Brady-Hamilton Stevedoring Company and Others v Motor Vessel "Kalantiao" and Others (29/89) [1989] ZASCA 29 (29 March 1989)
- Citation
- [1989] ZASCA 29
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- CORBETT, HOEXTER, E M GROSSKOPF, MILNE, NICHOLAS
- Case number
- 29/89
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- CORBETT, HOEXTER, E M GROSSKOPF, MILNE, NICHOLAS
- Case number
- 29/89
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although the appellants enjoyed maritime liens under United States Federal Law for stevedoring services performed in the United States, South African law does not recognize such foreign maritime liens unless expressly provided for by statute. Section 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 does not extend recognition to maritime liens for stevedoring services performed outside South Africa. Consequently, the arrest of the vessel and the security furnished were correctly set aside by the court a quo. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the time spent in the combined hearing with the Andrico Unity case was apportioned equally between the two matters.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- For the purposes of taxation, half the time spent in the combined hearing is attributed to this appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Brady-Hamilton Stevedoring Company
AppellantCrescent Wharf and Warehouse Company
AppellantStevedoring Services of America Incorporated
AppellantThe Motor Vessel "Kalantiao"
RespondentHer Owners, and Other Parties Interested in Her
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Durban and Coast Local Division
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether South African law recognizes foreign maritime liens in respect of claims for stevedoring services performed outside its jurisdiction.
- 02
Whether the arrest of the vessel and the security furnished should be set aside based on the non-recognition of foreign maritime liens.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued that, under the Federal Law of the United States, they enjoyed maritime liens for stevedoring services performed for the vessel in the United States. They contended that these foreign maritime liens should be recognized and enforced by South African courts, justifying the arrest of the vessel and the retention of the security furnished.
- Respondent
- The respondents maintained that, according to South African law and specifically section 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983, maritime liens for stevedoring services performed outside South Africa are not recognized. They argued that the arrest of the vessel and the security furnished should be set aside, and the foreign maritime liens should not be enforced.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983
South African law does not recognize foreign maritime liens for claims arising outside its jurisdiction unless specifically provided for by statute.
- 02
Transol Bunker BV v Motor Vessel "Andrico Unity" 1987 (4) SA 250 (D)
The proper law of the contract governs the existence of a maritime lien, but its recognition and enforcement depend on the law of the forum.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although the appellants enjoyed maritime liens under United States Federal Law for stevedoring services performed in the United States, South African law does not recognize such foreign maritime liens unless expressly provided for by statute. Section 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 does not extend recognition to maritime liens for stevedoring services performed outside South Africa. Consequently, the arrest of the vessel and the security furnished were correctly set aside by the court a quo. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the time spent in the combined hearing with the Andrico Unity case was apportioned equally between the two matters.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted for the benefit of the taxing master that the combined hearing of this appeal and the Andrico Unity case lasted two full days, and half that time should be attributed to each case.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- For the purposes of taxation, half the time spent in the combined hearing is attributed to this appeal.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the matter between:
BRADY-HAMILTON STEVEDORING
COMPANY
CRESCENT WHARF AND WAREHOUSE
COMPANY
STEVEDORING SERVICES OF AMERICA
INCORPORATED Appellants
and
THE MOTOR VESSEL "KALANTIAO"
HER OWNERS, AND OTHER PARTIES
INTERESTED IN HER Respondents
CORAM: CORBETT, HOEXTER, E M GROSSKOPF, MILNE JJA, et NICHOLAS AJA.
DATES OF HEARING: 7 and 8 November 1988
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29 March 1989
JUDGMENT CORBETT JA:
This is an appeal against a judgment of Leon J delivered in the Durban and Coast Local Division, in which he, at the instance of the owners (respondent), set aside a warrant for the arrest of the motor vessel
2
Kalantiao ("the vessel") in an action in rem instituted by the appellants. Subsequent to the arrest of the vessel security was furnished and the vessel was allow-ed to sail. Leon J also granted, at the instance of respondent, an order for the release of the security. (The judgment of Leon J has been reported, see Brady Hamilton Stevedore Co and Others v M V Kalantiao 1987 (4) SA 250 (D).)
The appellants' claims relate to stevedoring services performed for the vessel at various ports in the United States of America in pursuance of a written contract entered into in the United States on 11 March 1985. It was common cause between the parties in the Court a quo that the proper law of the contract was the Federal Law of the United States; that in terms of that law the appellants enjoyed maritime liens in re-spect of their claims; and that if the events upon which the appellants' claims were founded had taken
3 place within the jurisdiction of the Court a quo the appellants would not have enjoyed maritime liens according to the law to be applied in terms of sec 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983.
The essential issue, viz. whether in these circumstances our law recognized the foreign maritime liens, was the same as that which arose in the matters of Transol Bunker BV v Motor Vessel "Andrico Unity" Her Owners and Any Parties Interested in Her and Grecian Mar SRL v Motor Vessel "Andrico Unity" Her Owners and any Parties Interested in Her ("The Andrico Unity case"), which came on appeal to this Court at the same time. For the reasons stated in the judgment in The Andrico Unity case the matters were heard together and the conclusion was reached that in circumstances such as these our law does not recognize the foreign mari-time lien. It follows that the appeal in this matter
4 must be dismissed with costs. As in the judgment in The Andrico Unity case, I record also in this judgment, for the benefit of the taxing master, that the Court sat for two full days in the combined hearing of the appeals in The Andrico Unity case and the appeal in the present matter and that in my estimation half that time should be attributed to The Andrico Unity case and half to the appeal in the present matter.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
M M CORBETT
HOEXTER JA) NICHOLAS AJA)
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.