4 Nov 2011: Visscher v Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 137 ADMIRALTY – seafarer’s wages – relevant principles – obligation of shipowner to pay seafarer’s wages before or at the time of discharge under s 75 of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) – whether shipowner had defence based on a reasonable dispute as to its liability for wages within the meaning of s 78 of the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) – whether seafarer, when obtaining his discharge, accepted as repudiation shipowner’s insistence of his holding lower rank, after earlier promotion to chief officer withdrawn – shipowner failing to pay wages and accrued leave at time of discharge from ship – whether seafarer entitled to claim extra wages under s 78 during period after his discharge and before final payment under s 75 – whether parties’ later agreement that seafarer serve on a further voyage in higher rank without prejudice to their positions as to his actual rank capable of evidencing reasonable dispute as to shipowner’s liability for wages at earlier time of seafarer’s discharge – no evidence before primary judge that there was reasonable dispute as to shipowner’s liability for wages including accrued leave at time of seafarer’s discharge
13 Oct 2011: Birdon Pty Ltd v Houben Marine Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 126 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – operation and effect of the Constitution – conflict between State and Federal legislation – whether Part 3 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) regarding the enforcement of a statutory claim for progress payments is inconsistent with the institutional integrity of Chapter III Courts – exercise of Commonwealth judicial power
CONSUMER LAW – Australian Consumer Law – misleading and deceptive conduct
13 Oct 2011: Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v The Ship Go Star [2011] FCA 1015 ADMIRALTY – time charterparty – bunkers – claim for conversion and detinue of the bunkers – whether disponent owner had property in the bunkers
CONFLICT OF LAWS – claim for unlawful interference in contractual relations – double actionability rule – whether the events comprising the tort in substance took place in the People’s Republic of China
27 Jul 2011:Navios International Inc v Ship “Huang Shan Hai’ [2011] FCA 895 ADMIRALTY – bail bonds – sufficient surety – defendant proffered bail bonds with supplementary undertaking to the Court as security to obtain release of vessel under arrest – objections to bail bond –whether sufficient bail is given by filing a bail bond signed by only one surety rather than two, as required under r 54(2) of Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth) – whether affidavit on information and belief by solicitor can satisfy requirements in r 56(3A) of Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth) as to a proposed surety’s financial circumstances – relevance of proposed surety being a foreign corporation when considering sufficiency of bail – development of modern commercial practice a relevant consideration
10 Jun 2011: Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v The Ship "Beluga Notification" (No 2) [2011] FCA 665 ADMIRALTY - action in rem under s 16 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) - claim relating to mortgage of ship and interest in respect of it under ss 4(2)(a)iii) and (d) of Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) - no appearance filed by arrested ship or any relevant persons including owners – application for valuation and sale of ship under r 69(1) of the Admiralty Rules 1988 (Cth) – no apparent prospect that owners or any one else will pay or provide security to obtain ship’s release from arrest – duty of Marshal to conduct sale and realise highest price – whether mortgagee having obtained arrest of ship and order for sale should be permitted to make a bid or offer and participate in sale by the Marshal
Australian
states and territories
14 Dec 2010: China Shipping (Australia) Agency Co Pty Limited v D V Kelly Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 1556 Admiralty — Maritime claims — Jurisdiction — Appeal against decision of CTTT — Respondent importer of furniture products arranged through appellant shipping agent for transportation of furniture from Vietnam by sea on ocean vessel — Goods transported on carrier owned by principal of appellant — Goods arrived without incident but respondent retained goods for long period — Appellant charged respondent $8514 for hire of container in accordance with applicable tariff in bill of lading — Respondent paid $8514 to appellant — Brought proceedings in CTTT seeking order that appellant repay amount — CTTT made order sought by respondent on basis that fee charged by appellant constituted penalty — Appellant submitted CTTT did not have jurisdiction to make order as matter was maritime claim arising out of agreement relating to carriage of goods by ship — There could be no dispute that contract contained in bill of lading related to carriage of goods by ship and fell within definition of maritime claim — CTTT not court for purposes of Commonwealth Constitution s 77(iii) and thus not court within meaning of (CTH) Admiralty Act 1988 — CTTT decision vitiated by reason of CTTT having acted in excess of jurisdiction — Appeal allowed
