Patrick Stevedoring No 2 Pty Ltd v Turakina Waitemata Stevedoring Services Ltd v Rangitata & Ors [1998] FCA 457

Patrick Stevedoring No 2 Pty Ltd v Turakina Waitemata Stevedoring Services Ltd v Rangitata & Ors [1998] FCA 457

In the circumstances, post-arrest wages and entitlements of the Master and crew (not expressly engaged by the Marshal) are not properly classified as expenses of the Marshal in relation to the arrest under the Rules. However, repatriation expenses of the Master and crew, when arranged by the Marshal following arrest...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd; Defendant: Turakina; Plaintiff: Waitemata Stevedoring Services Ltd; First Defendant: Rangitata; Second Defendant: Ecomar-Schiffarhts GMBH & Co KG; Applicants/respondents: Master and crew lately employed upon the ship Rangitata
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Admiralty / Interlocutory Determination of Applications by Master and Crew Regarding Post Arrest Wages and Repatriation Expenses
Outcome
Applications by Master and crew for direction to pay post-arrest wages dismissed; direction given that repatriation expenses are expenses of the Marshal in relation to the arrest.
Legal Topics
Marshal's Responsibilities, Post Arrest Wages, Maritime Liens, Repatriation Expenses, Custody and Preservation of Arrested Ships
Admiralty Maritime Law Marshal's Responsibilities Post Arrest Wages Maritime Liens Repatriation Expenses Custody and Preservation of Arrested Ships

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Turakina

Defendant

Waitemata Stevedoring Services Ltd

Plaintiff

Rangitata

First Defendant

Ecomar-Schiffarhts GMBH & Co KG

Second Defendant

Master and crew lately employed upon the ship Rangitata

Applicants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Admiralty / Interlocutory Determination of Applications by Master and Crew Regarding Post Arrest Wages and Repatriation Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the post-arrest wages of Master and crew are expenses of the Marshal in relation to the arrest
  2. 2 Whether the Court should direct the plaintiff to pay the wages of the Master and crew since the arrest
  3. 3 Whether the Master and crew should be repatriated to their home port at the expense of the Marshal

Ratio Decidendi

In the circumstances, post-arrest wages and entitlements of the Master and crew (not expressly engaged by the Marshal) are not properly classified as expenses of the Marshal in relation to the arrest under the Rules. However, repatriation expenses of the Master and crew, when arranged by the Marshal following arrest and where the crew are willing to return home, are expenses of the Marshal in relation to the arrest and may be demanded in advance from the plaintiff or its solicitor.

Court Disposition

Applications by Master and crew for direction to pay post-arrest wages dismissed; direction given that repatriation expenses are expenses of the Marshal in relation to the arrest.

Orders

  • No order for payment of post-arrest wages of Master and crew as expenses of the Marshal in relation to the arrest.
  • Direction that Marshal should arrange repatriation of Master and crew and that such expenses are part of Marshal's expenses in relation to the arrest and can be demanded from the plaintiff or solicitor in advance, if appropriate.