South Africa Case Law

LBH Mozambique Limitada v Fund Consisting of the Proceeds of the Sale of the Cargo of 4,904.78 Tons of Chromite Ore Concentrates Lately Laden on Board and Another (A16/2014)

LBH Mozambique Limitada v Fund Consisting of the Proceeds of the Sale of the Cargo of 4,904.78 Tons of Chromite Ore Concentrates Lately Laden on Board and Another (A16/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 32 (25 March 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A16/2014

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

The court held that the claim by China Construction Bank Corporation does not qualify as a maritime claim under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The bank's claim, being for banking facilities granted to Metalmin for commodity trading, is not a maritime claim in its own right and cannot be elevated to such status merely by being lodged against the fund created by the sale of arrested property. Section 1(1)(x) of the Act does not extend admiralty jurisdiction to non-maritime claims against the fund; only claims that are maritime in substance may participate in the distribution. The st…

Source excerpt

• Distribution Of Fund
• Maritime Claim Definition
• Ranking Of Claims
• Admiralty Jurisdiction
• Referee Report Confirmation

Cameron-Dow v The MFV '''Julietter''', Laubscher and Another v The MFV '''Julietter''' and Others (AC 70/2010, AC 85/2010)

Cameron-Dow v The MFV '''Julietter''', Laubscher and Another v The MFV '''Julietter''' and Others (AC 70/2010, AC 85/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 653 (18 November 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC 70/2010, AC 85/2010

Judge

Cleaver

The court ordered the arrested fishing vessel MFV Juliette sold by public auction, preferred the sheriff to conduct the sale, and dismissed Cameron-Dow’s competing application.

• Judicial Sale Of Vessel
• Preservation Costs
• Ranking Of Claims
• Admiralty Jurisdiction
• Interlocutory Relief
• Admiralty-and-maritime

Maree NO v Fund Constituted from the Proceeds of the Sale of the MV “Madagascar” and Other (A16/2006)

Maree NO v Fund Constituted from the Proceeds of the Sale of the MV “Madagascar” and Other (A16/2006) [2010] ZAKZDHC 6 (18 January 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A16/2006

Judge

Jappie

The court held that DeRuyter's payments to settle vessel creditors and crew wages constitute maritime claims under section 1(1)(o) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. Section 11(8) entitles any person who pays such claims to assert the rights and preferences of the original claimant, regardless of whether the payer is a shareholder or otherwise interested party. The court found no statutory bar preventing DeRuyter from relying on these provisions, and his motive for enhancing the value of the vessel does not preclude his entitlement. The factual disputes regarding the amounts and ra…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Maritime Claims
• Ranking Of Claims
• Distribution Of Fund
• Crew Wages
• Intervention Application

Bridge Oil Limited v Fund constituting the proceeds of the sale of the MV "Mega S" (formerly the MV "Aksu") and Others (AC 58/2002)

Bridge Oil Limited v Fund constituting the proceeds of the sale of the MV "Mega S" (formerly the MV "Aksu") and Others (AC 58/2002) [2003] ZAWCHC 24; 2007 (3) SA 202 (C) (12 June 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC 58/2002

Judge

R B Cleaver

The court dismissed a bunker supplier’s claim to rank above a mortgage claim after a Danish judicial sale and Maltese re-registration of the vessel.

• Ranking Of Claims
• Judicial Sale Of Vessel
• Law Of The Flag
• Maritime Liens
• Pledge Right
• International Conventions

National Iranian Oil Company v Banque Paribas (Suisse) SA and Another (265/91)

National Iranian Oil Company v Banque Paribas (Suisse) SA and Another (265/91) [1993] ZASCA 79; 1993 (4) SA 1 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 451 (A) (28 May 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

265/91

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Hoexter, Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Harms

The court held that cargo discharge costs were not costs incurred to procure the ship’s sale and so did not rank first under section 11(1)(a).

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Priority Of Maritime Claims
• Costs Of Sale
• Custodia Legis
• Ranking Of Claims
• Admiralty-law

Transol Bunker BV v Motor Vessel "Andrico Unity" and Others; Grecian-Mar SRL v Motor Vessel "Andrico Unity" and Others (30/89)

Transol Bunker BV v Motor Vessel "Andrico Unity" and Others; Grecian-Mar SRL v Motor Vessel "Andrico Unity" and Others (30/89) [1989] ZASCA 30; [1989] 2 All SA 303 (A) (29 March 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

30/89

Judges

Corbett, Hoexter, Grosskopf, Milne, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, under section 6(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, South African courts exercising admiralty jurisdiction must apply the law which the English High Court of Justice would have applied as at 1 November 1983. English admiralty law recognizes only six categories of maritime lien, and does not recognize foreign maritime liens unless the events giving rise to the claim would have created a maritime lien under English law. The existence of a maritime lien is a matter of procedure and remedies, governed by the lex fori. The court rejected the argu…

Source excerpt

• Maritime Lien
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Action In Rem
• Conflict Of Laws
• Ranking Of Claims
• Recognition Of Foreign Liens