Seaspan Holdco I Ltd and Others v MS Mare Tracer Schiffahrts GMBH & Co, KG and Another (A69/2016; A70/2016) [2018] ZAKZDHC 3; [2018] 2 All SA 551 (KZD); 2018 (5) SA 284 (KZD) (26 February 2018)

Seaspan Holdco I Ltd and Others v MS Mare Tracer Schiffahrts GMBH & Co, KG and Another (A69/2016; A70/2016) [2018] ZAKZDHC 3; [2018] 2 All SA 551 (KZD); 2018 (5) SA 284 (KZD) (26 February 2018)

The court held that the relevant time for determining ownership or control of an associated ship for arrest purposes under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act is the time the protective writ is issued, not the time of arrest. The decision in 'Monica S' remains binding law in South Africa, as the Act and subsequent amendments did not alter this position. The arrest of a vessel after an arm's length sale to a third party is not unconstitutional or an arbitrary deprivation of property, as the practice is recognized internationally and mitigated by contractual indemnities and insurance. The application to strike out expert evidence was refused, as reference to foreign jurisdictions aids...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZDHC 3
Parties
Applicant: Seaspan Holdco I Ltd; Applicant: Seaspan Corporation; Applicant: MV 'Seaspan Grouse' (ex 'Hanjin Gdynia'); Respondent: MS Mare Tracer Schiffahrts GMBH & Co, KG; Respondent: MS Mare Traveller Schiffahrts GMBH
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2018
Case Number
A69/2016; A70/2016
Procedural Posture
Admiralty and Maritime Application / Application to Set Aside Arrest and Strike Out Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application to set aside arrests dismissed; application to strike out expert evidence refused; costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
Gyanda
Legal Topics
Associated Ship Arrest, Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, Change of Ownership, Maritime Liens, Constitutional Interpretation, Protective Writs
Admiralty and Maritime Associated Ship Arrest Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act Change of Ownership Maritime Liens Constitutional Interpretation Protective Writs

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seaspan Holdco I Ltd

Applicant

Seaspan Corporation

Applicant

MV 'Seaspan Grouse' (ex 'Hanjin Gdynia')

Applicant

MS Mare Tracer Schiffahrts GMBH & Co, KG

Respondent

MS Mare Traveller Schiffahrts GMBH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty and Maritime Application / Application to Set Aside Arrest and Strike Out Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relevant time for determining ownership or control of an associated ship for arrest purposes is the time of issue of the protective writ or also at the time of arrest.
  2. 2 Whether the decision in 'Monica S' remains binding law in South Africa post-Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act.
  3. 3 Whether the arrest of a vessel after an arm's length sale to a third party is constitutionally compliant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the relevant time for determining ownership or control of an associated ship for arrest purposes under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act is the time the protective writ is issued, not the time of arrest. The decision in 'Monica S' remains binding law in South Africa, as the Act and subsequent amendments did not alter this position. The arrest of a vessel after an arm's length sale to a third party is not unconstitutional or an arbitrary deprivation of property, as the practice is recognized internationally and mitigated by contractual indemnities and insurance. The application to strike out expert evidence was refused, as reference to foreign jurisdictions aids...

Court Disposition

Application to set aside arrests dismissed; application to strike out expert evidence refused; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The application to strike out is refused.
  • The application to set aside the arrests is dismissed.