Elbe Shipping SA v Giant Marine Shipping SA [2008] FCA 1135

Elbe Shipping SA v Giant Marine Shipping SA [2008] FCA 1135

Because Adsteam had fully paid the plaintiffs' claims, no substantive cause of action remained against Giant Marine and it was inappropriate to enter judgment merely to improve the plaintiffs' costs position. The plaintiffs did not show a basis for enforcing the towage contract between Giant Marine and Adsteam as third parties, nor any general admiralty rule making the tow liable for damage caused by the tug. The plaintiffs were not shown to be likely to have succeeded against Giant Marine, and their post-payment pursuit of judgment and continued trial preparation was unreasonable, warranting dismissal of the actions and indemnity costs in favour of Giant Marine for specified post-payment...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2008
Procedural Posture
In Admiralty Proceedings Concerning Oil Damage Following a Berthing Operation Involving the Ship "global Peace" and Tug "tom Tough" / Motions for Summary Judgment or Judgment on Admissions and Costs After Adsteam Paid the Plaintiffs' Claims and Settled Outstanding Issues; Final Disposition of Actions
Outcome
The plaintiffs' motions for judgment against Giant Marine were rejected; the notices of motion filed 22 March 2006 were dismissed; both actions were dismissed; Giant Marine received specified indemnity costs orders for post-payment trial preparation, the motions for judgment, and costs arguments.
Legal Topics
['ship Under Tow' 'liability of Tow for Tug' 'vicarious Liability' 'privity of Contract' 'summary Judgment' 'judgment on Admissions' 'maritime Liens' 'indemnity Costs']
['admiralty' 'practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'contract'] ['ship Under Tow' 'liability of Tow for Tug' 'vicarious Liability' 'privity of Contract' 'summary Judgment' 'judgment on Admissions' 'maritime Liens' 'indemnity Costs']

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 Proceedings Concerning Oil Damage Following a Berthing Operation Involving the Ship "global Peace" and Tug "tom Tough" / Motions for Summary Judgment or Judgment on Admissions and Costs After Adsteam Paid the Plaintiffs' Claims and Settled Outstanding Issues; Final Disposition of Actions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should obtain summary judgment or judgment on admissions against Giant Marine after Adsteam had paid the full amounts of their claims plus interest.' "Whether Giant Marine was vicariously liable for Adsteam's negligence under the United Kingdom Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services (Revised 1974)." 'Whether third-party plaintiffs could enforce provisions of the towage contract between Giant Marine and Adsteam.' 'Whether general admiralty law made a vessel under tow liable for damage caused by a tug.' 'What costs orders should be made after the substantive claims had been satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Adsteam had fully paid the plaintiffs' claims, no substantive cause of action remained against Giant Marine and it was inappropriate to enter judgment merely to improve the plaintiffs' costs position. The plaintiffs did not show a basis for enforcing the towage contract between Giant Marine and Adsteam as third parties, nor any general admiralty rule making the tow liable for damage caused by the tug. The plaintiffs were not shown to be likely to have succeeded against Giant Marine, and their post-payment pursuit of judgment and continued trial preparation was unreasonable, warranting dismissal of the actions and indemnity costs in favour of Giant Marine for specified post-payment...

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs' motions for judgment against Giant Marine were rejected; the notices of motion filed 22 March 2006 were dismissed; both actions were dismissed; Giant Marine received specified indemnity costs orders for post-payment trial preparation, the motions for judgment, and costs arguments.

Orders

  • ["In NSD 124 of 2006, the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of, and incidental to, preparation for trial incurred after 7 February 2008 and prior to 11 March 2008, to be taxed and paid on an indemnity basis." "In NSD 124 of 2006, the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of, and incidental to, the motion...