Finansbanken ASA v. GTS Katie (The)

Finansbanken ASA v. GTS Katie (The)

Canadian law governs the payment made in Montreal; Hornick failed to prove a valid assignment/subrogation of the crew wage lien because the evidence was hearsay, unsworn or created after the event, no crew consent or master authorization was established, and no court consent (required under the Shipping Act) was obtained; therefore Hornick is not entitled to priority or payment after sheriff's costs and his claim is dismissed.

Citation
2002 FCT 74
Parties
Plaintiff / Mortgagee: Finansbanken ASA; Mortgagee / Interested Creditor: Lloyd Werft Bremerhaven GMBH; Defendant / Owner: Third Ocean Marine Navigation L.L.C.; Defendant / Vessel in Rem: The Vessel GTS Katie; Claimant / Interested Party: Peter Hornick / EPG-MZ L.L.C.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action in Rem and in Personam / Reasons for Order Determining Priority of Claim (interlocutory Determination)
Outcome
Claim by Peter Hornick and/or EPG-MZ L.L.C. dismissed; not entitled to payment after sheriff's costs or priority over mortgage creditors; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Crew Wage Lien, Assignment and Subrogation, Priority of Maritime Claims, Choice of Law, Hearsay and Evidentiary Sufficiency, Shipping Act Ss.196 and 203
Source Language
English
Admiralty / Maritime Law Conflict of Laws Evidence Law Property / Secured Transactions Crew Wage Lien Assignment and Subrogation Priority of Maritime Claims Choice of Law +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Finansbanken ASA

Plaintiff / Mortgagee

Lloyd Werft Bremerhaven GMBH

Mortgagee / Interested Creditor

Third Ocean Marine Navigation L.L.C.

Defendant / Owner

The Vessel GTS Katie

Defendant / Vessel in Rem

Peter Hornick / EPG-MZ L.L.C.

Claimant / Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Rem and in Personam / Reasons for Order Determining Priority of Claim (interlocutory Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant Peter Hornick validly acquired a crew wage lien by assignment/subrogation enforceable against mortgagees
  2. 2 Whether U.S. or Canadian law governs validity of the asserted assignment/subrogation
  3. 3 Whether the evidence presented (unsworn statements, late receipts, master's letter) is sufficient to establish the assignment and crew consent

Ratio Decidendi

Canadian law governs the payment made in Montreal; Hornick failed to prove a valid assignment/subrogation of the crew wage lien because the evidence was hearsay, unsworn or created after the event, no crew consent or master authorization was established, and no court consent (required under the Shipping Act) was obtained; therefore Hornick is not entitled to priority or payment after sheriff's costs and his claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim by Peter Hornick and/or EPG-MZ L.L.C. dismissed; not entitled to payment after sheriff's costs or priority over mortgage creditors; costs awarded.

Orders

  • Claim by Peter Hornick and/or EPG-MZ L.L.C. dismissed
  • Peter Hornick and/or EPG-MZ L.L.C. are not entitled to have their claim paid immediately after the sheriff's costs or with priority over the mortgage creditors