A claim for wrongful occupation and trespass does not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction without adequate pleadings establishing the connection to goods or materials involved.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 r 19; Order 20 r 8; Order 12 r 10; Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 24(b); Senior Courts Act 1981 - Section 20(2) - Application to strike out admiralty action based on lack of jurisdiction and inconsistency with pleadings - Claim for wrongful occupation and trespass failed to establish admiralty jurisdiction under relevant statutes - Finding that claim did not correspond to admiralty jurisdiction - Costs awarded to defendant. (Paras 1, 7, 20, 21)

(B) Amendment of pleadings - Affidavit cannot improve deficiencies in pleadings; amendment is necessary to rectify issues. (Para 10)

(C) Definition of dock - Vessels in open waters do not constitute dock under the relevant legal definitions, and thus did not fall under dock charges. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff entered into eight agreements with the defendant for ship and rig lay-up services. Despite receiving judgment for unpaid service fees, the defendant failed to remove four vessels, leading the plaintiff to claim outstanding lay-up charges. The claim was contested on jurisdictional grounds.

Findings of Court:
The claim was struck out as it did not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction defined by the pertinent statutes. The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to the defendant.

Issues: The primary issues concerned whether the claim fell within the admiralty jurisdiction and if the pleadings were sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim for wrongful occupation did not satisfy the criteria for admiralty jurisdiction, emphasizing the necessity for proper pleadings to support claims and clarifying the acceptable definitions of dock.

Result: Application to strike out granted; plaintiff ordered to pay costs.

Table of Content
1. application details and factual background (Para 1 , 1 , 2)

[1] This is an application by the defendant to strike out the admiralty action of the plaintiff under O 18 r 19 and O 20 r 8 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Originally, the defendant had applied to set aside the writ as well under O 12 r 10 of the ROC 2012 on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim. Counsel for the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the application under O 18 r 19 is inconsistent with the application under O 12 r 10. The defendant then made an election to proceed under O 18 r 19 only.

Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff is a provider of ship and rig lay-up services. The plaintiff has a lay-up site in Labuan. At all materials times the four vessels, namely MV El Hadjar, MV Ain Temouchent, MV Nememcha and MV Nedroma are laid up at the lay-up site of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has averred that International Bulk Carrier SPA (IBC) is the owner of these vessels. In LBN 27-2/4-2013, plaintiff commenced admiralty action against IBC for failing to pay for services rendered under eight agreements. Judgment was entered against IBC and the judgment sum was eventually paid. However, IBC did not remove the four vessels from the lay-up site of the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave notice that USD18,000.00 per month would be charged for occupying and utilising the lay-up site. The monthly rate in the previously terminated agreements was RM15,000.00 per month. However, the IBC failed to remove the said vessels. The cause of action of plaintiff is pleaded in paras 9 and 10 which is as follows:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 MarsdenLR 57

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK LABUANINTERNATIONAL SHIPCARE SDN BHD – AppellantVersusTHE OWNER OF AND OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SHIPS OR VESSELS .... – Respondent[Civil Suit No: LBN-27NCC-1-11-2013]

A claim for wrongful occupation and trespass does not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction without adequate pleadings establishing the connection to goods or materials involved.

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK LABUAN
INTERNATIONAL SHIPCARE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
THE OWNER OF AND OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SHIPS OR VESSELS .... – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: LBN-27NCC-1-11-2013]