The Gazette 1984

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGIJST 1984

by the Cork Circuit Court Judge."

Section 27 of the 1961 Act goes on to say:

(1) "The jurisdiction, which is by virtue of this Act,

vested in or exercisable by the Circuit Court, the

Cork Local Admiralty Court, and the Cork Local

Bankruptcy Court respectively, shall be exercised so

far as regards pleadings, practice and procedure

generally, including liability to costs, in the manner

provided by rules of Court and where, as regards the

jurisdiction of the Cork Local Admiralty Co u r t . ..

there is no such provision in such Rules and so long

as there is no rule in reference thereto, it shall be

exercised as nearly as possible as it might have been

exercised by the former Recorder of Cork.

(2) The rule-making authority for the Circuit Court

shall also be the Rule-making authority for the

Cork Local Admiralty Court. . . ."

In the case of

The State (Kinvarra Shipping Ltd.)

-v-

Thomas J. Neylon

O'Keeffe J., in the High Court,

discussed and outlined the jurisdiction of the Cork Local

Admiralty Court, of which he said:

"I think that the effect of section 23 of the Act of

1961

was to establish, as a new court, the Cork

Local Admiralty Court and that its jurisdiction was

to be exercised by the Circuit Court Judge for the

time being assigned to the Cork Circuit."

This view of the Court as a separate court is reinforced

if one takes account of section 3 of the Courts Act, 1971,

which says:

"The jurisdiction in Admiralty Causes conferred on

the Cork Local Admiralty Court by section 23 of

the Act of 1961, shall be exercisable by that Court in

any case where the claim does not exceed

£2,000.00."

Thus, the separate treatment of the Local Court, both

with regard to its establishment and with regard to the

extension of the monetary limits on its jurisdiction, lends

weight to the arguments of O'Keeffe J. (The Courts Act

1981 does not refer to the Local Court in any way).

Jurisdiction of the Local Court

As we saw, by virtue of section 23 of the 1961 Act, the

Court is to have like jurisdiction in Admiralty Causes as

the Recorder of Cork had before the commencement of

the 1924 Act. By virtue of section 80 of the 1867 Act, the

Local Courts were to have like jurisdiction as the High

Court of Admiralty, subject to the monetary limits on

jurisdiction set out therein. These limits must now be

taken to be amended by section 3 of the 1971 Act. The

range of matters over which the Court has jurisdiction

would thus be the same as those over which the former

High Court of Admiralty had jurisdiction and which are

listed at the beginning of this article.

•

Footnotes

1. See Pritchards Digest of Admiralty and Marine Law, 3rd Edition,

Volume One, p.684.

2. See 94 I.L.T. & S.J. p. 143 for reports of plans to celebrate the sixth

centenary.

3. The Laws of Oleron.

4. See Eighteenth Report of Courts of Justice in Ireland (High Court of

Admiralty), Session Paper No. 5 (Anno 1829) p.2.

5. The Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act, 1867, (Cap. 114) "An Act to

extend the jurisdiction, alter and amend the procedure and practice,

and to regulate the establishment of the Court of Admiralty — 20th

of August 1867".

6. Amended by the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Amendment Act,

1876, (C 28), and the Courts Acts.

7. Section 2: defined as the Court of Admiralty in Ireland.

8. Section 27.

9. Section 28.

10. Section 29.

11. Section 30.

12. Section 31.

13. Section 32.

14. Section 33.

14. Section 34.

15. Section 34. With regard to the question of mortgages, one should

note the case of

R.D. Cox Ltd., Staatliche Kreditanstalt

Oldenburg-

Bremen and Deutsche Schiff-Fahts-Bank Atkien-Gessellschaft

-v-

The

owners of the M.V. "Fritz Raabe",

a Supreme Court majority

decision of the 1st of August 1974, a short note of which appears in

the "Recent Irish Cases" section of the I. L.S.I.

Gazette

of December

1974, (Vol. 68, No. 10). That case concerned a German registered

and German owned vessel which was subject to German registered

mortgages in favour of the co-plaintiff German banks. In 1969, the

first co-plaintiff undertook repairs and supplied "necessaries" to the

ship and being unpaid, they issued proceeding in August 1969 on

foot of which they obtained judgment in January 1970 for £1,053

and costs. Also, without prejudice to any subsequent claims, a lien

was granted over the vessel. Waterford Harbour Commissioners

also obtained a judgment in respect of harbour dues and in February

1970 on foot of a High Court Order, the ship was sold and £10,500

lodged in court.

Also in February 1970, the German Banks issued Admiralty

proceedings

in rem

against the owners of the vessel on foot of their

mortgages which had been registered in 1957. When they sought

judgment in default, the Irish plaintiffs contended that as the

mortgages were not registered in Ireland the German Banks could

not institute such proceedings. (As the ship was not an Irish ship, the

various mortgages could not be entered in the Irish Registry, and

could not therefore rank as registered mortgages in Ireland.) In the

High Court, O'Keeffe J. allowed the claims of the Banks and it was

agreed that the order of priorities would be (1) The Irish plaintiffs

costs; (2) claims for wages; (3) claims of the German Bank

mortgagees and (4) claims for necessaries.

The Harbour Commissioners appealed so much of the judgment as

declared the Banks as unregistered mortgagees to be entitled to

receive payment of their debt in priority to the Commissioner's claim

and it was contended that the German Banks were not mortgagees

for the purposes of the distribution of the sale proceeds. The net

question was whether the High Court could grant relief in an action

in rem

brought by the owner of an unregistered mortgage in an

admiralty action.

The Supreme Court (Walsh, Henchy and Griffin J.J. with Henchy

dissenting) decided that

(1) The mortgages created valid charges long before the other claims

arose.

(2) The other claims, in so far as they constituted a lien, were

subsequent in time to the mortgages.

(3) The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits in respect of

foreign mortgages of moveable property within their jurisdiction

and to order the sale of that property.

(4) The Maritime lien did not require possession of the ship, but

rested on the basis that the lien travelled with the ship, into

whoever's possession it came, and could be realised by

proceedings

in rem.

(5) The Admiralty Court (Ireland) Act 1867 set out in detail the

jurisdiction of the Court.

(6) The original jurisdiction of the High Court embraces all

justiciable controversies relating to shipping and the High Court

was a new court and not simply an extended version of the old

Court of Admiralty. Its jurisdiction, of course, embraced all

matters over which the former High Court of Admiralty had

jurisdiction.

(7) The fact that particular procedures were or were not available in

former courts was not relevant and the exclusion of jurisdiction

claims in respect of mortgages from the old Court was not

applicable to the new Court.

(8) Order 64, Rule 1, of the Superior Court Rules of 1962, defined an

"admiralty action" as,

inter alia,

"a claim in respect of a

(footnotes — continued on page 171)

167