Jacobs v Blue Water and Others (11755/2005) [2016] ZAWCHC 17 (1 March 2016)

Jacobs v Blue Water and Others (11755/2005) [2016] ZAWCHC 17 (1 March 2016)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for personal injury, sustained while disembarking from the Glasdowr via a gangplank, falls squarely within the definition of a 'maritime claim' under s 1(1)(f) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The provision and use of a gangplank for disembarkation are ordinary incidents of the use of a ship, and injuries arising from such use are covered by the statutory definition. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the claim was merely a civil delictual matter, finding that the essential basis of the claim was the dangerous condition of the gangplank, which is integrally connected to the use of the ship. The court further relied on...

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 17
Parties
Plaintiff: Giliam Johannes Jacobs; Defendant: Blue Water; Defendant: SA Five Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Artisan Services & Engineering
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2016
Case Number
11755/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Jurisdictional Ruling / Jurisdictional Determination Under S 7(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim is declared to be a maritime claim under s 1(1)(f) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and must proceed in a court competent to exercise admiralty jurisdiction. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the third defendant's costs in respect of the jurisdictional stated case.
Judges
A.G. Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Admiralty Jurisdiction, Maritime Claim Definition, Personal Injury on Ship, Statutory Interpretation, Civil Jurisdiction, Costs Order
Admiralty and Maritime Civil Procedure Admiralty Jurisdiction Maritime Claim Definition Personal Injury on Ship Statutory Interpretation Civil Jurisdiction Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giliam Johannes Jacobs

Plaintiff

Blue Water

Defendant

SA Five Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Artisan Services & Engineering

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Jurisdictional Ruling / Jurisdictional Determination Under S 7(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the plaintiff's claim for personal injury sustained while disembarking from a ship constitute a 'maritime claim' under s 1(1)(f) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act?
  2. 2 Should the matter be proceeded with in a court exercising admiralty jurisdiction as required by s 7(2) of the Act?
  3. 3 Are costs payable by the plaintiff to the third defendant in respect of the stated case on jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for personal injury, sustained while disembarking from the Glasdowr via a gangplank, falls squarely within the definition of a 'maritime claim' under s 1(1)(f) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The provision and use of a gangplank for disembarkation are ordinary incidents of the use of a ship, and injuries arising from such use are covered by the statutory definition. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the claim was merely a civil delictual matter, finding that the essential basis of the claim was the dangerous condition of the gangplank, which is integrally connected to the use of the ship. The court further relied on...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim is declared to be a maritime claim under s 1(1)(f) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and must proceed in a court competent to exercise admiralty jurisdiction. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the third defendant's costs in respect of the jurisdictional stated case.

Orders

  • It is declared that the action instituted by the plaintiff under case number 11755/2005 concerns a claim as defined in paragraph (f) of the definition of 'maritime claim' in s 1(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, Act 105 of 1983.
  • Consequent upon the declaration, and pursuant to s 7(2)(a) of the Act, the matter shall be proceeded with in a court competent to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction.