The vessel in The Goring 1 was, and thanks to the intervention of the plaintiffs still is, a passenger vessel plying on the River Thames in Berkshire. It was observed floating downstream at night by a member of the Island Bohemian Club, on De Montford Island, in a ferry boat used to get to the club. He and other members got a line on board the Goring and hauled her back to a vacant mooring. Together with the boat owner, they claimed salvage, alleging that, but for their action, the vessel could have caused damage to moored pleasure craft, been damaged by drifting into Reading bridge and possibly gone under it and over a weir, perhaps becoming a total loss. At least three hurdles present themselves.

One is procedural. The Goring’s owners sought to have the writ set aside pursuant to R.S.C. Ord. 12, r. 8 on the ground that the High Court had no jurisdiction to award salvage for services rendered in non-tidal waters. But Sheen, J., held there to be no irregularity in favour of the defendants—the plaintiffs’ claim was for “remuneration for salvage services” and was therefore “a claim in the nature of salvage”, thus within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction by virtue of the Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 20(1) and (2). The defendants also failed to have the endorsement on the writ struck out under R.S.C. Ord. 18, r. 19 or under the inherent jurisdiction on the grounds that it was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, as services rendered in non-tidal waters did not give rise to a valid claim for a salvage reward. Sheen, J., held, and this must be emphasized in relation to the authority of his decision, that the summary remedy sought by the defendants could only be granted in plain and obvious cases when the action was one which could not succeed. Nonetheless, in considering this point he went further and intimated that this was a situation in which the action should succeed. In doing so, he remarked on the necessity of distinguishing between the two more fundamental hurdles which the plaintiffs needed to satisfy, and in the light of which the procedural points must be regarded: establishing, first, jurisdiction and, secondly, a valid cause of action.

No longer, he observed, is there a confinement of the Admiralty Court’s jurisdiction to things done on the high seas, the common law courts having jurisdiction “within the bodies of the counties”. The Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 20 provides the High Court with admiralty jurisdiction in respect of salvage services occurring anywhere in the world provided that a writ in rem can be served upon a ship (which may be a sister ship) liable to pay salvage. Moreover, his Lordship stated that Art. 1 of the Brussels Salvage Convention 1910 recognized that assistance to vessels of inland navigation in whatever waters the services have been rendered may be salvage services. It might also have been noted that the Supreme Court Act provisions dealing with the mode of exercise of admiralty jurisdiction2 and the