Liens and Bottomry

173

Because bottomry had to be enforced by proceedings in rem, it was traditionally classified as a species of maritime lien.30 It was, however, a distinct form of security. In particular, bottomry was created by a deliberate act, and not by the mere operation of law. Moreover, although bottomry was like a maritime lien in that it travelled with the ship to which it was attached, it was unlike a maritime lien in that it was fully transferable or assignable.31 A bottomry bond has, indeed, been judicially described as a form of negotiable instrument.32

Priority of bottomry [9.80]

Under general maritime law, bottomry took priority over all mortgages without exception.33 However, it usually ceded priority to any maritime lien.34 As bottomry is created by “a transaction that … secures payment or performance of an obligation”, it is a “security interest” for s 12(1) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). Priority between bottomry and a mortgage would accordingly today be determined by s 55 (“Default priority rules”) of the Act. These rules are considered further in Chapter 10.

[9.90]

Priority inter se

Under general maritime law, if there was more than one charge of bottomry on a ship, the order of priorities was in inverse order to the date of attachment.35 The reason given for this was that any subsequent charge of bottomry was deemed to protect all prior interests of the same kind.36 The rule relating to the priority of bottomry inter se was thus the opposite of that which applied to ship’s mortgages. Priority between more than one charge of bottomry today would also be determined by s 55 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth).

30 See The Hope (1873) 1 Asp MLC 563 at 565; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 242; Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 232, 240. Note also Admiralty Act 1973 (NZ), s 2 (definition of “maritime lien”). Compare Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 15(2), where bottomry and respondentia are not listed as maritime liens, though this subsection is not exclusive and they might therefore come within its scope: Elbe Shipping SA v Ship Global Peace (2006) 154 FCR 439 at 470-471. 31 The Rebecca (1804) 5 C Rob 102; 165 ER 712 at 104; 713; The Catherine (1847) 3 W Rob 1 at 2. See also Ship Hako Endeavour v Programmed Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (2013) 211 FCR 369 at 398. 32 The Rebecca (1804) 5 C Rob 102; 165 ER 712 at 104; 713. Compare, however, D R Thomas, Maritime Liens (Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1980), p 266. 33 The Duke of Bedford (1829) 2 Hagg Adm 294; 166 ER 251 at 304; 255; The Hersey (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 404; 166 ER 455 at 407; 456. 34 See [8.390]. 35 The Rhadamanthe (1813) 1 Dods 201; 165 ER 1283 at 204; 1284; The Duke of Bedford (1829) 2 Hagg Adm 294; 166 ER 251 at 304; 255; The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73 at 82. 36 The Rhadamanthe (1813) 1 Dods 201; 165 ER 1283 at 204; 1284; The Duke of Bedford (1829) 2 Hagg Adm 294; 166 ER 251 at 304; 255; The Stream Fisher [1927] P 73 at 82.

10

Mortgage of Ships [10.10] INTRODUCTION TO MORTGAGE OF SHIPS ........................................ 175

[10.10] Mortgage as form of security over ships .................................... 175 [10.30] Mortgage of ships: the general law .............................................. 176 [10.60] Ways of creating a chattel mortgage of a ship ........................... 177 [10.80] MORTGAGE OF SHIPS AND THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES ACT 2009 .................................................................................. 178

[10.80] Introduction ...................................................................................... 178 [10.100] Securities on ships under the Personal Property Securities Act .................................................................................................... 178 [10.130] Rules of priorities .......................................................................... 179 [10.140] GENERAL LAW OF SHIP MORTGAGES ............................................... 180

[10.140] Property secured by a ship mortgage ........................................ 180 [10.160] Effect on ownership of mortgagee taking possession ............. 180 [10.180] Rights, duties and liabilities of ship mortgagors ..................... 180 [10.250] Rights, duties and liabilities of a mortgagee ............................ 184 [10.370] CESSATION OF A SHIP MORTGAGE ..................................................... 190

INTRODUCTION TO MORTGAGE OF SHIPS Mortgage as form of security over ships [10.10]

A mortgage is for all practical purposes the most secure form of charge that an owner can create over a ship. It is true that under general maritime law, bottomry ranks higher than a mortgage in priority, but that form of security can be created only in a foreign port and only to secure necessaries so that a voyage can continue.1 It is in any event now an obsolete form of charge. A mortgage, on the other hand, continues to be an attractive form of charge over a ship for owner and lender alike. It is attractive to an owner as it enables him or her to use the ship as security to raise money for any purpose at any time. It is attractive to a lender because it gives rights over the ship itself which can be exercised without recourse to the courts. 1 See Chapter 9.

176

Shipping Law

[10.20]

[10.20]

Priority of a ship mortgage with other charges under general maritime law

Under general maritime law, a mortgage of a ship always cedes priority to a paramount statutory charge,2 a maritime lien,3 a possessory lien,4 and bottomry.5 This is so regardless of whether the mortgage is (or was) registered or unregistered, legal or equitable, or prior or later in time. Priority between a ship mortgage and a statutory lien usually depends on the time of creation: the first in time ordinarily has priority.6 The provisions on priority under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) are considered separately at [10.130].

Mortgage of ships: the general law [10.30]

Except where statute has intervened, the general law of mortgages is applicable to the mortgage of a ship in the same way as it applies to the mortgage of any other chattel.7

[10.40]

Law governing the mortgage of foreign ships

The law governing the mortgage of foreign ships is ordinarily the law of the ship’s country of nationality.8

[10.50]

Chattel mortgage can be a legal mortgage

If a mortgage of a legal interest in a chattel involves a transfer of this interest, it ordinarily constitutes a legal mortgage.9 Under general law it is accordingly enforceable against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In the modern English case of The Shizelle,10 it was confirmed that this rule applies equally in respect of a mortgage of a ship.11 In that case a finance company lent money to a purchaser of a ship and secured this 2 See The Emilie Millon [1905] 2 KB 817. 3 The Dowthorpe (1843) 2 W Rob 73; 166 ER 682 at 79; 684-685; The Chieftain (1863) Br & Lush 212; 167 ER 340; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 244; Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97 at 105; The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 150; Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp: The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221 at 233, 244, 246; The Tacoma City [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 330 at 332, 347. 4 Williams v Allsup (1861) 10 CB (NS) 417; 142 ER 514; The Scio (1867) LR 1 A & E 353 at 355; The Ripon City [1897] P 226 at 244; The Sherbro (1883) 5 Asp MLC 88. 5 The Duke of Bedford (1829) 2 Hagg Adm 294; 166 ER 251 at 304; 255; The Hersey (1837) 3 Hagg Adm 404; 166 ER 455 at 407; 456. 6 See The Rama (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 369; The Colorado (1922) 13 Ll L Rep 474; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v The Orion Expeditor (1991) 43 FTR 284. 7 Thompson v Smith (1815) 1 Madd 395; 56 ER 145 at 405; 149; Fletcher and Campbell v City Marine Finance Ltd [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 520 at 535, 538-539. See also Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484. 8 The Angel Bell [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 491 at 495. 9 Maugham v Sharpe (1864) 17 CB (NS) 443; 144 ER 179 at 464; 187. 10 The Shizelle [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 444. 11 The Shizelle [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 444 at 451.

[10.70]

10 Mortgage of Ships

177

loan by a mortgage on the ship. The purchaser subsequently sold the ship to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the mortgage. In proceedings instituted by the mortgagee to realise its security it was held that the ship remained subject to the legal mortgage notwithstanding its sale to the innocent purchaser.

Ways of creating a chattel mortgage of a ship [10.60]

There are no necessary formalities that must be observed to create a chattel mortgage of a ship.12 Leaving to one side here the provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), which are considered separately at [10.80]–[10.130], under the general law there must simply be a transfer of an interest in property by way of security.13 The clearest way is by an out-and-out transfer of the property with a right to redeem upon discharge of the financial obligation involved. If a court finds that a transfer of property was effected simply as security, it will enforce the right of redemption even if there is no express term on this point in the transfer instrument itself.14 It does not matter that the transfer has then been registered under the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) as s 47 of the Act provides for the enforcement of any equitable interest in a ship or share in a ship against the registered owner.

[10.70]

Equitable mortgage by deposit of builder’s certificate or mortgage instrument

A ship, including a ship under construction, can be mortgaged by a deposit of the builder’s certificate.15 This results in an equitable mortgage. A builder’s certificate is a document indicating initial ownership of a ship. A mortgage by deposit of the builder’s certificate is thus akin to a mortgage by deposit of title deeds. A registered ship cannot, however, be mortgaged by a deposit of the registration certificate as this is prohibited by s 20(1) of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth). An equitable mortgage can also be achieved by the deposit of a mortgage instrument as security,16 and today also by satisfying the requirements of s 19 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth). An equitable interest can be enforced against the mortgagee of a registered ship pursuant to s 47 of the Shipping Registration Act. 12 Reeves v Capper (1838) 5 Bing (NC) 136; 132 ER 1057 at 139-140; 1058; The Shizelle [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 444 at 447. 13 Keith v Burrows (1876) 1 CPD 722 at 731; The Shizelle [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 444 at 447. 14 Jackson v Vernon (1789) 1 HBl 115; 126 ER 69; Langton v Horton (1842) 5 Beav 9; 49 ER 479; Whitfield v Parfitt (1851) 4 De G & Sm 240; 64 ER 814; Gardner v Cazenove (1856) 1 H & N 423; 156 ER 1267; Ward v Beck (1863) 13 CB (NS) 668; 143 ER 265; The Innisfallen (1866) LR 1 A & E 72. 15 Ex parte Hodgkin; Re Softley (1875) LR 20 Eq 746 at 756. 16 Lacon v Liffen (1862) 4 Giff 75; 66 ER 626 at 82; 629.

178

Shipping Law

[10.80]

MORTGAGE OF SHIPS AND THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES ACT 2009 Introduction [10.80]

Until the commencement of the operative provisions of Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) on 30 January 2012, the mortgage of ships was the subject of detailed provisions in the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth). There are no longer any statutory provisions either in this Act or any other Act that deal exclusively with the mortgage of ships. All securities on ships and on other vessels and watercraft now come within the scope of the Personal Property Securities Act in the same way as securities on any other form of personal property. The Personal Property Securities Act is a national code that applies throughout Australia. It supersedes State law by a reference of powers that was made by all States pursuant to s 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution between 2009 and 2011. Ship mortgages registered in the Register of Ships on 30 January 2012 were automatically transferred (“migrated” to use the statutory term) to the Personal Property Securities Register, with transitional provisions to enable registered ship mortgages to become consistent with the requirements of the 2009 Act and thereby retain their existing priority.

[10.90]

Relevance of general maritime law of ship mortgages

The general maritime law on ship mortgages is not without more displaced by the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. They can coexist, though the extent to which they do so must remain uncertain for the time being. The established general law on ship mortgages as a branch of law sui generis is considered further at [10.140]–[10.360].

Securities on ships under the Personal Property Securities Act [10.100]

A security on a ship or other watercraft comes within the scope of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 only if the property is located17 in Australia or if the grantor of the security is an Australian entity.18 The particular type of security that is secured on the property is irrelevant19 provided that it secures either a payment or the performance of an obligation.20 It can thus be a chattel mortgage, a fixed charge or a lease.21 17 On “located”, see s 235(1). 18 Section 6(1). 19 For examples of relevant securities, see s 12(2). 20 Section 12(1). 21 See s 12(2).

[10.130]

[10.110]

10 Mortgage of Ships

179

The security must result from a transaction

A security on chattels, and thus on a ship, must result from a transaction.22 It cannot arise simply by operation of law.23 The requirement of a transaction is confirmed by provisions that make it clear that a lien, charge or any other interest in personal property does not ordinarily come within the scope of the Act, whether it arises under statute law or by operation of the rules of common law and equity.24

[10.120]

Terminology

In the Personal Property Securities Act, a security that comes within the scope of the Act is more precisely referred to as a “security interest”.25 The property to which a security interest is attached is referred to in the Act as “collateral”.26

Rules of priorities [10.130]

The priority of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act depends on whether the security interest is “perfected”. A security interest is perfected when three conditions are met. These are: when the security interest is attached to the collateral,27 when it is enforceable against third parties,28 and when steps have been taken to protect the security interest either by taking possession or control of the collateral or — more commonly — by having the security registered in the Personal Property Securities Register.29

The rules of priority under the Act are complex.30 However, the basic rules in respect of claims against the same collateral are as follows. A perfected security interest always takes priority over an unperfected security interest in the same collateral.31 As between more than one perfected interest in the same collateral, priority is determined by the order of time in which perfection occurred.32 As between more than one unperfected interest in the same collateral, priority is determined by the order of attachment.33 Unlike registration of mortgages in the old Register of Ships under the former provisions of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 22 Section 12(1). 23 See Ch 9 of the Act. 24 Section 8(1)(b), (c), with s 10 (definition of “general law”). Note also s 73(1)(a). 25 Section 12(1). 26 Section 10 (definition of “collateral”). 27 On “attachment”, see s 19(2). 28 See s 20(1). 29 Section 21. 30 For a more detailed consideration of priorities, see J O’Donovan, “Maritime Claim Priorities under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009” (2011) 25 ANZ Mar LJ 118. 31 Section 55(3). 32 Section 55(4), (5). 33 Section 55(2).

180

Shipping Law

[10.140]

(Cth), registration of a security interest in the Personal Property Securities Register is not necessary to afford it the advantages of priority, though it is the common way of doing so.

GENERAL LAW OF SHIP MORTGAGES Property secured by a ship mortgage [10.140]

Unless the terms of a mortgage provide otherwise, the mortgage of a ship covers not only the fabric of the ship but also everything on board which is necessary for the ship to undertake a voyage, and also anything which may be substituted for any such item.34

[10.150]

Position of insurance and freight

The mortgage of a ship does not, without more, involve a charge on either its insurance or its freight (ship’s earnings).35 Freight, including freight not yet earned, can nonetheless be made the subject of a charge. The charge of freight is subject to the ordinary law relating to a charge on a chose in action.36

Effect on ownership of mortgagee taking possession [10.160]

A mortgagor under a registered mortgage loses all incidents of ownership of the ship or share when the mortgagee takes possession of the property. The mortgagee is then treated as the owner of the ship or share.37 This follows from the ordinary law concerning the position of a mortgagee in possession.

[10.170]

Rights and liabilities of mortgagee in possession

A mortgagee in possession of a ship or share is entitled to all the rights, and is subject to all the liabilities, of the owner from the time of taking possession.38 If freight then becomes due to the owner of the ship, this is payable to the mortgagee and not to the mortgagor.39

Rights, duties and liabilities of ship mortgagors Right of mortgagor to deal with the ship and bind the mortgagee

[10.180]

Unless there are provisions to the contrary in the mortgage instrument or in any collateral deed of covenant, the mortgagor of a ship

34 Coltman v Chamberlain (1890) 25 QBD 328. See also Re Salmon and Woods; Ex parte Gould (1885) 2 Morr BR 137 at 141. 35 Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Wilson (1872) LR 7 Ch App 507 at 511. 36 Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Wilson (1872) LR 7 Ch App 507 at 511. 37 Keith and Wyllie v Burrows and Perks (1877) 2 App Cas 636 at 645-646. Compare The Neptune (1824) 3 Hagg Adm 129; 166 ER 354 at 133; 355. 38 Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 602. 39 Dickinson v Kitchen (1858) 8 El & Bl 789; 120 ER 293 at 798; 297; Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 602; Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Wilson (1872) LR 7 Ch App 507 at 511; Keith and Wyllie v Burrows and Perks (1877) 2 App Cas 636 at 646; The Benwell Tower (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 at 16.

[10.190]

10 Mortgage of Ships

181

or share in a ship which is subject to a mortgage has, for so long as he or she remains in possession, the prima facie right to deal with the property as he or she wishes. The reason for this is that the mortgagor remains by statute its normal owner.40 It has been said that a mortgagor in possession of his or her ship has the implied consent of the mortgagee to enter into all engagements for the employment of the ship of the sort usually entered into by a person who has apparent control and ownership of a vessel.41 The accuracy of this statement has, however, been doubted.42 The rule that a mortgagor in possession has the prima facie right to deal with the property as he or she wishes is subject to one main qualification: he or she must not deal with the ship or share in any way which will impair the mortgagee’s security.43 Subject to this limitation, the mortgagor may enter into any contract that he or she wishes in respect of the ship, including charterparties. These dealings then bind the mortgagee if he or she should subsequently enter into possession to enforce his or her security.44 One consequence of a mortgagor’s right to deal with the ship as he or she wishes is that the mortgagor is free to allow the ship to lie idle if he or she is so minded. If the mortgagor does this, the mortgagee cannot, without more, interfere.45

[10.190]

Rule against impairment of the mortgagee’s security

The rule that a mortgagor must not deal with his or her ship or share in a way which impairs the mortgagee’s security is not applied by the courts with uncompromising strictness. In particular, the courts do not apply this rule to a dealing which is merely unfavourable to the mortgagee.46 Many shipping contracts and other commercial dealings — indeed, even sailing the ship on the high seas — might be regarded as in some way unfavourable to the mortgagee of a ship, and for the courts to place restrictions in this regard would fetter the ability of a mortgagor to deal with his or her property in a proper commercial manner. What a mortgagor is restrained from doing is entering into a contract or dealing

40 Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth), s 40. See also Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 602; The Heather Bell [1901] P 272 at 280; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 253. 41 Johnson v Royal Mail Steam Packet Co (1867) LR 3 CP 38 at 42. 42 Law Guarantee & Trust Society v Russian Bank for Foreign Trade [1905] 1 KB 815 at 826. 43 Collins v Lamport (1865) 34 LJ Ch 196 at 200-201; Keith and Wyllie v Burrows and Perks (1877) 2 App Cas 636 at 645; The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 149, and on appeal The Heather Bell [1901] P 272 at 280; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 253. 44 Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 603; The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 149; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 253. 45 Keith and Wyllie v Burrows and Perks (1877) 2 App Cas 636 at 645; The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 149-150. 46 The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 151-152.

182

Shipping Law

[10.200]

which will materially impair the mortgagee’s security.47 Whether any contract or dealing will materially impair a mortgagee’s security is a matter of fact and degree, to be decided in light of the circumstances of each case.48 Dealings that have either been held materially to impair a mortgagee’s security, or been deemed likely to have this effect, include the following: • assignment of freight before it becomes due so as to prevent the mortgagee from receiving it should he or she enter into possession;49 • entry into a contract which will bind up a ship for a very long period or otherwise make it difficult for the mortgagee to sell the vessel should this become necessary;50 • entry into a contract which might imperil the safety of the ship (for example, a contract to carry contraband in time of war) or which otherwise involves such risks as to make the ship uninsurable;51 and • entry into a speculative and improvident contract for the employment of the ship, especially where the mortgagor is impecunious and the ship is already charged with substantial debt.52

[10.200]

Meaning of “materially impair a mortgagee’s security”

It is difficult to determine from the cases precisely what is meant by materially impairing a mortgagee’s security. It certainly concerns an actual or possible reduction in the value of the ship or share in the hands of the mortgagee, though not necessarily, it would seem, a reduction in value below that which would be sufficient to pay out the mortgage should the mortgagor default in the repayment of the secured financial obligation. One point is clear, however. This is that the impairment must concern the value of the mortgaged property or the economic benefits (such as freight) that accrue to that property, and not simply the ability of the mortgagee to enforce his or her security. Accordingly, a mortgagee’s security is not impaired by the fact that pursuant to a charterparty the ship will travel out of the jurisdiction of the court, with the result that it may then be difficult for the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage security.53 47 Collins v Lamport (1865) 34 LJ Ch 196 at 200-201; Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 603; The Fanchon (1880) 7 PD 173 at 177; The Heather Bell [1901] P 272 at 280. 48 The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 254. 49 Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 693. But cf Cory Brothers & Co v Stewart (1885) 2 TLR 508, and the consideration of both cases in The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 150-151. 50 The Celtic King [1894] P 175 at 188 (contract which sought to bind ship to a particular line for five years held not binding on mortgagee). Compare The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 151-152 (contract which sought to bind ship to specified daily excursion trips for six weeks held binding on mortgagee). 51 Law Guarantee & Trust Society v Russian Bank for Foreign Trade [1905] 1 KB 815, esp at 823, 826, 828. 52 The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 254, 257-258. 53 The Fanchon (1880) 7 PD 173.

[10.230]

[10.210]

10 Mortgage of Ships

183

Limits of the rule against impairment of the mortgagee’s security

The rule that a mortgagor must not deal with his or her ship in a manner which impairs the mortgagee’s security does not mean that any such dealing is void or illegal (though it might be a breach of the mortgage agreement). What it means is that if there is such a dealing and the mortgagee subsequently takes possession of the ship, he or she may ignore the dealing with impunity.54 If therefore a mortgagor enters into a contract with a third party which impairs the security of the mortgagee, the contract is prima facie binding as between the mortgagor and the third party.55 However, the mortgagee may then repudiate the contract should he or she enter into possession of the ship.56 In this case, the contract is unenforceable as against the mortgagee, though the third party may then seek damages against the mortgagor.57

[10.220]

Limits on the extent to which a mortgagee is bound by the mortgagor’s dealings

A corollary of the foregoing is that, provided a mortgagor deals with his or her ship in a way that does not impair the mortgagee’s security, any dealing by the mortgagor binds the mortgagee if he or she should subsequently take possession.58 This rule applies, however, only if at the time of taking possession the mortgagor was in a position to meet his or her obligations in respect of that dealing. A mortgagee is not bound if at the time of taking possession the mortgagor was unable to meet his or her obligations in that regard.59 So, for example, if a mortgagor cannot for financial reasons fulfil obligations under a charterparty, the mortgagee cannot be required to fulfil the terms of the charter should he or she then take possession.60 Put shortly, a mortgagee in possession cannot be required to do more than the mortgagor was able to do when the latter was last in possession of the ship.

[10.230]

Position of a mortgagee with notice of an existing contract

There is strong authority for the proposition that if a person becomes the mortgagee or purchaser of a ship with actual notice of an existing contract in respect of this ship, he or she is bound by the contract to the extent that he or she may be restrained by way of injunction if he or she should 54 The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 254. 55 Collins v Lamport (1865) 34 LJ Ch 196 at 200. 56 Collins v Lamport (1865) 34 LJ Ch 196 at 200; The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 151-152. See also Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 604. 57 The Celtic King [1894] P 175 at 190. 58 Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 603; The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 149; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 253. 59 De Mattos v Gibson (1858) 4 De G & J 276; 45 ER 108 at 300-301; 116-117; The Lord Strathcona [1925] P 143 at 156; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 254. 60 See The Lord Strathcona [1925] P 143 at 154-156; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 259.

184

Shipping Law

[10.240]

attempt to act in a way which is inconsistent with it.61 It is irrelevant in such circumstances that the contract might impair the mortgagee’s security. This proposition has, however, been judicially criticised.62 The principal alternative view, which is based on ordinary principles of privity of contract, is that a mortgagee or purchaser of a ship is not bound by an existing contract with a third party in any event.63 An intermediate view, which has so far not been judicially considered, is that a mortgagee or purchaser of a ship is bound by an existing contract in respect of the ship only if the mortgage or purchase is expressed to be subject to the contract, notwithstanding that the mortgagee or purchaser was not a party to it. Ability of mortgagor to dispose of mortgaged property

[10.240]

It might appear from s 45 of the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (Cth) that a mortgagor under a registered ship has an unfettered power to dispose of the mortgaged property without the consent, or even the knowledge, of the mortgagee. This section states that the owner of a registered ship or share “has power, subject to this Act and to any rights and powers appearing in the Register to be vested in any other person, absolutely to dispose of the ship or share and to give effectual receipts in respect of the disposal”. It should be observed in this regard that a mortgagee’s rights and powers are not set out, and thus do not “appear”, in either of the Shipping Registers, and that there is no provision elsewhere in the Act which clearly restrains a mortgagor from selling the mortgaged property. It would be altogether surprising if a mortgagor of a ship did have a statutory power to sell the mortgaged property, and indeed the better view is that this is not the case. Section 45 is probably a section designed to protect the title of a purchaser of a registered ship or share,64 and not (or at least not primarily) a section intended to describe the powers of an owner of such property.

Rights, duties and liabilities of a mortgagee Right of mortgagee to take possession and sell

[10.250]

The most important right possessed by the mortgagee of a ship or share in a ship is to take possession of this property and if

61 De Mattos v Gibson (1858) 4 De G & J 276; 45 ER 108 at 282, 299; 110, 116; The Messageries Imperiales Co v Baines (1863) 7 LT 763 at 764; Lord Strathcona Steamship Co v Dominion Coal Co [1926] AC 108 at 117-120, 125. See also Port Line Ltd v Ben Line Steamers Ltd [1958] 2 QB 146 at 164-169. 62 Port Line Ltd v Ben Line Steamers Ltd [1958] 2 QB 146 at 164-169. 63 London County Council v Allen [1914] 3 KB 642 at 659; Barker v Stickney [1919] 1 KB 121 at 132. 64 The Horlock (1877) 2 PD 243 at 249-250. See also Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484 at 496, 498, 501-503; Ontario Ltd v Commissioner of Stamps (1990) 53 SASR 274 at 281.

[10.260]

10 Mortgage of Ships

185

necessary then sell it in order to realise his or her security. This right is commonly the subject of express provisions in either the mortgage instrument itself or the collateral deed of covenant which the parties may execute along with it. Apart from any express provisions on this matter, a mortgagee has a right to take possession of the mortgaged ship or share in two circumstances. The first (following basic principles of the law of mortgages) is where the mortgagor defaults either in the repayment of capital or in the payment of interest.65 The second is where the mortgagor deals with the ship or share in such a way that the mortgagee’s security either is, or will become, materially impaired.66 In respect of the second situation, it should be observed that a mortgagee’s right to take possession does not arise if the mortgagor allows the ship simply to become burdened by a maritime lien, even if this does strictly impair the mortgagee’s security, for this might be entirely reasonable in the circumstances. A ship, for example, may properly accept salvage assistance when in distress even though successful salvage services will ordinarily attract a maritime lien for salvage reward. However, a mortgagee’s right to take possession does arise if the mortgagor by inaction then allows the ship to remain burdened by a maritime lien which impairs the mortgagee’s security.67 (As is observed in Chapter 8, a maritime lien takes priority over a mortgage, and thus detracts from the mortgagee’s security.)

[10.260]

Right of mortgagee of majority of shares to take possession and sell

A mortgagee of a majority of the shares in a ship has the same right to take possession of the ship and sell it as a mortgagee of the whole ship.68 This is a corollary of the rule that the control and management of a ship lies with the will of the majority of shareholders.69 A mortgagee of a minority of shares in a ship has the right to take possession of the mortgaged shares, but not the ship itself.

65 Wilkes v Saunion (1877) 7 Ch D 188 at 191; The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 148. 66 The Manor [1907] P 339 at 358-362. 67 The Manor [1907] P 339 at 361-362. 68 Japp v Campbell (1887) 57 LJQB 79. 69 The Margaret (1829) 2 Hag Adm 275; 166 ER 244 at 276; 245; Japp v Campbell (1887) 57 LJQB 79 at 81.

186

Shipping Law

[10.270]

[10.270]

Right of a second or subsequent mortgagee to take possession and sell

The ordinary rules of equity do not recognise any right in a second or subsequent mortgagee to take possession of a ship and sell it. Only a first mortgagee has this right. Equity empowers a second or subsequent mortgagee merely to apply to the court for the appointment of a receiver of the ship.70

[10.280]

Method of taking possession

A mortgagee can take possession of a mortgaged ship by going on board and taking personal possession of the vessel or by putting a representative on board. Either course is known as taking actual possession of the ship. These procedures are not, however, always practicable. For example, the ship may be in foreign parts. In this case a mortgagee can take constructive possession by acting in a way which indicates a clear and obvious intention of assuming the rights of ownership of the ship or share.71 A mortgagee has been held to take constructive possession of a ship in the following ways: • by informing the captain by letter that he or she is now the owner of the ship and by giving the captain a fresh set of instructions which override those of the mortgagor;72 • by informing the captain of the appointment of a new ship’s manager or agent;73 • by giving notice to the mortgagor and charterer of an intention to take possession of the ship.74 It has, however, been held insufficient for a mortgagee simply to have the ship arrested at a foreign port, for this is not an unequivocal assertion of the right to possession of a ship.75

[10.290]

Rights and liabilities of a mortgagee in possession

A mortgagee in possession of a mortgaged ship or share has all the rights, and is subject to all the liabilities, of the owner of the ship or share from

70 Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Wilson (1872) LR 7 Ch App 507 at 511; Keith v Burrows (1876) 1 CPD 722 at 736. 71 The Benwell Tower (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 at 16. 72 Ex parte Howden and Ainslie; Re Litherland (1842) 2 Mont D & De G 574. 73 Benyon & Co v Godden & Son; HR Evans (Third Party) (1878) 3 Ex D 263. 74 Rusden v Pope (1868) LR 3 Ex 269. 75 The Benwell Tower (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 at 16-17.

[10.300]

10 Mortgage of Ships

187

the time of taking possession.76 One consequence of this is that a mortgagee is entitled to receive any freight which is earned by the mortgaged ship after he or she has taken possession.77 This freight is then available to satisfy the mortgagee’s secured claim.78 Liberty to use ship pending sale

[10.300]

The only purpose for which a mortgagee of a ship or a share in a ship may enter into possession of this property is to sell it and thereby satisfy the sum secured by the mortgage.79 In some circumstances, however, it might be prudent for a mortgagee in possession to wait a while before selling the property. In this case the mortgagee should delay the sale, for a mortgagee of a ship, as of any other property, is liable for any loss suffered as a result of an imprudent or reckless sale.80 In the meantime the mortgagee might wish to use the property in some commercial venture in order thereby to reduce the amount owing to him or her. This, however, involves a risk, for the ship might suffer damage or loss as a result. Although there is some uncertainty on the matter, it would appear that a mortgagee in possession of a ship may use the vessel for a commercial venture pending sale without incurring any liability, provided he or she acts prudently in this regard.81 So long as the mortgagee acts prudently, it would appear that he or she is not liable for any loss, damage or diminution in value that may result to the ship. If, on the other hand, the mortgagee acts imprudently, he or she is so liable.82 It may be observed in this regard that there is no requirement that a mortgagee in possession employ the ship commercially pending sale, even if a prudent ship owner would do so. If a mortgagee chooses to let a mortgaged ship remain idle in the meantime, he or she is entitled to do so.83 The mortgagee’s sole duty in those circumstances is to take such care of it as any prudent shipowner would do.

76 Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 602. 77 Dickinson v Kitchen (1858) 8 El & Bl 789; 120 ER 293 at 798; 297; Brown v Tanner (1868) LR 3 Ch App 597 at 602; Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Wilson (1872) LR 7 Ch App 507 at 511; Keith and Wyllie v Burrows and Perks (1877) 2 App Cas 636 at 646; The Benwell Tower (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 at 16. 78 The Benwell Tower (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 at 16. 79 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co Ltd (1861) 3 De G F & J 177; 45 ER 846 at 190; 851. 80 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co Ltd (1861) 3 De G F & J 177; 45 ER 846 at 190; 851. See also Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co Ltd (1860) 2 Giff 457; 66 ER 191 at 469; 197. 81 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co Ltd (1861) 3 De G F & J 177; 45 ER 846 at 185-186, 191-192; 849, 851. See also Gulf & Fraser Fishermen’s Union v Calm C Fish Ltd, Phillipson, Doving O’Brien and O’Brien: The Calm C [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 188. 82 Marriott v Anchor Reversionary Co Ltd (1860) 2 Giff 457; 66 ER 191, esp at 469, 470-471; 197. 83 Samuel v Jones (1863) 7 LT 760 at 762.

188

Shipping Law

[10.310]

Rights and duties in respect of a mortgagee’s sale and the proceeds of sale

[10.310]

A mortgagee in possession of a ship or a share in a ship must take reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably possible for the mortgaged ship or share.84

The proceeds of sale of a mortgaged ship or share, and any freight payable to the mortgagee as owner of the ship or share, form a common fund for the satisfaction of the mortgagee’s security.85 If there is more than one mortgage on the ship, the common fund is available to satisfy the security of the mortgagees in accordance with their respective priorities.86 After all mortgagees have been satisfied, the mortgagee responsible for the sale holds any surplus as constructive trustee for the mortgagor.87

[10.320]

Effect of sale on existing rights and charges on the ship

If a ship or share in a ship is sold by a mortgagee, it is sold subject to any existing charges over the property other than those secured by way of a mortgage. All mortgages are extinguished upon sale of the subject property by a mortgagee in possession. Because a ship sold by a mortgagee is sold subject to any existing charges over the property other than those secured by way of a mortgage, it is sold subject to any maritime lien, statutory lien or other charge that may be attaching to it. In order to sell a ship with a completely clear title, a mortgagee must institute proceedings in rem in relation to the mortgage for the purpose of having the ship sold in the proceedings. Upon a sale in proceedings in rem, a ship is sold free of any charge.88 Proceedings in rem for a claim relating to a mortgage of a ship or share are commenced pursuant to s 16, with s 4(2)(a)(iii), of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). Mortgagee’s right to foreclose

[10.330]

There is some uncertainty about whether a mortgagee of a ship or a share in a ship can foreclose, because this is very rarely even attempted. In England the accepted view under the corresponding provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 was that a mortgagee could

84 Gulf & Fraser Fishermen’s Union v Calm C Fish Ltd, Phillipson, Doving O’Brien and O’Brien: The Calm C [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 188. 85 The Benwell Tower (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 at 16. 86 The Benwell Tower (1895) 8 Asp MLC 13 at 16. See also Keith v Burrows (1876) 1 CPD 722 at 736. 87 Banner v Berridge (1881) LR 18 Ch D 254 at 269. 88 The Catherine, formerly the Croxdale (1851) 15 Jur 231; The Acrux [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 405 at 409; Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer Queen of the South: The Queen of the South [1968] P 449 at 461-462; The Cerro Colorado [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 at 60-61; Readhead v Admiralty Marshal, Western Australia District Registry (1998) 87 FCR 229 at 242.

[10.350]

10 Mortgage of Ships

189

foreclose.89 In the reasonably modern English case of Fletcher and Campbell v City Marine Finance Ltd,90 Roskill J referred to the ability of a ship mortgagee to foreclose without expressing any doubt on this matter. Right of mortgagee to require insurance of the ship by the mortgagor

[10.340]

Whilst a mortgaged ship is in the possession of the mortgagor, the mortgagee has the right to require that the vessel be insured against marine perils before going to sea.91

Duty of mortgagee to respect dealings by mortgagor in possession

[10.350]

As a general rule, a mortgagee of a ship or a share in a ship must not interfere with the performance of any contract in respect of the ship made by the mortgagor in possession.92 This is a corollary of the rule that the mortgagor of a registered ship ordinarily has the right to deal with it as he or she wishes for so long as he or she is in possession. Like the latter rule, the former does not apply to contracts which impair the mortgagee’s security or to contracts which contravene the terms of the mortgage.93 By virtue of the general rule just referred to, a mortgagee may not exercise any of his or her rights under the mortgage (for example, to enter into possession, or to arrest the ship in proceedings in rem) if this will interfere with the performance of a permissible contract.94 If a mortgagee enters into possession of a ship, he or she is bound by the terms of any permissible contract if, but only to the extent that, the mortgagor was otherwise then able to meet his or her obligations under it.95 A mortgagee in possession is thus not required to discharge any contractual obligation which the mortgagor was unable to discharge at the time the mortgagee took possession of the ship.96 If a mortgagee wrongly interferes with a contract in respect of a mortgaged ship, the injured party can obtain an injunction or damages against the mortgagee.97

89 See M Thomas and D Steel, Temperley’s Merchant Shipping Acts (7th ed, Stevens & Sons Ltd, London, 1976), p 34. 90 Fletcher and Campbell v City Marine Finance Ltd [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 520 at 535-536. 91 The Heather Bell [1901] P 272 at 281. 92 The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 253-254. 93 The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 253-254. 94 The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 253-254. 95 See De Mattos v Gibson (1858) 4 De G & J 276; 45 ER 108 at 300-301; 116-117; The Lord Strathcona [1925] P 143 at 156; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 254. 96 See The Lord Strathcona [1925] P 143 at 154-156; The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 259. 97 The Myrto [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 at 254. See also The Heather Bell [1901] P 143 at 148.

190

Shipping Law

[10.360]

Extinguishment possession

[10.360]

of

mortgage

by

sale

by

mortgagee

in

As has already been observed, if a registered mortgagee in possession of a ship or share sells the property pursuant to his or her power of sale, all existing mortgages are extinguished, be they registered or unregistered. The ship or share is then transferred to the purchaser free of any mortgage. The transfer may then be registered in the relevant Shipping Register without the need for any evidence of the extinguishment.

CESSATION OF A SHIP MORTGAGE [10.370]

Any mortgage of a ship or share in a ship automatically ceases to have effect in the following circumstances:

• • • • •

upon the discharge of the mortgage obligation; upon the total destruction of the ship; upon the sale of the ship by a mortgagee in possession; upon the sale of the ship in proceedings in rem;98 upon the sale of the ship pursuant to a statutory right of sale, at least if the purchaser is unaware of the mortgage at the time of the sale;99 • in the case of an equitable mortgage, upon the sale of the ship or share to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice or constructive notice of the mortgage.100

98 The Catherine, formerly the Croxdale (1851) 15 Jur 231; The Acrux [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 405; Corps v Owners of the Paddle Steamer Queen of the South: The Queen of the South [1968] P 449 at 461-462; The Cerro Colorado [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 at 60-61. 99 The Blitz [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 441 at 443. 100 Hooper v Gumm; McLellan v Gumm (1867) 2 Ch App 282. See also Barclay & Co Ltd v Poole [1907] 2 Ch 284; Burgis v Constantine [1908] 2 KB 484.

11

Introduction to Carriage of Goods by Sea [11.10] GENERAL INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 191 [11.20] BILLS OF LADING AND SEA WAYBILLS ................................................ 192 [11.30] VOYAGE CHARTERPARTIES ...................................................................... 194 [11.40] CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHTMENT ........................................................ 195 [11.50] SENSITIVITY OF WORLD FREIGHT MARKET ...................................... 195 [11.60] FREEDOM OF CONTRACT ......................................................................... 196 [11.90] INTERLOCKING CONTRACTS .................................................................. 199

GENERAL INTRODUCTION [11.10] When goods are to be carried by sea from one place to another, their nature and size influence the contractual arrangements that the parties choose to make. If the cargo to be transported is 40,000 tonnes of coal, for example, it would be necessary to use the entire carrying capacity of a large ship to carry the coal to its destination. The contract of carriage for such a cargo would probably be a voyage charterparty,1 by which the ship is chartered for the single voyage from the port of loading to the port of delivery: see Chapter 13. If, however, the cargo is 400,000 tonnes of coal, it would be necessary to use the carrying capacity of many large ships. In such a case, the contract of carriage would be a contract of affreightment for many liftings of cargo on many voyages: see [13.670]. By contrast, if the cargo to be carried is a single refrigerated container containing tulip bulbs, it would obviously be neither necessary nor desirable to charter an entire ship to carry the container to its destination. The contract of carriage for such a cargo would be a bill of lading or a sea waybill: see Chapter 12. The largest modern container ships can carry thousands of shipping containers at one time. This means that such a ship may be carrying goods under thousands of different contracts of carriage (bills of lading or sea waybills) on any one voyage. Obviously, the operator of such a ship 1 The term “charterparty” derives from the medieval Latin “carta partita”, which was an instrument written in duplicate on a single sheet and then divided by indented edges so that each part fitted the other: see C Trowbridge, “The History, Development and Characteristics of the Charter Concept” (1975) 49 Tulane Law Review 743.

192

Shipping Law

[11.20]

cannot promise each one of the thousands of cargo-owners with goods on the ship that the ship will go wherever they want it to go. Instead, ships of this kind follow the same advertised routes around the world over and over again, stopping at the same ports in the same order. A ship that continually follows the same route or line in this way is called a liner. A liner service carries goods between any two of the stopping places on the route or line. Smaller lines or “feeder services” bring goods to and from the ports on the line. For example, the port of Melbourne is on several international shipping lines, but since 2011 the port of Hobart has been on none at all. Containerised goods bound for Hobart from overseas may be carried into Melbourne or Sydney on an international liner service, and then transferred to a smaller ship for carriage from Melbourne or Sydney to Hobart, often under a separate contract of carriage. Conversely, export cargoes from Tasmania must be shipped on a feeder service before embarking on their voyage to other countries. By contrast, the exporter or importer of 40,000 tonnes of coal is likely to find a ship operator who will agree to take the cargo to the particular destination nominated by the exporter or importer. Bulk carriers do not usually follow lines like container ships: they travel the world from cargo to cargo, going wherever they are sent. As a result, the trade that they are involved in is sometimes known as the tramp trade, and they are sometimes called tramp ships. In summary, the different types of contract for carriage of goods by sea are, in ascending order of the size of cargo to be carried: 1. bills of lading and sea waybills; 2. voyage charterparties; and 3. contracts of affreightment.

BILLS OF LADING AND SEA WAYBILLS [11.20] A negotiable bill of lading does not only act as evidence of the contract for carriage between shipper and carrier; it also acts as a receipt for the goods put on board the carrying ship, and as a document entitling the holder to possession of them. When the shipper-exporter puts the goods on board the carrying ship, the carrier (or, more usually, its agent) issues a bill of lading to the shipper, which acts as a receipt for the goods, and as evidence of the contract of carriage between the shipper and the carrier. While the goods are at sea on the way to their destination, the bill of lading performs its third function (if it is a negotiable bill),2 as a document entitling the holder to possession of the goods. Typically, a negotiable bill of lading travels the following route: after receiving the bill of lading from the carrier, the shipper-exporter indorses the bill, usually 2 For the difference between negotiable and non-negotiable bills of lading, see [12.20].

[11.20]

11 Introduction to Carriage of Goods by Sea

193

“in blank”,3 and then hands it to a bank in its own country for transmission to the importer’s bank, which gives the bill to the importer-indorsee in return for the purchase price (or an undertaking to pay it), and the importer-indorsee then presents the original, indorsed bill of lading to the carrier at the port of destination when the ship arrives.4 Possession of the original, indorsed bill of lading entitles the holder to possession of the goods it represents, so the banks can hold the negotiable bill of lading as security for any advances they have made on credit. In many cases, the shipper-exporter and receiver-importer do not require a negotiable document to act as security for payment, in the way that a negotiable bill of lading does. For example, if an exporter and an importer have formed a stable and longstanding trading relationship, the exporter may be prepared to send goods to the importer on credit, trusting that the importer will pay when the exporter sends its account, or the importer may be prepared to pay in advance, trusting that the exporter will send the goods as it has promised. Alternatively, if a national subsidiary of a multinational company sends goods to another subsidiary in a different country, payment can be made by in-house bookkeeping arrangements for transfer of credit from one subsidiary to the other. In each of these examples, the parties have no need for a negotiable bill of lading to secure payment of the purchase price, because the importer-receiver will pay the exporter-shipper without insisting on a negotiable document in return for payment. If a negotiable bill of lading is not needed, the parties may choose to use a sea waybill as the contract of carriage. A sea waybill performs two of the three functions that a bill of lading performs: it is a receipt for the goods shipped, and it is evidence of the contract of carriage between the shipper and the sea-carrier. It does not, however, perform the third function: it does not entitle the holder to possession of the goods. As a result, there is no need for the receiver to present the original sea waybill in order to persuade the carrier that it is entitled to delivery of the goods.5 The sea waybill simply names the importer-receiver as consignee. 3 A bill of lading is indorsed “in blank” if it is simply signed on the back by the shipper-exporter, without identifying the indorsee, so that passing the indorsed bill from hand to hand by mere delivery is sufficient to transfer the right to possession of the goods: see Hilditch Pty Ltd v Dorval Kaiun KK (No 2) (2007) 245 ALR 125 at 133-134 [31] per Rares J; see also [12.710]. 4 That is what happens when the importer agrees to pay for the goods by providing an unconfirmed letter of credit. An unconfirmed letter of credit is an undertaking by the importer’s bank (known as the issuing bank) to pay the exporter-shipper in return for the indorsed bill of lading (among other documents). If the letter of credit is confirmed, a bank in the exporter’s country adds its undertaking to that of the issuing bank. The purchase price is paid by the importer-indorsee and then relayed from the issuing bank to a bank in the shipper-exporter’s country (called the nominated bank) and by that bank to the shipper-exporter. The purchase price changes hands in return for the negotiable bill of lading. 5 In contrast, a non-negotiable, “straight” bill of lading, which names the consignee, must be presented to the carrier for delivery, at least when it contains the typical “surrender clause” requiring presentation of the original bill in return for delivery of the goods: see

194

Shipping Law

[11.30]

Unlike a bill of lading, the original sea waybill usually does not change hands at all; it usually plays no part in the arrangements for payment of the purchase price. Because the carrier is entitled to deliver the goods to the receiver without demanding presentation of the original shipping documents, sea waybills are also used in trades involving short sea voyages, where the carrying ship may arrive at its destination before the shipping documents do. Sea waybills are commonly used for sea-carriage of goods between Australia and New Zealand, and in the Australian coasting trade, particularly between Tasmania and the mainland of Australia. It is also a simple matter for the waybill to be given in electronic form. In contrast, although electronic negotiable bills of lading do exist, they remain unusual in practice. Although many aspects of a shipping transaction are now paper-free, negotiable bills of lading are still generally issued and negotiated in paper form.6

VOYAGE CHARTERPARTIES [11.30]

In the case of a large quantity of goods, where the entire carrying capacity of a ship is to be used for the voyage to the port of destination, a voyage charterparty is usually used as the contract of carriage. The ship may be chartered for the voyage by either the shipper-exporter or the receiver-importer, and it may either be chartered directly from the shipowner or sub-chartered from another charterer (the head charterer). Unlike a negotiable bill of lading, a voyage charterparty is not a document entitling the holder to possession of the goods that are carried on the chartered ship. If the exporter and the importer need a negotiable document to perform that function, then the shipowner (or head charterer) or its agent must issue a negotiable bill of lading when the goods are shipped on board the chartered ship. The right to possession of the goods is passed from shipper-exporter to indorsee-importer by indorsement of the bill of lading, but the contract of carriage between the charterer and the shipowner (or head charterer) is contained in the charterparty. If a negotiable bill of lading is not needed, the carrier may issue a non-negotiable sea waybill instead. The contract of carriage between charterer and shipowner (or head charterer) is still the charterparty; the sea waybill acts merely as a receipt so far as the charterer is concerned.

Voss v APL Co Pte Ltd [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 707 (Sing Ct App); JI MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA: The Rafaela S [2005] 2 AC 423; Porky Products Inc v Nippon Express USA (Illinois) Inc 1 F Supp 2d 227 (SDNY 1997); Beluga Shipping GmbH v Headway Shipping Ltd (No 1) [2008] FCA 1791. See generally [12.20] for the difference between a sea waybill and a straight bill of lading. 6 For a description of the technical problems preventing easy adoption of electronic bills of lading, see [12.790].

[11.50]

11 Introduction to Carriage of Goods by Sea

195

CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHTMENT [11.40]

Where the quantity of goods to be carried is even larger still, the contract of carriage used by the parties is often a contract of affreightment. Strictly speaking, any contract for the carriage of goods by sea is a contract of affreightment. In practice, though, the expression is used to describe a contract for the carriage of such large quantities of goods that several voyages are needed. Instead of entering into separate voyage charterparties for each carrying voyage, the parties agree on the basic specifications (such as how much cargo is to be carried, how many voyages will be needed, over how much time and in what kind of ships) that will govern the entire series of voyages (or “liftings”, as they are usually called), leaving nomination of the precise details for each voyage until just before it occurs. From the charterer’s point of view, the advantage of a contract of affreightment over a series of single voyage charterparties is its stability: the shipowner is locked in to an agreed freight rate7 and agreed contractual terms for all the liftings under the contract. If the charterer thinks that market freight rates will rise over the next few years, it may try to enter a single contract of affreightment for many liftings at this year’s rate, rather than enter into separate voyage charterparties at progressively higher rates and, possibly, progressively less favourable terms. The shipowner, too, must fix the freight rate for the contract of affreightment with an eye to the future. If the market freight rate goes down over the term of the contract of affreightment, the shipowner makes a larger profit, because it is guaranteed the higher contract rate for all liftings during that period; if the market rate goes up, the shipowner makes a smaller profit or even a loss, because it is locked in to the lower contract rate and cannot charter its own ships out at the market rate, or must pay the higher market rate to charter ships in to perform its obligations under the contract of affreightment. Indeed, from the shipowner’s point of view, entering a contract of affreightment is almost like playing a futures market in freight rates.

SENSITIVITY OF WORLD FREIGHT MARKET [11.50] For contracts such as voyage charterparties and contracts of affreightment, the world freight market is extremely sensitive, fluctuating from day to day. (By contrast, liner freight rates tend to be more static, as they are usually fixed by cartels of sea-carriers known as shipping conferences.) Freight rates for bulk cargoes are influenced by commodity prices, political developments, weather and many other factors. For example, a fall in the price of oil reduces demand for oil tankers, thereby 7 Freight is the price paid for the carriage of goods: see [13.660] (voyage charterparties) and [12.640] (bills of lading and sea waybills). In the case of a time charterparty, the sum paid by the charterer to the shipowner is called hire: see [14.310]–[14.340].

196

Shipping Law

[11.60]

lowering freight rates.8 The armed conflict between Iran and Iraq that began in 1980 had a dramatic effect on freight rates for voyages into the Persian Gulf, as did the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003. It is not only in this sensitivity to market factors that the world bulk freight market resembles the perfect market models of economic theory. As Lord Diplock observed in Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA:9 The freight market for chartered vessels still remains a classic example of a free market. It is world-wide in coverage, highly competitive and sensitive to fluctuations in supply and demand. It is a market in which the individual charterers and shipowners are matched in bargaining power and are at liberty to enter into charterparties in whatever contractual terms they please.

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT [11.60] In the pure model of freedom of contract, equality of bargaining power does not go hand-in-hand with the use of standard form contracts, which are more usually found in contracts of adhesion, where there is inequality of bargaining power. However, voyage charterparties and contracts of affreightment are almost always made out on standard forms approved by international bodies such as the Baltic and International Maritime Conference (BIMCO). The freedom of contract referred to by Lord Diplock lies not so much in the liberty to construct a contract at will, as in the liberty to choose the particular standard form that best corresponds to one’s requirements, and the liberty to modify it to suit the parties’ needs.

[11.70]

Charterparties

Charterparties are usually drawn up through the mediation of agents and brokers. The shipowner’s broker and the charterer’s broker conduct negotiations on behalf of their principals, usually by exchange of emails and telephone calls.10 Each broker maintains contact with his or her principal, to whom it owes a duty to take care in each stage of negotiation, with the result that the broker is liable in tort if losses arise as a result of his or her negligence.11 8 See, eg, Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293, where it was argued unsuccessfully that the drying up of oil supplies from Libya in 1970-1972 had frustrated a time charterparty because market freight rates had fallen far below the agreed rate of hire. 9 Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA [1978] AC 1 at 7. 10 See, eg, Hofflinghouse & Co Ltd v C-Trade SA (The Intra Transporter) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 158; Star Steamship Society v Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 583. Brokers used to send one another telex messages, but that technology has been largely, but not completely, replaced by email. 11 See, eg, Markappa Inc v NW Spratt & Son Ltd (The Arta) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 534.

[11.70]

11 Introduction to Carriage of Goods by Sea

197

Unlike bills of lading and sea waybills, charterparties are not only used for the carriage of goods. Voyage charterparties are contracts for the carriage of goods; demise and time charterparties are not. A demise or time charterer is more likely to be the carrier of other people’s goods than it is to be a cargo-owner itself. Demise and time charterparties are contracts for the use of a ship for a period of time. The distinction between demise and time charterparties is the distinction between possession and control. It was expressed as follows by Latham CJ in Australasian United Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Shipping Control Board:12 All charterers of ships, by virtue of the charter party, have some control over the ship. Such control may relate only to a particular voyage; it may operate during a specified period. If the charter party is by way of demise, property in the ship temporarily passes to the charterer – for the duration of the charter. If possession, as well as some degree of control, passes to the charterer, then the property passes to the charterer and he is pro tempore the owner. But no property in the ship passes if possession is not given to the charterer by virtue of the terms of the charter. If the control of the master and crew in the navigation of the ship passes to the charterer he has possession. If, on the other hand, he acquires only a right to the use of the ship – a right to use her carrying capacity … there is no demise, but only a contract for services – locatio operis vehendarum mercium … Thus the general test is “whose servants the master and crew were” … If the owner has the power of appointing and dismissing the master and crew, he remains owner of the ship, while if, under the charter, the charterer obtains that power, possession of the ship passes to him.

A demise charterer is the disponent owner of the ship, rather than merely a hirer of the services of ship and crew. The question of whether or not a charterparty is a demise charterparty is one of substance, not form; it is not determined by the label the parties choose to put on it, but by the fact of possession of the ship.13 Because a demise charterer hires the ship without the services of master and crew, demise charters are also known as bareboat charters. In modern shipping practice, demise charters are usually used as a vehicle for ship financing arrangements that split ownership of the ship as capital asset from entitlement to the stream of income it generates, for the purposes of reducing or avoiding tax. In contrast, under a time charterparty, the shipowner provides the time charterer with the services of the ship and its crew for a stated period of time, to carry the goods which the charterer arranges to be put on board the ship. A time charterparty is, thus, a means of dividing the navigational and commercial operations of the ship. The shipowner runs the ship, along with its master and crew, without having to worry about finding commercial employment for it. The charterer finds commercial employment for the ship without having to worry about the technical and 12 Australasian United Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Shipping Control Board (1945) 71 CLR 508 at 521, citing Schuster v McKellar (1857) 7 El & Bl 704; 119 ER 1407; Burnard v Aaron (1862) 31 LJCP 334. 13 Anderson’s (Pacific) Trading Co Pty Ltd v Karlander New Guinea Line Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 870.

198

Shipping Law

[11.80]

navigational aspects of running it, such as employing the master and crew. The charterer pays for the commercial use of the ship, and in return is entitled to keep the freight paid by the cargo-owners for carriage of their goods on the ship. The shipowner is guaranteed payment for the use of the ship without having to find cargoes in the market; the charterer makes profits in the cargo market (the freights it receives from cargo-owners minus the hire it has to pay the shipowner) without having to run the ship itself. Some time charterparties, known as trip time charterparties, define the duration of the charter period by reference to the time taken to complete a single voyage or round trip, rather than by reference to a specified number of years, months or days. Although these charterparties are time charterparties, they usually specify the particular cargo to be carried on the voyage or voyages. A trip time charterparty is thus rather like a voyage charterparty, a contract for the carriage of goods, but with a different allocation of responsibility for running costs.14 In some cases, the owner or time charterer of a ship may charter out only part of the carrying capacity of the ship, such as a single hold or stack of container cells. Such charterparties are known as slot charterparties, which are also (usually) a form of time charterparty or (sometimes) a form of voyage charterparty. They provide the owner (or, more commonly, a time charterer of the whole ship) with the opportunity of selling the use of the carrying space of the ship in large blocks or slots, rather than in individual parcels. Thus, for example, it may be commercially convenient for the time charterer of a container ship that can carry 6,000 containers to sub-charter six slots of 1,000 container spaces each, rather than entering into 6,000 separate contracts of carriage with individual cargo-owners. The slot charterers then sell the use of the space that they have chartered, by entering into contracts under bills of lading, sea waybills or voyage charterparties for the carriage of goods, or even slot sub-charters.15 In effect, selling space to slot charterers rather than shippers allows a carrier to become a wholesaler of its ship’s carrying capacity, rather than a retailer.

[11.80]

Freight forwarders

Another commonly-found intermediary between cargo owner and shipowner is the freight forwarder (known in North America as an NVOCC, which stands for Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier). Since the advent of containerised carriage, many freight forwarders offer a

14 See [14.260] for a description of trip time charterparties. 15 See, eg, Seafood Imports Pty Ltd v ANL Singapore Pte Ltd (2010) 272 ALR 149, where the contracting carrier was a slot charterer.

[11.90]

11 Introduction to Carriage of Goods by Sea

199

“door-to-door” service, picking up goods from an exporter’s warehouse and stuffing them into containers (or arranging for those two functions to be done by others), arranging for road or rail carriage of the containers to the port of loading, then sea carriage to the port of destination, then road or rail carriage from the port of discharge to the importer’s warehouse and then arranging for unstuffing the containers there. Forwarders providing a “door to door” service of this kind are often referred to as multimodal transport operators, or MTOs, because they handle transportation in several modes: sea, land and air. The cargo owner does not deal directly with the sea-carrier or the road or rail carriers that handle the goods during the land stages. Instead, the cargo owner deals with the freight forwarder/NVOCC/MTO. Often, in the case of small consignments of goods, the freight forwarder consolidates cargoes from several different shippers into a single container. Whether or not it has consolidated different cargoes into a single container, the forwarder/ NVOCC/MTO usually issues the shipper of goods with its own document called a “house” bill of lading, or consignment note. It (the forwarder/NVOCC/MTO) then contracts with a sea-carrier under a bill of lading or sea waybill for carriage of the containerised goods to the port nearest their eventual destination.16 The sea carriage document issued by the sea-carrier to the forwarder/NVOCC/MTO is usually a nonnegotiable sea waybill or straight bill of lading, naming the forwarder/ NVOCC/MTO itself or an agent as the consignee. In making the contracts with the actual carriers (sea and land), the forwarder/NVOCC/MTO may be acting merely as agent for the cargo-owner. Alternatively, the forwarder may have contracted with the cargo owner as principal, promising to carry the goods to their final destination, in which case the bill of lading or waybill contract between the forwarder/NVOCC/MTO and the sea-carrier is a sub-contract by the forwarder/NVOCC/MTO acting as principal, rather than as agent for the cargo-owner. Whether it is principal or agent, if the forwarder regularly undertakes the carriage of goods from one port to another, it may charter a slot on a ship performing a liner service that calls at those two ports. The contract of carriage between forwarder and sea-carrier may be evidenced by a single bill of lading or sea waybill listing dozens or even hundreds of different containers.

INTERLOCKING CONTRACTS [11.90] This rather bewildering cast of characters, each with a different function (and each often represented by an agent or manager), means that there may be many interlocking contracts relating to the carriage of a single cargo on a single voyage.

16 The forwarder/NVOCC/MTO also arranges for road or rail carriage for the land stages at either end of the sea voyage.

200

Shipping Law

[11.90]

Example 11.1 The container ship “Bon Temps” is owned by O, which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. “Bon Temps” is demise chartered by O to D, a demise charterer, which is a company registered in Panama. D charters the ship to T, a Swiss shipping line, under a time charterparty for ten years. T operates the ship on a liner route from Northern Europe via Singapore to Australian ports, then back again. T charters one stack of the container cells on “Bon Temps” to S-T, a shipping line based in the United Kingdom, under a slot time charterparty for one year. F, a Singaporean freight forwarder/MTO, contracts with E, a Singaporean exporter, for carriage of a container of goods from Singapore to Australia on “Bon Temps”. F issues E a “house” bill of lading or consignment note. When F ships the container on board the vessel in Singapore for carriage to Australia, S-T (or an agent on its behalf) issues F a sea waybill naming F’s Australian agent AF as the consignee. While the ship is en route from Singapore to Australia, the original bill of lading issued by F is indorsed by E to I, an Australian importer, in return for the purchase price of the contents. An electronic copy of the sea waybill issued by S-T to F is emailed by F to AF. On arrival of the ship in Australia, AF takes delivery of the container from “Bon Temps”, having identified itself as the named consignee in the sea waybill. AF then delivers the goods to I in return for presentation of the indorsed original bill of lading, or takes the original bill of lading for a delivery note (or PIN code)17 that entitles I to take delivery directly from the container terminal at the port of discharge.

This example of the carriage of a single container of goods on a single voyage may seem wilfully complicated. Nevertheless, this web of contractual relations is fairly typical. In the examples, there are contracts between O and D, D and T, T and S-T, F and S-T (or F and T, or F and D, or E and S-T, or E and T, or E and D, depending on whether F, S-T and T have contracted for themselves or as agents for someone else),18 F and E, E and I, and, when the original bill of lading has been transferred to I, between I and F, S-T, T or D. Each type of contract, except the demise charterparty between O and D and the contract of sale between E and I, is considered in Chapters 12–14.

17 See [12.770] for the use of PIN codes as substitutes for delivery orders. 18 The question of identifying the carrier is dealt with at [12.800]–[12.840].

[11.90]

11 Introduction to Carriage of Goods by Sea

201

Example 11.2 The bulk carrier “Green Wave” is owned by O2 Ltd of Panama. It is time-chartered by O2 to T2, a Japanese company, for a period of five years. T2 sub-charters the vessel to V, a Taiwanese company, under a voyage charterparty for carriage of a cargo of 30,000 MT of coal from Australia to Indonesia. V has entered into a contract of affreightment with an Australian exporter, S-V, for carriage of 250,000 MT of coal from Australia to Indonesia over a period of two years. V nominates “Green Wave” to perform one of the liftings under the contract of affreightment. When the coal is shipped on board the ship by S-V in Australia, S-V is issued a negotiable bill of lading by agents acting for the master of the vessel. While the ship is en route from Australia to Indonesia, S-V indorses the bill of lading to I2, the Indonesian importer, in return for the purchase price.

In this example, there are contracts between O2 and T2, T2 and V, V and S-V, S-V and I2, and, when the bill of lading is indorsed, I2 and O2. Each type of contract, except the contract of sale between S-V and I2, is considered in Chapters 12–14. Although these two examples are fairly typical of the kinds of arrangements to be found in maritime practice, they do not exhaust all the possibilities by any means. There may be chains of demise charterers, time charterers, voyage charterers and sub-charterers and/or chains of freight forwarders;19 alternatively, there may be no demise charterers, time charterers, voyage charterers, sub-charterers or freight forwarders involved at all. Many permutations are possible, so much so that it often seems as if no two cases are ever alike. In order to unravel the various relationships, bills of lading and sea waybills are considered in Chapter 12, voyage charterparties and contracts of affreightment in Chapter 13, and time charterparties in Chapter 14.

19 See, eg, Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v Ship Go Star (2012) 207 FCR 220, where the bulk carrier “Go Star” was time-chartered by its owner