Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 1075 2013 SLD 1075 2013 CLD 1829
Sindh High Court
Admiralty Suit No.35 of 2008, decision dated: 12-11-2012.dates of hearing: 28-03-16-04-21st May, 31st May and8-11-2012
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Qamar Abbas for Plaintiff.Shaiq Usmani for Defendant.

METAL CONSTRUCTION OF GREECE S.A. (MEKTA S.A.), ATHENS THROUGH ATTORNEY

VS

OWNERS OF THE VESSEL M.V. LADY REA

Law: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)

Section: 3

(a) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)---Ss. 3(2)(h) & 4(4)---Carriage of goods---Claim in tort---Proof---Action in rem against vessel---Scope---Such claim can be sustained under S.3(2)(h) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, and all that is required is that it be "connected with" agreement of the nature as stated therein---Not necessary that parties to action be themselves party to such agreement based on tort---If plaintiff can establish claim in tort against ship-owner on the basis that vessel was not seaworthy, that claim would be "connected with" agreement relating to carriage of goods in vessel, namely the agreement as evidenced by bills of lading in which plaintiff is shipper and charterer is carrier and it is irrelevant when considering such claim that ship-owner is not itself directly party to the agreement of affreightment---As the matter falls within the ambit of S.3(2)(h) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, and it is a claim against ship-owner, therefore, the same necessarily comes within the scope of S.4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980---Action in rem is maintainable against vessel in circumstances. [1984] 2 All ER 353 rel. (b) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----Ss. 3(2)(h) & 4(4)---Carriage of goods---Claim in tort---Proof--- Action in rem against vessel--- Seaworthy certificate, expiry of---Contract of affreightment was entered into between parties whereby plaintiff's cargo was to be shipped on board the vessel---Two bills of lading were issued in respect of cargo which showed plaintiff as consignor---Contention of plaintiff was that as per contract of affreightment, vessel was to proceed straight to port of destination from the port of loading but it stopped on way to discharge some cargo, which was breach of contract of affreightment---Vessel was due for annual survey at the time when it sailed from the port of loading and when it stopped on way, the port authorities refused to allow vessel to sail until appropriate certificate was in place and vessel off-loaded cargo for the purposes of sea-worthy…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492