Central Bridge Trading 333 CC v Extreme Motion Marketing CC; In re: Extreme Motion Marketing CC v Central Bridge Trading 333 CC (A18075/16) [2017] ZAGPJHC 334 (17 June 2017)

Central Bridge Trading 333 CC v Extreme Motion Marketing CC; In re: Extreme Motion Marketing CC v Central Bridge Trading 333 CC (A18075/16) [2017] ZAGPJHC 334 (17 June 2017)

The court held that the chrome concentrate arrested by Xtreme Motion Marketing CC did not constitute 'cargo' within the meaning of section 3(5)(c) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, as it had not been brought onto the MV Ever Dynamic. Goods identified and earmarked for shipment remain 'potential cargo' and do not qualify as maritime property amenable to arrest under the Act. The respondent failed to prove that the arrested property met the statutory requirements for arrest in rem. Consequently, the arrest was set aside and the chrome concentrate ordered to be released.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 334
Parties
Applicant: Central Bridge Trading 333 CC; Respondent: Xtreme Motion Marketing CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2017
Case Number
A18075/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Arrest of Property
Outcome
Application granted; arrest set aside; respondent to pay costs.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, Arrest in Rem, Definition of Cargo, Maritime Claim, Urgent Application
Admiralty and Maritime Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act Arrest in Rem Definition of Cargo Maritime Claim Urgent Application

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Bridge Trading 333 CC

Applicant

Xtreme Motion Marketing CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Arrest of Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chrome concentrate arrested constitutes 'cargo' within the meaning of section 3(5)(c) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and is thus amenable to arrest.
  2. 2 Whether goods identified and earmarked for shipment but not yet loaded onto a vessel qualify as 'cargo' for the purposes of arrest in rem.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a maritime claim and property amenable to arrest under the Act have been satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the chrome concentrate arrested by Xtreme Motion Marketing CC did not constitute 'cargo' within the meaning of section 3(5)(c) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, as it had not been brought onto the MV Ever Dynamic. Goods identified and earmarked for shipment remain 'potential cargo' and do not qualify as maritime property amenable to arrest under the Act. The respondent failed to prove that the arrested property met the statutory requirements for arrest in rem. Consequently, the arrest was set aside and the chrome concentrate ordered to be released.

Court Disposition

Application granted; arrest set aside; respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • This application is heard as an urgent application as contemplated in rule 6(12)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court, and the normal rules pertaining to forms and service are dispensed with.
  • The warrant of arrest dated 26 May 2016 and executed on 27 May 2016 and the warrant of arrest dated 1 June 2016 and executed on the same day, are hereby set aside.