Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: TORT CLAIMS
The Antonis P. Lemos
The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court is laid down by s. 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. (This section replaces s. 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956, which formerly set out the court’s jurisdiction). Among other matters, the court is given jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the questions and claims mentioned in s. 20 (2). Those questions and claims include:
“(h) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship”.
In the Antonis P. Lemos, Sheen, J., held that in order to fall within para. (h) the claim must have its origin in an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants1. However, the Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Parker, L.J., disagreed with Sheen, J., and held that the paragraph was not so limited. If the plaintiff can establish that his claim arises out of an agreement of the relevant kind, then even if such agreement is not one between himself and the defendant, that claim falls within paragraph (h)2.
The respondents were the owners of the Antonis P. Lemos. In a manner not specified in the judgment, they let her to Containertank Corporation who time-chartered her to Sammisa Co. Ltd. By a charter-party dated 16th October 1981 the appellants chartered her from Sammisa for one time-chartered trip. That charter-party provided that the master should be under the orders and directions of the appellants as regards employment and that loading should be under the supervision of the master. By a charter-party dated 21st September 1981 the appellants had voyage-chartered the vessel to Agri Industries for the carriage of a cargo of grain from Houston to Alexandria. By this charter-party the appellants guaranteed the vessel’s maximum arrival draught not to exceed 32 ft. in salt water. When the vessel arrived in Alexandria her draught exceeded 32 ft. and as a result she was unable to berth until lightened. The appellants were thereby in breach of the guarantee in the voyage charter and had to pay the costs of lightening and certain other expenses. In order to recover their losses they issued a writ in rem in the Admiralty Court and obtained a warrant for the arrest of the vessel. The endorsement on the writ was as follows:
“The Plaintiffs, as sub-charterers of the Defendants’ ship Antonis P. Lemos under a time-charter dated 16 October 1981 made between Sammisa Co. Ltd. as Owners and the Plaintiffs as Charterers, claim damages for the loss suffered by them by reason of the negligence of the Defendants, their servants or agents in causing permitting or suffering the said ship to load a quantity of corn at Houston, Texas, USA on 20 and 21 October 1981 such that her draft on arrival at Alexandria, Egypt on 11 November 1981 exceeded 32 feet rendering her unable to berth without lightening”.
The claim was thus a straightforward claim in tort and no breach of contract was alleged; there was, indeed, no contract between the appellants and the respondents. As Parker, L.J., said, if that claim was sustainable (a matter not then in issue before the
374