Carlton International PLC & Anor v Crayford Freight Services Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 902

Carlton International PLC & Anor v Crayford Freight Services Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 902

The cross claim filed on 22 July 1997 was filed without leave and therefore had no legal effect. After discontinuance of the principal proceedings on 13 August 1997 there was no proceeding on foot in respect of which leave or an extension of time to file the cross claim could be granted, so the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. In any event, the claim against Contship disclosed no cause of action because the only pleaded duty was a duty as bailee, and a time charterer is not a bailee of the goods by reason of the time charter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 1997
Procedural Posture
In Admiralty; Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Cross Claim / Notice of Motion by the Second and Third Cross Defendants After the Principal Proceedings Had Been Discontinued
Outcome
Application for leave to file a cross claim or for an extension of time refused; costs ordered in favour of the second and third cross defendants.
Legal Topics
['cross Claims' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdiction After Discontinuance' 'time Charter' 'strike Out']
['admiralty' 'practice and Procedure' 'bailment'] ['cross Claims' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdiction After Discontinuance' 'time Charter' 'strike Out']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

In Admiralty; Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Cross Claim / Notice of Motion by the Second and Third Cross Defendants After the Principal Proceedings Had Been Discontinued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross claim against Contship should be struck out as having no basis in law because it alleged only breach of duty as bailee by a time charterer.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain a cross claim filed without leave after the principal proceedings were discontinued.' 'Whether the Court could grant an extension of time or leave to file the cross claim retrospectively where no proceeding was on foot.']

Ratio Decidendi

The cross claim filed on 22 July 1997 was filed without leave and therefore had no legal effect. After discontinuance of the principal proceedings on 13 August 1997 there was no proceeding on foot in respect of which leave or an extension of time to file the cross claim could be granted, so the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. In any event, the claim against Contship disclosed no cause of action because the only pleaded duty was a duty as bailee, and a time charterer is not a bailee of the goods by reason of the time charter.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to file a cross claim or for an extension of time refused; costs ordered in favour of the second and third cross defendants.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to file a cross claim or for an extension of time within which to file a cross claim against the second and third cross defendants be refused.' 'The applicant for leave pay the costs of the second and third cross defendants.']