Guardian Offshore AU Pty Ltd v Saab Seaeye Leopard 1702 Remotely Operated Vehicle Lately On Board The Ship 'Offshore Guardian' [2020] FCA 273

Guardian Offshore AU Pty Ltd v Saab Seaeye Leopard 1702 Remotely Operated Vehicle Lately On Board The Ship 'Offshore Guardian' [2020] FCA 273

The remotely operated vehicle (ROV) lacked sufficient characteristics of a 'vessel used in navigation by water'—being dependent on a host vessel for movement, not obtaining buoyancy by displacement of water, not capable of navigating open water independently, and not susceptible to the peculiar risks that ground...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Admiralty / Final Judgment on Application to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction and Set Aside Arrest
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction; arrest set aside.
Legal Topics
["meaning of 'ship' Under Admiralty Act 1988 (cth)" 'in Rem Jurisdiction' 'arrest of Vessel' 'ownership of Res' 'statutory Interpretation']
['admiralty' 'maritime Law'] ["meaning of 'ship' Under Admiralty Act 1988 (cth)" 'in Rem Jurisdiction' 'arrest of Vessel' 'ownership of Res' 'statutory Interpretation']

Source-derived case record

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

Admiralty / Final Judgment on Application to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction and Set Aside Arrest

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the arrested ROV is the ship named in the arrest warrant' "Whether the ROV is a 'ship' within the meaning of s 3 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth)" 'Whether FCDS was the true owner of the arrested ROV for the purpose of arrest as surrogate (s 19)' 'Whether there is jurisdiction to arrest the ROV under the Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The remotely operated vehicle (ROV) lacked sufficient characteristics of a 'vessel used in navigation by water'—being dependent on a host vessel for movement, not obtaining buoyancy by displacement of water, not capable of navigating open water independently, and not susceptible to the peculiar risks that ground admiralty jurisdiction—and so did not fall within the meaning of 'ship' in s 3 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). The Federal Court therefore lacked jurisdiction, and the proceedings and the arrest were set aside.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction; arrest set aside.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.' 'The arrest of the second defendant (now described as Saab Seaeye Leopard 1704) be set aside.' 'The arrest warrant issued on 22 January 2020 be set aside.' 'DW Subsea Pty Ltd (ACN 625 188 703) be released from the undertaking given pursuant to r 53 of the...