- Flynote
-
Arrest of an associated ship in terms of ss 3(6) and (7) of the
Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (the AJRA) – defect in summons not justifying the setting aside of a warrant of arrest –procedural requirements of Admiralty Rule 4 – requirements for a summons in terms of Admiralty Rule 2(1) – Practice Directive 27 of the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court – summons only required toset out a clear and concise statement of the claim – does not require same detail as a pleading. Association – provisions of s 3(7)(c) of the AJRA – charterer deemed to be the owner of the ship concerned when the claim in issue arose – immaterial whether charterer no longer the charterer at that time. When does a claim arise – in case of a claim on an arbitration award claim inextricably linked to underlying maritime claim – claim arises when the underlying claim arose. Second arrest in anticipation of first arrest being set aside – such an arrest permissible – not barred by s 3(8) of AJRA – proper interpretation of that section.
This document is 539.9 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 8
Judgment 7
- Belfry Marine Ltd v Palm Base Maritime SDN BHD Name of Ship: mv 'Heavy Metal' (323/1998) [1999] ZASCA 44 (31 May 1999)
- Bulkship Union SA v Qannas Shipping Co Ltd and Another (339/2008) [2009] ZASCA 74 (1 June 2009)
- CMC v CIPC and Others (1325/2019) [2020] ZASCA 151 (20 November 2020)
- Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd v The World of Marble and Granite 2000 CC and Others (741/2012) [2013] ZASCA 129 (26 September 2013)
- Owners of the MV Silver Star v Hilane Limited (82/2014) [2014] ZASCA 194 (28 November 2014)
- Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the Alina II (898/2010) [2011] ZASCA 129 (15 September 2011)
- Windrush Intercontinental SA and Another v UACC Bergshav Tankers AS (556 of 2015) [2016] ZASCA 199 (6 December 2016)